Evolution is a Religious Issue

I imagine that what you'll be criticized for is the fact that you substitute ridicule for argument. Maybe you want to work on that. There is no variation "within genotype." Each variant is a new genotype. To be more clear, the word "genotype" refers to an individual variant within a species.And, in fact, these are the same thing. Variation among genotypes means variation of complexity. Variation of complexity, of course, means that some things will be more complex than their ancestors, and some will be less, if that is possible. (Some living things are so simple that they cannot be simpler, so variation in complexity can only proceed "upward." Of course, in total, this variation is outwards, not upwards, which is exactly what evolution proposes.) To the contrary; it's observed repeatedly. Its even employed in the fields of computer science and engineering to develop complex systems - systems too complex to have been designed. ... an accurate scientific model supported by evidence and observation from almost every field of inquiry, a model that is far more parsimonious than any proposed alternative. The second law says that the avaliable energy to do work decreases in a closed system. How do you feel this applies to evolution?You speak of a "rudimentary understanding"; what's hilarious is that you possess, apparently, no understanding of physics, chemistry, or biology, rudimentary or otherwise. The second law makes evolution possible - ensures that it will occur, in fact - not prohibits it.

But we don't believe it's "true". We believe its an accurate model of the development of life on Earth. And we don't need faith for this position, because we have evidence, instead."Faith" is when you believe without evidence, like having faith in the existence of God or His authorship of the Bible. Evolutionists have evidence for evolution, which is why they accept it; hence they do not have faith in the theory.No faith is needed in science. Do you know that Kent Hovind doesn't actually have the money? What does that say about someone, that would make that kind of "bet" with no ability to back it up? I don't find that very Christian, do you?

Oh, man, there's a huge amount. Just to sum up:1) The evidence from genetics.
2) The evidence from taxonomy.
3) The evidence from fossil stratiography.These are all independant lines of evidence; the only reason they can be explained by the same theory is if that theory is actually describing something that really happened.Closer to home, my wife is doing research in the lab that she couldn't do if evolution hadn't actually happened. Oh, he's been shown it, over and over again. What happens is that he denies it and keeps the money. You could show him compelling proof that evolution was true, and he wouldn't admit it. Why should he? Why would he pay 250,000 dollars to admit he was wrong? What on Earth would compel him to fess up and pay out? Honesty? Please. The man is under investigation for being a tax cheat. Honesty has no power to compel Kent Hovind.

What are you talking about? I just told you what the evidence is. The evidence is that when you construct theories based only on the genetics, and then construct theories based only on the taxonomy, and then construct theories based only on the fossil positioning, you wind up with only one theory that explains all three.Look, I don't want to play this game where we show you the evidence and then you deny that you've seen it. If you're not going to be honest, why should we talk to you? The only person who brought up his PhD so far is you. He's not an honest man; he's been caught in several outright falsehoods and inconsistencies, and we can prove it. His academic credentials are irrelevant to the fact that he's a liar, a tax cheat, and a charlatan. Trust us when we say that if you employ his arguments, you're tarring yourself with the same brush.The one who looks like he's losing is you; you're already being forced to defend an indefensible man. Why don't you just employ someone else's arguments? Or better yet, your own arguments?

Well, then why are you still sitting at the computer? I can't fax you a copy of the fossil record through your computer screen. I can only tell you where the evidence is; I wasn't aware I was under an obligation to FedEx it to your living room. Have you asked any of those people to show you the evidence? Or did you just demand that they deliver it to your doorstep for free?At this point, sog, your ignorance is willful. You're not going to see anything but descriptions of the evidence on the internet, because the evidence is in the physical world.

It actually is testable; for instance my wife's research currently has the side-effect of "testing" evolution. If evolution isn't true, then she won't be able to detect what it is she's trying to detect.

Why are you asking biologists physics questions?

It's true that there are far too many to list; there's easily more than thousands. Confirming evolution is such a commonplace event, like confirming gravity, that it happens every day in the lab without being specifically recorded.For instance my wife is conducting research that would not be possible if evolution were not true; every research success she experiences is further proof of evolution but since that's not the focus of her research, she doesn't keep track. Apparently you don't understand the degree to which evolution has been substantiated by every field of biology. These statements may appear as hyperbole to you, but they're quite correct - if not understated - in every aspect.That's the burden creationists are under - trying to disprove a theory with more experimental and practical verification than our current theories of gravity, atomic structure, or stellar processes.Combined. The debate has been won in advance and is over. Evolution is the most successful theory in the history of science, a fact that I'm intimately familiar with as I observe the theory employed to do real research every single day. We're not. We're not exaggerating. That's how much evidence there is for evolution.

Not to be flippant, but it is sometimes the case that statements about the scientific community and process are made that cannot be verified short of experiencing a life, or at least several years, as an intimate part of that community.This is one of those statements. The internet is an conduit for much information, but it cannot be a conduit for something that takes great familiarity with a community to judge.You can believe the claim, or you may opt not to. It's your choice. I recognize that it is not the sort of claim that can be substanitated over the internet. It is, nonetheless, true. It's a claim that should carry no weight in the debate, of course. It was probably a mistake for that claim to have been made to you.But it is nonetheless true. You would discover this were you exposed to real, ongoing biological research. If you would be so kind as to set the bar; that is, propose a burden of evidence that, when met, would be sufficient to sway you to evolution, then we will make every effort to meet that burden. Provided that the burden is within the scope of posts on an internet message board. If you insist on setting the bar so high that it cannot be met in this venue then all you've accomplished is to set yourself in a position of unassailable ignorance.Congratulations, I guess.

My wife is attempting to construct a phylogentic key for a family of certain organisms that are unfortunately quite difficult to key taxonomically at a crucial stage in their development. (I'm not at liberty to be more specific.) The evolutionary proposition of common descent is a crucial lynchpin to this research. The model of common descent is substantiated by taxonomy and genetics, and that's no exaggeration.

Yeah, I gotta say, I'm on your side on this. I don't understand all the negativity. Of course you have to comprehend the arguments of the opposition if you want to be able to rebut them.

Do you ever speak to evolutionists who are biologists currently involved in research, and not evolutionists who are currently involved in a debate with creationists?My guess is, your experiences represent a very narrow, very specific situation in which you're encountering evolutionists.

Your milage may vary, but I've spoken to a number of the sort of people you're talking about; those martyrs who say they've been discriminated against because they challenged some kind of Darwinist orthodoxy.The thing is, not a single one of them had a challenge based on evidence, but rather, some combination of religious scripture and persona;l incredulity. A lot of my friends, not to mention my wife, are biologists who fully accept the evolutionary model. Every single one of them is an open-minded, scientifically-oriented individual. The only thing they seem to have in common is a rather short temper when people offer bullshit as fact, but that's a general condition among experts in any field. I don't know how I could convince you otherwise, but I invite you, and any others, to get involved in the biological community beyond the contention of this narrow and minor debate. I got employed as summer field help for my wife's entomology department; maybe that's something you could do, too?

Well the maybe the prudent course of action would be not to judge the merit of the most successful theory in biology to date on the behavior of tangentally related amateurs whose purpose is not the production of peer-reviewed research but the defense of science against religious fundamentalism.

Hah! That's essentially his argument, isn't it? "Evolution is so right it can't be right."