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
Agreed. That doesn’t sound like “evolution” to me. Now, if e. coli had started to morph into chickens or dinosaurs...
For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers of this darkness, and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms.
The Bible indicates that there are principalities and powers that have the world enslaved after the fall of man. They do this largely by using the fallen mind of man (Read Romans 1 to catch the “flavor” of how a mind that does not want to retain the knowledge of God operates) and “suggesting” shall we say alternative ideas to God’s revelation to man.
Modern man is not going to fall for the things primitive man did (although even that seems to be changing). Just look in the political realm as it’s a little easier to see it. The darling philosophy of multiculturalism is ridiculous as are many, many liberal ideas. Common sense (closely related to what God has revealed in his Word) knew these “ideas” wouldn’t work. Look what it’s done to Europe and our own country. But it was soooo highly prized and the elites were sure it would be great. Remember the Greeks? Man is the measure of all things. That philosophy still reigns today in the hearts of many. Just ask any student in jr. high if they think it fair for the A students to “share their grades with the F students so both average out to a C. We all know that 1/2 our population can’t be on welfare but the Dems would love to have everyone sign up and of course vote Democrat. We all know it’s going to come crashing down at some point and we know it is going to hurt us greatly but we charge ahead.
Don’t tell me these aren’t fair arguments or it’s a totally different field - they are fair. They show a heart in rebellion. Our real enemy, Satan and his gang use imaginations, philosophies, and everything exalted against the revealed Word of God. They package it up so it looks and smells nice - and did I mention intellectually stimulating? What teenage boy doesn’t want to hear that it’s ok to sleep around and look at porn? Do you think secular scientists do not have a similar point of vulnerability when it comes to science?
The Higher Critical Movements theologians, for the most part, held presuppositions that were already anti God so it wasn’t surprising that they came to the conclusions they had already preconceived. It’s the heart of man that is the problem. It’s in rebellion to its Creator and will not submit. During the 1950’s one of the Marx brothers stated that the way to get ahead in television was to break as many of the 10 Commandments on a tv show as possible. You see, we know there’s a dark side to us and we also know what’s appealing to that dark side. If we know and can exploit that just think what a fallen angelic being can do with that information?
The arguments raised up against the knowledge of God are just the excuses we give back to God for not believing what he has said all along. There in Romans 1 it say because of this, “God gave them over to a reprobate mind to do those things which are not convenient.” In other words, God lets them go deeper and deeper into the sin they love so much and the puffed up ideas they hold against the authority God holds over their lives. This game is going to end and soon. Believe what you want - you will have to explain yourself one day to him. I hope you repent before that Day and accept his grace and forgiveness but if that’s too uncool for you and too yesterday and too un-modern, I sincerely hope you have your little arguments ready about why evolution was so dear to your heart. Ya’ll got sum splaining to do. The great human minds against the Creator. It should be quite a show.
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.
...
So what’s the better explanation for the variety of life we observe?
Evolution is adaptation. It is natural selection. No one ever said you will have a duck giving birth to a lizard.
Yes, I do have an agenda. I think putting God and religion back into our society is a good idea, but the ICR’s methods are doing more harm than good.
High school science teachers would probably believe that really is evolution.
That is the question, isn't it? That's why we do science. This question requires more investigation before we can decide we have the answer.
The current model probably gets a good many things right, but it isn't perfect. That's a classic sign of science-in-proress.
Because there is no alternate theory. They don’t know, except to say they DO know evolution is debunked. It doesn’t work. Zero evidence of it working.
Piles and piles of evidence for adaptation. Zero for evolution. They’ve been pushing that rope so long that they’ve had to back off of it in public schools.
It’s not the first bit of science where scientists have had to shrug their shoulders and say they don’t know. Magnetism is another. Nobody knows how it works.
Oh...so they’ve gotten rid of the idea that all life came from a fishfrom the primordial ooze that learned to walk and ‘evolved’ into a mammal and eventually into Homo Sapiens?
I agree and I’m reminded of how newer technologies like comparative genomics is refining and improving the evolutionary model.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparative_genomics
“Two thirds of their name is “creation research”, so I’d expect they research creation, not just insult evolution.”
Researching creation means research related to creation.
Researching claims by those who try to support evolution and debunking them fits in sufficiently.
Falsifiable claims should not stand, once they are shown to be false.
No. All life came from single cells through incremental change occurs through many generations. You might actually want to read up on the science behind the theory of evolution rather than just parrot the nonsense offered by Answers In Genesis or some other such site. I have read both sides of the argument in articles by proponents of each side.
I don’t need to read up on evolution. I serve my Creator and none other.
We simply disagree.
Life from lifeless chemicals is laughable. The stupendous irreducible complexity of the most “simple” single-celled organism should cause them to revisit their theory. But they don’t, because it’s just as much faith-based as belief in creation is. Their complete lack of “transitional forms” of organisms from one kind to another should cause them to revisit their theory. But they don’t, because it’s just as much faith-based as belief in creation is. Evolution stands on those two nonexistent legs.
When the theory was first devised, man was ignorant about this complexity, and about the total lack of “transitional forms.” Now there’s less ignorance, and significantly more rebelliousness.
Evolutionism truly is a nothing but a pagan faith, complete with spontaneous generation and magical transformations they have no evidence for. Where’s the separation of church and state when you need it?
That’s not research, that’s pawing thru other people’s work looking for something that can be construed as “gotchas”.
Show some actual research being done to confirm the Young Earth theory.
“Show some actual research being done to confirm the Young Earth theory.”
I’m a creationist, but not a “young earth” creationist, so you’re on your own with that one.
Well, we’re talking about ICR here, and they hold to Young Earth theory.
I don’t have a problem with God using evolution as a mechanism in creation.
Nothing wrong with trying to understand _how_ the Creator created, and how things got from then to now.
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.