Intelligent Design

Coffee!! Evolution in action! Check with your local humane society!

Spread the love

 A friend draws my attention to this lovely little item:

He asks, what about this ?

What you CAN see with small, easily observed creatures like Lenski’s E. coli is evolution in action – new features evolving through random mutation and natural selection. Regardless of what you wish to state about the malaria plasmodia, the best example of evolution in action is the Lenski experiments because he retains the entire record of every genetic event that leads to every change. Now, Lenski’s E. coli changed shape, changed size, changed metabolism and changed food source. How much more MACRO do you expect an organism to evolve?”

I replied:

So the claim is, “changed shape, changed size, changed metabolism and changed food source. How much more MACRO do you expect an organism to evolve?”

Hmmmm. Kittens do this all the time.

Change size? You bet. Goes from a couple of ounces to five lbs in half a year.

Change shape? Sure. The average newborn kitten is just a little bag of mewing metabolism, blind and probably deaf, whose only real talent is using its sense of smell to get control of a teat.

Changed metabolism? Sort of. Kittens must be weaned onto something other than cat milk after about six or seven weeks. I am not a vet, but surely some changes in metabolism accompany this transition.

Changed food source? Yes! From mom cat to local rodents, birds, frogs, and eggs that can be cracked by being pushed off the branch or table. Or, if the cat is under human management, a science-based diet for growing felines. Or otherwise, scavenging a local dumpster. Or whatever an obligate carnivore* like the cat can stomach.

Okay, so where are we now? We have explained how a kitten gets transformed into … a cat.

And this is “evolution”?

Question: Does a bacterium ever get transformed into a cat? As opposed to changing in ways that are normal for most life forms – though not always employed, and forced on some under duress?

And if that ever happened, your local humane society … will not be very pleased. There are many cats there now who would like kind homes. If what the Darwinist believes is true, their problems would be ever so much worse.

cheers, Denyse

(Who used to write a cat care column for a local paper.)

* Usually requires complete proteins, so tends to be predator on smaller animals. It is – I am told – possible to feed the cat a complete protein diet derived from plant sources. Far more humans are willing to go along with this than cats – a good reason to keep your canary in the cage.

8 Replies to “Coffee!! Evolution in action! Check with your local humane society!

  1. 1
    Mark Frank says:

    It took about 3 billion years of evolution across the entire globe to get from bacterium to multicellar life. Things speeded up massively once multicellular life appeared, presumably because there was a process of development for evolution to work on. But Lenski is only working with bacteria. How much change can you expect in a few decades?

  2. 2
    bornagain77 says:

    Wow Frank I don’t think anyone can be any more vague towards any specific mechanism as to how all this “evolution” actually occurred than you were in your post?

    How much brain melting evolution does Lenski’s e-coli really involve?

    Hannibal – Brain scene

    These following articles refute Lenski’s supposed “evolution” of the citrate ability for the E-Coli bacteria after 20,000 generations of the E-Coli:

    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.

    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.

    Upon closer inspection, it seems Lenski’s “cuddled” E. coli are actually headed for “genetic meltdown” instead of evolving into something better.

    New Work by Richard Lenski:
    Excerpt: Interestingly, in this paper they report that the E. coli strain became a “mutator.” That means it lost at least some of its ability to repair its DNA, so mutations are accumulating now at a rate about seventy times faster than normal.

    But the one crushing thing to all this is that Lenski’s e-coli are fatter and more sluggish (i.e. their, AHEM, supposed claim for novel change in shape and metabolism) than the wild type. i.e. The wild type display more robust “fitness” than Lenski’s e-coli in the “natural wild” environment, which is completely in accord with Genetic Entropy. What’s more is that Genetic Entropy will predict that each of Lenski’s strains will become less and less fit for survival in the wild the longer they are keep in the artificial cuddled environment that Lenski has imposed on them. i.e. the further Lenski deviates the bacterium from the original parent type the closer to genetic meltdown (death) they will become. This is all straightforward, testable as well as being based on actual foundational principles of science (Entropy, Conservation of Information) Whereas evolution only requires spectacular violations of those very same principles. In fact if evolutionists were ever to get honest with the evidence, instead of selling smoke, all they would have to do is pass this test by 140 functional bits:

    Is Antibiotic Resistance evidence for evolution? – “The Fitness Test” – video

    Testing the Biological Fitness of Antibiotic Resistant Bacteria – 2008

    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.

    Yet even if evolutionists ever did manage to pass the test for functional information generation, they still would not have shown it to be by purely material processes. This is since quantum mechanics has made any claim for “purely material processes” in this universe to be absurd. i.e. they (atheistic/evolutionists) would still be stuck with the transcendent God, they are so adverse to, within a Theistic evolutionary framework since materialism is falsified from first premises.

  3. 3
    O'Leary says:

    nanontiotami at 1: Much thanks. It wasn’t my purpose to blowtorch anyone, but simply to address obvious failures.

    Lenski simply failed to show that Darwinism explains evolution.

    If we could just accept that, we could get on with science.

  4. 4
    Seversky says:

    So you believe that the development undergone by a single animal as it grows from juvenile to adult is the same as the evolution of an entire population of animals over thousands of generations? This sounds suspiciously like Haeckelism

  5. 5
    O'Leary says:

    Seversky at 4, I have no idea what “Haeckelism” means. I know how a kitten grows into a cat. The kitten is obviously pre-programmed to do so.

    The farmer who puts out a flat pan of milk for the barn cats, after the milking has ended, knows this too.

    Are Darwinists really reduced to arguing about this kind of stuff?

  6. 6
    Barb says:

    “Now, Lenski’s E. coli changed shape, changed size, changed metabolism and changed food source. How much more MACRO do you expect an organism to evolve?”

    I want to see a reptile changing into a bird. Or amphibian changing into a mammal.

    Change within the organism itself is microevolution, which Lenski’s bacteria demonstrate nicely. It’s a far cry from the ‘organic soup’ that supposedly led to evolution of the various species and between the various species. If Darwin claims that a bear is a good ancestor for the whale (as he does in “Origin”), then show me that.

  7. 7
    Seversky says:

    O’Leary @ 5

    Are Darwinists really reduced to arguing about this kind of stuff?

    No, but they are reduced to trying to explain these concepts to journalists so that they can be relayed to the latter’s readership reasonably accurately.

    I ask again, do you see no difference between the development of a single animal and the evolution of a whole population of animals over thousands of generations?

  8. 8
    Seversky says:

    Barb @ 6

    I want to see a reptile changing into a bird. Or amphibian changing into a mammal.

    Me too, but it ain’t going to happen.

    According to evolution, it takes millions of years for those changes to complete. We don’t live long enough.

    That doesn’t mean it didn’t happen, though.

Leave a Reply