Posted on 10/01/2015 6:16:47 AM PDT by lasereye
On February 24, 1988, evolutionary biologist Richard Lenski began an ingenious ongoing experiment to test and demonstrate evolution. He and his coworkers have nursed thousands of generations of the common gut bacterium Escherichia coli, feeding them broth with limited nutrients. The team watched for decades to see if the germs might evolve a solution to this low-nutrient challenge. After about 31,500 generations, some finally cracked the code and changed. Evolution promoter Richard Dawkins wrote that this was “a beautiful example of evolution in action,” and that “creationists hate it.”1
The Harvard Gazette recently wrote, “Though the bacteria were originally genetically identical, they have evolved.”2 How could anybody doubt statements like this in light of what happened? But two genetic details topple this “beautiful example of evolution.”
Lenski’s team adds an energy molecule called citrate to the bacteria’s broth. All normal E. coli have a protein gate that brings citrate into the cell by trading out another chemical, but only when oxygen is absent. In wild E. coli, molecular switches interact with the gate genes’ promoter region to build more gates when oxygen levels drop. After about 31,500 generations, the germ’s cellular machinery cut out and pasted these genes into another spot on the bacteria’s DNA. The new location already contained an “on” promoter. These new mutants began promoting gate production even with oxygen present. This “evolved” bacterium could now import and use citrate in the presence of oxygen but was “surprisingly weak when it first appeared.”3
What really happened here? A mutation caused a loss of regulation. In the scientists’ special soup, bacteria with this loss grow for a little longer than others that could still regulate their citrate-gate production.
After about 33,000 generations, something dramatic changed. Those mutants’ descendants suddenly grew like gangbusters, consuming more citrate. When researchers first described this development in 2012, they speculated that mutations constructed new and complicated cellular machinery, but others have since revealed that the second change was not nearly that impressive.4
Instead of gaining new features, the bacteria lost regulation over an additional gate protein—one that pumps the sugar succinate into the cell. A mutation damaged its genetic “off” switch. Cells with both mutations now have two unregulated genes, both producing transport gates. One gate imports citrate by trading out a succinate, and the other pumps in more succinate that can then be traded. By these losses of regulation, citrate lands on the menu even with oxygen present, and the bacteria grow faster than previous generations.
Normal E. coli with intact genetic regulators retain the tools to cope with ever-changing conditions. But throw these mutants into any natural environment and they would fade to the back of the pack as they waste energy making so many extra gates.
So, did Lenski’s bacteria evolve? Well, mutations did help them use more citrate, but only by losing healthy regulation. Molecular biologist Michael Behe wrote,
This is evolution by degradation. All of the functional parts of the system were already in place before random mutation began to degrade them. Thus it is of no help to Darwinists, who require a mechanism that will construct new, functional systems.5
We could say that a man who lost both arms “evolved” the ability to wriggle through a small pipe leading to a new food source, but how would he fare among robust peers with arms? It is the same with these “evolved” bacteria. Lenski’s experiment has now surpassed 50,000 E. coli generations. After all those opportunities to prove evolution can construct something new, these germs have merely shown beautiful examples of degradation in action.
References
“evolution by degradation”, where have I observed that before?
Oh yah, Islam and the Democrat party!
Agreed. The “degradation” harped on DID adapt to the imposed environment, improving efficiency and reproduction rates. The result may not be intellectually satisfying, but is an adaptive improvement nonetheless.
“Gotcha” science isn’t science.
A scant genealogy does not make for compelling biology research.
New species are found often. I’ve yet to see evidence they’re not recently evolved.
Quote from the cited Harvard article:
After 30,000 generations, researchers noticed something strange. One population had evolved the ability to use a different carbon-based molecule in the solution, called citrate, as a power source.
Researchers wondered whether it was the result of a rare, single mutation, or a more complex change involving a series of mutations over generations. To find out, one of Lenski’s postdocs, Zachary Blount, took some of the frozen cells and grew them in a culture lacking glucose, with citrate as the only potential food source.
After testing 10 trillion ancestral cells from early generations, he got no growth. But when he tested cells from the 20,000th generation on, he began to get results, eventually finding 19 mutants that could use citrate as a power source. The results showed that the citrate-eating mutation was most likely not the result of a single mutation, but one enabled by multiple changes over 20,000 generations.
http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2014/02/evolution-in-real-time/
“Not once is there ever an article from the ICR offering evidence in support of an alternate theory.”
Why do you think they need to have a mission other than showing the evolutionist has no clothes?
On February 24, 1988, evolutionary biologist Richard Lenski began an ingenious ongoing experiment to test and demonstrate evolution.
...
Actually this is a groundbreaking and ongoing example of experimental evolution (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experimental_evolution), and more specifically an example of microevolution rather than the more general evolution, which takes much longer and needs much more varied environments.
5. Behe, M. A Blind Man Carrying a Legless Man Can Safely Cross the Street: Experimentally Confirming the Limits to Darwinian Evolution. Evolution News. Posted on evolutionnews.org January 11, 2012, accessed August 13, 2015. Emphasis in original.
...
I like how “Brian Thomas, M.S. *” formally cites the ICR’s own blog.
Two thirds of their name is “creation research”, so I’d expect they research creation, not just insult evolution.
Their agenda is saving souls. They rightly understand the enemy has cleverly used “science” to attack the Bible and undermine the Christian faith.
And I’ve never met a moonman who didn’t have an agenda.
As an “evolutionist” myself I must say you wrote a good post here. All of it so I’m not going to post a quote of it.
I will say though that I agree when you say “God said animals are to reproduce after their own kind”. I’d also like to point out though that that statement doesn’t necessarily preclude a theory of evolution.
Evolution doesn’t say animals don’t reproduce after their own kind. Also consider the fact that since we both agree the Bible isn’t meant to be a science textbook, then there certainly is a wide area of potential discoveries to be made about the workings of the physical world. There’s nothing inherently sinful about the scientific method that is.
So truly, what is the harm in at least attempting to describe *how* God created all the life forms we see today? Simply because in doing so, we come to conclusions that contradict a literalist interpretation of Scripture? We don’t say it’s sinful to describe *how* table salt is made in nature (by combining sodium and chloride atoms) or describing *how* earthquakes do what they do, or *how* hurricanes form.
A description of *how* animal and plant life came to be the way it is now contradicting a literal interpretation of Genesis can only mean one of two things: 1. That the theory (of evolution) is blasphemy or 2. That perhaps a literal interpretation of Genesis is not called for/was never intended by the inspired author.
I simply go for 2. After all, there are plenty of places in Scripture where only the insane would say a literal interpretation is required. So there’s no necessary reason it must be required in Genesis. It certainly doesn’t make Genesis any less true OR hisorically accurate to reject a literal interpretation.
Actually I find it a fascinating geological Guide to history having been a fossil hunter myself. I get where you are coming from, but true science is not random, it tends to arrive at destinations that are foundation stones of further growth. The problem with evolution is that it has become a religion as its scientific tenant fades in the light of modern research. As a foundation stone, it has failed utterly.
ICR is a scientific Christian apologetic group, not research focused. So it is not going to find new paths, just cement in place traditional science.
Science itself if true stands on its own in the end, but it’s history has always been political/religious. Sometimes it takes generations to break free. To me agnosticism is a lack of observation, atheism is a religion just like any other.
Science is spawned in a soup of preconceived conclusions.
Lol
Creation research is easy, “In the beginning, God......”
Dogs produce dogs. Breed them to your hearts content, they will not change (evolve) to fish.
Thank you for posting this article!
Here is a related link to Michael Behe’s article.
“A Blind Man Carrying a Legless Man Can Safely Cross the Street: Experimentally Confirming the Limits to Darwinian Evolution”
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/01/a_blind_man_car055021.html
evolution is change of form, something it was not before. Breed cats all day long, they will not evolve to non-cats.
>Evolution, developing a completely new trait, takes MUCH longer. It’s rarely as simple as a single mutation.<
And cannot be shown in any fossil record
You said, “ICR is a scientific Christian apologetic group, not research focused.”.
This is actually not true. Most of their work is apologetics, and when they can get enough funding, they fund research like this:
From the ICR website:
***
Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth (RATE)
Introduction
Scientists associated with the Institute for Creation Research have finished an eight-year research project known as RATE, or Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth.
For over a hundred years, evolutionists have insisted that the earth is billions of years old, and have arrogantly dismissed any views contrary to this belief. However, the team of seven creation scientists have discovered incredible physical evidence that supports what the Bible says about the young age of the earth.
Learn about their discoveries and explore the scientific evidence that supports biblical truth here!
***
P.S. ICR “can” get research money from the federal government
- kind of like the average pro-life ultrasound clinic
“can” get more federal funding than Planned Parenthood.....
Micro-evolution was never at issue. It's been observed plenty of times, under experimental conditions and in the wild. It's macro-evolution that is the problem... and convincing observation of its mechanisms in action remains elusive.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.