[VadeRetro]

Actually there is. The one that says what I say is true because I am smarter that you.

Perhaps you speak of someone else. What you say is certainly not the basis of my acceptance of evolution. Much of the basis of creationism lies in a refusal to make extremely reasonable and straightforward inferences from 150 years worth of evidence for a thing creationists reject on doctrinaire religious grounds.

[microgood]

Perhaps you speak of someone else.

I was actually responding to the statment made in 411, where the argument seemed to be how dare you question all of us geniuses.

Much of the basis of creationism lies in a refusal to make extremely reasonable and straightforward inferences from 150 years worth of evidence for a thing creationists reject on doctrinaire religious grounds.

Now you are speaking of someone else. I think the fossil record shows an abundance of support for the idea of natural selection, but the random mutation is just inferred as a mechanism, and it seems that the rise of complexity and the large changes in structure seem to point to some other mechanism.

For example, the birds that Darwin studied were the beaks grew longer and were naturally selected, did that really happen randomly (which means a million other mutations must have happened in the same time frame that were detrimental), or did the mutation have a more direct feedback mechanism than just natural selection. The latter notion at least makes more sense. Having to depend on random mutation to get the right sequence for a changing environment seems a recipe for extinction. For all these species to get it right randomly seems a stretch.