I am amazed at the way you people manage to skirt around the issue making inane comments.....and how you supposedly intelligent people, don't understand the basic point that is being made.
There is a well-regarded school of thought (I know you're not strong on those, but bear with me) which says that if a large group of people have failed to appreciate what you, as a communicator, are trying to convey, the fault lies with your communication not with their understanding.
As it is, I think by and large we do understand what you're saying, we're just not accepting that what you're saying is right.i
Noticing that we don't fly off the ground is not the same as noticing gravity. They are two different things.
Really? What is the other thing that makes people hit the ground when they fail to walk, correctly. Your suggestion that people were unaware of the notion of gravity and its effects before Newton is belied by, amongst other simple things, the Greek myth of Daedalus and Icarus - if things don't fall, why do you need artificial wings to fly?
Everyone knew that we don't fly off the ground but no one knew why we don't fly off the ground or why things fall down. No one knew that there was any force or field or whatever, that was keeping us on the ground....in spite of the fact that it was a basic part of life on earth, experienced by everyone.
Not knowing why something happens is not the same as not knowing that it happens. If this is your understanding, no-one knew about gravity until Einstein, because Newton was fundamentally wrong about gravitation when he considered it an attractive force not understanding that it's a mass-induced warping of space-time.
The idea of gravity did not come about because someone produced the evidence at that point of time. The evidence was here all along but was noticed and examined only at that point.
Not just examined it, not just hypothesised about a potential causitive mechanism AND TESTED THAT HYPOTHESIS. It's not science to spout possibilities, it's science to test those ideas and to either validate or refute them.
It is a natural and all encompassing aspect of nature but which no one was aware of.
Again, having an explanation isn't what's required for awareness. Do you think no-one realised the sky was blue until Lord Rayleigh came along?
Some individual thinkers might have suspected the existence of some kind of a force but that was neither here nor there.
Ironic that you should pick Newton and gravity to try to make this stance, given that Newton famously quoted the far less well-known Bernard of Chartres in saying 'If I have seen far it is because I have stood on the shoulders of giants'. Newton knew that his discovery was just one more iterative step in a series of works by eminent, hard-working, insightful experts.
Similar to this is the existence of bacteria and viruses that no one knew of, even though everyone fell ill and got infected. It required technology to catch up.
There was plenty of evidence for both gravity and microbes but no one knew of these things till someone discovered them and made the necessary connection between the phenomenon and the cause.
Nobody knew of the mechanisms, but as much I'm pretty sure people understood the idea of falling, you can be damned sure that the Black Death made sure they understood diseases existed, if nothing else. (I'm aware early forms of the germ theory of disease were formulated in the 1500s, but they weren't widely accepted).
This shows that evidence may be available all around us and we might experience something everyday but we might still not notice it or make the necessary connection to formulate a suitable hypothesis.
Absolutely. However, you are not citing a like for like - you're trying to compare the 'no theory promulgated' history of gravitation before Newton and his insights against the massively well-defined, researched and understood entire field of science that is evolutionary biology with your personal incredulity and wish to try to wedge something spiritual into it without understanding either evolutionary biology or spirituality well enough to make it creditable.
Claiming that evidence is not available is often not correct. Evidence may be there but most of us just may not see it.
If some people can't see it then what you have is not evidence, it's a claim. Evidence is, it is a phenomenon. What people can't 'see' is the evidence you provide leading to the conclusion you're coming to, and that's because the 'evidence' you're bringing is not testable. It's not that you're definitively wrong, it's that there is insufficient reason to accept your claims as correct: there isn't a gap in the current understanding that needs filling; there aren't elements we don't understand for which your woo claims are the best explanation; and, most importantly, neither you nor anyone else is providing any means by which these claims can be tested.
Grow up guys! 
Always good to round off a failure to argue effectively with an
ad hominem. Straight back at ya.
O.
