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.

You must have missed that study I posted where it showed that E-coli already has the capability to process citrate within it's genetic code, it's just typically not utilized. Forcing something to adapt to an extreme environment within its genetic confines is not macro-evolution, thats micro-evolutionary adaptation. Let me repeat it: E-coli that processes glucose already has the ability to process citrate within its DNA. All these experiments have shown is that when you force a species to adapt it will adapt as far as it's genetic boundaries enable it.

Which can be said of all science. Why do you hold special exception for Biology?

I don't. I am particularly skeptical of Macro-Evolution because (1) it is entirely and completely unobservable and (2) is the human product of many independent processes that have all been linked together. This Macro-Evolutionary "process" is a creation of man, not inherent nor observable in the universe like gravity, electricity, and the effects of nutrition. Unlike physics, which is often provable through observation and mathematics, MacroE is man's attempt to build the unobservable from what can be observed, and I have every right to be skeptical when we move beyond the bounds of explaining the observable to explaining the unobservable.

I don't. I am particularly skeptical of Macro-Evolution because (1) it is entirely and completely unobservable

Save for all that fossil evidence, genetic evidence, corroborating evidence in short-lived creatures. Completely unobservable.

We have a mechanism that we know works on real, living creatures. We have evidence that such process has taken place all over the earth on a large scale. What we don't have is the exact process happening under glass so that all you can do is avert your gaze.

And even if we had that the ID/biblical literalist movement would just move the goalposts again. They always do.

(2) is the human product of many independent processes that have all been linked together.

No different from physics. We have no unified theory, and many observations remain unexplained.

The Macro-Evolutionary "process" is a creation of man, not something observable and inherent to the universe like gravity, electricity, or the effects of good nutrition.

All "scientific fact" is the creation of man. There is nothing privledged about our physical models. Indeed, it's certain that our current models of electricity, gravity, and nutrition are incomplete and probably deeply flawed models. Science is not about proving absolute truth, it's about removing bias from observation and building models to fit those observations.

Your metric of belief is strongly biased here, and only in the case of biology. From what you've said, it's because your religious beliefs. You're free to hold them, but I'm also free to point out that the scientific consensus is that your religious fundamentalism is completely unsupportable when it comes to how current species came into existence.

Sorry, but it's false. And I'm not afraid to say that, and a growing number of people are standing up to the religious status-quo that has gradually been holding America back from scientific progress.

Yet again, what you're saying here is "Trust me that I put all the independent pieces together properly and that's what is shown on the box."

All "scientific fact" is the creation of man. There is nothing privledged about our physical models. Indeed, it's certain that our current models of electricity, gravity, and nutrition are incomplete and probably deeply flawed models.

Of course it is! Except when we observe physical processes, we're not starting with the question "Does this even exist?" but "Ok, we KNOW this exists, but how does this work?". The difference between the two is very distinct, and both are subject to man's interpretation.

Read this carefully: ----

Physics takes existing observable processes and deconstructs them so we can understand them better. Macro-Evolution is the attempt to take processes and make them add up (or construct) into a larger process that we don't even know exists - you would agree that we've never observed Macro-Evolution since there's not enough time. To further my physics example, they just spent several billion on the Large Hadron Collider in an attempt to further deconstruct the nature of our world (notably, finding a Higgs boson).

----.

"Like all of the rest of science, where this process is good enough!"

Why isn't it good enough here?

Of course it is! Except when we observe physical processes, we're not starting with the question "Does this even exist?" but "Ok, we KNOW this exists, but how the heck does this work?". The difference between the two is very distinct.

There is no difference between observations of these kinds. Our senses are so incredibly flawed and unreliable, as are our minds, that there is basically no difference when it comes to science.

The attempt to prove Macro-Evolution is the attempt to prove that it even exists (or Does man's linkage of these independent processes indeed = MacroEvolution?).

It's funny that you say this. 8-10 years ago, the micro-vs-macro-evolution argument was called "irreducible complexity", and the scale was much smaller than what you're holding to now. "How could complex things like flagellum" evolve? Well science has gone and shown that not only is it possible, it's not hard at all.

So, your camp was forced to _move the goalposts_ and say, "Well that level of complexity is okay, but now this level of complexity up here is totally unproven!" And when we show you macro-evolution you'll just move the goalposts again. Because it keeps happening over and over.

When we attempt to understand physics and other inherent universal processes, we already know they exist...

Except that even a casual understanding of science in history would tell you this statement is grossly false. Heliocentricity comes to mind.

And while we're busy debating all this proof and you're picking tiny holes in a remarkably well-researched theory that has risen to prominence as the "unifying theory of biology", where does ID start offering complex studies? Your life-origin of choice has basically nothing behind it save, "My bible tells me so, it's certainly possible, and I don't really believe your evidence to the contrary." You cannot base a theory on negative statements and the Bible.

Your position is intellectually bankrupt, your arguments presented thus far are literally over 5 years old and well-debunked, the scientific community rejects your hypothesis, and your pathological avoidance of the fundamental inconsistencies you're proposing in being an anti-evolutionist are plain as day to anyone without a religious axe to grind.

1. An empirically observable process that, by its very nature, is known to exist.

2. An unobservable process, where the very condition of existence is unknown.

There's a huge difference in the science of deconstructing what is known to exist (the empirical) versus trying to construct the unknown. One is based in solid fact and the extremely powerful truth of existence, the other is just a pitiful shot in the dark and based on faith that (1) man has the intelligence and capability to put things together properly (2) it even exists.

You're right.

Your position is intellectually bankrupt, your arguments presented thus far are literally over 5 years old and well-debunked, the scientific community rejects your hypothesis, and your pathological avoidance of the fundamental inconsistencies you're proposing in being an anti-evolutionist are plain as day to anyone without a religious axe to grind.

If you're going to be summarily and swiftly dismissive under the premises that I'm just another "anti-evolutionist" religious type, then proceed to insult me and try to question the validity of my argument by saying I'm someone with an "axe to grind", then you will at least acknowledge that the very science we are debating certainly deserves its massive dose of skepticism from even science itself, not just religious individuals.

The answers to your "questions" can all be found here, which 30 seconds of googling would have found for you:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

You're welcome.

Of course the evidence will always point to the end result, because you're the one who made up the damn end result in the first place! Evidence can always be twisted and shaped to fit your view when you're the one who gets to define what the picture looks like.

This isn't about whether the evidence points to the picture, it's about whether or not we even have the right picture in mind. It's pretty clear that since the end result (Macro-Evolution) cannot be empirically observed in action, it is a contrivance of man of which it's existence is still unknown.

Neither can God.

I do feel bad for you, kirse. 10 years ago I went through the same dilemma, debate and denial. If you want to be rational, you have to learn the evidence. If you learn the evidence and you apply rational, even-handed criterion to the subject, the conclusion that evolution exists and at least partly explains our modern world is undeniably apparent.

You literally have no rational leg to stand on. Your argument that the conclusion was made up and the data forced to fit it is so obviously false that it's almost laughable (few theories are as rigorously opposed as evolution has been, if there were any significant holes the scientific community would tear it apart).

This isn't about whether the evidence points to the end result, it's about whether or not we even have the right end result in mind.

This is exactly 180 degrees from reality. If the evidence points to a specific conclusion and that evidence can be replicated by diverse, neutral, competent observers the conclusion is true regardless of if we like it or not. Science isn't about picking a result then gathering data to support it, although if you hang out with the ID crowd I can see why you might get that impression.

If you want an example we can look again to heliocentricity. It was not a popular viewpoint, but the data forced people to accept that position, despite the fact that it went against all the contemporary common sense and religious belief (and despite the fact that it's difficult to observe contrary evidence without a lot of bookkeeping and some optics).

P.S. I didn't answer your question earlier because I've already answered a very similar question in debates dozens of times. Your crowd really needs a revised playbook, because you can basically google ever question as presented and get a powerful rebuttal to your every potential argument.

Neither can God.

Don't feel bad for me, because I am just as happy putting my faith in the existence of God (an entity that cannot be empirically observed), as you are putting your faith in the existence of Macro-Evolution (another process that cannot be empirically observed).

As soon as Macro-Evolution is empirically observed, then I will accept it as fact.

But for now, it's apparent we agree that it's simply a matter of where we're assigning our faith, I'm more content believing that the correct picture/end result is that these complex systems had a designer.

History is full of examples where a model emerged from lots of separate data and turned out to be correct. Another great example is Atoms. For a long time, people thought that an atomic model of matter wasn't science because you couldn't directly observe such tiny things. Turns out that was wrong. Then along comes quantum mechanics, and now we're on even more bizarre and even thinner ice trying to map out effects which observation actually destroys.

And yet we're making progress, just like we have in Biology. The ONLY difference that is relevant to our discussion between quantum mechanics and evolutionary theory is that your holy text has something to say about one and not the other.

You're deliberately throwing out the evidence because you don't like the conclusion. You're making a special exception for Evolution that no other scientific theory has to make it through just because your religion tells you to.

As soon as Macro-Evolution is empirically observed, then I will accept it as fact.

No you won't. When I was younger I had heated debates that ended with, "As soon as we can see evidence of flagellum evoling I will accept [evolution] as fact." They didn't, and you won't. You will move the goalpost, draw new false dichotomies, and struggle to preserve your world-view.

But for now, it's apparent we agree that it's simply a matter of where we're assigning our faith

Quite the opposite. You have decided to have faith, and I reject that notion. Evolution is a useful model for biology, nothing more. If we can provide a better model with excellent evidence involving invisible winged greyhounds, I think that'd be way more entertaining.

You've admitted your position is based in faith, and that's why all the logic, evidence, and reason that I can muster cannot unseat your position. Logic, evidence and reason can only act on rational people, and your faith is–at its core–inherently irrational.

History is also full of even more examples of models that have turned out to be incorrect. Historical examples of validity have no bearing on the independent validity of Macro-Evolution. And you're trying to lecture me on basic logic and rationality?

-- You're deliberately throwing out the evidence because you don't like the conclusion.

Right, and you do the exact same thing when you take evidence that indicates complex functioning systems have a designer and simply throw it out the window in favor of your own model. This argument goes nowhere on both sides.

-- You will move the goalpost

No, I won't move the goalpost, because the goalpost is clearly defined as the empirical observability of Macro-Evolution, in the same way that heliocentricity was proven by its empirical observability. There is nothing farther you can go than empirically observing a fully new type of life come from one another. Again, stop trying to extrapolate your historical experiences with others into an independent case. I will be firmly convinced once I see a creature (a fish?) evolve into a cat or some other creature.

-- You have decided to have faith, and I reject that notion.

Tell me then, how do you bridge the gap of believing that something exists when in fact it cannot be empirically observed? However you may label it, the belief in anything that cannot be empirically observed is never fully grounded in rationality, but an intuitive feeling that it is the truth.

I personally don't wish to add any power to the whole ID "debate". But the point you raise is one that I have often thought about myself. It's only that certain groups need to hold to the bible as the "inerrant word of God" (the earth is ~5000 years old, dinosaurs did not exist and obviously fossils were planted by God to test our faith, Adam was created first and then Eve from his rib bone etc.) that makes them fail to realise exactly this: Evolution could fit into their world view (slightly adjusted) as the mechanism put in place by their "intelligent designer".

What you have to understand is that ID isn't really what most of the vigorous ID proponents are really arguing for. What they're really arguing for is a literal interpretation of the english transliteration of the Bible, including a <10k yr old earth, genetic stasis, and biblical creation.

That's why it's not enough to get the "whys" for an unverifiable non-scientific explanation like ID. The "Whats" are also equally important to these people. Evolution cannot be accepted because Evolution requires time on a scale that rejects a biblically literal timescale.

The time scale issue is one that I have sometimes thought of in the same context though. To a person who does not see how any version of the Bible could be the inerrant word of God, it seems eminently possible that the units of time that have been translated as years could well actually be units of time that are much longer than years.

But as we both say, this would of course mean that one would have to be open to the possibility that a text originally based on oral history, which has been translated into and out of who knows how many languages, subject to all manner of surreptitious political motivations in the process, over the course of thousands of years, may be subject to some inaccuracies.