The Religious Cult of Evolution Fights Back

PostItNews.com ^

[postitnews.com]

HARRISBURG, PA-The American Civil Liberties Union of Pennsylvania, Americans United for Separation of Church and State and attorneys with Pepper Hamilton LLP filed a federal lawsuit today on behalf of 11 parents who say that presenting "intelligent design" in public school science classrooms violates their religious liberty by promoting particular religious beliefs to their children under the guise of science education.

"Teaching students about religion's role in world history and culture is proper, but disguising a particular religious belief as science is not," said ACLU of Pennsylvania Legal Director Witold Walczak. "Intelligent design is a Trojan Horse for bringing religious creationism back into public school science classes."

The Rev. Barry W. Lynn, Americans United Executive Director, added, "Public schools are not Sunday schools, and we must resist any efforts to make them so. There is an evolving attack under way on sound science...Read More

[js1138]

Actually, you didn't say 100% of scientists support evolution. You said various scientists support evolution 100%.

Position statements don't really matter. What matters is that ID proponents have nothing to offer except a list of things biologists have not yet explained -- as if science really expects to reach a point when it can explain everything.

ID might be worth keeping around to help prioritize research questions, but mainstream science is already working on all the problems posed by ID. In fact all the data used by ID proponents comes from mainstream science.

[Alacarte]

"Why not teach evolution -- as in randomness is responsible for life and all bio-diversity -- in a mythology or religion class?"

So painful... do we not agree that the scientific community is the authority that tells us what is scientific, and what is not? Well the scientific community unanimously agrees with evolution.

You people keep saying evolution is not well supported, well go do a bloody search in the major biology journals for papers on evolution! Count how many hits you get... about 2000 each journal! Now count how many dispute evolution. If you found one I would be very very surprised. If you found an acceptable percentage, say 10% (about 200 each journal), I would say there is adequate disagreement among the scientific community and I would promise to come here everyday and trash evolution with you.

How much easier can I make it for you? I can't come to your house and work the keyboard for you, so put your money where your mouth is and provide us the evidence that evolution is in question with the scientific community. Hell, if you find one paper I would be so curious I'd take over the search. Proving evolution wrong would throw the entire life sciences into upheaval since so much research is based on what evolution says.

Now of course you will change your tune and say "there is a big naturalist conspiracy to support evolution." In which case, fine. You want to espouse your unaccountable conspiracy theory, that is your opinion, and inconsequential to any real debate. BUT, you have to stop spreading lies about evolution being unscientific!

[PatrickHenry]

There should be absolutely no debate on this topic. The scientific community says evolution is the best model, and ID is NOT scientific. All this information is readily available, go look at it.

Correct:
AAAS Board Resolution on Intelligent Design Theory. ID isn't science.
Botanical Society of America's Statement on Evolution. Excellent statement.
Project Steve. Nat'l Center for Science Education: the overwhelming number of genuine scientists supporting evolution.

[Junior]

Dude, relax a bit. No need to get the blood pressure up. As a veteran of a thousand crevo wars,* take it from me -- the best you can do is put up the evidence for the lurkers and undecideds to peruse. Most of the creos on these threads haven't had an original argument in years; they go with the little bit they've got.

*Lyrics posted yesterday.

[js1138]

Now of course you will change your tune and say "there is a big naturalist conspiracy to support evolution." In which case, fine. You want to espouse your unaccountable conspiracy theory, that is your opinion, and inconsequential to any real debate.

Paper is cheap and the internet is cheaper. No one's view or opinions or findings can be censored.

Evolution will be in trouble just as soon as someone publishes an alternative history that is consistent with geology, physics, chemistry, and the accumulated facts of biology.

There are several IDers on FR that do not argue for a young earth and do not dispute that evolution occurred. The dispute the mechanism by which speciation occurs. That would put them within mainstream science -- just as soon as they can demonstrate an alternative mechanism, other than miracles.

My own pet peeve is that most of the dispute on these threads centers on the mechanisms that produce change -- mutations, copying, insertions, etc. There is one poster in particular who likes to call attention to long stretches of conserved non-coding DNA. Fine, that is a good problem that needs solving. I would be curious to see how ID proposes to research the problem.

[ColdSteelTalon]

Gravity can be scientifically verified through direct experimentation, evolution cannot it is based solely on opinions and changes all the time based on new opinions.

[Alacarte]

"The real problem with the argument that established scientists have such a vested interest in evolution that they won't ever publish any data that tends to refute evolution (besides the fact that it is a paranoid conspiracy theory, of course) is that there is always an infusion of new blood in science."

They have a vested interest since evolution is the backbone of so many fields of research. If there were any convincing evidence against evolution, it would make someone as famous as einstein, like you said. So which is it? On one hand you say scientists won't speak ou against it, but on the other hand you say doing so would make them as famous as einstein... We both know how much scientists love their prestige, not to mention grants.

I agree with the rest of your post pretty much. You neglect to point out though that einstein did not prove newton's theories wrong, he replaced them with a better, more explanatory model. Furthermore, without newtons theories, einstein would likely not have had the ground work to improve on them and come up with relativity.

If anything should ever happen to evolution, I feel it would have to be something similar. Perhaps evolution will get an overhall such as physics did by einstein, but most of the basics laid down by the current theory will likely never be displaced. Namely, organism adapt and speciate. Same as Einstein did not prove that a rock falls upwards when you drop it. A revamping of evolution would simply improve upon it. There is just too much overwhelming evidence to support the basic tenets, even before genomics.

Regardless, this conversation is academic, since we both agree (I assume...) that should evolution ever receive a serious shake-up, it will NOT be by something as inanely ridiculous as ID. It will be replaced by SCIENTISTS, and by another, more explanatory SCIENTIFIC model.

[RadioAstronomer]

Feel better now?

What did you not understand in my post? I will be glad to clarify.

Gravity is a law, and can be proven - an apple falls from the tree.

Really? My post to you showed where the "law" was wrong.

I frankly don't care what you use to back up your allegation that its only a theory.

Huh? Are you really that willing not to learn?

Seems to me like your backpedalling and equating gravity and evolution with the same scientific soundness.

No backpedaling needed. I have always asserted that evolution is a theory right along side the theory of gravity.

Woe is you.

Wrong. Wow is the person who remains willfully ignorant.

[RadioAstronomer]

Gravity can be scientifically verified through direct experimentation, evolution cannot it is based solely on opinions and changes all the time based on new opinions.

Codswallop. See my post #422.

Care to tell me what the theory of gravity is and show the math?

[js1138]

Gravity can be scientifically verified through direct experimentation, evolution cannot...

You are only about a hundred years too late with that assertion. Name one mechanism necessary for evolution that is not subject to direct experimentation.

Don't tell me we don't know everything already. That's a given.

Your assertion is that experimentation is not possible.

[betty boop]

I would claim that ID by the nature of the idea itself posits a deity. (Although not necessarily the Christian God). I have posted this argument a few times and have never had a response from an ID proponent. Presumably “life” would include intelligent life. Therefore, in order for intelligence to exist, there must be a designer.

Hi Stremba! Thought I, a person with a keen interest in ID, might try to respond. For what my opinion is worth, I suspect that most people who work in the ID field are not all that interested in dealing with theological issues: That is not a proper subject for science. They are interested in the nature of what is. And one of the things they’ve noticed is how fascinatingly “well-tuned” the universe is for the seeming purpose of giving rise to life and in particular to human life. Such fine-tuning (and so many instances of same) of the physical universe seems impossible to account for as an outcome of randomness, of a mere piling up of “accidents.” I should note that insights of this kind are today largely coming from physics.

You wrote, “ID is the idea that life cannot evolve without the guidance of some intelligent designer.” I would hesitate to use the word “guidance”; that implies a kind of hands-on intervention in the processes of the natural world. But it seems to me this would not be required if, say, (for instance) the Singularity of the Big Bang, understood as specifying the initial conditions of the universe (space, time, matter), also promulgated a kind of “cosmic information set” that governs what possibilities may occur in the evolution of the universe. It doesn’t specify what must occur, but what may probably occur, if I might put it that way. In other words, it may deal with probability amplitudes. Yet this is not the same thing as saying that a sovereign will is directly “guiding things.” Within certain parameters, the universe is free to develop. (And this also means that human free will is not an illusion.) What this hypothesis does say, however, is that the Singularity has a certain quality of “design” to it; it may be an “artifact” of intelligence. A philosopher might tell you that the Singularity is analogous to the Platonic Idea that seeks manifestation in the created forms of nature, living and non-living. That, at least, is how Plato conceived the same problem we face here.

But this hypothesis is impossible to submit directly to scientific experiment. The problem is – for ID or physical cosmology more generally – that space and time began with the Big Bang. Therefore, it is senseless to speak of “a time before” there even was time. It turns out that all the known physical laws break down in that first infinitesimal moment of Planck time that succeeded the Big Bang, in which time and space and matter were “born.”

But you ask: “Where did the intelligent designer come from?” You indicate there are two possibilities. “First possibility: there must be another, even more intelligent designer who designed the intelligent designer, in which case where did THAT designer come from? This leads to an infinite regression of intelligent designers.” Yet we know from logic that an infinite regression of causes is tantamount to saying that there is no effective causation of anything. For this, one would need an “uncaused first cause,” or “prime mover.” And it seems to stand to reason that such an uncaused cause cannot exist in the space-time dimensions of our natural universe; for it cannot be contained in that which it caused – it must stand “outside” of it. Or in other words, the uncaused cause created space and time itself. You note that the uncaused cause (which you term the intelligent designer) must have either created itself (and thus would have a cause from itself, which seems redundant); or must have existed eternally. But this latter statement is what we would expect; for not to be “in time” is to be timeless – that is, what we call eternal. You go on to say: “In this case, I think most people would recognize this entity as a deity, although maybe not one with all the characteristics of the Christian God.” And Stremba, you are right about this – BUT: that is not a scientific question.

The question of God (of whatever description) is not what ID studies. I think mainly ID theorists are content to leave such questions to the philosophers and the theologians, who have a better “method” for dealing with them. Science must address empirical facts, period; and thus must restrict itself to the purported design, to the extent it is factual, i.e., amenable to observation and test. And the designed quality or nature seems to be evident – especially when you start to realize how “tuned” the universe is, thus to produce the kinds of outcomes that we see all around us in the natural world.

Don't know if this helps at all, Stremba. But I did want you to have a direct reply from an "ID proponent," even if it's not a very good one (perhaps). Thank you so much for writing.

Have a joyful Christmas and a wonderful New Year!

[js1138]

should evolution ever receive a serious shake-up, it will NOT be by something as inanely ridiculous as ID. It will be replaced by SCIENTISTS, and by another, more explanatory SCIENTIFIC model.

It is being replaced all the time by better information, but so far there is nothing to replace variation, selection and common descent. The details will change with more knowledge.

[WildTurkey]

Gravity can be scientifically verified through direct experimentation, evolution cannot it is based solely on opinions and changes all the time based on new opinions.

The laws of gravity are also misundertood by a multitute of people. For example, most people think, in a vacuum, that a big rock will fall faster than a small rock and that both will fall faster than the feather.

Also, Newton's law of gravity was modified based on newer principles just like the theory of evolution evolves as additional evidence is gathered.

[js1138]

Looking for "fine tuning" you will surely find it. I'm afraid most physicists are searching for a physics that does not require tuning. I'm not holding my breath for any final theories.

[WildTurkey]

so put your money where your mouth is and provide us the evidence that evolution is in question with the scientific community.

Easy. There are hundreds of "crevo" sites out their giving them their "arguments".

[Alacarte]

"What matters is that ID proponents have nothing to offer except a list of things biologists have not yet explained "

Exactly! I think it terribly amusing that ID has no problem with natural selection. Almost like they sat down, looked at the data and figured out what they can and cannot leverage on. 100 years ago they would have included all evolution in their attacks, yet today there is just too much evidence for micro-evolution. I guess they feel they still have a shot with macro-evolution. In 50 years, when there is as much evidence for macro as there is micro now, the ID movement will have either done its job or gone the way of creationism 1.0. Makes me angry, it is so dishonest.

"ID might be worth keeping around to help prioritize research questions, but mainstream science is already working on all the problems posed by ID. In fact all the data used by ID proponents comes from mainstream science."

I've considered this myself, whether it is good for evolution that ID attacks it, it can only strengthen, or expose weaknesses, which is the point of science. I've decided that IDers are so intellectually dishonest that their attacks can only hurt evolution. For instance, it doesn't help biologists to get grants for research when ID has so many people running around crying evolution is not science.

I have a question for you js. I don't want to ask an ID proponent, I want a real answer. This is not sarcasm BTW ;), I'm serious. Does it make sense to you that IDers feel ID is an 'alternative' to evolution? From what I can see, ID arguments, like irreducible complexity, are just attacks on evolution... Then they slip in the very unscientific conclusion that should evolution be proven wrong, the answer must somehow be magic. To me this is nothing close to an explanatory model, it a lame attack on evolution, with a non sequitur conclusion, nothing more. How could this possibly be taught alongside the enormous model of evolution as an alternative, seems laughable. It would go something like this:

"Ok students, that concludes your 5 week introduction to the basics of evolutionary theory. Now we are going to look at an alternative to evolution called Intelligent Design. Ready class, notebooks open... ID tells us the vast diversity of life on earth is a result of... magic. That concludes our section on ID, don't forget your essays tomorrow."

I never see anyone on our side mention that ID really explains nothing. How can it possibly be taught as an alternative? Without evolution to attack, it says nothing. At the best I would sell it as an argument against evolution. Am I missing something?

[longshadow]

"Project Placemarker" placemarker

[Doctor Stochastic]

Worst than that. Some people think the Earth pulls a baseball down with more force than the baseball pulls the Earth up.

[Ichneumon]

Did you actually READ what they said in your link about RING species?

I'm sure he did, and that he understood it. Unfortunately, when you read it however, you obviously did so looking for cheap excuses to ignore and ridicule what it says, instead of reading it for content and elucidation.

"These conclusions were based on broad patterns in the distribution and relationships of many species. But determining how speciation occurs in any particular case can be difficult,"
(NO SHIT?)

How old are you, twelve?

"because we are usually only presented with the outcome"
(all ToE ever gives us is the outcome, and speculation of that outcome!)

Why are you lying? The author said that "we are *USUALLY* only presented with...", and then goes on to describe a case where the intermediates are still extant and available for study. Did you not even understand the article, or were you too busy looking for words you could highlight out of context so you could prance around and giggle about them, or are you purposely trying to mislead Freepers about its content? This is not a rhetorical question -- please respond.

"of the process and we often have no"
(NEVER is rendered OFTEN by dishonest evolutionists)

No, "often" means "often", as the rest of the article makes clear. Again, why are you lying about what the author is actually saying? And feel free to please offer citations supporting your false claim that there is "NEVER" a record of a common ancestor. Good luck proving that negative, but hey, it's *your* claim.

"record of their common ancestor or"
(NO SHIT!)

I revise my estimate downwards -- ten, perhaps?

"In 1949, Robert Stebbins5 described a fascinating pattern of geographical variation in these salamanders: Two distinct forms of Ensatina salamanders, differing dramatically in color, coexist in southern California and interbreed there only rarely."
(This must mean they are humping continuously!)

No, it "must mean" you have problems with reading comprehension. And I must yet again revise downward my estimate of your intellectual and emotional age.

"The two groups gradually became different as they moved south. When they met again in southern California, the two expanding fronts were so different that they rarely interbred, and were therefore different species."
So we see that they are TWO different species that RARELY interbred...

Your poor reading comprehension is acting up again. They "rarely" interbreed because they only seldom interbreed at all in the northern part of the southern overlap region, and don't interbreed at ALL in the *southern* end of the range. As the VERY NEXT SENTENCE goes on to say:

To the south near Cuyamaca State Park, klauberi and eschscholtzi meet and apparently fail to interbreed under natural conditions even though they are narrowly sympatric.

Also:

At the southernmost area of contact, the two forms are sympatric with no evidence of past or present hybridization (13, 14).

And when they do interbreed in the north, the results are hybrids, not true-bred offspring. You'd have known this if you had bothered to actually *read* the links, instead of quote-mining them for something you could twist into a cheap excuse to ridicule something you don't understand.

Furthermore, scientists like to use tentative words just to play it safe -- anyone employing a word like "never" (as you are so fond of doing) is eventually going to get tripped up by some bizarre unique exception at least once. Plus, as I pointed out earlier, it's hard to actually prove such a negative (unless one has examined every instance on the planet), thus even when there is no evidence whatsoever for something ever happening, in a scientific paper that will usually be worded as "rarely occurs", or some variant, just to avoid an unprovable overgeneralization. This is also the reason for the word "apparently" in the passage I quoted, and so on.

you know like Saint Bernard's and Cocker Spaniels are TWO different species. LOL!

No, since a) the frequency of such interbreeding among dogs is a hell of a lot more frequent than can be accurately described as "rarely occurs", and b) the case of the salamanders is of a different type and has been confirmed in many ways (as detailed in the links -- did you not read them?) It's more like how tigers and lions are two different species -- even though they can be artificially induced to interbreed at times.

So stop being an ass, please?

And notice how evolutionists are short on facts, mathematical descriptions, but love to tell these grand stories of life and what MUST have happened...

Are you an idiot or a liar?

As anyone with working reading comprehension will "notice", the links you're childishly ridiculing include *confirmation* of what "must have happened" by providing "facts and mathematical descriptions". Were you unable to grasp them, or are you just lying about the researchers being "short on facts, mathematical descriptions"?

Let's review a few, shall we?

"In fact, by analyzing electrophoritic separations of selected enzymes and studying DNA patterns, the two subspecies klauberi and eschscholtzi are different species by every definition. (Wake, Yanev and Brown, 1986) "

"

A phylogenetic analysis of sequence variation in the mitochondrial gene cytochrome b also shows substantial variation within Ensatina (15). The greatest variation occurs in the north. Within the subspecies oregonensis, picta, and intergrades are several distinct, distantly related haplotypes. There are two monophyletic clades in the complex with respect to this gene. The first includes xanthoptica and eschscholtzii as sister groups; these are the southern subspecies of the coastal arm. The second clade includes klauberi, E. e. croceater, and southern populations of platensis; these are the southernmost parts of the inland arm. These data support Stebbins' biogeographic scenario. "

"Results are derived from three separate kinds of data: morphological, allozymic, and mitochondrial sequences. Morphological data follow earlier analyses (7, 10), but include a much larger data set. A complex-wide study of proteins (19 populations, 5 of which are relevant to this study, using 26 allozymic loci) laid the foundation for subsequent work (12). A first stage examined 25 loci in 20 populations (n per population = 8-22; mean, 13.6) from regions east (East Bay) and north (North Bay) of San Francisco Bay; a second studied 27 loci in 20 East and South Bay populations (n = 2-20; mean, 8.6), and a third used 22 of the most relevant loci in 34 populations (n = 2-19; mean, 7.0) from the North and South Bay. These will be reported as first, second, and third studies in this paper. It is not possible to directly combine these studies, which were done at different times and used some different buffers, in part because of the large number of alleles detected. This complex data set will be published elsewhere, and only the main results are presented here. Nei (21) genetic distances (D) are reported. Sequences of the cytochrome b gene (664-775 bp) constitute the third kind of data."

"Although the distribution of xanthoptica is interrupted by major present-day barriers, the taxon maintains some integrity as a unit, especially with respect to coloration and the monophyly of DNA sequences. Minimal D is 0.08 between North Bay and East Bay localities, and 0.05 between East Bay and South Bay localities. However, between South Bay and North Bay localities there is relatively great and varying divergence (D = 0.15-0.47). The genetic connection between the North Bay and South Bay appears to be via the East Bay; San Francisco Bay and associated Carquinez Straits (north) and Santa Clara Valley (south), which currently interrupt the range, are apparently recent barriers. There are some relatively high D values (to 0.19) between the East Bay and the South Bay (populations likely to be even more divergent have not been included in the same study as yet). There is variation within each of these three areas. D within the North Bay reaches 0.15 (n, number of populations compared = 5), within the East Bay, 0.09 (n = 4), and within the South Bay, 0.31 (n = 6 in each of two studies using different populations). In the eastern part of the South Bay distances are below 0.15, but some western populations are highly divergent from everything studied (these also are the populations with the greatest divergence to North Bay xanthoptica)."

" The highest values of D within oregonensis involved comparisons across the range, between populations along the Pacific Coast and those relatively far inland. For no nearest neighbor comparison is D = 0, and many are in the range D = 0.02-0.07. The third study included 12 populations (a few repeats from the earlier study but mainly different) of oregonensis extending from the Russian River area through the Coast Range to southern Marin County, with a few populations in eastern Sonoma County. Even in this relatively small region genetic diversification is great, with D reaching a high of 0.23 (across the breadth of the range) and 36% of the comparisons exceeding D = 0.15. Near neighbors always have the lowest values, but rarely less than D = 0.04. Genetic distances across the Russian River range from 0.08 to 0.15, suggesting that it has restricted gene flow to some extent. "

" One of these populations (no. 28, n = 19) is similar to xanthoptica in coloration, and another (no. 31, n = 10) is similar to oregonensis. These populations are separated by less than 10 km, but D = 0.34. Both are highly variable (no. 28 has 36 alleles; no. 31 has 34 alleles at 22 loci), but only no. 28 shows signs of limited gene flow from the other taxon (alleles characteristic of oregonensis are present at low frequency for four loci). A third population (no. 24, n = 5), 5 km south of population no. 31, displays coloration somewhat intermediate between oregonensis and xanthoptica, but genetic distances are high to both neighboring populations (0.22 to no. 28; 0.30 to no. 31). There are 32 alleles in the relatively small sample, but no evidence of F₁ hybrids. However, the sample is fixed for an otherwise rare allele for malate dehydrogenase (Mdh; EC 1.1.1.37) (found at a frequency of 0.06 in population 31; absent in population 28), fixed for an allele for Acon 1 (EC 4.2.1.3) that is relatively common in population 31 and absent in no. 28, and fixed for an allele for proline depeptidase (Pep-d; EC 3.4.13.9) which is in high frequency in population 28 (0.91) but absent in population 31."

"We examined 26 proteins in 19 populations (maximum of 10 specimens per population) collected throughout the range in order to gain an understanding of the degree of differentiation in the group. Allozyme differentiation is profound, with genetic distances in excess of 0.5 (Rogers or Nei) between populations. Naturally hybridizing populations differ by genetic distances greater than 0.4. (see Genetic distances map Two general classes of color morphs, blotched and unblotched, are segregated geographically, but they do not form discreet genetic units. Both are deeply differentiated, and genetic distances among populations of either class exceed those measured between the classes where they are sympatric in southern California."

"Sequences (644-681 bp) from the mitochondrial cytochrome b gene were obtained for 24 individuals representing the geographic range and morphological diversity of the polytypic salamander ring species Ensatina eschscholtzii.   These data were used to estimate the phylogeny of components of the ring to test the biogeographic scenario underlying current interpretations of speciation in this complex.  The analysis revealed high levels of nucleotide variation among subspecies.  Strong subdivision was evident within the subspecies platensis and oregonensis.   The phylogenetic hypothesis of minimum length that is best supported by the data contains one monophyletic group that includes populations from the southern Sierra Nevada and mountains of southern California (croceater, klauberi and southern platensis)and another that includes populations of southern and central coast regions (xanthoptica and eschscholtzii).  Samples of oregonensis were typically basal, but their precise branching order was unstable.  Both oregonensis and platensis were paraphyletic, with several disparate lineages in oregonensis and a strong north-south dichotemy in platensis.  The data were incompatible with a biogeographic model that required all subspecies to be monophyletic but were compatible with slightly modified predictions of a model assuming stepwise colonizations from north to south down the Sierra Nevada and independently down the coast ranges.  These features provide strong support for the biogeographic scenario central to the interpretation of Ensatina eschscholtzii as a ring species."

And that's just a small *sampling* -- I didn't want to overload the post with too many.

I'm sorry, what was that you were saying about "notice how evolutionists are short on facts, mathematical descriptions"? Are you sure you know what in the hell you're talking about?

EXCEPT it Didn't Not even in their own story, the two species they depict are still interbreeding! Incredible!

What's "incredible" is your poor reading comprehension.

"At the southernmost area of contact, the two forms are sympatric with no evidence of past or present hybridization (13, 14)."

And even where they do interbreed elsewhere, it's only in the form of sympatric hybridization. Go look it up.

Probably these Salamanders are producing turtles or something...that will be the next article!

"Probably" you have no real understanding of the article, or evolutionary biology in general, so you're reduced to just making childish non sequiturs.

And they never even observe that the Salamander populations may exhibit different color changes cause the rocks may be of different hues?

You obviously didn't understand the DNA analysis...

Even human beings have different shades of skin based on geographical location.

...due to *genetic* differences as a result of evolution...

Lame!

Yes, your "rebuttals" most certainly are. Try to learn something about evolutionary biology before you again attempt to critique it, please.

This is always used in evolutionary tautologies.

Evolution does not rely on tautologies, although I know that creationists keep trying to claim it does, because of their poor understanding of the subject.

Variation (well established and observed) in species, is suddenly NEW species!

In the cases where it is supported by all the evidence, yes, it is. Gosh, just like Darwin said in 1859...

[Alacarte]

"Easy. There are hundreds of "crevo" sites out their giving them their "arguments"."

What on earth do crevo sites have to do with the scientific community??? Those sites are set up specifically for people who have no idea what science is. There are a thousand ways to access the scientific literature online, granted, much of it is not free, but that's a beef for another time. You can usually still search through the titles and read the intros.

This is exactly my point, if you want to know what the scientific community thinks of evolution, why on EARTH would you go to some backwater creationism website!?!? Go read for yourself what they think! Don't trust partisan websites on either side, don't trust me either, go read it for yourself! Most big institutions like the NAS and AAAS have online pages for laymen that defends evolution up front. This saves you the time of searching through their papers. But feel free to search all day for papers questioning evolution.

Can we post links?

http://www.aaas.org/spp/dser/evolution/perspectives.shtml
http://www.nationalacademies.org/attic/evolution/