Surprisingly little, if we leave out banging lecterns and ending people’s careers. That’s becoming clearer:
A recent paper in Science allows us to hold the magnifying glass up to claims of observable evidence supporting macroevolution. Gustavo Burin et al., in “Macroevolutionary stability predicts interaction patterns of species in seed dispersal networks,” published in the journal Science, use the word macroevolution 32 times. Burin and two colleagues from Brazil studied 468 bird species in 29 seed dispersal networks. From the data, they claimed to see evidence for macroevolution — evidence so secure, it allows them to make predictions about evolution. This should be a good case study. Do they really know about evolution, or is their exercise a detailed construction of a house of cards?
Two reviewers, Carolina Bello from Switzerland and Elisa Barreto from Brazil, gave their perspective about the paper, also in Science. As evolutionists, they were pleased to see the effort by Burin’s team showing “The footprint of evolution in seed dispersal interactions.” …
After reading the Burin paper, therefore, Bello and Barreto are not entirely sure the authors know what they claim to know.
One thing Darwinism has going for it: it sure generates a lot of busy work. But so does constructing a house of cards; whether effort corresponds to knowledge is a separate question. With their 32 mentions of macroevolution, can Burin’s team demonstrate knowledge about it? Even in the case of watching birds eat fruit, is the evidence clear? The authors are offered a fair chance to convince a skeptic as we dive into the text and supplemental materials.Evolution News and Science Today, “What Do Biologists Really Know About Macroevolution?” at Evolution News and Science Today (June 23, 2021)
And “Colin Patterson’s question echoes through the decades: “Can you tell me anything you know about evolution, any one thing, any one thing, that is true?”
It should be okay not to be sure.