That bolded part right there is one of the bigger reasons why I think there is something missing with the theory of Evolution. Whenever we talk about this its always we werent around back then so we have no observable data to back up the theory.
The only way to collect data at all is to observe it, meaning every piece of data that we have on evolution is observable data. I think you're confusing the term "observable" with something like "first hand account." Either way, what you said isn't true. Evolution has been directly observed many times. A lot of the reason people oppose evolutionary theory is that they haven't seen studies that support evolution strongly, so they assume they do not exist (largely because they want to believe that conclusion). A little bit of research to the contrary shows a whole lot of evidence in support of evolution (more than any laymen would want to review for certain). This is why it's important to come to an issue without your personal biases in play, because if you don't stop to wonder "I am I wrong" then look for evidence that could prove that you are wrong, then it's pretty easy to avoid seeing the information that shows you are wrong if it exists.
However Evolution isnt just about how life adapted from its earliest creations. Evolution is a continuing theory, even now species are supposed to evolve because of their enviromental surroundings but we dont see the evidence of that
There is plenty of evidence that human beings have continued to evolve.
Let me give, what I think, is a good example. This example revolves around regular and the Lake sturgeon of Lake Champlain. The story is that at one time Lake champlain was connected to the ocean, Sturgeon would come into the lake for whatever reason. Then something happened (a huge geological event is the most likely theory) and the lake was closed off to the ocean trapping Sturgeon within. Now saltwater fish generally cant survive in freshwater for more then a few hours, yet the common theory is that Lake Sturgeon evolved from the Sturgeon that were trapped when the lake was cut off from the ocean. Now granted after the event happened some of the salt water would have stayed and it probably would have taken decades for the lake to fully transform into a freshwater lake. However Evolution is supposed to happen over millions of generations, these are numbers that just dont add up. Anyway, last time I was there the lake sturgeon were having trouble surviving because of local pollution and to my knowledge had been for several years prior and still are having trouble. We dont seem to be seeing any kind of evolving out of those Lake sturgeon which coincidently are supposed to be known for "quick" evolution
Evolution says creatures can evolve to overcome selective pressures, not that they will. Even if we assume that it's even easier for sturgeon to overcome the presence of pollution than the presence of salt, it's all a matter of chance. Without chance, no species would ever go extinct, they would simply change into another species, which isn't what evolution claims at all.
Its little things like this as well as the social frolicking of and around evolution that make me think something about the theory is missing
Or maybe Im just to much of a skeptic *shrugs*
Skepticism isn't a bad thing, but it's important to actually educate yourself on the matter thoroughly before coming to a conclusion.http://www.pbs.org/wnet/nature/lessons/from-wolf-to-dog/lesson-overview/4783/
Simply follow the above lesson and you'll learn about that study that exposes how dog evolution probably occurred, as well as an independently verifiable case of dog evolution.
As far as the conflict between religion and evolution goes, I keep as far away from it as I can until religion influences people to attack science. I don't care if religious people feel challenged, intimidated, or upset by evolution. That's an internal debate they can work out however they like until they start throwing stones at what is a solid, ingenious theory backed up by mountains of evidence. It's not my place to criticize whatever theological justifications they came up with in order to make their religion jive with evolution. It isn't even my place to attack religions on the basis of a conflict with evolution; I don't think that's going to bring about any positive change, so I don't understand what purpose it would serve.
Creationism, attempts to censor science textbooks, and outright denial of scientific fact by public figures however is not acceptable. It isn't until religious forces attack science that it's really important for advocates of science to strike back, until then it's needlessly antagonistic to draw out supposed conflicts between religion and science.