Larry Moran’s Revisionist History Debunked (Again)

_{Barry Arrington
November 10, 2015

Intelligent Design

2}_{Categories
Intelligent Design}

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

As we have seen, Larry Moran channeled Ace Ventura when he falsely claimed I do not understand Darwinism and then, when challenged to back up his claim, came up with exactly bupkis.

In the course of demonstrating his own incompetence, Larry gave us this gem of revisionist history:

But, as most Sandwalk readers know, nobody predicted junk DNA, certainly not Darwinists. Junk DNA confers no fitness advantage on the individual. It’s certainly detrimental at some level because it uses up resources for no benefit. If Darwinists were presented with the possibility of junk DNA back in 1970 then they would almost certainly have rejected it because it doesn’t make sense in a strictly Darwinian world. In fact, most supporters of Neo-Darwinsm and the hardened version of the Modern Synthesis DID reject junk DNA back then and they still do even today.

I and several other posters here at UD debunked Larry’s revisionism.

Now, over at ENV, Casey Luskin does a body slam on post-ENCODE revisionism such as Larry put on display above with his Rewriting History Won’t Erase Bad Evolutionary Predictions. Luskin leaves Larry nowhere to hide.

In the space of just a couple of days Professor of Biochemistry Larry Moran has been taken down not once but twice by mere lawyers. Ouch and double ouch. I’m reminded of Tommy Boy:

Comments

Jack Jones: That has never been a marker for evolution ie one type of life form to a new type. That's the whole point, of course, life is all one big family. Humans are deuterostomes with appendages for stuffing food into one end. mohammadnursyamsu: But still we are talking about piece by piece removal, which would still be an infinitesimal. Don't think you are using the word "infinitesimal" correctly. There's also the additional time involved in replication. mohammadnursyamsu: You cannot just say Darwinism predicts it because you find it. The model does not predict it. The basic principles of population genetics implies that large populations under strong selection for replication efficiency should have low amounts of junk. The quantification, though, is dependent on many factors. drc466: True or False: One can reach the moon by running far enough, or digging a deep enough hole. Walking won't work. A hole through the Earth might, though. You would have to add energy on the way through. Probably false as a practical matter. A moon tram might be easier to build. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/StarTram drc466: True or False: One can create an airplane by randomly assembling parts of a car that retain their existing function or a broken version of their existing function. Randomly? Cars don't reproduce, and car parts tend not to be sticky and recombine in many interesting way, like molecules, so false. However, organisms do reproduce, molecules do tend to be sticky and interact in many different ways, populations can and do evolve, and we have evidence of billions of years of adaptive evolution.Zachriel_{November 12, 2015
November
11
Nov
12
12
2015
06:52 AM
6
06
52
AM
PDT}

Well done, lutesuite!Evolve_{November 12, 2015
November
11
Nov
12
12
2015
05:58 AM
5
05
58
AM
PDT}

With ENCODE Results, Evolutionary Biologists Are Forced to Wait in Perplexity - Casey Luskin - November 11, 2015 As we recently saw, some evolutionary scientists have responded to ENCODE by attempting to rewrite history and claim that evolutionary science predicted function for non-coding DNA all along. Other evolutionists handle ENCODE's results in a more candid manner. Instead of rewriting history, they acknowledge the evidence now supports mass functionality in the genome, and even concede that evolutionary models didn't anticipate this result. They are compelled to live with ambiguity until evolutionary models come along to explain ENCODE's data. For example, lead ENCODE researcher John Stamatoyannopoulos admits that "new models of evolutionary conservation are needed"1 to explain why so much human DNA is functional. Similarly, in a Nature article titled "Celebrate the Unknowns," Philip Ball reflects upon ENCODE's implications: "[T]he current picture of how and where evolution operates, and how this shapes genomes, is something of a mess. ... But we are grown-up enough to be told about the doubts, debates and discussions that are leaving the putative 'age of the genome' with more questions than answers. Tidying up the story bowdlerizes the science and creates straw men for its detractors. Simplistic portrayals of evolution encourage equally simplistic demolitions."2 Aside from Ball's admission that ENCODE leaves evolutionary genomics in "a mess," don't miss his last two sentences. In referring to "detractors" who make "demolitions" of "simplistic portrayals of evolution," he's referring to proponents of intelligent design, who point out that ENCODE refutes evolutionary models predicting a junk-filled genome. Now that those predictions have failed, the best way to save evolution from ENCODE is to disavow those models by calling them "simplistic" or "straw men." Ball is being honest when he says that ENCODE's data wreak havoc upon old evolutionary models, and that evolutionists cannot, presently, explain those results. What he doesn't tell readers is that those old models that predicted junky genomes were not "straw men" or fringe hypotheses. The were well-accepted proposals and direct consequences of evolution-based population genetics math. References: [1.] John Stamatoyannopoulos, "What does our genome encode?" Genome Research, 22:1602-1611 (2012). [2.] Philip Ball, "Celebrate the Unknowns," Nature, 496:419-420 (April 25, 2013). http://www.evolutionnews.org/2015/11/pro-encode_evol100821.html
bornagain_{November 12, 2015
November
11
Nov
12
12
2015
05:44 AM
5
05
44
AM
PDT}

F/N 2: It is worth cross-posting the following clip to deal with what was already emerging a decade past: [Aarron T. Willingham 1 and Thomas R. Gingeras, Cell 125, June 30, 2006 ©2006 Elsevier Inc., p 1215ff:] ESSAY TUF Love for “Junk” DNA >>Over the past five years, research – ers working with various organisms and using multiple technologies to explore genomewide gene expres- sion have converged on the same surprising conclusion: transcription is widespread throughout the genome and many-fold higher than existing genome annotations would predict. The burgeoning number of these transcripts of unknown function, or TUFs (Cheng et al., 2005), highlights a remarkably complex transcriptional architecture that includes alternative splice isoforms for almost all protein- coding genes, widespread transcrip- tion of antisense RNAs, and abun- dant noncoding RNAs (ncRNAs) with important biological functions. By some estimates, TUFs could rival protein-coding transcripts in number (Cawley et al., 2004). Such transcrip- tional diversity may explain how the relatively similar numbers of protein- coding genes estimated for fruit fly (13,985; BDGP release 4), nematode worm (21,009; Wormbase release 150), and human (23,341; NCBI release 36) result in the remarkable phenotypic differences observed among these species.>> KF PS: Also note the clip from Sternberg in the parallel thread at 115. I commented:
. . . two pivotal papers c 1980 — Nature of course being the no 1 general journal of the natural sciences, rendered plausible on prevailing evolutionary explanatory frameworks, the then known observations. This is HYP-X accounts for existing observations, o1, o2 . . . Oj. In short, prediction in the sense of inference to best current acceptable explanation, per existing evidence seen as hard to handle otherwise. Retrodiction. While that was so, the rhetorical pattern of triumphalistically hitting “Creationists” and “IDiots” with junk DNA set in and became a stock talking point. Then came ENCODE etc, and there was obviously another vestigial organs argument in hand. We are seeing revisionising in the teeth of the facts of the timeline, and damage control backed up by well you dummies and ignoramuses just don’t understand.
kairosfocus_{November 12, 2015
November
11
Nov
12
12
2015
03:26 AM
3
03
26
AM
PDT}

First of all, Andre, why not stop with the insults? It doesn't make anyone here look good. Yes, Larry's site is filled with people who behave like ninnies, but lutesuite has never been among them. Second, it is true, from both sides, that people are merely parsing words at this point. And verb tenses. Larry and his cadre are doing so over at Sandwalk, and people here are guilty as well. As an alternative, if I may be so bold, what it seems that Barry is most eager to point out, as are others here, is that the 'theory of evolution' is hardly served by proponents who spin on a dime when new evidence shows up. Thus, if someone says, " the beauty of natural selection is that it streamlines beasts with great precision, so they are suited to their environment, whittling away anything that doesn't confer an advantage, resulting in a world that looks designed for both predator and prey"... when faced with the possibility of junk DNA, says, " the beauty of natural selections is that it contains its own history, behaving as no designer ever would, keeping records of earlier phases through genetic sequences that no longer serve any purpose, huge stocks of 'junk' etc." ..something smells fishy. If a theory is willing to bend over backwards to accommodate itself to any input, it fails the sniff test. And, if sophisticated evolutionists recognize this, they should be hollering for natural selection to be no longer taught, rather than applauding the bestselling, religion bashing, books of its hold-out proponents.soundburger_{November 12, 2015
November
11
Nov
12
12
2015
02:09 AM
2
02
09
AM
PDT}

Moron So the theory of evolution is some standard definition? Really why then so many different views on said standard? Clearly it's all true then?Andre_{November 11, 2015
November
11
Nov
11
11
2015
04:44 PM
4
04
44
PM
PDT}

LarTanner:
Neutral observers see very well what’s going on here...
We neutral observers are just drifting, so really we could go either way.Mung_{November 11, 2015
November
11
Nov
11
11
2015
03:43 PM
3
03
43
PM
PDT}

Actually there's an even bigger problem with Casey's article: I made the mistake of assuming he accurately represented the studies he quoted. But, in fact, many of them say exactly the opposite of what Casey says they did: https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/are-some-of-our-opponents-in-the-grip-of-a-domineering-parasitical-ideology/#comment-587465 Oops! Own goal.lutesuite_{November 11, 2015
November
11
Nov
11
11
2015
03:30 PM
3
03
30
PM
PDT}

@ vjtorely (#90)
I have to say that Casey Luskin’s takedown is one of the best I’ve seen in a long time. Bravo!
Hmm. Could you kindly point out the part where he quotes a prediction (by which I mean "prediction", not "postdiction" or "retrodiction") made by anyone regarding the existence of junk DNA before junk DNA was experimentally demonstrated. Because that's kinda the whole point he's trying to make with that article, and I can't find it. He does mention that one of the earlier teams of investigators to demonstrate the high proportion of repetitive elements in the genome said that they found "repugnant" the idea that these could serve no function. Which is kind of interesting in the context of the current discussion, isn't it? The really odd part of that article is that Luskin proceeds as if the existence of junk DNA has been disproven. Which, given that the present discusion is primarily about whether ID proponents understand the scientific evidence in support of evolution, is actually quite amusing.lutesuite_{November 11, 2015
November
11
Nov
11
11
2015
03:10 PM
3
03
10
PM
PDT}

Really Lar, Where did Larry show I do not understand Darwinism? I missed it. Help me out.Barry Arrington_{November 11, 2015
November
11
Nov
11
11
2015
03:04 PM
3
03
04
PM
PDT}

@LarTanner 93 "Larry showed that Barry doesn’t understand modern evolutionary theory," Evolutionists do not agree on what the theory is, Your own comment shows your own lack of understanding. When you do not know what you are talking about then you really have no grounds to judge others.Jack Jones_{November 11, 2015
November
11
Nov
11
11
2015
03:03 PM
3
03
03
PM
PDT}

Neutral observers see very well what's going on here: Larry showed that Barry doesn't understand modern evolutionary theory, and now Barry's off on the usual windbaggery. Barry's declared himself the victor in a made-up competition, never seeing that he's completely missed the point and now comes across as a blowhard and bully. Then, more of the same: the IDers focus on ridiculous points of language in mean-spirited and obtuse ravings. The more educated IDers stay silent. And those who know modern evolutionary theory and see little merit in ID try valiantly to discuss substance with the horde. No one is fooled, Barry. No one is fooled, UD. Everyone sees how dishonestly and nastily you are conducting these discussions. Just stop already. Isn't it time to pause and see what you are really accomplishing? Seriously, Barry and UD: give it a rest.LarTanner_{November 11, 2015
November
11
Nov
11
11
2015
02:53 PM
2
02
53
PM
PDT}

VJ @ 90. Indeed.Barry Arrington_{November 11, 2015
November
11
Nov
11
11
2015
02:27 PM
2
02
27
PM
PDT}

lute, Semantic games, how...disappointing. However, since you have gone there: 1) from the quote: "most supporters of Neo-Darwinsm and the hardened version of the Modern Synthesis". I won't expand on the word meaning of the conjunction "and" - hopefully you can see where it is relevant to your "Helpful hint". You conflate the two camps - not I, I merely quoted LM. A bit of your own revisionist history, perhaps? 2) "most" - ah, the weaseling of semantics. Obviously, short of performing a statistical analysis of the publicly stated stances of every person self-identifying as an "evolutionist" during the time period in question, it is difficult to quantify whether "most" accepted junk DNA. Which is as much a strike against LM as against Arrington/Luskin. This is why, in their takedown of LM, A/L quote the major representatives of evolutionary thought at the time - if "most" had disagreed with them, perhaps they should have said so at the time. Silence gives assent, and all that. As there was no significant pushback against Dawkins, Crick, Orgel, etc. when they were claiming most DNA as "junk", it becomes LM's burden to show some evidence that "most" were silent objectors to such pre-eminent Darwinist spokesperson's claims. Merely taking the weasel path that you have and claiming there exists some anonymous "most" who never spoke up on the subject (in which case, how would LM know most never accepted junk DNA?) is pretty weak counter-argument. If, however, you would like to rest your case on the ground of the anonymous "most", feel free to do so. Your call.drc466_{November 11, 2015
November
11
Nov
11
11
2015
01:58 PM
1
01
58
PM
PDT}

Hi Barry, I have to say that Casey Luskin's takedown is one of the best I've seen in a long time. Bravo!vjtorley_{November 11, 2015
November
11
Nov
11
11
2015
01:54 PM
1
01
54
PM
PDT}

@ drc466 (comment #86) You failed to address one term in your breakdown: "…In fact, most supporters of Neo-Darwinsm and the hardened version of the Modern Synthesis DID reject junk DNA back then and they still do even today." The term "most" does not mean "all". Also, do you think Larry is saying "most" supporters of Neo-Darwinism support "the hardened version of the Modern Synthesis"? Helpful hint: He isn't. With those corrections in mind, try re-running your close-reading analysis....lutesuite_{November 11, 2015
November
11
Nov
11
11
2015
01:39 PM
1
01
39
PM
PDT}

Zachriel @79,
bornagain: “Nonetheless, all of the mutations identified to date can readily be classified as either modification-of-function or loss-of-FCT. ” That’s how evolution is posited to work, by modification of existing functions.
True or False: One can reach the moon by running far enough, or digging a deep enough hole. True or False: One can create an airplane by randomly assembling parts of a car that retain their existing function or a broken version of their existing function. While I appreciate your stubbornness in the face of contrary evidence, you're never going to get anyone who isn't already a committed evolutionist to admit that a degenerate version of e. coli that can do what its parent version can...also do, but to a lesser extent under slightly different external conditions, constitutes evidence that random mutation can generate novel functionality in a lifeform.drc466_{November 11, 2015
November
11
Nov
11
11
2015
01:34 PM
1
01
34
PM
PDT}

@zachriel That 2 percent was higher than I expected, even for a bacteria, and even if it included all reproduction costs of the entire cell, and not only the cost of copying the DNA. But still we are talking about piece by piece removal, which would still be an infinitesimal. I think you are not properly separating the model from the reality. You cannot just say Darwinism predicts it because you find it. The model does not predict it. It could more likely be intelligent design using natural selection in an anticipatory way.mohammadnursyamsu_{November 11, 2015
November
11
Nov
11
11
2015
01:22 PM
1
01
22
PM
PDT}

lutesuite: You can't find the revisionist history because you are apparently only able to read one sentence at a time. Shall we move on to the rest of the LM quote?
...In fact, most supporters of Neo-Darwinsm and the hardened version of the Modern Synthesis DID reject junk DNA back then and they still do even today.
Allow me to break this down for you: 1) "supporters of Neo-Darwinism...and Modern Synthesis" - Darwinists 2) "back then" - clear reference to prior sentence's 1970 timeframe. 3) "reject junk DNA" - clear statement that Darwinists (see 1 above) did not accept junk DNA (according to LM) 4) "still" - indicates continuance, as in "ever since 1970" 5) "even today" - clear statement that Darwinists (see 1, 3) continue not to accept junk DNA (according to LM) So - from the 5 points above, LM is providing a revisionist history indicating that Darwinists of the Neo-Darwin/Modern Synthesis viewpoint never accepted junk DNA, let alone tried to use it as a bludgeon against ID and Creationism. Which Arrington, Luskin, et. al. have shown to be egregiously false. Claim: Larry Moran is engaged in revisionist history Verdict: TRUEdrc466_{November 11, 2015
November
11
Nov
11
11
2015
01:21 PM
1
01
21
PM
PDT}

Your #78 Tee hee. Very good, Mung. Indeed, the very best ! And we've seen some corkers on here, haven't we ?Axel_{November 11, 2015
November
11
Nov
11
11
2015
12:57 PM
12
12
57
PM
PDT}

"The standard test is to determine whether the organism metabolizes citrate in an aerobic environment. It’s not as difficult as you make it out to be." That has never been a marker for evolution ie one type of life form to a new type. That's adaptation and does not support common descent, You have people that can metabolize lactose and those that cannot, those that can metabolize lactose are not considered as becoming a new life form. You are doing the old evolutionist equivocation game.Jack Jones_{November 11, 2015
November
11
Nov
11
11
2015
12:39 PM
12
12
39
PM
PDT}

bornagain: I’m satisfied that the unbiased reader can now clearly see to dishonest shell game you are trying to play with your claim for macro-evolution. The simplest way is to rebut that is to simply review the original comment.
Jack Jones: What is observed is that, No matter how many generations they go through, Ecoli remain Ecoli. Zachriel: Actually, some of the strains do not pass the standard test for E. coli. http://www.microbelibrary.org/component/resource/laboratory-test/2757-citrate-test
Zachriel_{November 11, 2015
November
11
Nov
11
11
2015
12:25 PM
12
12
25
PM
PDT}

Whatever Zach, I'm satisfied that the unbiased reader can now clearly see to dishonest shell game you are trying to play with your claim for macro-evolution. I'll respond to your antics no more on this thread. The last word to try to wipe some of the egg off your face is all yours.bornagain_{November 11, 2015
November
11
Nov
11
11
2015
12:19 PM
12
12
19
PM
PDT}

bornagain: since the environment itself can be adjusted to give an indication that both species are the same, then by definition, their own tests fails to establish that the bacteria are actually two different species. The standard test is to determine whether the organism metabolizes citrate in an aerobic environment. It's not as difficult as you make it out to be.Zachriel_{November 11, 2015
November
11
Nov
11
11
2015
12:13 PM
12
12
13
PM
PDT}

Whatever, since the environment itself can be adjusted in the test to give an indication that both species are the same, then by definition, their own tests fails to establish that the bacteria are actually two different species. Only someone who was inherently dishonest would even cite such an experiment as proof of macro-evolution. And right on time, in walks Zach to cite the experiment as proof of macro-evolution. Thus the only thing that the test actually proves is that Darwinists are inherently dishonest in regards to experimental evidence. In fact, I think I will keep this experiment in my notes as a prime example of the dishonesty inherent in 'Darwinian' experiments purporting to prove macro-evolution is true.bornagain_{November 11, 2015
November
11
Nov
11
11
2015
12:10 PM
12
12
10
PM
PDT}

bornagain: "Nonetheless, all of the mutations identified to date can readily be classified as either modification-of-function or loss-of-FCT. " That's how evolution is posited to work, by modification of existing functions. bornagain: "No increases in adaptation or fitness were observed, and no explanation was offered for how neo-Darwinism could overcome the downward trend in fitness." They were more fit for the given environment. That's how evolution is posited to work.Zachriel_{November 11, 2015
November
11
Nov
11
11
2015
12:04 PM
12
12
04
PM
PDT}

Axel:
Anyone can answer questions of their own choosing, which no one has asked, while ignoring those that are put to you. But does it make sense even to you to continue to do so ?
Look you. I am trying to make a career out of doing just that. And I love to learn from the best. So zip it!Mung_{November 11, 2015
November
11
Nov
11
11
2015
12:01 PM
12
12
01
PM
PDT}

bornagain: I can use anoxic conditions in order to activate the e-coli’s citrate digestion ability and then make both colors match in the supposed ‘species’ test. That's not the standard test, which is in aerobic conditions.Zachriel_{November 11, 2015
November
11
Nov
11
11
2015
11:59 AM
11
11
59
AM
PDT}

Oh goody, Zach cites a citrate test to determine if the e-coli are a different 'species' of bacteria. Bet I can use anoxic conditions in order to activate the e-coli's citrate digestion ability and then make both colors match in the supposed 'species' test. I guess that would mean, using their logic, that they are both the same species in anoxic conditions but different species in the presence of oxygen? :) OOPS Zachy, big failure in logic 101 Forget technical school Zach. I'm afraid even applied science is beyond youbornagain_{November 11, 2015
November
11
Nov
11
11
2015
11:43 AM
11
11
43
AM
PDT}

as to Lenski's LTEE. All I have to say is that if this is what Darwinists think experimentally makes their case that unguided material processes can create brains that are far, far, more complex than the entire internet combined, then they need to demand their money back from the college they went to. They were definitely hoodwinked if they think they got a proper science education~! :) Perhaps they can use that money to go to a good technical college where they can learn some good old fashioned applied science that relates to the real world? :)
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/2011/09/richard_lenskis_long_term_evol051051.html Evolution of an Irreducibly Complex System? – Lenski’s E. Coli – Feb. 2015 Conclusion: When viewed objectively, without the blinders of materialistic philosophy, Lenski’s experiments are strong evidence for, and a powerful vindication of, Behe’s arguments in particular, and the skeptics of Darwinism in general. At the end of the day, Lenski’s E. coli are just another in a long line of Darwinian claims that, upon closer inspection, fail to live up to their hype: from moth coloration to finch beaks to antibiotic resistance in bacteria. In each case, when these examples are carefully studied, instead of supporting the grander claims of the evolutionary creation story, they inadvertently demonstrate the pathetic impotence of Darwinian mechanisms and underscore the need for an alternative source of innovation in the history of life. https://uncommondescent.com/irreducible-complexity/evolution-of-an-irreducibly-complex-system-lenskis-e-coli/#comment-551158 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/2013/11/richard_lenskis079401.html 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 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.org/articles/aid/v4/n1/beneficial-mutations-in-bacteria Genetic Entropy Confirmed (in Lenski's e-coli) - June 2011 Excerpt: No increases in adaptation or fitness were observed, and no explanation was offered for how neo-Darwinism could overcome the downward trend in fitness. http://crev.info/content/110605-genetic_entropy_confirmed
As to the much ballyhooed citrate digestion (which was present before in anoxic conditions)
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/2012/11/rose-colored_gl066361.html 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/bacterial-evolution-actually-design/
So at the end of the day we see the loss of, among other things, the bacterial flagellum, and a modification of a preexistent citrate function. In what should be needless to say, this is not the evidence that Darwinists need to try to make their case that unguided material processes can create brains that are far, far, more complex than the entire internet combined.bornagain_{November 11, 2015
November
11
Nov
11
11
2015
11:31 AM
11
11
31
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 5 Next