why do evolutionists use consensus to add weight to their conclusions?

They don't. Evolution is supported by tons of demonstratable evidence. Scientist draw on other scientists data and research. It has nothing to do with popularity. If ONE scientist find valid evidence that disproves evolution, it would change the minds of all biologists. Plus he or she would win the Nobel prize. But as of right now all avaliable evidence proves evolution is a fact.

I cannot answer your question because I do not know if you do not understand science and do not know how scientists reach a consensus. Perhaps you do know and just wanted to start a disagreement. Perhaps you do not know and think it is the same as the way people in a group may simply arrive at what appears to be agreement through peer pressure.

Two questions. Number 1, no, they don't use the popular vote. Number 2, no I rely on hypothesis, which leads to theory, and then eventually to fact. We can prove evolution with fast breeding and short life span insects like fruit flies.

Consensus can sometimes be helpful, but there must also strong evidence in support of a theory at the same time. Popularity is useless if there is opposing evidence. Take for example, the debate over how dinosaurs became extinct. In the 1980s most geologists claim that they were wiped out by volcanism. After the Alvarez father and son team showed lots of evidence that a giant meteor struck the earth, the volcanism theory is no longer popular. In fact, we now have evidence that the meteor strike may have triggered the volcanic eruptions, which lasted long after the dinosaurs were gone.

In trying to conflate evidence-based, scientific consensus with a mandated, dogmatic, adherence to "authority," or a trivial "popularity contest," you show either profound ignorance about the discipline of science, or you are being deliberately disingenuous.

In ANY scientific discipline, consensus is important because it demonstrates that multiple investigators, often using widely differing approaches, and in different experimental or observational contexts, have obtained findings which converge on a similar conclusion. That strengthens the conclusion, increasing confidance in it being robust and general, one that is not simply an artifact of a particular approach. Once an idea has reached that point, then it becomes the PROVISIONAL "consensus" explanation--because until or unless a completely novel way of examining the question is devised, or some breakthrough in technology allows re-examination in ways not previously possible, then nobody is going to waste their time rehashing stuff that's already well understood. Scientific understanding advances by building upon what's already known, not by trying to re-invent the wheel. But make no mistake--scientific consensus does not come easily--but only when an idea is so well supported that no other alternative explanation is reasonable.

If there is one single piece of evidence for evolution that is the strongest, it is that the results of numerous independent lines of investigation, from paleontology, anthropology, archaeology, geology, chemistry, physics, biology, biochemistry, molecular biology, genetics, population biology, physiology, comparative zoology, ALL converge on a single, robust explanation for the diversity of life on this planet: descent with modification, of all extant organisms from a universal common ancestor. There is no other explanation that has as much explanatory & predictive power. There simply isn't.

Until someone comes up with a better explanation, i.e. one that fits ALL the available evidence even better than the current one, that current one is going to remain as the general scientific consensus. And that's the fundamental difference between evidence-based science and dogmatic religion: when scientific efforts come up with a better way of understanding the world, then scientific consensus changes--due to the limitations of human frailties, it may take a while, but over time, in the end, knowledge/understanding progresses, and outmoded or incorrect interpretations are left behind, replaced by better ones.

And that is precisely WHY we no longer believe "that the only way to cure an STD [is] to procreate with a virgin." That quaint notion was left on the trash heap of history--through the work of scientists--NOT theologians. In contrast, religious dogma is just that--asserted dogma, unassailable to any change, regardless of what new evidence comes to light. in fact, religion tends to completely ignore evidence in favor of it's asserted "truths."

There is no one LESS modest about what he "knows" than a creationist with his all-so-confidant claims of literal truth to Bible stories.

Evolutionists do not use consensus, they use science. They will examine the evidence, come up with the best explanation, and then test that explanation. If they need to correct the assumptions, or the evidence points to something else, they embrace the new data.

Non evolutionists think like this: God did it. And when challenged with new ideas, they either dismiss those new ideas or say that the new ideas are not compatible with what a bunch of sheep herders believed 3,000 years ago, so I am going to go with that and say God did it.

So you ask a science question in R&S so the others antiscience religious people can add weight to your conclusions...how honest, yahoo answer got a biology section if you are really honesty interesed about science or biology, you know what is honesty Remus or you are confused.

Evidence not consensus alone add weight for evolution. Evidence comes from many different areas of biology: Anatomy. Species may share similar physical features because the feature was present in a common ancestor. Molecular biology. DNA comparisons can show how related species are. Biogeography. The unique features of species reflect the evolution and geological change. Fossils. Fossils document the existence of now-extinct past species that are related to present-day species. Direct observation. We can directly observe small-scale evolution in organisms with short lifecycles (e.g., pesticide-resistant insects).