Seth's Blog: Gravity is just a theory

The "macroevolution is unproven" dodge is a very popular song and dance right now, especially as Texas is gearing up for its Big Outdoor Criticism-Of-Evolution Fight. But the reality is there is overwhelming evidence supporting micro and macro evolution. It is difficult to reproduce the precise biological conditions in a lab, but science is full of facts that cannot be reproduced easily in a lab (e.g., stellar chemistry is all about experimental compromises. We don't have the resources to keep a vacuum for 100m years).

I appreciate that you may have certain beliefs (be the religious or simply skeptical) that make it difficult for you to accept evolution, and you have nothing but my sympathy as you tackle this difficult issue. But evolution's problem is not a lack of evidence. If you believe that macro-evolution lacks evidence, this is because you have not familiarized yourself with the evidence.

Except it's not a dodge at all. E-coli is still E-coli, whether it powers itself on glucose or citrate. Regarding Lenski's E-coli experiment, an earlier study on E-coli showed uncultured strains of E-coli can metabolize citrate in low-oxygen conditions: http://jb.asm.org/cgi/content/abstract/180/16/4160

So that whole generation 31.5k citrate "evolution" in E-coli wasn't something new, it was a forced adaptation to E-coli by lab conditions. Great job, we yet again proved that a species is capable of adapting to extreme environments within the limits of its genetic makeup -- chalk another one up to micro-evolution and species adaptation.

Diane Dodd's fruit flies are still fruit flies, regardless of whether they prefer mates who eat maltose or starch. A fruit fly's preference for a type of mate does not create reproductive isolation (the two types can still reproduce), nor does it even come close to producing an entirely new species. This experiment is barely different than saying humans of a similar race prefer to mate with each other.

So again, from an ID perspective there are many holes in macro-evolution because it is entirely, 100% based on the faith in scientists that micro-evolutionary changes will add up. There is not a single macro-evolutionary study (and there never will be, because there isn't enough time) that conclusively proves the change from one type to another. All we have is that we can push a given type to it's pre-defined genetic limits by forced adaptation in lab conditions (Micro).

So yes, there is an overwhelming volume of evidence for micro-evolution (which I agree with - species adaptation in an environment and all), but here's the way I see it:

Scientists can observe and verify many independent and separate processes (examples: MicroEvolution works and Fossils exist). Each one of these independent, observable items are like small Lego Bricks, all solid pieces that you can build with -- of course, some fit together more properly than others.

Except the only problem is that scientists don't have the instructions, nor can they see the picture on the box, nor do they even have a clue how things really get built in the Lego Universe. So what we effectively have is a bunch of scientists that say "Well, these pieces fit together pretty nicely and we created something that looks pretty decent (to us), but we have absolutely no clue if we even built the right thing. Just have faith that the way we linked these pieces together is how it really looks on the box"

Except that one of the defining factors of E. coli is that it cannot process citrate. But hey, I wouldn't want to ruin a perfectly good dodge.

And you've also neatly stepped aside the massive genetic evidence of evolution. The fact that we have specific genetic patterns that are clearly shared with proposed precursor species is pretty hard to ignore, which is why nearly all anti-evolutionists never address that evidence head on, instead attacking "macro-evolution" or older arguments like gap-arguments.

Except the only problem is that scientists don't have the instructions, nor can you see the picture on the box. So what we effectively have is a bunch of scientists that say "Well, these pieces fit together pretty nicely and we created something that looks pretty decent (to us), but we have absolutely no clue if we even built the right thing. Just have faith that the way we linked these pieces together is how it really looks on the box"

Which can be said of all science. Why do you hold special exception for Biology? Physics has core theories that are not entire validated or not understood, and yet you have no problem using a computer that works using principles said principles.

Simply put, you're applying inconsistent criterion to these to preserve a non-scientific ideology. You don't have a problem interacting with gravity, electricity, or nutrition (a far less understood science). But the fundamental unifying theory of biology? Well that steps on your minority fundamentalist religious convictions! Time to draw a line in the sand.

And the most irritating part about this is you mention ID. The most ironic part of ID is that it's not inconsistent with evolution. Evolution is just the mechanism. It's well within human capacity to design evolving systems, so why couldn't an omniscient God do the same? And indeed, wouldn't this vastly simplify the process?

In any event, religious folks always try to mix mechanism with meaning. The mechanism is something we can quantify and describe. The meaning is something you are free to imagine in any way you want. Religion has always been first about meaning and only later goes into mechanism when it begins to amass secular power.

What do you mean by this? can you please elaborate.

Einstein has already explained gravity as curvature of space caused by the presence of mass. And this is a well tested theory.