Does “Speedy Evolution” of PCB Resistance Help Darwinism?

_{Jonathan McLatchie

February 22, 2011

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Last week, the New York Times featured an article which reported that “in just 50 years, a fish has evolved a resistance to toxic chemicals polluting its Hudson River home, a new study finds.” Read More>>>

Comments

Bornagain77 "Nice article Jonathan; Why do newspapers distort the truth so persistently???" It is because the media elite, editors and up, are over 80% secular. They are at that percent because they do not tolerate a different point of view and purge any opposition. Evolution is fundamental to a secular worldview. Either evolution is true or they have to believe in a creator God. Doing so would mean having to obey the morals of the church.Peter_{February 23, 2011
February
02
Feb
23
23
2011
05:32 AM
5
05
32
AM
PDT}

Joseph, I was just going to mention Spetners book. Thanks. It reminds me of how some people wanted to use sickle cell anemia as an example of evolution because it happens to confer a survival on people living in areas where malaria is prevalent. But who would want their child to evolve in this way? Just goes to show that even the best examples of evolution are usually nothing more than genetic loss and cannot ever hope to produce the new genes and other stuff necessary for entirely new functions and organs.tjguy_{February 22, 2011
February
02
Feb
22
22
2011
11:46 PM
11
11
46
PM
PDT}

"Built-in response to environmental cues" ala Dr Lee Spetner in "Not By Chance", anyone?Joseph_{February 22, 2011
February
02
Feb
22
22
2011
04:13 PM
4
04
13
PM
PDT}

Nice article Jonathan; Why do newspapers distort the truth so persistently??? I mean these guys are suppose to be the most thorough when it comes to checking sources, yet whenever it comes to Darwinian evolution the story is always twisted to give Darwinism favorable light, though, as Dr. Behe has recently pointed out in peer-review, all such adaptation like this fish mutation always end up being a loss of one kind or the other,,, “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.(that is a net 'fitness gain' within a 'stressed' environment i.e. remove the stress from the environment and the parent strain is always turns out to be more 'fit') http://behe.uncommondescent.com/2010/12/the-first-rule-of-adaptive-evolution/ Is Antibiotic Resistance evidence for evolution? - 'The Fitness Test' - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/3995248 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/2010/03/thank_goodness_the_ncse_is_wro.html List Of Degraded Molecular Abilities Of Antibiotic Resistant Bacteria: http://www.trueorigin.org/bacteria01.asp further note; Human Genome Project Supports Adam, Not Darwin - February 2011 Excerpt: What is on the top tier? Increasingly, the answer appears to be mutations that are ‘deleterious’ by biochemical or standard evolutionary criteria. These mutations, as has long been appreciated, overwhelmingly make up the most abundant form of nonneutral variation in all genomes. http://www.creationsafaris.com/crev201102.htm#20110221abornagain77_{February 22, 2011
February
02
Feb
22
22
2011
11:34 AM
11
11
34
AM
PDT}

The bottom line is: it's still a fish!Peter_{February 22, 2011
February
02
Feb
22
22
2011
11:18 AM
11
11
18
AM
PDT}

Here is an article on the same subject from CMI as well: http://creation.com/rapid-tomcod-evolutionT. lise_{February 22, 2011
February
02
Feb
22
22
2011
09:54 AM
9
09
54
AM
PDT}

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply