I don't need to see science in person to believe it. I believe in the scientific method, rationality and the peer review system, and I believe that most scientists are pursuing all three it with integrity. It's kind of like my religion, I guess, except awesome because it sends people into space.

You lost me there at the end, Charles.

realizing right away that animals not just adapt to their environments

Sorry, Charlie, but that is not evolution...that is intelligent design.

Organisms have random mutation, some of which have selective advantages.

Otherwise, we might see green elephants adapted to camouflage themselves against similarly hued warehouse walls.

This is the example that I use when explaining evolution to my children. My family is of Northern European descent--red hair, blue eyes, very pale complexions. At the latitudes where our genealogy traces back to, the coloration was necessary to maximize absorption of what little UV exposure was available. This is a good starting point for the discussion. However, it was less productive with my sister, who is adamant that she was made in God's image. Who knew, god Is apparently a 5'5" white woman with curly hair.

@1, Eh, myths about the nature of scientific progress, practice, and method (the heroic view of science) are just as harmful as the religious science-deniers. And, as Steve Shapin notes, "The further away you are from the quotidian life of scientific practice, the more you tend to be infatuated with myths of method."

@3, you can accuse that wording of lamarkianism but not intelligent design. agreed, wording should be more precise but i did say "selects for" and "random" in my post.

It's random to the extent of the genetic material it has to operate on.

For me it was the mammals. The remnants of legs hidden inside flippers, the face and hands of an ape, an entire continent of marsupials of astounding adaptations all showed me clearly that science had the answer.

@9, Grow up.

There's also strong genetic evidence that Europeans, Asians, and New Guineans interbred with Neanderthals.

@9: Thank you for pasting in that abstract. What conclusions would you draw from it?

@3,@8 - You guys should read about epigenetics. The chemical flushes that creatures experience in their lives turns on various genetic expressions. If those expressions are turned on or off enough times the changes become encoded in the DNA. There's less "random mutation with selective advantage" than we've been taught to believe. Lamarck was somewhat correct, he just could no explain the mechanism.

@13,14: Wow! People of different ethnic backgrounds tend to be more at risk for different disorders! Who'd ha' thunk it? Next thing you'll be telling me that people of Mongoloid ethnic background tend to have lower alcohol tolerances than people of Caucasian background!
@16: Oh wow, a lawyer with no background in genetics or neurology is trying to get his client off. Stop the presses!
@17: Intelligence is to some degree heritable, like many other traits? No way!

What exactly do these three papers and one batshit rambling indicate? What are you trying to say, Lassie?

@19: I am far more educated in genetics than you could possibly imagine. I am well aware that each ethnic group has its own set of genetic disorders to which its members are disproportionately predisposed. I understand the concept of heterozygote advantage, which explains why seemingly deleterious mutations may never go to extinction, nor to fixation.
You are telling me things that I already know. What are you trying to say or prove?

Uh, it's pretty well established that skin color corresponds to Vitamin D production -- human skin can photosynthesize D3 from UV-B light, but melanin blocks that.

If you think evolution is totally random, you have bought the creationists' 747-assembled-by-a-tornado story. There are two equally important parts to evolution: (1) you have a population that is continuously acquiring random, heritable variations (mutations); (2) some of those variations directly affect survival or reproduction (natural selection). The first force is random, but the second is anything but.

Don't get me wrong; step (1) is important, but (2) is just as critical, or the result isn't evolution. For instance, bacteria reproduce rapidly and have rather lax DNA repair mechanisms, so they have lots of naturally existing variation. Some of those bacteria already have random mutations that make them resistant to antibiotics, while others already have random mutations that make them vulnerable to antibiotics -- both without ever having actually encountered an antibiotic. But when you apply selection -- bacteria, meet antibiotic -- the only bacteria who survive are the ones who already had pre-existing resistance. Those bacteria go on to spawn the next generation of bacteria, and the population as a whole has "evolved" to a state of antibiotic-resistance.

If there is variation but no selective pressure, there is no evolution, only drift. Variation by itself can produce differences in melanin expression, but only the non-random force of selection can force melanin expression to correlate with latitude. If there were mutation with no selection, you would expect all skin colors to be haphazardly distributed around the world.

@ 15 Thanks, interesting.