Creationism IS a 'Cult'ural Movement!

Did you ask how they developed the family tree charts?And did you ever wonder why, when several independent researchers develop a "family tree chart" ("phylogeny" is actually the proper term) using different, independent techniques, they come up with largely the same history?Without even talking to each other or comparing notes or anything? How does that happen if they're just being made-up? How so? Because my impression is that evolution is exactly what we should expect from the basic principles of statistics.Look, I'm not going to pretend that these issues are simple. Living things are complex and their evolutionary history is equally complex. Complex forces are acting on them - it's a complex world we live in. Understanding things like how random mutation + natural selection result in novel morphology, or how new species develop from old ones (a phenomenon directly observed both in the wild and in experiments) takes time and effort and information not generally made available to high school students.Your knowledge of biology will have to become collegiate at least before you're able to understand how evolution is proven by both logic and evidence, observation and experimentation, the fossil record and the genetic record.If you're willing to put in the effort, I'm sure we're all willing to explain to you. If, like most creationists, your purpose here is only to snipe at the most proven theory in scientific history from a blind of ignorance and misinformation and then retreat in the face of scientific rebuttals... well, I wish you would come out and tell us, so we can get to ignoring you as soon as possible.

Not that much, actually. Sure, as phylogenetic techniques have expanded in popularity and ease of use, we've been forced to rejigger the charts for some species that were poorly-represented in the fossil record, or who exhibited cryptic morphology.But on the whole, in the big picture, the charts haven't ever changed that much. I realize that; I'm trying to change your mind with logic. If they're just "guesses", how is it that so many people, working completely independantly, manage to guess nearly the exact same thing?That's no guess. That's proof that there arre actually relationships there that are being detected. When multiple lines of evidence and research converge like that, it's proof. Those are complex forces. Natural selection is particularly complex. And you can't even understand mutation without understanding genetics, which is very complex. Well, yeah. Ignorant, mostly. You don't strike me as stupid; just arrogant. I did show you the proof - convergence of multiple lines of evidence.You didn't respond to it. You just ignored it and lied. Would you like to try it again, or can we all just conclude you're not here to do anything but spout creationist misinformation?

We have, already. Look, the debate didn't begin when you showed up. The process of scientific acceptance for evolution occurred decades ago, which is why there's no scientific debate about it anymore.What you meant to say is that the onus is on evolutionists to prove their case to you, and that's fair enough; but I just tried to do exactly that and you made it abundantly clear that everything you know is correct and nothing anybody will tell you can change your mind.How are we supposed to "prove our case" when it's clear that you're not willing to listen to anybody? If you want to see how evolution is proven by evidence, here's a good place to start. Do you know how the genome is mapped?

Well, look. Why don't we use it as a kind of "evolution school"? Start with the 29+ evidences, for instance, and open a thread about stuff you don't understand, or evidence you don't find compelling, or subjects you want to know more about, and we'll try to address that stuff.But sweeping implications of bad faith among biologists - which is exactly what you're doing when you say that it's all "guessing", no matter what scientists tell you - aren't evidence of anything but your own ideological blindness and your arrogant refusal to even consider that there may be more to biology than you know about.

My own? I'm:1) an undergraduate student in the biological sciences;
2) a former laboratory/field research assistant with the USDA, mostly in regards to western corn rootworm beetle and brown recluse spiders;
3) married to a Ph.D. candidate in entomology/molecular phylogenetics;
4) a long-time enthusiast of evolution, biology, and EvC forum.I'm not saying I'm an expert, although many who post here are. Quetzal, for instance, holds expert qualifications (terminal degrees, a body of published research) in the biological sciences. And I'm sure there are a number of others who I'm insulting by not being able to remember their names.But you've asked a great question. If you don't find our qualifications sufficient to simply take our word for things, then by all means, we're prepared to substantiate our assertions with primary sources easily accessible on the internet.

23 insults and I was only the focus of one of them?Clearly, I didn't try hard enough. I pledge to rectify this situation with all haste.