Evolution Media News

How we know evolution is true?

Spread the love

BBC writer undermines own argument here:

First, when talking about evolution, author Chris Baraniuk chooses to defend precisely the theory of evolution that is most under fire just now, in serious intellectual terms: Darwinism

Darwin’s theory of evolution says that each new organism is subtly different from its parents, and these differences can sometimes help the offspring or impede it. As organisms compete for food and mates, those with the advantageous traits produce more offspring, while those with unhelpful traits may not produce any. So within a given population, advantageous traits become common and unhelpful ones disappear.

The problem is, in a constantly changing environment, “helpful” and “unhelpful” might not mean anything for long. So the theory amounts to “the survivors survive.”

That is a self-evident statement, not a mechanism.

Given enough time, these changes mount up and lead to the appearance of new species and new types of organism, one small change at a time. Step by step, worms became fish, fish came onto land and developed four legs, those four-legged animals grew hair and – eventually – some of them started walking around on two legs, called themselves “humans” and discovered evolution.

This can be hard to believe

It sure can. The rest of the article is about comparatively trivial changes that we are asked to believe demonstrate big changes (although human breeding can certainly make some dogs look weird. If nature teaches anything, it is that such oddities would not last long in the wilderness).

That has always been the problem with Darwinism. Darwinism seems like a fraudulent attempt to leave out the importance of the massive information inputs required for big changes. See Being as Communion.

By the way, why do Brits pay taxes for the BBC? Do they still need such government behemoths for anything, in the age of the Internet?

If Brits have money to burn, why aren’t they paying taxes for the support of cavalry horses as well?

Note: We face the same problem with the government broadcaster, the CBC, in Canada. There are signs around my own neighbourhood urging everyone to “support” the CBC, in this election year.

In the days when media behemoths were often useful, nobody put up a sign saying, “Support the weather forecast!” The Save the CBC campaign itself shows how much has changed.

Unnecessary institutions are often homes for out-of-date, never challenged, politically correct ideas that any mediocrity can make money off. They tend to retard, rather than advance, discussion by fronting out-of-date “truths” to the public.

I am sure glad evolution isn’t key current news. Some issues are, and are probably treated the same way.

Look, I (O’Leary for News) am not disputing evolution happens. Dam, I owe one of my editors another column on the subject. It’ll be on horizontal gene transfer, which is, I am glad to say, demonstrable.

See also: Evolution: The fossils speak, but hardly with one voice

and Evolution appears to converge on goals—but in Darwinian terms, is that possible?
Follow UD News at Twitter!

86 Replies to “How we know evolution is true?

  1. 1
    cornucopian says:

    It is a fact free theory where evidence is selectively cherry picked. Arguments from theology, evil and metaphysics are used. The eye was a case of bad design for a long time. Today, it shows the wonderful ability of natural selection.

    Why would the designer design the malaria parasite? The whole theory of evolution more or less rests on some questionable common descent and wishful imagination.

    Why are taxpayers paying for this crap? How else can you push PC conformism? The cultural elites that run broadcasting companies use the power of conformism to shape views and ideas. The BBC stopped being an objective news broadcaster long time ago.

  2. 2
    ppolish says:

    Richard Feynman argued that a scientific theory can never be proved to be true – it can only be proven false.

    Jerry Coyne is no Feynman. “Evolution is True” would be better stated as “Evolution Theory has not been proven False”. Or better yet, the latest version of Evo Theory has not been proven false.

  3. 3
    cornucopian says:

    The answer is obvious. It is false. It is a religious world view hiding behind science. Despite spending millions, there is hardly anything to show for it.

    Coyne, Dawkins and the other militant types are old farts who are approaching their expiry dates. Once these fanatics die, it will be possible to talk about evolution in a reasonable manner. It is an ideological cult like stalinism. It will eventually fade and collapse.

    As western countries decline, science will shift to the east and it might be possible to criticize evolution. Much of the western decline can be attributed to secularism so these idiots are shooting themselves in the foot.

    The future is bright for anti-evolutionists in certain parts of the world. The secular folks will simply die because the future belongs to those who show up for it.

    In the UK, darwin vs Islam is an inevitable reality. Most muslims will not accept evolution. The politically correct folks will pander to Islam. The funny thing is that Darwinists are largely responsible for what is happening in the UK. By attacking Christianity, they have replaced it with much a stronger force. No serious imam will accept evolution.

    The taxpayer funded BBC too will pander to Islam and that means evolution will be given the middle finger. LOL. Expect outright Islamic creationism in British textbooks in the coming years. Darwinism will be dead in the land of Darwin.

  4. 4
    Bob O'H says:

    By the way, why do Brits pay taxes for the BBC?

    Err, we don’t. It’s funded through a licence fee, which you only pay if you have a TV.

  5. 5
    cornucopian says:

    A license fee is a form of tax. People who don’t watch BBC have to pay the license fee.

  6. 6
    Mapou says:

    Wikipedia:

    The BBC is established under a Royal Charter[8] and operates under its Agreement with the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport.[9] Its work is funded principally by an annual television licence fee[10] which is charged to all British households, companies, and organisations using any type of equipment to receive or record live television broadcasts.[11] The fee is set by the British Government, agreed by Parliament,[12] and used to fund the BBC’s extensive radio, TV, and online services covering the nations and regions of the UK. From 1 April 2014 it also funds the BBC World Service, launched in 1932, which provides comprehensive TV, radio, and online services in Arabic, and Persian, and broadcasts in 28 languages.

    Looks very much like the BBC, a propaganda outfit for atheism, materialism and Darwinism, is getting free money from the public.

    [Edit: I forgot to mention global warming alarmism, oops! I mean, climate change alarmism.]

  7. 7
    Dr JDD says:

    I read this article the other day and laughed. Once again the usual tripe from biased reporting cling to be science.

    Take for example the section devoted to Lenski’s E coli experiments. Flat out deceptions are rife as per usual as we are told they evolved a completely new ability to metabolise citrate! What actually happened is pretty impressive but in no way is a gain of novel information nor does it prove macro evolution. Far from it especially when every other mutant is loss of wt function. This is not science, this is religion.

  8. 8
    cornucopian says:

    The TV license is imposed on hotels, hospitals, clubs, shops, offices and many other commercial establishments. The owners simply pass on the fee to their clients or customers.

    The BBC is taxpayer funded. Even if you don’t watch tv, you are paying for it.

    http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/check-if-you-need-one

  9. 9
    cornucopian says:

    JDD,

    Exactly. There is nothing unique about the experiment. There was no gain of function. The Darwinists will argue that a new function arose. The word function to me means improvement or an ability to do something better. They don’t see it that way.

    Blowing up a bridge to save an island from the invading army might seem like an accomplishment. A week later, people are starving without food because the bridge was the only way by which food can be brought to the island.

    Darwinists are like the idiots that blew up the only bridge that connected them to mainland. This is their gain of function. Brilliant.

  10. 10
    Seversky says:

    Dr JDD @ 7

    Take for example the section devoted to Lenski’s E coli experiments. Flat out deceptions are rife as per usual as we are told they evolved a completely new ability to metabolise citrate! What actually happened is pretty impressive but in no way is a gain of novel information nor does it prove macro evolution. Far from it especially when every other mutant is loss of wt function. This is not science, this is religion.

    The first few thousand generations of Lenki’s E Coli bacteria had no ability to metabolize citrates. Then they did. They evolved a function that they did not possess before. I’d say that’s new. It emerged and spread to the general population of that colony in the presence of citrates in the environment. Entirely consistent with the theory of evolution. Does it prove macro-evolution? It is evidence of a process that must exist if evolution is to happen at all so, to that extent, yes it is. This is science of the highest order. Religion doesn’t come into it.

  11. 11
    Seversky says:

    cornucopian @ 8

    The BBC is taxpayer funded. Even if you don’t watch tv, you are paying for it.

    In the UK, you pay the licence fee if you own a TV. No TV, no licence fee.

    In the US, commercial TV is funded from advertising revenue. The advertising budgets of the advertisers are built in to the price of their goods. If you buy their goods, you are paying for TV whether you watch it or not.

  12. 12
    cornucopian says:

    Seversky,

    Why should folks have to pay for something they don’t watch? There are many who hate the BBC and still want to have a TV. Is it too much to ask?

    You are making too much out of Lenski’s experiment. Nothing new about it. E.coli have the ability to use citrate. They don’t do it in the presence of Oxygen.

    What exactly happened? A repressor was broken during his experiment and it enabled the bacteria to utilize citrate during the presence of Oxygen.

    Was a new function gained? No. Why is it portrayed as a new function? Because Darwinism is a religious belief that rests on wishful thinking.

    If I remove the seats and air conditioner of my car, the car will accelerate faster and be more fuel efficient. However, most sane people would not think my car suddenly gained some new magical function.

    Behe writes: “breaking or diminishing subsystems of an exceedingly complex entity such as the cell can sometimes be adaptive — causing the degradation to spread, as Richard Lenski’s pioneering Long Term Evolution project has demonstrated so clearly. Other studies of degradative adaptation in nature strongly reinforce this point. (For example, see recent reports about loss-of-function genetic resistance to diabetes and heart disease in humans, gaitedness in horses, loss of cyanogenesis in clover, and a plethora of helpful broken genes in bacteria”.

  13. 13
    Robert Byers says:

    Yes its hard to believe. ut should be on evidence.
    Selection is a option and fine within kind,
    Yet the glory of evolution is in mutationism./ They beed those mutants to twist dna info into something quite different.
    This is a case of what evolution is not. its not natural/sexual selection. its mutations bringing important new/changed information for selection to work.
    Evolution is not natural selection supersized. Its an error.
    Its against common sense to imagine diversity in a population leading to a very different kind of population. Noth colours has nothing to do with the great claims of evolution.

  14. 14
    Dr JDD says:

    Seversky:

    So are you maintaining that the E coli could not metabolise citrate under any conditions prior to this?

    Just to reiterate – they could not metabolise it at all before this mutation? Are you maintaining this position?

  15. 15
    Box says:

    Dr JDD: Take for example the section devoted to Lenski’s E coli experiments. Flat out deceptions are rife as per usual as we are told they evolved a completely new ability to metabolise citrate!

    In an earlier thread Joe summed it up perfectly:
    “It is a duplicate of an existing gene that was placed under the control of an existing regulatory system.”

  16. 16
    Zachriel says:

    cornucopian: What exactly happened? A repressor was broken during his experiment and it enabled the bacteria to utilize citrate during the presence of Oxygen.

    No. There were at least two potentiating mutations, then a duplication in tandem resulting in two copies that are head-to-tail with respect to each other, putting the duplicate under the control of a different promoter, followed by additional mutations to optimize the structure.

    Blount et al., Genomic analysis of a key innovation in an experimental Escherichia coli population, Nature 2012.

    cornucopian: Behe writes:

    Behe, Experimental Evolution, Loss-of-Function Mutations and ‘The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution’, Quarterly Review of Biology 2010: “If the phenotype is due to one or more mutations that result in, for example, the addition of a novel genetic regulatory element, gene-duplication with sequence divergence, or the gain of a new binding site, then it will be a noteworthy gain-of-FCT mutation.”

    This was multiple potentiating mutations, plus a gene duplication with sequence divergence, plus a novel genetic regulatory element; hence it is a “noteworthy gain-of-FCT mutation” per Behe.

  17. 17
    Dr JDD says:

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9696764

    Hi Box – that is precisely my point. Nothing new. Not a new protein, not a new promotorjust a new way to arrange those things which is evolution (and no one denies evolution) but importantly it is microevolution and not novel proteins arising with new functionality which is even worse than more complex microevolution that could happen.

    I don’t blame Seversky – like I said this is the usual deception that comes from this camp, and the BBC have demonstrated this very well. It fools a lot of people but it is pure deception. Each coli can metabolise citrate – they have the necessary machinery already present (see link above).

  18. 18
    cornucopian says:

    What exactly happened? Nothing new.

    Behe writes – “It turns out that the bacterium is lacking only a protein to transport citrate into the cell in the presence of oxygen; all other enzymes needed to further metabolize citrate are already present. The gene for the citrate transporter, citT, that works in the absence of oxygen is directly upstream from the genes for two other proteins that have promoters that are active in the presence of oxygen. A duplication of a segment of this region serendipitously placed the citT gene next to one of these promoters, so the citT gene could then be expressed in the presence of oxygen.

    The gene duplication which brought an oxygen-tolerant promoter near to the citT gene did not make any new functional element. Rather, it simply duplicated existing features. The two FCTs comprising the oxygen tolerant citrate transporter locus — the promoter and the gene — were functional before the duplication and functional after.”

    Natural selection can bring such small changes. I simply don’t see how it helped fishes turn to monkeys.

  19. 19
    bornagain77 says:

    This recent Behe video is worth a repost:

    Michael Behe – Observed (1 in 10^20) Limits of Evolution – video – Lecture delivered in April 2015 at Colorado School of Mines
    25:56 minute quote – “This is not an argument anymore that Darwinism cannot make complex functional systems; it is an observation that it does not.”
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9svV8wNUqvA

    relevant Feynman quote:

    The Scientific Method – Richard Feynman – video
    Quote: ‘If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong. In that simple statement is the key to science. It doesn’t make any difference how beautiful your guess is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are who made the guess, or what his name is… If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong. That’s all there is to it.”
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OL6-x0modwY

  20. 20
    cornucopian says:

    Is it too difficult to show how a new complex structure evolves? I used to believe in evolution after reading about colored moths, supposed transitional fossils, miller’s experiment and vestigial structures.

    I think I had a sudden moment of clarity when I was in the animal phys class. I simply couldn’t believe all the beautiful, elegant biochemistry could come by an accident.

    Evolution gets funding from the state and propaganda support from the media(BBC). They could simply put an end to ID by showing how the flagellum could evolve in a realistic manner.

    I don’t have a problem if evolution is true. I simply don’t see the evidence.

  21. 21
    Zachriel says:

    cornucopian: The two FCTs comprising the oxygen tolerant citrate transporter locus — the promoter and the gene — were functional before the duplication and functional after.”

    In fact, the research showed that it required potentiating mutations before the duplication event, then was followed by further, optimizing mutations.

  22. 22
    Dr JDD says:

    Zachriel:
    People believe in evolution. Virtually all IDers and even YECs believe in it. What most contest is new information and complexity with novel proteins and novel folds in novel pathways performing novel functions. THAT is what has never been demonstrated.

    Put this into perspective: how many generations have there been? 55,000? Thats 1.1m years in human generations (with far more progeny I assume). That’s 1/6 perhaps of the time of divergence from the LUCA of chimps and humans. And all we have is a complex gene duplication event. No orfan genes, no new pathways, no new functions not already present. And presumably with less restriction or detrimental effects given generation time and being a single celled organism.

    Yeah, that makes sense.

  23. 23
    Zachriel says:

    Dr JDD: What most contest is new information and complexity with novel proteins and novel folds in novel pathways performing novel functions.

    If you want to unravel changes that have occurred over geological timescales, then start with the evidence for common descent, which provides the historical context.

    Dr JDD: But this into perspective: how many generations have there been? 55,000? Thats 1.1m years in human generations (with far more progeny I assume).

    Humans haven’t changed biologically all that much in a million years.

    Dr JDD: And all we have is a complex gene duplication event.

    Actually, there have been many different beneficial mutations.

    Dr JDD: no new functions not already present.

    Well, you can say it’s not a new function, but if you could consume a new food source, while everyone else starved, then you would not consider it non-functional.

    Dr JDD: And presumably with less restriction or detrimental effects given generation time and being a single celled organism.

    Actually, bacteria have a highly optimized genome, so there is much less available variation to play with than in eukaryotes. In addition, they started with clones, and the environment was highly restricted.

  24. 24
    bornagain77 says:

    Zach states:

    Dr JDD: But this into perspective: how many generations have there been (In Lenski’s e-coli)? 55,000? Thats 1.1m years in human generations (with far more progeny I assume).

    Zach: Humans haven’t changed biologically all that much in a million years.

    Well zach, just how long do you think we will have to wait before we declare Darwinian evolution to be bunk pseudo-science? Is 250 million years long enough for you to wait? Is 3.48 billion years long enough?

    The Paradox of the “Ancient” (250 Million Year Old) Bacterium Which Contains “Modern” Protein-Coding Genes:
    “Almost without exception, bacteria isolated from ancient material have proven to closely resemble modern bacteria at both morphological and molecular levels.” Heather Maughan*, C. William Birky Jr., Wayne L. Nicholson, William D. Rosenzweig§ and Russell H. Vreeland ;
    http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/...../19/9/1637

    Static evolution: is pond scum the same now as billions of years ago?
    Excerpt: But what intrigues (paleo-biologist) J. William Schopf most is lack of change. Schopf was struck 30 years ago by the apparent similarities between some 1-billion-year-old fossils of blue-green bacteria and their modern microbial counterparts. “They surprisingly looked exactly like modern species,” Schopf recalls. Now, after comparing data from throughout the world, Schopf and others have concluded that modern pond scum differs little from the ancient blue-greens. “This similarity in morphology is widespread among fossils of [varying] times,” says Schopf. As evidence, he cites the 3,000 such fossils found;
    http://www.thefreelibrary.com/.....a014909330

    Scientists discover organism that hasn’t evolved in more than 2 billion years – February 3, 2015
    Excerpt: Using cutting-edge technology, they found that the bacteria look the same as bacteria of the same region from 2.3 billion years ago — and that both sets of ancient bacteria are indistinguishable from modern sulfur bacteria found in mud off of the coast of Chile.
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/re.....104131.htm

    Geobiologist Noffke Reports Signs of Life that Are 3.48 Billion Years Old – 11/11/13
    Excerpt: the mats woven of tiny microbes we see today covering tidal flats were also present as life was beginning on Earth. The mats, which are colonies of cyanobacteria, can cause unusual textures and formations in the sand beneath them. Noffke has identified 17 main groups of such textures caused by present-day microbial mats, and has found corresponding structures in geological formations dating back through the ages.
    http://www.odu.edu/about/odu-p...../topstory1

    And Zach, if there is no amount of time that is long enough for you ever to say that Darwinism is falsified, just what makes you think that Darwinism is a science instead of a pseudo-science?

    Confusing Fantasy with Science – Kirk Durston – August 3, 2015
    Excerpt: So what is the solution? As I proposed earlier, a return to the scientific method. As Silk and Ellis put it:
    “In our view, the issue boils down to clarifying one question: what potential observational or experimental evidence is there that would persuade you that the theory is wrong and lead you to abandoning it? If there is none, it is not a scientific theory.”
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....98221.html

    Pauli’s ideas on mind and matter in the context of contemporary science – Harald Atmanspacher
    Excerpt: “In discussions with biologists I met large difficulties when they apply the concept of ‘natural selection’ in a rather wide field, without being able to estimate the probability of the occurrence in a empirically given time of just those events, which have been important for the biological evolution. Treating the empirical time scale of the evolution theoretically as infinity they have then an easy game, apparently to avoid the concept of purposesiveness. While they pretend to stay in this way completely ‘scientific’ and ‘rational,’ they become actually very irrational, particularly because they use the word ‘chance’, not any longer combined with estimations of a mathematically defined probability, in its application to very rare single events more or less synonymous with the old word ‘miracle.’”
    Wolfgang Pauli (pp. 27-28)
    http://www.igpp.de/english/tda/pdf/paulijcs8.pdf

  25. 25
    Dr JDD says:

    “Beneficial mutations”

    Where the vast majority are breaking of existing genes that are of benefit as it is is growing in defined restricted non-wt conditions. Again, like all Darwinists you seem to correlate changes in existing genes that aren’t novel information as scaling up to the arisal of complex novel proteins and pathways.

    How do you know what has happened in 1m years to humans? Got some dna sequence to show that no new proteins evolved in that time frame? How many new proteins in humans are not in chimps? Is it more than 20? If so, we should have at least seen 1-2 novel proteins arise in these experiments.

    It’s actually amazing that people can criticise those who choose to reject UCD with this sort of evidence being the best for demonstrating macroevolution.

  26. 26
    bornagain77 says:

    Dr JDD:

    Mutations : when benefits level off – June 2011 – (Lenski’s e-coli after 50,000 generations)
    Excerpt: After having identified the first five beneficial mutations combined successively and spontaneously in the bacterial population, the scientists generated, from the ancestral bacterial strain, 32 mutant strains exhibiting all of the possible combinations of each of these five mutations. They then noted that the benefit linked to the simultaneous presence of five mutations was less than the sum of the individual benefits conferred by each mutation individually.
    http://www2.cnrs.fr/en/1867.htm?theme1=7

    “More than 6 percent of genes found in humans simply aren’t found in any form in chimpanzees. There are over fourteen hundred novel genes expressed in humans but not in chimps.”
    Jerry Coyne – ardent and ‘angry’ neo-Darwinist – professor at the University of Chicago in the department of ecology and evolution for twenty years. He specializes in evolutionary genetics.

    Genes from nowhere: Orphans with a surprising story – 16 January 2013 – Helen Pilcher
    Excerpt: When biologists began sequencing genomes they discovered up to a third of genes in each species seemed to have no parents or family of any kind. Nevertheless, some of these “orphan genes” are high achievers (are just as essential as ‘old’ genes),,,
    As the French biologist Francois Jacob wrote 35 years ago, “the probability that a functional protein would appear de novo by random association of amino acids is practically zero”.,,,
    Orphan genes have since been found in every genome sequenced to date, from mosquito to man, roundworm to rat, and their numbers are still growing.
    http://ccsb.dfci.harvard.edu/w.....n_2013.pdf

  27. 27
    Virgil Cain says:

    If you want to unravel changes that have occurred over geological timescales, then start with the evidence for common descent, which provides the historical context.

    The evidence for common descent as in humans giving rise to humans, chimps giving rise to chimps, ie descendents looking very similar to their parents. That evidence?

    And given the proficiency of error correction, anyone who thinks that genetic errors can accumulate in such a way as to give rise to novel molecular machinery and body plans, is ignorant, insane or wicked.

  28. 28
    Virgil Cain says:

    In fact, the research showed that it required potentiating mutations before the duplication event, then was followed by further, optimizing mutations.

    Right, nothing new, just an existing gene put under the control of a different promoter.

  29. 29
    Zachriel says:

    Dr JDD: How do you know what has happened in 1m years to humans?

    We have fossils, and phylogenetic data.

    Dr JDD: Got some dna sequence to show that no new proteins evolved in that time frame?

    There’s been substantial genetic evolution over the period.

    Dr JDD: If so, we should have at least seen 1-2 novel proteins arise in these experiments.

    We already addressed that question.

    1. Bacteria have a highly optimized genome, so there is much less available variation to play with than in eukaryotes.
    2. They started with clones.
    3. The environment was highly restricted.

  30. 30
    Dr JDD says:

    Who is we? You and the host of demons?

    Eukaryotes have considerably much less available change to tolerate. Previously one commentator stated that saying that this is not something new because bacteria can already metabolise citrate is like saying if a human could breathe under water it isn’t a novel function because they can already breathe in air. How short sighted can you be? What a ridiculous statement! The two are polar opposite.

    But I know any rational discussion with you will not be possible. I was making a point which stands: the BBC article presented a false view. It even states that bacteria cannot metabolise citrate. That is categorically false. And to prove my point further Seversky came along to demonstrate what I mean – this deception is passed on to the religious Darwinist zealouts and even they are deceived without questioning it because it was quite obviously not clearly explained correctly. So my point remains – once again we see Darwinist tripe dressed up as “science”.

  31. 31
    bornagain77 says:

    Zachriel as to:

    “We already addressed that question.”

    Let me translate that for you Zach

    “I (the singular person of Zach) have found no real time empirical evidence for Darwinian evolution building up functional complexity no matter where I have looked”

    There Zach, all better! 🙂

    Richard Lenski’s Long-Term Evolution Experiments with E. coli and the Origin of New Biological Information – September 2011
    Excerpt: The results of future work aside, so far, during the course of the longest, most open-ended, and most extensive laboratory investigation of bacterial evolution, a number of adaptive mutations have been identified that endow the bacterial strain with greater fitness compared to that of the ancestral strain in the particular growth medium. The goal of Lenski’s research was not to analyze adaptive mutations in terms of gain or loss of function, as is the focus here, but rather to address other longstanding evolutionary questions. Nonetheless, all of the mutations identified to date can readily be classified as either modification-of-function or loss-of-FCT.
    (Michael J. Behe, “Experimental Evolution, Loss-of-Function Mutations and ‘The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution’,” Quarterly Review of Biology, Vol. 85(4) (December, 2010).)
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....51051.html

    Lenski’s Long-Term Evolution Experiment: 25 Years and Counting – Michael Behe – November 21, 2013
    Excerpt: Twenty-five years later the culture — a cumulative total of trillions of cells — has been going for an astounding 58,000 generations and counting. As the article points out, that’s equivalent to a million years in the lineage of a large animal such as humans. Combined with an ability to track down the exact identities of bacterial mutations at the DNA level, that makes Lenski’s project the best, most detailed source of information on evolutionary processes available anywhere,,,
    ,,,for proponents of intelligent design the bottom line is that the great majority of even beneficial mutations have turned out to be due to the breaking, degrading, or minor tweaking of pre-existing genes or regulatory regions (Behe 2010). There have been no mutations or series of mutations identified that appear to be on their way to constructing elegant new molecular machinery of the kind that fills every cell. For example, the genes making the bacterial flagellum are consistently turned off by a beneficial mutation (apparently it saves cells energy used in constructing flagella). The suite of genes used to make the sugar ribose is the uniform target of a destructive mutation, which somehow helps the bacterium grow more quickly in the laboratory. Degrading a host of other genes leads to beneficial effects, too.,,, –
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....79401.html

    “The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution”: Break or blunt any functional coded element whose loss would yield a net fitness gain – Michael Behe – December 2010
    Excerpt: In its most recent issue The Quarterly Review of Biology has published a review by myself of laboratory evolution experiments of microbes going back four decades.,,, The gist of the paper is that so far the overwhelming number of adaptive (that is, helpful) mutations seen in laboratory evolution experiments are either loss or modification of function. Of course we had already known that the great majority of mutations that have a visible effect on an organism are deleterious. Now, surprisingly, it seems that even the great majority of helpful mutations degrade the genome to a greater or lesser extent.,,, I dub it “The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution”: Break or blunt any functional coded element whose loss would yield a net fitness gain.
    http://behe.uncommondescent.co.....evolution/

    A review of The Edge of Evolution: The Search for the Limits of Darwinism
    The numbers of Plasmodium and HIV in the last 50 years greatly exceeds the total number of mammals since their supposed evolutionary origin (several hundred million years ago), yet little has been achieved by evolution. This suggests that mammals could have “invented” little in their time frame. Behe: ‘Our experience with HIV gives good reason to think that Darwinism doesn’t do much—even with billions of years and all the cells in that world at its disposal’ (p. 155).
    http://creation.com/review-mic.....-evolution

    “The immediate, most important implication is that complexes with more than two different binding sites-ones that require three or more proteins-are beyond the edge of evolution, past what is biologically reasonable to expect Darwinian evolution to have accomplished in all of life in all of the billion-year history of the world. The reasoning is straightforward. The odds of getting two independent things right are the multiple of the odds of getting each right by itself. So, other things being equal, the likelihood of developing two binding sites in a protein complex would be the square of the probability for getting one: a double CCC, 10^20 times 10^20, which is 10^40. There have likely been fewer than 10^40 cells in the world in the last 4 billion years, so the odds are against a single event of this variety in the history of life. It is biologically unreasonable.”
    – Michael Behe – The Edge of Evolution – page 146

    Don’t Mess With ID by Paul Giem (Durrett and Schmidt paper)- video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5JeYJ29-I7o

    Kenneth Miller Steps on Darwin’s Achilles Heel – Michael Behe – January 17, 2015
    Excerpt: Enter Achilles and his heel. It turns out that the odds are much better for atovaquone resistance because only one particular malaria mutation is required for resistance. The odds are astronomical for chloroquine because a minimum of two particular malaria mutations are required for resistance. Just one mutation won’t do it. For Darwinism, that is the troublesome significance of Summers et al.: “The findings presented here reveal that the minimum requirement for (low) CQ transport activity … is two mutations.”
    Darwinism is hounded relentlessly by an unshakeable limitation: if it has to skip even a single tiny step — that is, if an evolutionary pathway includes a deleterious or even neutral mutation — then the probability of finding the pathway by random mutation decreases exponentially. If even a few more unselected mutations are needed, the likelihood rapidly fades away.,,,
    So what should we conclude from all this? Miller grants for purposes of discussion that the likelihood of developing a new protein binding site is 1 in 10^20. Now, suppose that, in order to acquire some new, useful property, not just one but two new protein-binding sites had to develop. In that case the odds would be the multiple of the two separate events — about 1 in 10^40, which is somewhat more than the number of cells that have existed on earth in the history of life. That seems like a reasonable place to set the likely limit to Darwinism, to draw the edge of evolution.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....92771.html

    “Indeed, the work on malaria and AIDS demonstrates that after all possible unintelligent processes in the cell–both ones we’ve discovered so far and ones we haven’t–at best extremely limited benefit, since no such process was able to do much of anything. It’s critical to notice that no artificial limitations were placed on the kinds of mutations or processes the microorganisms could undergo in nature. Nothing–neither point mutation, deletion, insertion, gene duplication, transposition, genome duplication, self-organization nor any other process yet undiscovered–was of much use.”
    Michael Behe, The Edge of Evolution, pg. 162

    Michael Behe – Observed (1 in 10^20) Limits of Evolution – video – Lecture delivered in April 2015 at Colorado School of Mines
    25:56 minute quote – “This is not an argument anymore that Darwinism cannot make complex functional systems; it is an observation that it does not.”
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9svV8wNUqvA

    relevant Feynman quote:

    The Scientific Method – Richard Feynman – video
    Quote: ‘If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong. In that simple statement is the key to science. It doesn’t make any difference how beautiful your guess is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are who made the guess, or what his name is… If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong. That’s all there is to it.”
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OL6-x0modwY

  32. 32
    bornagain77 says:

    As well Zach, perhaps you should run your ‘just so stories’ for why we should not expect to see Darwinian evolution in bacteria, but should expect it in multi-cellular organisms scaled over millions of years of equivalent ‘evolution’, by Alan H. Linton emeritus professor of bacteriology at University of Bristol. It seems that he holds the opposite view that you do:

    Scant search for the Maker
    Excerpt: But where is the experimental evidence? None exists in the literature claiming that one species has been shown to evolve into another. Bacteria, the simplest form of independent life, are ideal for this kind of study, with generation times of 20 to 30 minutes, and populations achieved after 18 hours. But throughout 150 years of the science of bacteriology, there is no evidence that one species of bacteria has changed into another, in spite of the fact that populations have been exposed to potent chemical and physical mutagens and that, uniquely, bacteria possess extrachromosomal, transmissible plasmids. Since there is no evidence for species changes between the simplest forms of unicellular life, it is not surprising that there is no evidence for evolution from prokaryotic to eukaryotic cells, let alone throughout the whole array of higher multicellular organisms.
    – Alan H. Linton – emeritus professor of bacteriology, University of Bristol.
    http://www.timeshighereducatio.....ode=159282

  33. 33
    Mung says:

    Zachriel: Actually, bacteria have a highly optimized genome, so there is much less available variation to play with than in eukaryotes.

    Yes, the most primitive organisms are the most highly evolved.

    If only there was such a thing as HGT.

    If only bacteria reproduced more quickly there would be even more variation.

  34. 34
    Zachriel says:

    Dr JDD: The two are polar opposite.

    How are they opposites?

    bornagain77: But throughout 150 years of the science of bacteriology, there is no evidence that one species of bacteria has changed into another

    Actually, the inability to digest citrate in aerobic conditions is considered a distinguishing characteristic of E coli.

  35. 35
    Zachriel says:

    Mung: Yes, the most primitive organisms are the most highly evolved.

    All organisms are ‘highly evolved’. Bacteria evolved to have compact genomes.

    Mung: If only there was such a thing as HGT.

    Analysis of the evolution of Cit+ showed that gene transfer was not the origin.

    Mung: If only bacteria reproduced more quickly there would be even more variation.

    Optimization for rapid replication in bacteria tends to produce compact genomes; for instance, gene duplications tend to be lost unless they are under positive selection.

  36. 36
    bornagain77 says:

    Zachriel, so are you now going to claim that Lenski’s e-coli are a different species of bacteria?

    Multiple Mutations Needed for E. Coli – Michael Behe
    Excerpt: As Lenski put it, “The only known barrier to aerobic growth on citrate is its inability to transport citrate under oxic conditions.” (1) Other workers (cited by Lenski) in the past several decades have also identified mutant E. coli that could use citrate as a food source. In one instance the mutation wasn’t tracked down. (2) In another instance a protein coded by a gene called citT, which normally transports citrate in the absence of oxygen, was overexpressed. (3) The overexpressed protein allowed E. coli to grow on citrate in the presence of oxygen. It seems likely that Lenski’s mutant will turn out to be either this gene or another of the bacterium’s citrate-using genes, tweaked a bit to allow it to transport citrate in the presence of oxygen. (He hasn’t yet tracked down the mutation.),,, If Lenski’s results are about the best we’ve seen evolution do, then there’s no reason to believe evolution could produce many of the complex biological features we see in the cell.
    http://behe.uncommondescent.co.....or-e-coli/

    Goodness grief, if twiddling a few DNA sequences around is all it takes for you to declare a new species has been created then I guess I am a different species from my mom and dad:

    Duality in the human genome – Nov. 28, 2014
    Excerpt: The results show that most genes can occur in many different forms within a population: On average, about 250 different forms of each gene exist. The researchers found around four million different gene forms just in the 400 or so genomes they analysed. This figure is certain to increase as more human genomes are examined. More than 85 percent of all genes have no predominant form which occurs in more than half of all individuals. This enormous diversity means that over half of all genes in an individual, around 9,000 of 17,500, occur uniquely in that one person – and are therefore individual in the truest sense of the word.
    The gene, as we imagined it, exists only in exceptional cases. “We need to fundamentally rethink the view of genes that every schoolchild has learned since Gregor Mendel’s time.,,,
    According to the researchers, mutations of genes are not randomly distributed between the parental chromosomes. They found that 60 percent of mutations affect the same chromosome set and 40 percent both sets. Scientists refer to these as cis and trans mutations, respectively. Evidently, an organism must have more cis mutations, where the second gene form remains intact. “It’s amazing how precisely the 60:40 ratio is maintained. It occurs in the genome of every individual – almost like a magic formula,” says Hoehe.
    http://medicalxpress.com/news/.....enome.html

    Of related note: Lenski’s e-coli, since all the mutations have been detrimental in the overall sense, would not last a day in the wild outside of their ‘cuddled’ lab environment:

    Lenski’s e-coli – Analysis of Genetic Entropy
    Excerpt: Mutants of E. coli obtained after 20,000 generations at 37°C were less “fit” than the wild-type strain when cultivated at either 20°C or 42°C. Other E. coli mutants obtained after 20,000 generations in medium where glucose was their sole catabolite tended to lose the ability to catabolize other carbohydrates. Such a reduction can be beneficially selected only as long as the organism remains in that constant environment. Ultimately, the genetic effect of these mutations is a loss of a function useful for one type of environment as a trade-off for adaptation to a different environment.
    http://www.answersingenesis.or.....n-bacteria

  37. 37
    Mung says:

    Zachriel: Bacteria evolved to have compact genomes.

    How utterly teleological of them.

  38. 38
    Box says:

    Zachriel: Bacteria evolved to have compact genomes.

    Unless of course when they do not.

    Deinococcus Radiodurans — The World’s Toughest Bacterium

    The microbe carries between four and ten copies of its genome, rather than the usual single copy, and the copies appear to be stacked on top of each other.

  39. 39
    Dr JDD says:

    How are they opposites?

    E coli being able to utilise citrate in oxic and anoxic conditions requires putting an existing single gene under a different promoter. Additionally, E coli can survive already in both environments.

    Humans however could not take any existing single proteins, change promoter or even alter them in any way to be able to breathe under water. Their lungs fir a start would inhibit this. Additionally humans cannot already live in both environments. So as is clear, these are polar opposites and a completely inappropriate equivocation.

    You are clever enough to realise this distinction. However as the other Darwinist who made this comparison, you are so lost in the religion of Darwinism that you cannot see the wood for the trees. Either that or you are purposely deceptive.

    And this was my original complaint about the BBC article which Seversky and now you have demonstrated you see nothing wrong with such deceptive reporting or claims.

  40. 40
    Zachriel says:

    bornagain77: so are you now going to claim that Lenski’s e-coli are a different species of bacteria?

    Species are not well-defined across bacteria. Nonetheless, the strain has a feature considered distinguishing between E coli and other strains.

    bornagain77: Mutants of E. coli obtained after 20,000 generations at 37°C were less “fit” than the wild-type strain when cultivated at either 20°C or 42°C.

    Of course. That sort of specialization is exactly what is expected of an evolutionary process.

    Mung: How utterly teleological of them.

    It’s not teleological. Bacteria largely compete on rapidity of replication.

    Box: Unless of course when they do not.

    Which is a case where rapidity of replication is not as important as fidelity in replication.

    Dr JDD: E coli being able to utilise citrate in oxic and anoxic conditions requires putting an existing single gene under a different promoter.

    It also takes potentiating mutations.

    Dr JDD: Additionally, E coli can survive already in both environments.

    Only if there is another food source.

    Dr JDD: Humans however could not take any existing single proteins, change promoter or even alter them in any way to be able to breathe under water.

    That doesn’t make them opposites, as you claimed. Rather, they are analogous, but not identical.

    In humans, mutations in CCR5 receptors provide resistance to various plagues. This seemingly minor change can mean the difference between life and death, not just for you, but for your children, and for their descendants. Indeed, a small change in the shape of your nose or perhaps whether you have a stutter or not may mean the difference between getting the girl of your dreams (with those healthy childbearing hips), or not.

  41. 41
    bornagain77 says:

    as to:

    bornagain77: so are you now going to claim that Lenski’s e-coli are a different species of bacteria?

    Zach: Species are not well-defined across bacteria. Nonetheless, the strain has a feature considered distinguishing between E coli and other strains.

    How convenient and foggy for you

    bornagain77: Mutants of E. coli obtained after 20,000 generations at 37°C were less “fit” than the wild-type strain when cultivated at either 20°C or 42°C.

    Zach: Of course. That sort of specialization is exactly what is expected of an evolutionary process.

    MMM, well, actually no. The fact that supposedly beneficial adaptations consistently come at a cost of preexisting functional information/complexity, is actually unexpected on Darwinian presuppositions and is a powerful scientific argument against Darwinism being true:

    “The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution”: Break or blunt any functional coded element whose loss would yield a net fitness gain – Michael Behe – December 2010
    Excerpt: In its most recent issue The Quarterly Review of Biology has published a review by myself of laboratory evolution experiments of microbes going back four decades.,,, The gist of the paper is that so far the overwhelming number of adaptive (that is, helpful) mutations seen in laboratory evolution experiments are either loss or modification of function. Of course we had already known that the great majority of mutations that have a visible effect on an organism are deleterious. Now, surprisingly, it seems that even the great majority of helpful mutations degrade the genome to a greater or lesser extent.,,, I dub it “The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution”: Break or blunt any functional coded element whose loss would yield a net fitness gain.
    http://behe.uncommondescent.co.....evolution/

    Biological Information – Loss-of-Function Mutations by Paul Giem 2015 – video
    (Behe – Loss of function mutations are far more likely to fix in a population than gain of function mutations)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hzD3hhvepK8&index=20&list=PLHDSWJBW3DNUUhiC9VwPnhl-ymuObyTWJ

    Michael Behe – Observed (1 in 10^20) Limits of Evolution – video – Lecture delivered in April 2015 at Colorado School of Mines
    25:56 minute quote – “This is not an argument anymore that Darwinism cannot make complex functional systems; it is an observation that it does not.”
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9svV8wNUqvA

  42. 42
    Zachriel says:

    bornagain: Mutants of E. coli obtained after 20,000 generations at 37°C were less “fit” than the wild-type strain when cultivated at either 20°C or 42°C.

    But more fit when cultivated at 37°C.

  43. 43
    bornagain77 says:

    Zach, so loosing robustness to environmental fluctuation, in a ‘cuddled’ laboratory environment, is all you need to believe that all life on earth, in all its unfathomed complexity, is the result of unguided material processes?

    Okie dokie, I would call that being extremely gullible, but anyways, so long as the environment never fluctuates then your OK with that, right?

    But what about the minor fact that you supposedly need environmental fluctuations for selection to occur?

    Better go back to the drawing board and make up another just so story that is a little more robust than Lenski’s ‘cuddled’ e-coli appear to be. 🙂

  44. 44
    Dr JDD says:

    BA77 – of course it will be stated that observable evolution where a cost to fitness is observed is expected – because Darwinists cannot deny observed changes but they can deny anything that cannot be tested. So what should be the downfall becomes something they claim is exactly as expected. Remember Dawkins over a decade ago stating 99% junk is exactly what would be expected of evolution ? And then a few years later when function is found in what was once considered junk Dawkins again claims that’s exactly what you would expect from evolution! My my, evolution expects every scenario! It is a many world’s theory in itself!

    Zachriel – again with the ccr5 example: you seem to be unable to grasp that small changes that confer advantage in a given environmental and selective pressures are accepted as real by almost all posters here. People don’t deny that. It’s the turning that as an example to sat novel genes, proteins, pathways, organisms, must be able to arise like that because microevolution is true. Your examples do not address the question at hand and you don’t see. To be able to grasp this.

    It’s like taking the middle linear portion of a dose response curve and drawing a line out 100,000 units further claiming because it is linear in that small region the same is true throughout the whole response (when in fact it is sigmoidal and plateaus not long after the linear portion). It’s unscientific.

  45. 45
    Zachriel says:

    bornagain77: But what about the minor fact that you supposedly need environmental fluctuations for selection to occur?

    The initial fluctuation was introduction into the in vitro environment. Lenski’s E coli continued to evolve higher fitness in an otherwise stable environment, albeit at a slower rate over time.
    http://book.bionumbers.org/wp-.....tion-1.png

  46. 46
    Zachriel says:

    Dr JDD: It’s the turning that as an example to sat novel genes, proteins, pathways, organisms, must be able to arise like that because microevolution is true.

    Evolution is posited to occur largely through small changes on the generation scale.

    Dr JDD: It’s like taking the middle linear portion of a dose response curve and drawing a line out 100,000 units further claiming because it is linear in that small region the same is true throughout the whole response (when in fact it is sigmoidal and plateaus not long after the linear portion).

    Again, the way to determine the overall pattern is to look at the evidence for common descent, which provides the historical context for understanding the mechanisms of change. A canonical example is the evolution of mammalian auditory ossicles, complex and irreducible.

  47. 47
    bornagain77 says:

    zach:

    Stabilizing selection, LOL
    Sometimes selection wants to stabilize. Sometimes it wants to be directional. Sometimes it wants to be disruptive. Stuff happens. It’s all about fitness.
    Fitness measurements, LOL
    “After 35 years and 600 generations, accelerated by artificial selection:
    We conclude that, at least for life history characters such as development time, unconditionally advantageous alleles rarely arise, are associated with small net fitness gains or cannot fix because selection coefficients change over time.”
    Burke, Dunham et al, “Genome-wide analysis of a long-term evolution experiment with Drosophila,” Nature 467, 587–590 (30 September 2010); doi:10.1038/nature09352.
    Selection coefficients change over time?
    No problem – we’ll just assume that fitness criteria remains constant and when an organism reaches a ‘local optimum’ then stabilizing selection kicks in. The organism needs to develop legs, wings, eyes, digestive and reproductive systems first in order to reach ‘local optimum’, of course, but once it got there, all it needs is “stabilizing”.
    Need to develop some echo-location functions? Moving into the water and need fins, a change of diet and a blow-hole? Disruptive selection is what you’re looking for — and it will be there, as long as you’re not in a local optimum. In that case, you’re out of luck.
    SA UD blogger
    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....ent-569031

  48. 48
    Zachriel says:

    bornagain77: Stabilizing selection

    Positive selection.
    http://book.bionumbers.org/wp-.....tion-1.png

  49. 49
    bornagain77 says:

    as to:

    the way to determine the overall pattern is to look at the evidence for common descent, which provides the historical context for understanding the mechanisms of change. A canonical example is the evolution of mammalian auditory ossicles, complex and irreducible.

    The fossil record is a record of sudden appearance and stasis. Moreover, your ‘canonical example’ is as full of holes as the rest of your just so stories are (think shotgun vs. a milk jug! 🙂 )

    Eardrum evolved independently in mammals, reptiles and birds – 04/22/2015
    Excerpt: Researchers,, have determined that the eardrum evolved independently in mammals and diapsids—the taxonomic group that includes reptiles and birds.,, the work shows that the mammalian eardrum depends on lower jaw formation, while that of diapsids develops from the upper jaw. Significantly, the researchers used techniques borrowed from developmental biology to answer a question that has intrigued paleontologists for years.,,
    They noted that in mammals, the eardrum attaches to the tympanic ring—a bone derived from the lower jaw, but that in diapsids it attaches to the quadrate—an upper jawbone.,,
    While scientists still do not know how or why the primary jaw junction shifted upwards in mammals, the study shows that the middle ear developed after this shift and must therefore have occurred independently after mammal and diapsid lineages diverged from their common ancestor.
    (Of note: Diapsids (“two arches”) are a group of amniote tetrapods)
    http://www.sciguru.org/newsite.....-and-birds

    Of related note:

    “The earliest events leading from the first division of the egg cell to the blastula stage in amphibians, reptiles and mammals are illustrated in figure 5.4. Even to the untrained zoologist it is obvious that neither the blastula itself, nor the sequence of events that lead to its formation, is identical in any of the vertebrate classes shown. The differences become even more striking in the next major phase of in embryo formation – gastrulation. This involves a complex sequence of cell movements whereby the cells of the blastula rearrange themselves, eventually resulting in the transformation of the blastula into the intricate folded form of the early embryo, or gastrula, which consists of three basic germ cell layers: the ectoderm, which gives rise to the skin and the nervous system; the mesoderm, which gives rise to muscle and skeletal tissues; and the endoderm, which gives rise to the lining of the alimentary tract as well as to the liver and pancreas.,,, In some ways the egg cell, blastula, and gastrula stages in the different vertebrate classes are so dissimilar that, where it not for the close resemblance in the basic body plan of all adult vertebrates, it seems unlikely that they would have been classed as belonging to the same phylum. There is no question that, because of the great dissimilarity of the early stages of embryogenesis in the different vertebrate classes, organs and structures considered homologous in adult vertebrates cannot be traced back to homologous cells or regions in the earliest stages of embryogenesis. In other words, homologous structures are arrived at by different routes.”
    Michael Denton – Evolution: A Theory in Crisis – pg 145-146

  50. 50
    Zachriel says:

    bornagain77: The fossil record is a record of sudden appearance and stasis.

    The fossil record supports branching descent.

    bornagain77: Moreover, your ‘canonical example’ is as full of holes as the rest of your just so stories

    The hypothesis, originally based on studies of embryonic development, predicted fossil evidence found only generations later. Lucky guess?

  51. 51
    Virgil Cain says:

    The fossil record supports branching descent.

    That is your opinion.

    The hypothesis, originally based on studies of embryonic development, predicted fossil evidence found only generations later.

    None of that supports the claim that the mammalian middle ear evolved.

  52. 52
    Virgil Cain says:

    Again, the way to determine the overall pattern is to look at the evidence for common descent, which provides the historical context for understanding the mechanisms of change.

    Fish->tetrapods->fishapods. Not what was predicted by universal common descent yet what we see in the fossil record.

  53. 53
    bornagain77 says:

    Zach, you are insane if you think the fossil record supports evolution.

    Your imaginary fossil sequence of ear evolution was not a ‘lucky guess’. It is yet another example of Darwinists trying to force the evidence into their preconceived conclusions!

    As DrJDD mentioned, this is not science!

    Moreover, what about the other more robust predictions of Darwinism, via Dr. Hunter, that have now been falsified? Do only imaginary predictions count and the other robust predictions that are now falsified not count in your rose colored Darwinian view of science?

    Darwin’s (failed) Predictions – Cornelius G. Hunter – 2015
    https://sites.google.com/site/darwinspredictions/home

  54. 54
    Virgil Cain says:

    Lenski’s E. coli evolving into E. coli does not support evolutionism’s claims.

    How was it determined that gene duplication is a genetic accident. error or mistake?

  55. 55
    bornagain77 says:

    Thank Goodness the NCSE Is Wrong: Fitness Costs Are Important to Evolutionary Microbiology
    Excerpt: it (an antibiotic resistant bacterium) reproduces slower than it did before it was changed. This effect is widely recognized, and is called the fitness cost of antibiotic resistance. It is the existence of these costs and other examples of the limits of evolution that call into question the neo-Darwinian story of macroevolution.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....s_wro.html

    For a broad outline of the ‘Fitness test’ required to be passed to show a gain of functional complexity/information over and above what is already present in life, please see the following video and articles:

    Is Antibiotic Resistance evidence for evolution? – ‘The Fitness Test’ – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rYaU4moNEBU

    Helping an Internet Debater Defend Intelligent Design – Casey Luskin – May 3, 2014
    Excerpt: antibiotic resistance entails very small-scale degrees of biological change.,,,
    antibiotic resistant bacteria tend to “revert” to their prior forms after the antibacterial drug is removed. This is due to a “fitness cost,” which suggests that mutations that allow antibiotic resistance are breaking down the normal, efficient operations of a bacterial cell, and are less “advantageous.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....85171.html

    This following study demonstrated that bacteria which had gained antibiotic resistance, which were purported to be solid evidence for Darwinism, are actually less fit than wild type bacteria when they were tested for robustness:

    Testing the Biological Fitness of Antibiotic Resistant Bacteria – 2008
    Excerpt: Therefore, in order to simulate competition in the wild, bacteria must be grown on minimal media. Minimal media mimics better what bacteria experience in a natural environment over a period of time. This is the place where fitness can be accurately assessed. Given a rich media, they grow about the same.
    http://www.answersingenesis.or.....-drugstore

    Also of note; there appears to be a in-built (designed) mechanism, which kicks in during starvation, which allows wild type bacteria to more robustly resist antibiotics than ‘well fed’ bacteria;

    Starving bacteria fight antibiotics harder? – November 2011
    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....cs-harder/

    Moreover, completely contrary to Darwinian thinking, it is found that antibiotic resistance is ancient, not recent as Darwinists had held:

    (Ancient) Cave bacteria resistant to antibiotics – April 2012
    Excerpt: Antibiotic-resistant bacteria cut off from the outside world for more than four million years have been found in a deep cave. The discovery is surprising because drug resistance is widely believed to be the result of too much treatment.,,, “Our study shows that antibiotic resistance is hard-wired into bacteria. It could be billions of years old, but we have only been trying to understand it for the last 70 years,” said Dr Gerry Wright, from McMaster University in Canada, who has analysed the microbes.
    http://www.scotsman.com/news/h.....1-2229183#

  56. 56
    Zachriel says:

    bornagain77: you are insane if you think the fossil record supports evolution.

    The vast majority of experts in the field think fossils support evolution.

    bornagain77: Your imaginary fossil sequence of ear evolution was not a ‘lucky guess’.

    Of course not. The prediction and the fossils are much too specific to be a mere guess. Not only do the fossils show the intermediate structure, but they are in the expected strata.

    bornagain77: Moreover, completely contrary to Darwinian thinking, it is found that antibiotic resistance is ancient, not recent as Darwinists had held

    That’s just silly. Bacterial penicillinase was discovered shortly after penicillin was first isolated, and before the widespread use of penicillin in medicine. See Abraham & Chain, An enzyme from bacteria able to destroy penicillin, Reviews of infectious diseases 1940.

  57. 57
    bornagain77 says:

    “The vast majority of experts in the field think fossils supports evolution.”

    Actually no, the experts in the field no longer think that the fossil record supports Darwinian gradualism. So that would make you a liar

    Donald Prothero: In evolution, stasis was general, gradualism rare, and that’s the consensus 40 years on – February 2012
    Excerpt: For the first decade after the paper was published, it was the most controversial and hotly argued idea in all of paleontology. Soon the great debate among paleontologists boiled down to just a few central points, which Gould and Eldredge (1977) nicely summarized on the fifth anniversary of the paper’s release. The first major discovery was that stasis was much more prevalent in the fossil record than had been previously supposed. Many paleontologists came forward and pointed out that the geological literature was one vast monument to stasis, with relatively few cases where anyone had observed gradual evolution. If species didn’t appear suddenly in the fossil record and remain relatively unchanged, then biostratigraphy would never work—and yet almost two centuries of successful biostratigraphic correlations was evidence of just this kind of pattern. As Gould put it, it was the “dirty little secret” hidden in the paleontological closet. Most paleontologists were trained to focus on gradual evolution as the only pattern of interest, and ignored stasis as “not evolutionary change” and therefore uninteresting, to be overlooked or minimized. Once Eldredge and Gould had pointed out that stasis was equally important (“stasis is data” in Gould’s words), paleontologists all over the world saw that stasis was the general pattern, and that gradualism was rare—and that is still the consensus 40 years later.
    Donald Prothero – American paleontologist, geologist, and author who specializes in mammalian paleontology.
    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....ars-later/

    Problem 5: Abrupt Appearance of Species in the Fossil Record Does Not Support Darwinian Evolution – Casey Luskin January 29, 2015
    Excerpt: Rather than showing gradual Darwinian evolution, the history of life shows a pattern of explosions where new fossil forms come into existence without clear evolutionary precursors. Evolutionary anthropologist Jeffrey Schwartz summarizes the problem:
    “We are still in the dark about the origin of most major groups of organisms. They appear in the fossil record as Athena did from the head of Zeus — full-blown and raring to go, in contradiction to Darwin’s depiction of evolution as resulting from the gradual accumulation of countless infinitesimally minute variations. . .”98
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....91141.html

    “With the benefit of hindsight, it is amazing that paleontologists could have accepted gradual evolution as a universal pattern on the basis of a handful of supposedly well-documented lineages (e.g. Gryphaea, Micraster, Zaphrentis) none of which actually withstands close scrutiny.”
    Christopher R.C. Paul, “Patterns of Evolution and Extinction in Invertebrates,” K.C. Allen and D.E.G. Briggs, eds., Evolution and the Fossil Record (Washington, D.C., Smithsonian Institution Press, 1989), 105.

    “It must be significant that nearly all the evolutionary stories I learned as a student from Trueman’s Ostrea/Gryphaea to Carruthers’ Zaphrentis delanouei, have now been ‘debunked’. Similarly, my own experience of more than twenty years looking for evolutionary lineages among the Mesozoic Brachiopoda has proved them equally elusive.’
    Dr. Derek V. Ager (Department of Geology & Oceonography, University College, Swansea, UK), ‘The nature of the fossil record’. Proceedings of the Geologists’ Association, vol.87(2), 1976,p.132.

    “The point emerges that if we examine the fossil record in detail, whether at the level of orders or of species, we find’ over and over again’ not gradual evolution, but the sudden explosion of one group at the expense of another.”
    Paleontologist, Derek V. Ager, “The Nature of the Fossil Record,” 87 Proceedings of the British Geological Association 87 (1976): 133. (Department of Geology & Oceanography, University College, Swansea, UK)

    “It is a feature of the known fossil record that most taxa appear abruptly. They are not, as a rule, led up to by a sequence of almost imperceptibly changing forerunners such as Darwin believed should be usual in evolution…This phenomenon becomes more universal and more intense as the hierarchy of categories is ascended. Gaps among known species are sporadic and often small. Gaps among known orders, classes and phyla are systematic and almost always large.”
    G.G.Simpson – one of the most influential American Paleontologist of the 20th century

    “A major problem in proving the theory has been the fossil record; the imprints of vanished species preserved in the Earth’s geological formations. This record has never revealed traces of Darwin’s hypothetical intermediate variants – instead species appear and disappear abruptly, and this anomaly has fueled the creationist argument that each species was created by God.”
    Paleontologist, Mark Czarnecki

    “There is no need to apologize any longer for the poverty of the fossil record. In some ways, it has become almost unmanageably rich and discovery is outpacing integration. The fossil record nevertheless continues to be composed mainly of gaps.”
    T. Neville George – Professor of paleontology – Glasgow University,

    “Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology does not provide them.”
    David Kitts – Paleontologist – D.B. Kitts, Paleontology and Evolutionary Theory (1974), p. 467.

    “The long-term stasis, following a geologically abrupt origin, of most fossil morphospecies, has always been recognized by professional paleontologists” –
    Stephen Jay Gould – Harvard

    etc.. etc..

    As to antibiotic resistance being ancient, and you calling that ‘silly’, I suggest you update your notes!

    Here are a few more notes to go along with the cite I already listed:

    Scientists unlock a ‘microbial Pompeii’ – February 23, 2014
    Excerpt: “…The researchers discovered that the ancient human oral microbiome already contained the basic genetic machinery for antibiotic resistance more than eight centuries before the invention of the first therapeutic antibiotics in the 1940s…”
    http://phys.org/news/2014-02-s.....mpeii.html

    A Tale of Two Falsifications of Evolution – September 2011
    Excerpt: “Scientists were surprised at how fast bacteria developed resistance to the miracle antibiotic drugs when they were developed less than a century ago. Now scientists at McMaster University have found that resistance has been around for at least 30,000 years.”
    http://crev.info/content/11090....._evolution

  58. 58
    Virgil Cain says:

    There isn’t any evidence that a mammalian inner ear evolved from a reptilian inner ear. There isn’t any evidence that a reptile can evolve into a mammal.

    Fossils cannot support evolution as they cannot say how they arrived.

  59. 59
    Zachriel says:

    Zachriel: The vast majority of experts in the field think fossils supports evolution.

    bornagain77: Actually no, the experts in the field no longer think that the fossil record supports Darwinian gradualism.

    Notably, you conflated evolution with “Darwinian gradualism”, which you seem to think is contradicted by periods of stasis. Darwin recognized that the history of evolution would include long periods of stasis, saying “the periods during which species have undergone modification, though long as measured in years, have probably been short in comparison with the periods during which they retain the same form.”

    In any case, the statement stands. The vast majority of experts in paleontology think the fossil record supports evolution. You may disagree with their assessment, but that doesn’t mean the consensus doesn’t exist, or that someone is “insane” for agreeing with that consensus.

  60. 60
    bornagain77 says:

    Consequently, if the theory be true, it is indisputable that, before the lowest Silurian or Cambrian stratum was deposited long periods elapsed, as long as, or probably far longer than, the whole interval from the Cambrian age to the present day; and that during these vast periods the world swarmed with living creatures…
    To the question why we do not find rich fossiliferous deposits belonging to these assumed earliest periods, I can give no satisfactory answer…
    The case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained.
    —Chapter IX, “On the Imperfection of the Geological Record,” On the Origin of Species, Charles Darwin – fifth edition (1869), pp. 378-381.

    Zach, not only does the fossil record not support Darwinian gradualism, but the fossil record actually supports the ‘top down’ appearance of kinds in the fossil record rather than the ‘bottom up’ gradual appearance as was originally envisioned by Darwin (and drawn in his book):

    What Types of Evolution Does the Cambrian Explosion Challenge? – Stephen Meyer – video – (challenges Universal Common Descent and the Mechanism of Random Variation/Natural Selection)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AaF7t5wRFtA&list=UUUMhP2x7_7psVO-H4MJFpAQ

    Cambrian Explosion Ruins Darwin’s Tree of Life (2 minutes in 24 hour day) – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bQKxkUb_AAg

    , as Dr. Wells points out in the preceding video, Darwin predicted that minor differences (diversity) between species would gradually appear first and then the differences would grow larger (disparity) between species as time went on. i.e. universal common descent as depicted in Darwin’s tree of life. What Darwin predicted should be familiar to everyone and is easily represented in the following graph.,,,

    The Theory – Diversity precedes Disparity – graph
    http://www.veritas-ucsb.org/JOURNEY/IMAGES/F.gif

    But that gradual ‘tree pattern’ that Darwin predicted in his book is not what is found in the fossil record. The fossil record reveals that disparity (the greatest differences) precedes diversity (the smaller differences), which is the exact opposite pattern for what Darwin’s theory predicted.

    The Actual Fossil Evidence- Disparity precedes Diversity – graph
    http://www.veritas-ucsb.org/JOURNEY/IMAGES/G.gif

    Jerry Coyne’s Chapter on the Fossil Record Fails to Show “Why Evolution is True” – Jonathan M. – December 4, 2012
    Excerpt: Taxonomists classify organisms into categories: species are the very lowest taxonomic category. Species are classified into different genera. Genera are classified into different families. Families are classified into different orders. Orders are classified into different classes. And classes are classified into different phyla. Phyla are among the very highest taxonomic categories (only kingdom and domain are higher), and correspond to the high level of morphological disparity that exists between different animal body plans. Phyla include such groupings as chordates, arthropods, mollusks, and echinoderms.
    Darwin’s theory would predict a cone of diversity whereby the major body-plan differences (morphological disparity) would only appear in the fossil record following numerous lower-level speciation events. What is interesting about the fossil record is that it shows the appearance of the higher taxonomic categories first (virtually all of the major skeletonized phyla appear in the Cambrian, with no obvious fossil transitional precursors, within a relatively small span of geological time). As Roger Lewin (1988) explains in Science,
    “Several possible patterns exist for the establishment of higher taxa, the two most obvious of which are the bottom-up and the top-down approaches. In the first, evolutionary novelties emerge, bit by bit. The Cambrian explosion appears to conform to the second pattern, the top-down effect.”
    Erwin et al. (1987), in their study of marine invertebrates, similarly conclude that,
    “The fossil record suggests that the major pulse of diversification of phyla occurs before that of classes, classes before that of orders, orders before that of families. The higher taxa do not seem to have diverged through an accumulation of lower taxa.”
    Indeed, the existence of numerous small and soft-bodied animals in the Precambrian strata undermines one of the most popular responses that these missing transitions can be accounted for by them being too small and too-soft bodied to be preserved.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....67021.html

    Investigating Evolution: The Cambrian Explosion Part 1 – (4:45 minute mark – upside-down fossil record) video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4DkbmuRhXRY
    Part 2 – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iZFM48XIXnk

    Challenging Fossil of a Little Fish
    Excerpt: “In Chen’s view, his evidence supports a history of life that runs opposite to the standard evolutionary tree diagrams, a progression he calls top-down evolution.”
    Jun-Yuan Chen is professor at the Nanjing Institute of Paleontology and Geology
    http://www.fredheeren.com/boston.htm

  61. 61
    bornagain77 says:

    Timeline graphic on Cambrian Explosion – ‘Darwin’s Doubt’ (Disparity preceding Diversity) – infographic
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....74341.html

    The Cambrian Explosion – Stephen Meyer and Marcus Ross – video
    Various phylum are discussed in the first part of the video (Top down, disparity preceding diversity, pattern discussed at 33:00 minute mark)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wLpSb-iDNyw

    “Darwin had a lot of trouble with the fossil record because if you look at the record of phyla in the rocks as fossils why when they first appear we already see them all. The phyla are fully formed. It’s as if the phyla were created first and they were modified into classes and we see that the number of classes peak later than the number of phyla and the number of orders peak later than that. So it’s kind of a top down succession, you start with this basic body plans, the phyla, and you diversify them into classes, the major sub-divisions of the phyla, and these into orders and so on. So the fossil record is kind of backwards from what you would expect from in that sense from what you would expect from Darwin’s ideas.”
    James W. Valentine – as quoted from “On the Origin of Phyla: Interviews with James W. Valentine” – (as stated at 1:16:36 mark of video)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xtdFJXfvlm8&feature=player_detailpage#t=4595

    Erwin and Valentine’s The Cambrian Explosion Affirms Major Points in Darwin’s Doubt: The Cambrian Enigma Is “Unresolved” – June 26, 2013
    Excerpt: “In other words, the morphological distances — gaps — between body plans of crown phyla were present when body fossils first appeared during the explosion and have been with us ever since. The morphological disparity is so great between most phyla that the homologous reference points or landmarks required for quantitative studies of morphology are absent.”
    Erwin and Valentine (p. 340)
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....73671.html

    Moreover, there are ‘yawning chasms’ in the ‘morphological space’ between the phyla which suddenly appeared in the Cambrian Explosion,,,

    “Over the past 150 years or so, paleontologists have found many representatives of the phyla that were well-known in Darwin’s time (by analogy, the equivalent of the three primary colors) and a few completely new forms altogether (by analogy, some other distinct colors such as green and orange, perhaps). And, of course, within these phyla, there is a great deal of variety. Nevertheless, the analogy holds at least insofar as the differences in form between any member of one phylum and any member of another phylum are vast, and paleontologists have utterly failed to find forms that would fill these yawning chasms in what biotechnologists call “morphological space.” In other words, they have failed to find the paleolontogical equivalent of the numerous finely graded intermediate colors (Oedleton blue, dusty rose, gun barrel gray, magenta, etc.) that interior designers covet. Instead, extensive sampling of the fossil record has confirmed a strikingly discontinuous pattern in which representatives of the major phyla stand in stark isolation from members of other phyla, without intermediate forms filling the intervening morphological space.”
    Stephen Meyer – Darwin’s Doubt (p. 70)

    Moreover, this top down pattern in the fossil record, which is the complete opposite pattern as Darwin predicted for the fossil record, is not only found in the Cambrian Explosion, but this ‘top down’, disparity preceding diversity, pattern is found in the fossil record subsequent to the Cambrian explosion as well.

    Scientific study turns understanding about evolution on its head – July 30, 2013
    Excerpt: evolutionary biologists,,, looked at nearly one hundred fossil groups to test the notion that it takes groups of animals many millions of years to reach their maximum diversity of form.
    Contrary to popular belief, not all animal groups continued to evolve fundamentally new morphologies through time. The majority actually achieved their greatest diversity of form (disparity) relatively early in their histories.
    ,,,Dr Matthew Wills said: “This pattern, known as ‘early high disparity’, turns the traditional V-shaped cone model of evolution on its head. What is equally surprising in our findings is that groups of animals are likely to show early-high disparity regardless of when they originated over the last half a billion years. This isn’t a phenomenon particularly associated with the first radiation of animals (in the Cambrian Explosion), or periods in the immediate wake of mass extinctions.”,,,
    Author Martin Hughes, continued: “Our work implies that there must be constraints on the range of forms within animal groups, and that these limits are often hit relatively early on.
    Co-author Dr Sylvain Gerber, added: “A key question now is what prevents groups from generating fundamentally new forms later on in their evolution.,,,
    http://phys.org/news/2013-07-s.....ution.html

    “In virtually all cases a new taxon appears for the first time in the fossil record with most definitive features already present, and practically no known stem-group forms.”
    TS Kemp – Fossils and Evolution,– Curator of Zoological Collections, Oxford University, Oxford Uni Press, p246, 1999

    “What is missing are the many intermediate forms hypothesized by Darwin, and the continual divergence of major lineages into the morphospace between distinct adaptive types.”
    Robert L Carroll (born 1938) – vertebrate paleontologist who specialises in Paleozoic and Mesozoic amphibians

  62. 62
    Zachriel says:

    bornagain77: not only does the fossil record not support Darwinian gradualism, but the fossil record actually supports the ‘top down’ appearance of kinds in the fossil record rather than the ‘bottom up’ gradual appearance as was originally envisioned by Darwin

    Actually, both topologies are found, and both are trees. Again, Darwin was aware of adaptive radiation, which is what happens when a new niche develops. The classic case is island diversification.

  63. 63
    bornagain77 says:

    Zachriel, If ‘top down’ disparity preceding diversity in the fossil record does not falsify ‘bottom up’ Darwinian evolution for you, then that is just another proof that the version of Darwinism you apparently believe in is in reality just a unfalsifiable pseudo-science! Similar to tea-leaf reading (although I hate to give tea leaf readers a bad name! 🙂

    As I’ve heard said before, the only evidence of unlimited plasticity ever witnessed for Darwinian evolution has been within the theory itself. The theory is forever plastic. Able to morph itself into whatever shape it needs to in order to avoid falsification by empirical observation!

    “Being an evolutionist means there is no bad news. If new species appear abruptly in the fossil record, that just means evolution operates in spurts. If species then persist for eons with little modification, that just means evolution takes long breaks. If clever mechanisms are discovered in biology, that just means evolution is smarter than we imagined. If strikingly similar designs are found in distant species, that just means evolution repeats itself. If significant differences are found in allied species, that just means evolution sometimes introduces new designs rapidly. If no likely mechanism can be found for the large-scale change evolution requires, that just means evolution is mysterious. If adaptation responds to environmental signals, that just means evolution has more foresight than was thought. If major predictions of evolution are found to be false, that just means evolution is more complex than we thought.”
    ~ Cornelius Hunter

    “When their expectations turn out to be false, evolutionists respond by adding more epicycles to their theory that the species arose spontaneously from chance events. But that doesn’t mean the science has confirmed evolution as Velasco suggests. True, evolutionists have remained steadfast in their certainty, but that says more about evolutionists than about the empirical science.”
    ~ Cornelius Hunter

    Here’s That Algae Study That Decouples Phylogeny and Competition – June 17, 2014
    Excerpt: “With each new absurdity another new complicated just-so story is woven into evolutionary theory. As Lakatos explained, some theories simply are not falsifiable. But as a result they sacrifice realism and parsimony.”
    – Cornelius Hunter
    http://darwins-god.blogspot.co.....uples.html

    Darwin’s (Failed) Predictions: An Interview with Cornelius Hunter, Part I and II
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....21311.html
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....21321.html

  64. 64
    Zachriel says:

    bornagain77: If ‘top down’ disparity preceding diversity in the fossil record does not falsify ‘bottom up’ Darwinian evolution for you …

    Please read our comments before responding. Actually, both topologies are found, and both are trees. Again, Darwin was aware of adaptive radiation, which is what happens when a new niche develops. The classic case is island diversification.

  65. 65
    bornagain77 says:

    Zachriel your island diversification just so story has been weighed in the balance and found wanting:

    Fantasy Island: Evolutionary Weirdness Does Not Favor Islands – July 2010
    Excerpt: “We concluded that the evolution of body sizes is as random with respect to ‘isolation’ as on the rest of the planet,” he said. “This means that you can expect to find the same sort of patterns on islands and on the mainland.”
    http://www.creationsafaris.com.....#20100708b

    Amazing Insects Defy Evolution – October 2010
    Excerpt: India spent tens of millions of years as an island before colliding with Asia. Yet the fossil record contains no evidence that unique species evolved on the subcontinent during this time,
    http://www.creationsafaris.com.....#20101026a

    Allopatric Speciation Tested in Martinique Cornelius Hunter – February 2012
    Excerpt: In spite of evolutionary expectations the different lizard populations, which had been separated for six to eight millions years, had no difficulty interbreeding as one species. The so-called allopatric speciation never happened. Undaunted as ever, evolutionist now call for “ecological speciation,” which didn’t occur either but it has the virtue that it can’t be falsified.
    http://darwins-god.blogspot.co.....ed-in.html

    the same ‘weighed in the balance and found wanting’ is found for Darwinian just so stories of adaptation:

    No Positive Selection, No Darwin: A New Non-Darwinian Mechanism for the Origin of Adaptive Phenotypes – November 2011
    Excerpt: Hughes now proposes a model he refers to as the plasticity-relaxation-mutation (PRM) model. PRM suggests that adaptive phenotypes arise as follows: (1) there exists a phenotypically plastic trait (i.e., one that changes with the environment, such as sweating in the summer heat); (2) the environment becomes constant, such that the trait assumes only one of its states for a lengthened period of time; and (3) during that time, deleterious mutations accumulate in the unused state of the trait, such that its genetic basis is subsequently lost.
    ,,, But if most adaptations result from the loss of genetic specifications, how did the traits initially arise? One letter (Chevin & Beckerman 2011) of response to Hughes noted that the PRM “does not explain why the ancestral state should be phenotypically plastic, or why this plasticity should be adaptive in the first place.”
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....52941.html

    A. L. Hughes’s New Non-Darwinian Mechanism of Adaption Was Discovered and Published in Detail by an ID Geneticist 25 Years Ago – Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig – December 2011
    Excerpt: The original species had a greater genetic potential to adapt to all possible environments. In the course of time this broad capacity for adaptation has been steadily reduced in the respective habitats by the accumulation of slightly deleterious alleles (as well as total losses of genetic functions redundant for a habitat), with the exception, of course, of that part which was necessary for coping with a species’ particular environment….By mutative reduction of the genetic potential, modifications became “heritable”. — As strange as it may at first sound, however, this has nothing to do with the inheritance of acquired characteristics. For the characteristics were not acquired evolutionarily, but existed from the very beginning due to the greater adaptability. In many species only the genetic functions necessary for coping with the corresponding environment have been preserved from this adaptability potential. The “remainder” has been lost by mutations (accumulation of slightly disadvantageous alleles) — in the formation of secondary species.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....53881.html

  66. 66
    Zachriel says:

    bornagain77: {standard reply, handwaving following by linkfest}

    First link doesn’t address adaptive radiation. The second link is not an example of adaptive radiation. The third link mangles the definition of species. The fourth link doesn’t address adaptive radiation.

    You might do better by trying to sustain an argument rather than deflect from it.

  67. 67
    Seversky says:

    Dr JDD @ 30

    I was making a point which stands: the BBC article presented a false view.

    No, it does not. You can criticize it for over-simplification if you want but that can be countered by the observation that it is clearly intended for a lay audience.

    It even states that bacteria cannot metabolise citrate. That is categorically false.

    No, your claim is false. Chris Baraniuk wrote as follows:

    The mixture they live in includes a chemical called citrate, which E. coli cannot digest. [My emphasis]

    He did not claim that all bacteria are unable to digest citrate, he only mentioned E Coli. It’s true he didn’t qualify it it by noting that E Coli can metabolize citrate under anaerobic conditions but that doesn’t affect the results of Lenski’s experiment at all. None of his 12 cloned populations of E Coli was able to metabolize citrate under aerobic conditions at all until 31,500 generations in, when the ability emerged in one population. Unless you’re going to claim that Lenski or one of his staff went in and “tweaked” the E Coli genome to switch on a pre-existing function, this is a pretty good demonstration of evolution in action.

  68. 68
    bornagain77 says:

    Zachriel,

    “You might do better by trying to sustain an argument rather than deflect from it.”

    you, the singular person of Zach, have no actual argument, nor actual evidence, to reply to. The only empirical evidence that you have for Darwinian evolution exists in your imagination. It is not up to me to falsify an imaginary theory built on imaginary evidence that exists in your imagination. It is up to you to prove to me that your pseudo-scientific theory even qualifies as science in the first place, by supplying the necessary real time empirical evidence required to substantiate your grandiose claims that unguided material processes can build the unfathomed integrated complexity we see in life:

    Good luck with that.

    Michael Behe – Observed (1 in 10^20) Limits of Evolution – video – Lecture delivered in April 2015 at Colorado School of Mines
    25:56 minute quote – “This is not an argument anymore that Darwinism cannot make complex functional systems; it is an observation that it does not.”
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9svV8wNUqvA

  69. 69
    Dr JDD says:

    If anyone truly believes that omission of a fact that E coli can already metabolise citrate under different environmental conditions does not affect the interpretation and impact of such a result they are either deluded, naive or down right deceitful.

    Probably 2 of those at least.

  70. 70
    Virgil Cain says:

    If Lenski’s experiment is an example of evolution in action then universal common descent is dead. Not one example of evolution in action can be extrapolated into universal common descent.

  71. 71
    Zachriel says:

    Zachriel: Please read our comments before responding. Actually, both topologies are found, and both are trees. Again, Darwin was aware of adaptive radiation, which is what happens when a new niche develops. The classic case is island diversification.

    bornagain77: The only empirical evidence that you have for Darwinian evolution exists in your imagination.

    We can directly observe evolution by natural selection, a.k.a. darwinian evolution, such as in Lenski’s experiments. Notably, you ignored the points that were raised.

    Dr JDD: If anyone truly believes that omission of a fact that E coli can already metabolise citrate under different environmental conditions does not affect the interpretation and impact of such a result they are either deluded, naive or down right deceitful.

    The article was written for a lay audience by a freelance technology writer. Here’s a rewrite for clarity.

    “The {aerobic environment} they live in includes a chemical called citrate, which E. coli cannot digest.”

  72. 72
    Virgil Cain says:

    Zachriel:

    We can directly observe evolution by natural selection, a.k.a. darwinian evolution, such as in Lenski’s experiments.

    Except we don’t know if darwinian evolution was responsible. AND Lenski proved universal common descent is a non-starter.

    “The {aerobic environment} they live in includes a chemical called citrate, which E. coli cannot digest.”

    They could digest it, they just couldn’t get it in.

    Zachriel always ignores the points raised.

  73. 73
    Mung says:

    Zachriel: We can directly observe evolution by natural selection

    As long as you’re willing to equivocate over the meaning of the word evolution, you can directly observe evolution in action by watching the sun rise.

  74. 74
    Zachriel says:

    Mung: As long as you’re willing to equivocate over the meaning of the word evolution, you can directly observe evolution in action by watching the sun rise.

    We were responding to an equivocation. In biology, Darwinian evolution generally refers to evolution by natural selection.

    In order to understand the broad scope of evolutionary history, it’s usually best to start with the evidence for common descent, which provides the historical context for understanding the mechanisms involved.

  75. 75
    Virgil Cain says:

    Zachriel:

    In biology, Darwinian evolution generally refers to evolution by natural selection.

    Science says that natural selection is impotent.

    In order to understand the broad scope of evolutionary history, it’s usually best to start with the evidence for common descent, which provides the historical context for understanding the mechanisms involved.

    OK, then what is the evidence that prokaryotes can evolve into something other than prokaryotes?

  76. 76
    bornagain77 says:

    Singular Zach, I have not, nor have any other IDists on this thread, ignored Lenski’s e-coli.

    The citrate modification is listed merely as a ‘modification of function’ mutation in the Behe paper I cited previously, (a paper that you apparently ignored).

    i.e. It is not even considered a ‘gain of function’ mutation as you so desperately want to believe!

    Moreover, the citrate modification that you are so proud of that you think it finally proves once and for all that unguided material processes can build brains that are far more complex than the entire internet combined, (talk about extreme gullibility!), was in actuality brought about in a most un-Darwinian manner. A manner in which the molecular machinery of the cell was, in direct contradiction to the central dogma, rearranging segments of DNA searching for a solution

    Bacterial ‘Evolution’ Is Actually Design in Action by Brian Thomas, M.S. – Dec. 2012
    Excerpt: At that time, the mechanism underlying the citrate-eating phenotype was unknown. Behe wrote, “If the [Cit+] phenotype is due to one or more mutations that result in, for example, the addition of a novel genetic regulatory element, gene-duplication with sequence divergence, or the gain of a new binding site, then it will be a noteworthy gain-of-FCT [Functional Coded elemenT] mutation.”2
    So, the big question is: Did E. coli evolve into a Cit+ strain by natural selection? Or did mutations construct new and functional coded elements to its DNA? If so, it would be the first in recorded biological history. If not, then it would be just another loss or modification of a pre-existing piece.
    In Lenski’s experiment, the bacteria (both Cit+ and wild-type) already possessed a gene named citT. It encodes a protein that transports a range of citrate-like chemicals. The recent results showed that the bacteria made extra copies of citT and a neighboring sequence—a process called gene amplification.
    More copies of the gene should translate to higher amounts of the transporter protein that it encodes. With enough transporters, the bacteria could access enough citrate. But oxygen deactivates citT, and having many copies of a gene that is turned off is not very useful!
    But the bacteria solved this problem when the amplification event also moved the gene sequence to a different place in the bacterial chromosome, where a different but pre-existing promoter could regulate it. Unlike the original one, it appears that the new promoter does not have an “oxygen off” switching mode. Instead, it allowed expression of citT in the presence of oxygen so that the bacteria successfully imported enough citrate to grow.
    The study authors wrote, “The structure of the cit amplification led us to propose that the Cit+ trait arose from an amplification-mediated promoter capture.”1 Further investigation confirmed the proposal.
    So, the bacteria solved the problem of accessing an alternative food source by generating extra copies of the critical gene and by placing those copies under the control of an appropriate promoter. Does any of this resemble natural, undirected Darwinian evolution? Not at all. This amazing mechanism invented no new functional coded elements. It merely modified pre-existing elements.
    Therefore, not only did the Cit+ bacteria not evolve in the molecules-to-man direction, but they showed what could only be ingenious DNA rearrangement mechanisms. What mainstream headlines portrayed as evidence for evolution is actually the opposite.3
    http://www.icr.org/article/bac.....ly-design/

    Of related note:

    “It is difficult (if not impossible) to find a genome change operator that is truly random in its action within the DNA of the cell where it works’
    James Shapiro – Evolution: A View From The 21st Century – (Page 82)

    Revisiting the Central Dogma in the 21st Century – James A. Shapiro – 2009
    Excerpt (Page 12): Underlying the central dogma and conventional views of genome evolution was the idea that the genome is a stable structure that changes rarely and accidentally by chemical fluctuations (106) or replication errors. This view has had to change with the realization that maintenance of genome stability is an active cellular function and the discovery of numerous dedicated biochemical systems for restructuring DNA molecules.(107–110) Genetic change is almost always the result of cellular action on the genome. These natural processes are analogous to human genetic engineering,,, (Page 14) Genome change arises as a consequence of natural genetic engineering, not from accidents. Replication errors and DNA damage are subject to cell surveillance and correction. When DNA damage correction does produce novel genetic structures, natural genetic engineering functions, such as mutator polymerases and nonhomologous end-joining complexes, are involved. Realizing that DNA change is a biochemical process means that it is subject to regulation like other cellular activities. Thus, we expect to see genome change occurring in response to different stimuli (Table 1) and operating nonrandomly throughout the genome, guided by various types of intermolecular contacts (Table 1 of Ref. 112).
    http://shapiro.bsd.uchicago.ed.....0Dogma.pdf

    Also of interest from the preceding paper, on page 22, is a simplified list of the ‘epigenetic’ information flow in the cell that directly contradicts what was expected from the central dogma (Genetic Reductionism/modern synthesis model) of neo-Darwinism.

    How life changes itself: the Read-Write (RW) genome. – 2013
    Excerpt: Research dating back to the 1930s has shown that genetic change is the result of cell-mediated processes, not simply accidents or damage to the DNA. This cell-active view of genome change applies to all scales of DNA sequence variation, from point mutations to large-scale genome rearrangements and whole genome duplications (WGDs). This conceptual change to active cell inscriptions controlling RW genome functions has profound implications for all areas of the life sciences.
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23876611

  77. 77
    scottH says:

    Just declare Darwinism a religion and be done with it already. Darwinity maybe. No amount of evidence to the contrary will make any difference. I wish I had that kind of faith.

  78. 78
    Mung says:

    Zachriel: In biology, Darwinian evolution generally refers to evolution by natural selection.

    This Darwin?

    When the first edition of this work was published, I was so completely deceived, as were many others, by such expressions as ‘the continuous operation of creative power,’ that I included Professor Owen with other palaeontologists as being firmly convinced of the immutability of species; but it appears (‘Anat. of Vertebrates,’ vol. iii. p. 796) that this was on my part a preposterous error. In the last edition of this work I inferred, and the inference still seems to me perfectly just, from a passage beginning with the words ‘no doubt the type-form,’ &c. (Ibid. vol. i. p. xxxv.), that Professor Owen admitted that natural selection may have done something in the formation of a new species; but this it appears (Ibid. vol. nl. p. 798) is inaccurate and without evidence. I also gave some extracts from a correspondence between Professor Owen and the Editor of the ‘London Review,’ from which it appeared manifest to the Editor as well as to myself, that Professor Owen claimed to have promulgated the theory of natural selection before I had done so; and I expressed my surprise and satisfaction at this announcement; but as far as it is possible to understand certain recently published passages (Ibid. vol. iii. p. 798) I have either partially or wholly again fallen into error. It is consolatory to me that others find Professor Owen’s controversial writings as difficult to understand and to reconcile with each other, as I do. As far as the mere enunciation of the principle of natural selection is concerned, it is quite immaterial whether or not Professor Owen preceded me, for both of us, as shown in this historical sketch, were long ago preceded by Dr Wells and Mr Matthews.

  79. 79
    Zachriel says:

    bornagain77: I have not, nor have any other IDists on this thread, ignored Lenski’s e-coli.

    No, we said you ignored the point.

    bornagain77: If ‘top down’ disparity preceding diversity in the fossil record does not falsify ‘bottom up’ Darwinian evolution for you

    Zachriel: Actually, both topologies are found, and both are trees. Again, Darwin was aware of adaptive radiation, which is what happens when a new niche develops. The classic case is island diversification.

  80. 80
    Zachriel says:

    bornagain77: It is not even considered a ‘gain of function’ mutation as you so desperately want to believe!

    Behe, Experimental Evolution, Loss-of-Function Mutations and ‘The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution’, Quarterly Review of Biology 2010: “If the phenotype is due to one or more mutations that result in, for example, the addition of a novel genetic regulatory element, gene-duplication with sequence divergence, or the gain of a new binding site, then it will be a noteworthy gain-of-FCT mutation.”

    This was multiple potentiating mutations, plus a gene duplication with sequence divergence, plus a novel genetic regulatory element; hence it is a “noteworthy gain-of-FCT mutation” per Behe.

    Mung: This Darwin?

    Yes. Did you have a point?

  81. 81
    Silver Asiatic says:

    Zach

    hence it is a “noteworthy gain-of-FCT mutation” per Behe

    Per Behe it is not a gain.

    Nonetheless, all of the mutations identified [in the Lenski study] to date can readily be classified as either modification-of-function or loss-of-FCT.

    Edit: Oh wait, you disagree with Behe but extract some of his words as authoritative support for your own opinion as if he agrees with you.

  82. 82
    Zachriel says:

    Silver Asiatic: Nonetheless, all of the mutations identified [in the Lenski study] to date can readily be classified as either modification-of-function or loss-of-FCT.

    So said Behe in 2010. He also speculated that the adaptation was “caused by the loss of the activity of a normal genetic regulatory element”, rather than a novel regulatory relationship.

    Silver Asiatic: Per Behe it is not a gain.

    Behe wrote his requirements in 2010. The genomic analysis was completed in 2012. That analysis showed that the adaptation met the requirements of a “noteworthy gain-of-FCT mutation” Behe set in 2010.

  83. 83
    bornagain77 says:

    Zachriel you are not a we, you are a singular person. (You REALLY don’t need people thinking you are any crazier than you already present yourself to be by additionally referring to yourself in a schizophrenic manner as a ‘we’)

    Moreover, funny that when the molecular details finally came out about the citrate modification that Behe himself said he was surprised that he had overestimated the power of the Darwinian mechanism.

    Rose-Colored Glasses: Lenski, Citrate, and BioLogos – Michael Behe – November 13, 2012
    Excerpt: In my own view, in retrospect, the most surprising aspect of the oxygen-tolerant citT mutation was that it proved so difficult to achieve. If, before Lenski’s work was done, someone had sketched for me a cartoon of the original duplication that produced the metabolic change, I would have assumed that would be sufficient — that a single step could achieve it. The fact that it was considerably more difficult than that goes to show that even skeptics like myself overestimate the power of the Darwinian mechanism.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....66361.html

    Moreover, the elephant in the living room main point of Behe’s ‘First Rule’ paper that you are missing, (either by sheer willful ignorance or by purposeful deceit), is not that Behe is claiming that there are no gain of function mutations whatsoever.
    His main point that you are either purposely ignoring, or lying about, is that any gain of function mutations are inconsequential in the grand scheme of things since they will be swamped by the overwhelming rate of loss of function mutations which overtake them:

    “The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution”: Break or blunt any functional coded element whose loss would yield a net fitness gain – Michael Behe – December 2010
    Excerpt: In its most recent issue The Quarterly Review of Biology has published a review by myself of laboratory evolution experiments of microbes going back four decades.,,, The gist of the paper is that so far the overwhelming number of adaptive (that is, helpful) mutations seen in laboratory evolution experiments are either loss or modification of function. Of course we had already known that the great majority of mutations that have a visible effect on an organism are deleterious. Now, surprisingly, it seems that even the great majority of helpful mutations degrade the genome to a greater or lesser extent.,,, I dub it “The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution”: Break or blunt any functional coded element whose loss would yield a net fitness gain.
    http://behe.uncommondescent.co.....evolution/

    Getting There First: An Evolutionary Rate Advantage for Adaptive Loss-of-Function Mutations
    Michael J. Behe – 2013
    http://www.worldscientific.com.....08728_0020

    Biological Information – Loss-of-Function Mutations (Michael Behe) by Paul Giem 2015 – video
    (Behe – Loss of function mutations are far more likely to fix in a population than gain of function mutations)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hzD3hhvepK8&index=20&list=PLHDSWJBW3DNUUhiC9VwPnhl-ymuObyTWJ

    Also of note, there is no empirical evidence whatsoever to support a ‘bottom up’ fossil record:

    Challenging Fossil of a Little Fish
    Excerpt: “I think this is a major mystery in paleontology,” said Chen. “Before the Cambrian, we should see a number of steps: differentiation of cells, differentiation of tissue, of dorsal and ventral, right and left. But we don’t have strong evidence for any of these.” Taiwanese biologist Li was also direct: “No evolution theory can explain these kinds of phenomena.”
    http://www.fredheeren.com/boston.htm

    “We go from single cell protozoa. which would be ameoba and things like that. Then you get into some that are a little bit bigger, still single cell, and then you get aggregates, they’re still individual cells that aggregate together. They don’t seem to have much in the way of cooperation,,, but when you really talk about a functioning organism, that has more than just one type of cell, you are talking about a sponge and you can have hundreds, thousands, tens of thousands of cells. So we don’t really have organisms that function with say two different types of cells, but there is only five total. We don’t have anything like that.”
    – Dr. Raymond G. Bohlin – quote taken from 31:00 minute mark of this following video
    Natural Limits to Biological Change 2/2 – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vo3OKSGeFRQ

    Nor does the experimental evidence suggest that such a transition from single cell aggregates to multicellular organisms is possible. To highlight the monumental problem that Darwinian processes face in going from a single cell to a multicellular creature, it is important to note the difficulty in obtaining just two protein-protein binding sites,,

    “The likelihood of developing two binding sites in a protein complex would be the square of the probability of developing one: a double CCC (chloroquine complexity cluster), 10^20 times 10^20, which is 10^40. There have likely been fewer than 10^40 cells in the entire world in the past 4 billion years, so the odds are against a single event of this variety (just 2 binding sites being generated by accident) in the history of life. It is biologically unreasonable.”
    Michael J. Behe PhD. (from page 146 of his book “Edge of Evolution”)

    And yet, Dr. Behe, on the important Table 7.1 on page 143 of Edge Of Evolution, finds that a typical ‘simple’ cell might have some 10,000 protein-binding sites. Whereas a conservative estimate for protein-protein binding sites in a multicellular creature is,,,

    Largest-Ever Map of Plant Protein Interactions – July 2011
    Excerpt: The new map of 6,205 protein partnerings represents only about two percent of the full protein- protein “interactome” for Arabidopsis, since the screening test covered only a third of all Arabidopsis proteins, and wasn’t sensitive enough to detect many weaker protein interactions. “There will be larger maps after this one,” says Ecker.
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/re.....144936.htm

    So taking into account that they only covered 2%, of the full protein-protein “interactome”, then that gives us a number, for different protein-protein interactions, of 310,000. Thus, from my very rough ‘back of the envelope’ calculations, we find that this is at least 30 times higher than Dr. Behe’s estimate of 10,000 different protein-protein binding sites for a typical single cell (Page 143; Edge of Evolution; Behe).

    That is a severe shortfall for the Darwinian mechanism to put it mildly.

  84. 84
    Zachriel says:

    bornagain77: If, before Lenski’s work was done, someone had sketched for me a cartoon of the original duplication that produced the metabolic change, I would have assumed that would be sufficient — that a single step could achieve it.

    Behe 2010: Evolution can’t do complicated things, so evolution doesn’t work.
    Behe 2012: Evolution does complicated things, so evolution doesn’t work.

  85. 85
    bornagain77 says:

    Zachriel, as pointed out before, the modification was achieved in an un-Darwinian manner

    i.e. “was in actuality brought about in a most un-Darwinian manner. A manner in which the molecular machinery of the cell was, in direct contradiction to the central dogma of neo-Darwinism, rearranging segments of DNA searching for a solution”

    That you have to illegitimately borrow from Shapiro’s ‘natural genetic engineering’ to try to find support Darwinian evolution, is pitiful and intellectually dishonest.

    Anyway, since it is clear you have no intention of ever being honest towards the evidence, and I have made my point anyway, I’m done talking to you.

    The last lie is all yours.

  86. 86
    Zachriel says:

    bornagain77: A manner in which the molecular machinery of the cell was, in direct contradiction to the central dogma of neo-Darwinism, rearranging segments of DNA searching for a solution”

    Gene duplication has been a known source of genetic variation since the 1930s, and is a standard evolutionary mechanism.

Leave a Reply