It is reasonable to accept the theory of evolution

I'll begin by responding. Note that he repeatedly states that I haven't convinced him, I contend it is impossible to. My job is to make the case that it is reasonable to accept evolution. And, as stated earlier, a theory which has strong evidence, has been investigated, can make predictions, has expert acceptance, and exists beside no stronger theory, should be accepted. "Having evidence for something is different from convincing someone of something. Many people are convinced of things without evidence, yet people are also not convinced of things even with evidence because; for one, they might not like what they are hearing and two, they might lack an understanding." Con's statement is irrelevant. People may believe something without evidence, or refuse to believe something with evidence, and they may happen to be right, but: (a) this is argument ad populum. Simply because people do it does not matter to our debate. (b) Believing without evidence and disbelieving despite evidence are, generally, not reasonable or rational things to do. "When we apply this rule if it were to this so called 'evidence for evolution'." What rule? That when evidence exists it should be ignored, and when it doesn't exist we should believe anyway? That people do it does not make it a rule, and as it is not a reasonable course of action it should not determine whether accepting evolution is reasonable. "Firstly Yvette has given no evidence for evolution so far, all she has done is said where the evidence (if any) may lie." Con misrepresents my sources. The information was not that "the evidence is in the fossil record" or "in homologies". Fossil records, homologies, etc, ARE the evidence. You cannot look at the fossil record without seeing descent. You cannot look at anatomy without seeing vestigial structures from the creatures in the fossil record. Since the fossil record has been studied scientists have interpreted the fossils as supporting evolution. Perhaps Con can tell us how to determine diet/age/gender/movement type by just looking at a skull, what the significance of a forehead is, what the angle and placement of the foramen magnum and the scapula mean, or maybe even recognize an atlas. I have viewed fossil replicas for human origins myself and studied them in detail. They aren't made up. I'm guessing Con doesn't want to take any classes on evolution, so I urge him to visit a museum, university, or the Smithsonian HumanOrigins site to view the fossils. I also encourage him to open up a few whales and compare them to the fossils. He could, of course, trust that the vast amount of people making peer-reviewed reports on the evidence and it's subsequent interpretation weren't, in fact, *all* making it up. But, Con wants specifics. We have observed speciation, ie evolution, occurring. [1][2] Not once, but many times. We've seen bacteria and viruses evolve so much that the fact that they're evolving isn't news, what they're evolving *into* is. Note that my source is old, there have undoubtably been years of observed speciation between now and then. Documented "ring" species exist, where the transitional forms between two species are still alive and can interbreed with each other, but the two end species cannot breed with each other. [3] We have observed beneficial mutations occur. [4] As DNA studies begin to come to fruition we are uncovering not just evidence of evolution but of how it worked, straight from the genes. [5]Finally, what Darwin is famous for is NOT for discovering evolution--evolution was already thought to occur but nobody knew what the mechanism was. Darwin simply provided the evidence that natural selection was the main mechanism. "Fossils are facts, and they are down for interpretation like all facts are. We observe fossils and evolutionists pose their pre-interpretation mind (which has been already decided that the earth is 4.5 billion years old) on top of the fossils, when really they are looking through a veil which has 'Evolution' written across it. The fossils are not evident for evolution." Con fails to back up his statement that all scientists are biased, indeed, every scientist for a century would have to be biased for his statement to have any merit. Evolutionists did not decide the age of the earth. Geological scientists have calculated it based on dating of rocks and the age of the solar system. [6] Re: Anatomy. I reference Con to the large paragraph above, the one with lots of source marks. "Time and space distribution - (quoting from http://evolution.berkeley.edu......) "We must keep in mind that the time involved is vast compared to a human lifetime..." If we are told what to do, how to think in a certain way, then we are being tuned a certain way. Evidence is universal, so if we must understand to think in a certain way to understand the evidence, it is not evidence at all. But instead psychological manipulation." Con doesn't seem to have made any argument against time and space distribution in the fossil record, instead making an incredible claim, that evolutionary scientists rely on psychological manipulation. I urge him to back this up. Or does he dispute that 4.5 million years, or even 1, 000 years, is vast compared to a human lifetime? Can he explain how noting that the timelines involved are vast tricks people and makes the time and space distribution evidence untrue either way? "Computer simulations - now if I thinking what you are thinking, this is just laughable. Art does not count for evidence, and the better the simulation or art work the more convincing evolution is..." I fail to see how computer simulations are simply, or even at all, "art". Perhaps Con does not know what a simulation is. A programmer creates a situation "simulating" the real world, and, using conservative figures, shows how something would have happened. They are widely used for their accuracy. "Observation is empirical, and like before, facts derived from observation which gives room for interpretation, it is simply this, if you remove the veil of an evolutionist, you will put on the veil of someone who believes in the Bible." I continue to encourage Con to provide evidence that all biologists are too biased to see reality. Con's ‘better theory' is: "Creationism. Derived from the Word of God. Everything is absolute and nothing is self refuting which secular beliefs are." I encourage Con to prove creationism is a better theory. It must account for the evidence in favor of evolution, explain what evolution explains, make predictions, gain expert acceptance, and have more supporting evidence (genetic studies, fossils, anatomy, etc) than evolution. Good luck! "Here is a link..." I fail to see what point Con is making by attacking some 16-year-old's blog. How about he focus on the scientific organizations? "And if lying helps you, then why not lie?" This is easily explained in The Moral Animal. Reputation is important within a community, according to the evolutionary morality model modified from TIT FOR TAT [7], because individuals engage in mutually beneficial cooperation with those they think will cooperate and not "cheat" them. We keep track of "cooperators" using reputation. So we have evolved to care deeply for reputation, honesty, fairness, etc, but only when it suits us. Studies have shown that guilt disappears when reputation is not a factor. Next, Con attempts a series of accusations against evolutionists and moralistic arguments. I will not waste space on these irrelevant and false accusations, the readers can see for themselves how irrelevant his last paragraphs are. Con has provided no evidence that evolution is unreasonable. He has provided no evidence for many of his claims, indeed, he attempted to argue that evidence is irrelevant in order to discredit the evidence I have offered. He left several points essentially unchallenged. Resolution affirmed. SOURCES: See Comments.