I have been considering a response to the post from Russ here called "The evolution of man scientifically disproved in 50 arguments." It's also been regurgi-posted by Claythrow. A conscientious response would take quite a while to write up and I'm wondering who would read something so ponderous.

To be fair, the document is almost 80 years old and it shows, and the author's own ignorance of science also shows. There have been many discoveries and new theories in many different branches of science and knowledge since then, laying bare a large number of glaring factual inaccuracies in the document. A few of its ideas have already been refuted in other posts and threads here. If no one really wants to engage in a good discussion I might go back to it, but what I'd really like is to talk about something more contemporary -- if it's possible for the creationists to give it. I've seen several assertions here that have been known to be false for so long that even some creationist organisations advise against attempting to use them in any debate.

Here is something more succinct to start with perhaps -- a set of assertions posted by Russ that purport to explain how evolution is a deception. He wrote:

"Virtually ALL genetic mutations are harmful and destructive, not beneficial. This alone should give thinking persons an idea about how incredibly unlikely—virtually impossible—evolution really is.

The theory of evolution contradicts the established second law of thermodynamics.

If evolution is true, we would have found a myriad of transitional forms by now.

Common sense completely refutes that evolution could occur, even in the most fundamental stages.”

OK first, about mutations. Most mutations occur at a molecular level. Most of the time they have no perceptible effect at all, or are fatal (thus the animal would not survive to reproduce). Occasionally a beneficial one occurs. Sometimes this benefit can sweep through a population quite quickly. If you take a large population of organisms over a period of time, then it's not so surprising that beneficial mutations can eventually occur. Indeed this has been seen to be the case with, as an example, bacteria that become resistant to antibiotics. This process has been observed from start to finish in lab cultures. Many creationists seem to accept microevolutionary events like this; without a limiting factor, what is to stop microevolution from becoming macroevolution over time?

Back to mutations -- almost all mutations which aren’t “silent” and which aren’t eliminated immediately are neither completely advantageous nor deleterious. The mutation produces a slightly different protein, and the cell and the living organism work slightly differently. Whether the mutation is helpful or harmful depends on the environment. It could be either.

Russ said,
"The theory of evolution contradicts the established second law of thermodynamics."

Difficult to know how to answer this without knowing where it's coming from -- this is one that's gone many rounds, many years, in creationist circles. There appears to be a misconception here about thermodynamics. I take it that this statement applies to the law when it is stated thus: "The entropy of a closed system cannot decrease." Entropy is an indication of unusable energy and often, but not always, corresponds to intuitive notions of disorder or randomness. Creationists appear to misinterpret the 2nd law to say that things invariably progress from order to disorder.

However, they neglect the fact that life is not a closed system. The sun provides more than enough energy to drive things. If a mature tomato plant can have more usable energy than the seed it grew from, why should anyone expect that the next generation of tomatoes can't have more usable energy still? Maybe a creationist could try to get around this by claiming that the information carried by living things lets them create order. However, not only is life irrelevant to the 2nd law, but order from disorder is common in nonliving systems, too. Snowflakes, sand dunes, tornadoes, stalactites, graded river beds, and lightning are just a few examples of order coming from disorder in nature; none require an intelligent program to achieve that order. In any nontrivial system with lots of energy flowing through it, you are almost certain to find order arising somewhere in the system. If order from disorder is supposed to violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics, why is it ubiquitous in nature?

Russ said:
"If evolution is true, we would have found a myriad of transitional forms by now."

And indeed we have. It's just that the Creationist Overlords have drummed it into their flock that we haven't. The evidence is all out there guys. I was recently discussing the transitional forms of whales here. Are there other transitional forms anyone would like to discuss? The fossil record is not complete, fossils are only produced under certain conditions and then they have to survive intact long enough to be found by lucky chance -- but given those difficult circumstances, the fossil record is rich and diverse, and is becoming more so all the time.

Russ said:
"Common sense completely refutes that evolution could occur, even in the most fundamental stages."

Would you like to give some evidence to support this? Because when evolution is clearly understood, is makes beautiful sense. It's just that some people want to listen to what the Creationist Masters say and won't listen to what science says; couple this with their determination to believe every word in the Bible to be literal truth, and it's perhaps understandable that their "common sense" radars need tuning.

If you are interested in reading, Russ, or anyone else, the following post is a fascinating article that discusses some metaphors that have been used to illustrate some of the ideas I’ve seen here: that certain things could not have evolved because they are “irreducibly complex,” that evolution itself is highly improbable, etc. I love metaphorical language and I loved this. Maybe this will help dispel a little more of the incredulity here? (I doubt it but why not be positive about these things LOL.)