[sassyT]

Humans evolved from an ape creature.. lol that's a joke to me

[NeedKarma]

humans evolved from an ape creature..lol thats a joke to me

I've reduced you to a basic troll at this point.

[achampio21]

Okay pay attention to the following two quotes from sassyt:

that because i am a biology masters student and have studdied science for many years. There is imperical proof of how the physical universe works and there is no disputing that, but there is no conclusive evidence to prove such theories as the big bang. Science does not KNOW anything of origins.

I am a science masters student so i know what a theory is. Scientific theories may be made of SOME facts but it does not mean the theory itself is a fact.

Obviously, she is soooo confused that she can't remember which area she is studying. Or could it be that she is lying? ;)

And SassyT the following in green are all questions that you have been asked on this board that you have NOT answered. So do you think you could answer them or are you clueless to the answers yourself?

Also the article seems to be full of endnotes relating to sources but the links go nowhere, why?

Do you believe in Jesus and what he preached to the His followers???

And ps> what archeological and scientific objective evidence is there? Give me a link .

So do you make good grades as a science masters student or do you tell your professor what an ignorant dumbass he is too and that you are right and he is wrong?

Now wait a minute. If you want 100% proof of everyone else's claims, then I want 100% proof of your claims that Jesus ever existed. And that God is real, and when I die I am going to Heaven.

There is so much evidence for evolution. On what basis do you argue there is no evidence? There are hundreds of thousands of scientific papers, all of which support or are consistent with evolution, none of which contradict the idea of evolution of life on Earth from a common ancestor. If you are going to make assertions about "lack of evidence," tell us what specific evidence you have decided to reject. Do you reject the evidence that we humans and yeasts share similar genes, not to mention all mammals (which also share certain traits like fur and mammary glands because they INHERITED them from the same ancestor)?

Do you reject the 3.8 billion year old fossil record, which shows a page by page history of Life on Earth beginning with simple bacteria, progressing to photosynthetic bacteria, multicellular creatures like sponges and jellyfish, and then eventually early marine arthropods (similar to shrimp and lobsters), fish, amphibians, reptiles,and mammals, not to mention the well documented history of the evolution of plants. What exactly do you think the fossil record is if not a history of evolution?

Do you reject all the evidence that shows that plants and animals that are related develop from fertilized eggs to embryos to adults in similar fashion, while unrelated organisms develop more differently from one another? Do you reject he biogeographical evidence that shows that plants and animals that have lived close to one another for long periods of time are more likely to be closely related (by other measures) than those that have been long divided by distance or impassible barriers such as rivers or oceans? Do you reject the decades of work that shows that small populations of plants and animals can evolve in just a few years when selection pressure is high--for example Peter and Rosemary Grant's work on Galapagos finches, showing that average beak size changes in just a few years when access to large or small seeds in limited by short term changes in local climate?

What are your credentials Sassy that you, by yourself, reject the lifetime work and thoughts of thousands of educated and intelligent men and women?

What is the name of your school?
Just Asking

[sassyT]

[QUOTE]

There is so much evidence for evolution. On what basis do you argue there is no evidence? There are hundreds of thousands of scientific papers, all of which support or are consistent with evolution, none of which contradict the idea of evolution of life on Earth from a common ancestor. If you are going to make assertions about "lack of evidence," tell us what specific evidence you have decided to reject. Do you reject the evidence that we humans and yeasts share similar genes, not to mention all mammals (which also share certain traits like fur and mammary glands because they INHERITED them from the same ancestor)?

First of all you are jumping into an argument that you have no clue what the beginnings were. WVH said evolution was a FACT and since then I have been argueing the fact that there is no sufficient evidence to qualify the THEORY of evolution as fact.
Second because you assume evolution is true therefore you have come to the conclusion that the gene similarity in all living things proves evolution is true. However that is a circular argument.
The similarity in gene between species could very well be due to a common genetic Engineer or Designer i.e God. If God creates living things that are going to inhabit the same environment, isn't it logical that he would create them with a similar DNA coding?
It just come down to this:
"Dogs must breathe the same air as humans." People who believe in Creation, therefore, believe that the Creator designed similar lungs for both dogs and humans to breath the same air. The evolutionists believe that dogs and humans have similar lungs because they are related from millions of years ago. So the similarity argument is a weak one because it also make a strong case for Creation.

Do you reject the 3.8 billion year old fossil record, which shows a page by page history of Life on Earth beginning with simple bacteria, progressing to photosynthetic bacteria, multicellular creatures like sponges and jellyfish, and then eventually early marine arthropods (similar to shrimp and lobsters), fish, amphibians, reptiles,and mammals, not to mention the well documented history of the evolution of plants. What exactly do you think the fossil record is if not a history of evolution?

Actually like I have said before the fossil record actually refutes evolution because all fossils found thus far are fully formed and show no evidence of ancestoral or transitional forms. I am sorry to be the one to break this to you but there is NO chronological fossil record of the transitions from amoeba to man. If there was we wouldn't be having this discussion. It would be an irrefuatable fact. But unfortunately for evolutionist, those emaginary transitional animals' fossils just don't exist. This is what they call the "missing link". Believing in Darwin’s prophecy, evolutionists have been searching for fossils and digging for missing links since the middle of the 19th century all over the world. Despite their best efforts, no transitional forms have yet been uncovered. All the fossils unearthed in excavations show that contrary to the beliefs of evolutionists, life appeared on earth all of a sudden and fully-formed.

Do you reject all the evidence that shows that plants and animals that are related develop from fertilized eggs to embryos to adults in similar fashion, while unrelated organisms develop more differently from one another?

I don't reject the evidence of similarity but I do reject the conclusion you make because of it. Your conclution is based on your belief in theory.

Do you reject he biogeographical evidence that shows that plants and animals that have lived close to one another for long periods are more likely to be closely related (by other measures) than those that have been long divided by distance or impassible barriers such as rivers or oceans?

Again that only proves common ancestry if you assume evolution is true. Similarity again makes a case for a common creator creating species and plants that inhabit the same environment.

Do you reject the decades of work that shows that small populations of plants and animals can evolve in just a few years when selection pressure is high--for example Peter and Rosemary Grant's work on Galapagos finches, showing that average beak size changes in just a few years when access to large or small seeds in limited by short term changes in local climate?

Yes this is called micro evolution which is the adaptations and changes within a species. Micro-evolution is a fact that is plainly observable throughout nature. Macro-evolution is a theory that has never been observed in science. This theory takes the leap and concludes that these changes can create a totally different species, a leap of faith I am not willing to take.

What are your credentials Sassy that you, by yourself, reject the lifetime work and thoughts of thousands of educated and intelligent men and women?

I have an undergrad in Biology and Chemistry so I know what I am talking about. I am currently working on my masters in Biology and my goal is to become an activist against the hoax of darwinism. I have done my own studdies and have come to my own conclusions which are more consistent with the facts and there are millions of intelligent educated men and women who agree with me.

This is nonsense. Evolutionary biologists ALWAYS want more fossils to reveal the details of the evolution of some snail or butterfly. But NO biologist would ever say there is a lack of fossil evidence to support evolution. (And you should look up "theory" as it's used in science. It is the same as a physicist's LAW--to use your caps.) The fossil record, laid down era by era, is unimpeachable physical evidence for evolution.

You seriously need to do a little more research on your beliefs because you are obviously under the delution that all of transitional fossils that should exists if evoltion was true, are actually there. The few fossils that evolution claims to be "transitional" are highly questionable and a lot of them have turned out to be frauds. If such animals had really existed, there should be millions and even billions of them in number and variety. More importantly, the remains of these strange creatures should be present in the fossil record. The number of these transitional forms should have been even greater than the present animal species and their remains should be found all over the world. These fossils do not exist.

This is nearly funny. If you want to see fossil evidence with your own eyes, go to a seum of paleontology. You can buy ancient fossils at any gem show. If you can't get anywhere to see and handle fossils in real life, read a book about fossils or read online. Fossils exist and are laid down in layers like the pages of a book, the oldest layers are deepest underground--like at the bottom of the Grand Canyon, while the youngest layers are on top (unless the layers have been folded by geologic forces).

I know there are fossils and I see fossils all the time. Just saying there are fossils does not prove evolution Asking. ALL the fossils you are talking about are fully formed animals, not transitional forms so that proves nothing for evolution.

The deep old layers contains living things that are all simple, one-celled organisms. But as you "turn the pages" and go forward in time, more complex life appears, along with the simple bacteria that have continued to live and evolve for billions of years. Over time, species multiply--becoming more numerous, and they become different from one another over time--creating the DIVERSITY of life we know today. Evolution is a fact. Natural selection is Darwin and Wallace's theory that explains how it works--a theory supported by every conceivable kind of evidence.

So the theory of evolution goes, but there is no chronological fossil evidence to prove this. Do your research.

[sassyT]

Okay pay attention to the following two quotes from sassyt:

Quote:
Originally Posted by SassyT
that because i am a biology masters student and have studdied science for many years. There is imperical proof of how the physical universe works and there is no disputing that, but there is no conclusive evidence to prove such theories as the big bang. Science does not KNOW anything of origins.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SassyT
I am a science masters student so i know what a theory is. Scientific theories may be made of SOME facts but it does not mean the theory itself is a fac


Obviously, she is soooo confused that she can't remember which area she is studying. Or could it be that she is lying? ;)

And SassyT the following in green are all questions that you have been asked on this board that you have NOT answered. So do you think you could answer them or are you clueless to the answers yourself?

.. lol... :D achampio21 can you answer this question for me.

Do you know that Biology is science?. tut tut tut

[asking]

First of all you are jumping into an argument that you have no clue what the beginnings were.

Trust me. I have a clue. I don't need to read every word you've written.

Second because you assume evolution is true therefore you have come to the conclusion that the gene similarity in all living things proves evolution is true. However that is a circular argument.

No. I don't assume it. I know it from study and logic. There are lots of things I take, to a degree, on faith. For example, if an engineer says a certain bridge needs to be built to certain specifications, I'll take his or her word. But this isn't like that. I actually know how it works.

Two species can share similar features in two ways, either because they inherited them from a common ancestor, or because they each evolved them separately to fulfill the same function. So insects and birds both evolved wings. But their wings are different from each other. You are saying that God gave dogs and humans the same kinds of lungs because they are just a part, like a bicycle wheel he can put anywhere. So why don't lungless salamanders, which live on land, have lungs too? They could use some! And why don't the unrelated birds and insects have the same kind of wings? By your theory, you should see no pattern of shared traits and no way to tell which animals are related to one another. Instead, you see repeating patterns. All the animals that have backbones also share a long list of other traits, like similar kidneys, a skull, similar circulations, etc. Meanwhile, all the insects have a long list of similar traits the DON'T share with animals with backbones.

Actually like I have said before the fossil record actually refutes evolution because all fossils found thus far are fully formed and show no evidence of ancestoral or transitional forms.

Virtually EVERY fossil in the last 3.8 billion years is a transition from one thing to another. The amphibians are a transition from the fish to the amniotes (reptiles and mammals). Eohippus is a transition to the horse. All the early hominoids are transitions to humans. There are hundreds of thousands of transition species IN THE FOSSIL RECORD.

I am sorry to be the one to break this to you but there is NO chronological fossil record of the transitions from amoeba to man.

We aren't descended from amoebas, Sassy. We are descended from bacteria.

If there was we wouldn't be having this discussion. It would be an irrefuatable fact.

It IS an irrefutable fact if you actually look at the evidence.. But that doesn't prevent you from arguing against it for whatever reason. I could insist that the City of New York does not exist and that it's a hoax and has never existed and that there's no evidence for its existence. I could do that for days, weeks, years. But that would not make me right.

But unfortunately for evolutionist, those emaginary transitional animals' fossils just don't exist. This is what they call the "missing link".

To satisfy your criteria, you would have to see the skeleton of every single individual animal and a fossil of every plant, bacterium, protist, and fungus that has every lived on Earth--billions upon billions of fossils. It wouldn't be enough to see all the transition fossils, you'd want each cavewoman's grandma too, or they wouldn't count and it would be special creation. Maybe you yourself are not related to anyone? How do you know you are really your mother's daughter or son, and not just specially created? Since you assume species are unrelated to one another, then you should assume you are unrelated to anyone. It's the same reasoning. You either believe in descent and family or you don't.

Believing in Darwin's prophecy,

Darwin was NOT a prophet. This is a grotesque usage. Darwin was a scientist who had an idea, spent many decades doubting it and testing and finding ways for it to be wrong and overcoming them all to produce vast of amounts of data that showed that it was almost certainly not wrong, but in fact correct.

evolutionists have been searching for fossils and digging for missing links since the middle of the 19th century all over the world. Despite their best efforts, no transitional forms have yet been uncovered. All the fossils unearthed in excavations show that contrary to the beliefs of evolutionists, life appeared on earth all of a sudden and fully-formed.

Right. And there's no New York City either.

Yes this is called micro evolution which is the adaptations and changes within a species. Micro-evolution is a fact that is plainly observable throughout nature. Macro-evolution is a theory that has never been observed in science. This theory takes the leap and concludes that these changes can create a totally different species, a leap of faith I am not willing to take.

If macroevolution had not occurred, you would not be here arguing. You are descended from a salamander, and probably a very cute one. Get over it. Please go to some museums, look at some fossils and start putting it together--not just individual ones, as you acknowledge yourself, but the whole miraculous PATTERN of evolution. It's there waiting for you. You obviously have the intelligence and stick-to-itiveness to get it.

I have an undergrad in Biology and Chemistry so I know what I am talking about. I am currently working on my masters in Biology and my goal is to become an activist against the hoax of darwinism. I have done my own studdies and have come to my own conclusions which are more consistent with the facts and there are millions of intelligent educated men and women who agree with me.

Did you use the Panda's Thumb as your bio textbook?
Again, what school are you at? I'm not interested in you personally. I just want to know what school would abuse its students so by teaching them what your teachers are teaching you (or not).

There are millions of ignorant Americans who agree with you, and you may have a few other students at your school who have been similarly duped. But get out in the world and you will discover that educated people around the world, all as capable as you at examining evidence and drawing conclusions, in fact do not agree with you. American militant Creationism is a bizarre anomaly nearly unknown in the rest of the educated world.

More importantly, the remains of these strange creatures should be present in the fossil record.

They are! Have you ever actually gone and looked at the fossil collection in a research museum? They have so many individual fossils, it will amaze you. And, YES, they include thousands of transition species. It is so cool.

The number of these transitional forms should have been even greater than the present animal species and their remains should be found all over the world. These fossils do not exist.

Sassy, you must surely know that every individual organism was not preserved in the fossil record, anymore than you have retained the stub of every pencil you have ever used or kept every homework assignment you have done since kindergarten. Not everything gets preserved. But what's there is an amazingly complete AND CONSISTENT record of the history of life on Earth. The pattern is obvious, consistent on a small scale, consistent over billions of years. Evolution is not remotely controversial among biologists. You are hanging with the conspiracy theorists who think we never landed on the moon, the world is flat, and there is no New York City.

so the theory of evolution goes, but there is no chronological fossil evidence to prove this. Do your research.

If you reject the work of all paleontologists as non existent, why do you ACCEPT the work of geneticists? Why the inconsistency? If scientists are all lying and deceitful and making every thing up, why believe one group without question while rejecting the entire body of work of another group?

[asking]

Hopefully it won't be too irritating if I repost something I posted elsewhere in response to a serious question about the evidence for evolution. The evidence really is independent and each line of evidence independently supports the others. It is not circular as sassy claims. The only way around this is if God is deliberately trying to make it LOOK as if evolution occurred while simultaneously not allowing evolution to occur. And that would be a very strange God indeed. But I do understand that many people have such views.

Lines of evidence for descent from a common ancestor include:

1. Comparative morphology.
For example, many animals share the same anatomy, which would not be expected if they were not related to one another. Just as cousins in the same family might have the same straight blond hair or curly, red hair, etc, related animals might both have the same hip construction, even though there are other ways the hip could have been constructed and would still work. Different kinds of pine trees have similar needles and long lists of other shared traits--because they are related to one another.

2. Comparative molecular biology:
The same is true at the molecular level, where the more related two organisms, the more alike their biochemistry is. They use the same proteins to do the same things.

3. Comparative genetics:
Related organisms, as measured by morphology or molecules can be shown to share genes. And just as closely related organisms have similar anatomy, molecules and genes, unrelated organisms are usually very different from one another.

4. Development. As plants and animals develop from fertilized eggs into embryos and then into adults, they pass through predictable stages of development. Same story: Those that are most closely related develop similarly.

All of these lines of evidence that show HOW we are related also show that we ARE related. Humans are animals with backbones, so we share at least some common anatomies and genes and molecules with all other vertebrates--fish, frogs, dinosaurs, and mammals. For example, we all have a backbone and a brain encased in a skull and all vertebrates have their main nerve cord (the spinal cord) in the back. For comparison, insects have their main nerve cord in their belly.

And yet humans and other vertebrates also share some genes with insects and even yeasts--which are a kind of fungus. We are not very related to yeasts, but we do share genes with them because both yeasts and humans are descended from a common ancestor. There is no evidence against this idea--that we are all related--but thousands upon thousands of scientific discoveries that support it. That is why scientists now accept that living things are all related.

[WVHiflyer]

A theory, need i remind you, is nothing but a hypothesis that has not been proven to be true. it is also an assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture/guess.

Apparently you need to be reminded that a scientific theory is NOT a hypothesis, but a generally accepted body of evidence reached by actually investigating hypotheses. Since you seem so concerned with facts it's about time you got this one right.

[WVHiflyer]

Responses like mimi's show the amazing intolerance some posters on this board possess, and their incapability and unwillingness to even consider worldviews and argumentation that opposes their own.

Sad, is it not?

I've dealt with the same lack of understand and what I call intentional ignorance for 20 yrs. Do you remember Prodigy (bulletin bd)? I argued against the same insubstantial arguments against evolution there. The same habit of misquoting, quoting out of context, insisting that acceptance of evidence equals 'faith,' refusal to accept that the word 'theory' has a different connotation for scientists than laymen, etc was in use then. All that's changed is now a claim of a 'designer' instead of God (disengenuous since they really mean the same thing to proponents).

Oh, and one more change - the evidence of evolution just keeps getting more in-depth and comprehensive...

[WVHiflyer]

[

Every fossil that has been found is fully formed and with no trace of a transitional ancestor therefore all fossils that have been found so far are in support of Creation. Now the reason why didn't bother asking what transitional fossils you had to show me is because I already know what 3 fossils you are going to try and use for proof. Unfortunately All the alleged transitional fossils, that were so dear to the hearts of evolutionists a generation ago, are now an embarrassment to them.

No, you didn't bother because you might find out something new. See www.pbs.org/wbgh/nova/id/transitional.html Here's the opening paragraph for a vid that starts the site: Fossil Evidence
In 2004, a field crew digging in the Canadian Arctic unearthed the fossil remains of a half-fish, half-amphibian that would all but confirm paleontologists' theories about how land-dwelling tetrapods (four-limbed animals, including us) evolved from their fish ancestors. The animal was a so-called lobe-finned fish that lived about 375 million years ago. Named Tiktaalik rosae by its discoverers, it is a classic example of a transitional form, one that bridges the evolutionary gap between two quite different types of animal. In this slide show, see this and four other well-known fossil transitions, which clearly indicate Darwinian evolution in action.—Rima Chaddha

Furthermore feathers develop from a different part of the bird’s embryo than scales do from a reptile’s embryo. Therefore, a person who supports the theory of evolution would have to show how one could have replaced the other in an evolutionary manner—without violating the rules of biology.

Feathers and scales have been shown to come from exactly the same place. In addition, feathers, in one hypothesis (yes, as yet unproven) that they might have afforded an insulation to dinosaurs - at least while still young.

The problem with "transitional fossils" is that they do not distinguish between the evolution and creation models.. .
To do that requires a series of fossils that show the development of a new adaptation. Those fossils are non existent.

Hmmm... cake and eat it too. How can something you claim is nonexistent support both models? (Untrue, BTW, since there is no evidence for the creation model)

so just because I don't agree with your beliefs I have "closed little mind"? Nice...

No, because you refuse to actually try to learn and are satisfied with parroting long since discredited information. And no where have I stated my 'beliefs'...

[asking]

Nice post! But I fear Sassy will demand the two transition fossils, one on either side of this fossil, one linking it to fish and one linking it to amphibians... Plus lobefinned lung fish that live today are already examples of such forms, aren't they?--although obviously, being extant, they are not our ancestors.

In general, the more biology we know, the more "unknowns" a determined creationist can invoke to prove that "biologists don't know everything" and therefore know nothing.
Asking

Here's the opening paragraph for a vid that starts the site: Fossil Evidence
In 2004, a field crew digging in the Canadian Arctic unearthed the fossil remains of a half-fish, half-amphibian that would all but confirm paleontologists' theories about how land-dwelling tetrapods (four-limbed animals, including us) evolved from their fish ancestors. The animal was a so-called lobe-finned fish that lived about 375 million years ago. Named Tiktaalik rosae by its discoverers, it is a classic example of a transitional form, one that bridges the evolutionary gap between two quite different types of animal. In this slide show, see this and four other well-known fossil transitions, which clearly indicate Darwinian evolution in action.

[WVHiflyer]

[QUOTE=sassyT]

WVH said evolution was a FACT

I never once said that. I said it's as much a fact as Earth orbiting Sun.

Second because you assume evolution is true therefore you have come to the conclusion that the gene similarity in all living things proves evolution is true. However that is a circular argument.

It's not a circular argument, and it doesn't prove evolution. It does, however, provide evidence of evolution.

The similarity in gene between species could very well be due to a common genetic Engineer or Designer i.e God. If God creates living things that are going to inhabit the same environment, isn't it logical that he would create them with a similar DNA coding?
It just come down to this:
"Dogs must breathe the same air as humans." People who believe in Creation, therefore, believe that the Creator designed similar lungs for both dogs and humans to breath the same air. The evolutionists believe that dogs and humans have similar lungs because they are related from millions of years ago. So the similarity argument is a weak one because it also make a strong case for Creation.

This, I think, is much closer to the definition of 'circular argument.'

so the theory of evolution goes, but there is no chronological fossil evidence to prove this. Do your research.
... I have done my own studdies and have come to my own conclusions which are more consistent with the facts and there are millions of intelligent educated men and women who agree with me.

It's too bad that your studies apparently have a single source. I don't call this 'study.' You conclusions aren't even closely related to the facts - merely to your apparently religiously biased accumulation of disinformation. That there are millions who agree does not make them correct.


As for macro evo - while I accept the evidence that already exists, more keeps coming in. One line of study now even helps support Gould's punctuated equilibrium. As we've all mentioned, with diff conclusions, very diff animals have very similar DNA. On top of that, the sequences for all these dissimilar animals are also similar. The anatomical dif, acc'd to studies in the past few years, is not the DNA itself but the genetic 'switches' that determine which protein gets coded when. And the 'enhancers,' for which each gene may have several, are particularly true when it comes to genes that shape anatomy. Meaning that individual body traits can appear without changes in the genes or their proteins. To quote an article by a group studying this: "[I]n the past few years, direct evidence has emerged that this is frequently how the evolution of various body parts and patterns has occurred." (Sean Carroll, Benjamin Prud'homme & Nicolas Gompel; Scientific American; May 2008) [I haven't finished the article yet, but I'm betting SassyT wouldn't even consider reading it... ]

[WVHiflyer]

Asking - my battle against creationists began in earnest 20 yrs ago. At first I tried merely to educate. Then I discovered they want to infiltrate science education. That's why I'm a sustaining member of NCSE.

[achampio21]

..lol... :D achampio21 can you answer this question for me.

Do you know that Biology is science? ...tut tut tut

Um, yeah sassyt but do YOU know that Biology is only a part of science. The part that only studies plant and animal life. Whereas, science is study of the WHOLE physical world.

So are you a masters student of the WHOLE physical world or just a masters student of plant and animal life?


The following is an IM message from Sassyt to myself.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Plse stop embarrassing yourself.


Hey Sassy, it seems to me the only one embarrassing themselves on THIS post is YOU.
And the day that you tell me what to do and I listen will be the day that you are paying all my bills and sleeping in my bed. So I suggest you stop with your immature little IM's to those of us that don't agree with you. All it's doing is making you look childish. And I don't think it's a very christian thing what you are doing. If I were you I would ask God to forgive me for being so judgemental and ugly to the other people on this board. Unless of course you don't believe in God, then I guess it doesn't matter that you just sinned.

[WVHiflyer]

achampio21 - I'm usually a bit more observant... but I just noticed your sig. How very fitting for this topic...

[achampio21]

WVHiflyer~
Thank you, I just changed it due to the unfortunate observation of a fellow member on this site. I figured I would embrace their immaturity and learn from it...

It's a pity that others can't do the same...

[WVHiflyer]

SassyT, Try this site if you're actually willing to study evolution: Understanding Evolution

[asking]

I'm a sustaining member of NCSE.

I am a member too. :)

These arguments sometimes seem pointless, but I agree that people need to challenge the disinformation, not let it stand unchallenged as if it were true.

Jonathan Wells was one creationist who actually went to Berkeley and got a PhD in biology specifically so that he could attack evolution. (He said so, although I wondered why he didn't study evolutionary biology instead of cell biology.) He TA'd the evolution course at Berkeley, and, according to the instructor, perfectly concealed his true feelings and taught well. After he graduated, Wells joined the Discovery Institute and made some potent attacks on mistakes in biology textbooks (not the same as mistakes in the science itself), but then doesn't seem to have been able to come up with any weaknesses in evolutionary theory itself, despite his 4 or 5 years of concerted study. At least I haven't heard anything from him.

I'm still curious about where Sassy goes to school.
Asking

[asking]

One line of study now even helps support Gould's punctuated equilibrium.

To pick a nit, I just want to say that within the field of evolutionary biology, punctuated equilibrium wasn't considered really a new or controversial idea, at least not new with Gould. I personally checked this with an evolutionary biologist in about 1980 and he dismissed Gould as essentially a johnny come lately. Ernst Mayr made the same argument in his early textbooks on evolution, published, I think, in the 40s or 50s. He just didn't give the idea a fancy name. I specifically asked how Gould's ideas were different from Mayr's and my source said they were not different.

In any case, like Gould, Mayr earlier postulated rapid evolution in small, isolated populations, although no one had actually measured such rapid change. But now we have and can state unequivocally that evolution can occur very rapidly in small, genetically diverse, isolated populations under heavy selection pressure, oceanic islands being an obvious place for that kind of thing. That's why remote islands so often have such weird plants and animals on them. It's not just divine whimsy; there's a reason for it. E.g. the Galapagos Islands have a finch that drinks blood from other birds, a very unfinchlike behavior. They normally eat seeds!

So I wouldn't say "even." :)

[WVHiflyer]

A bit ago I dropped in on the NCSE site. That's where I found the Understanding Evo link. There's also a link for a comprehensive answer to Wells' Icons of Evolution: Introduction

Fighting against religious intolerance and for a proper education is never pointless.