Alex Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Hello DaveL,
>
> I think of these logical arguments and facts about
> Evolution as matters of personal belief because
> they seem to be constantly changing.
> What's true one day is false the next.
> Today it's this theory, tomorrow it will be
> something different.

This is just not true. The modern synthesis is as firmly established as any scientific theory we have. (Remember that in science "theory" does not have the common meaning of hypothesis or guess. It means a set of interrelated facts that have survived extensive attempts to disprove them, i,e the theory of gravity, the theory of plate tectonics, etc.). The vast majority of scientists agree that evolution has taken place by natural selection, i.e. that environmental changes make some organisms better able to reproduce and that over time these traits and adaptations have produced new species. That all living things have a common descent and that the mechanism for this is transmission through the genes via the information coded in the DNA. The code for the DNA is the same for all living things.
The discussions you see in the literature and that Simon keeps posting from New Scientist concern the fine points and extensions and revisions of the basic common understanding. "Scientific creationists" keep trying to argue that there are severe disagreements between evolutionists- but that is not true. Gould and Dawkins disagreed on the importance of "punctuated equilibrium" but both agree on the basics I outlined above. Gould has written on the topic of attempts to try to create a breech where there is none (I can get you a quote if necessary).

> Dawkins (for example) says one thing, another
> expert in the same field says he's wrong. Whom is
> one to believe?

See above. I keep talking about "textbook science" areas of science where everyone agrees and things are pretty settled--- like the basics I pointed out. and "frontier science" where ther is active research going on and different competing scientific ideas with no clear compelling winner. Here the layperson needs to take a pill and relax. Eventually "textbook science" will come out of the dispute, but it can be fun to try to understand what the different claims are. For example, thereare a lot of cosmological ideas that are still "frontier science"-- dark matter, string theory, the many worlds interpretation, dark matter, exactly what black holes are, what came before the "big Bang-- this is more philosophy than science IMHO.
Many of these areas can only be understood if you follow some vey heavy math and the layperson cannot fully understand them. This creates some problems when the scientists use metaphors and analogies to try to make these ideas comprehensible, because the metaphors can be misleading.

>
> Of course, I'm generalising and it is an
> unscientific thing to do but, then, I'm not a
> scientist - I'm just an ordinary layman trying to
> make sense of a subject that nobody, IMHuO, fully
> understands.
> The science of Evolution is itself evolving, and
> it is very hard for novices like me to keep up
> with the constant changes.*

Again, what you need to know and understand is the "textbook science" component of evolution which the overwhelming majority of scientists agree on and don't get concerned with 1) news reports which try to hype a particular claim as a "big deal" and 2) claims by "creations scientists" who want to muddy the water in order to further their antiscientific agenda.
Bernard


>
> Regards,
>
> Alex
>
> *I'm referring to the mechanics and processes of
> Evolution