'Live Evolution' Not Witnessed After All

ICR ^ | March 23, 2009 | Brian Thomas, M.S.

[GodGunsGuts]

'Live Evolution' Not Witnessed After All

by Brian Thomas, M.S.*

Some science media outlets are hailing a recent study as “live evolution witnessed,” but what researchers at the Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique actually saw isn’t evolution at all. They observed, over the course of 300 generations, predator bacteria adapting to overcome certain defenses erected by its prey.

The kinds of minor changes that these bacteria experienced, however, do not support the broad Darwinian philosophy that life continually evolves upward...

[autumnraine]

I see that too. Where someone said that a bird will breed with another bird on the end of the bird spectrum and the new species was evolution over time or something like that. But they are still birds.

[atlaw]

So tell us, GGG, is it Adnan Oktar, that preeminent Muslim creationist and charlatan, who’s the source for your 20 year old quotes and your “creation research?” And is Mr. Oktar (qua Harun Yahya) the one footing the bill for your posting marathon?

[Wonder Warthog]

"The important question is: can one species turn into another species? And so far, there is only speculation about that. There have been no observed cases."

Actually, there has. And done in a lab. Scientists (you know, those evil fellows that keep trying to do SCIENCE, instead of RELIGION) have bred fruit flies to the point where a separated population is no longer fertile with a different population of fruit fly, which is precisely what "a new species" is. This means that those two populations are less kin to each other than lions and tigers (for example), which can cross-breed to produce hybrids.

[count-your-change]

Ring species is one of the clearest examples of Darwinists defining evolution to mean everything and anything they choose.

Can you give an example of any so-called “ring species” actually tuning into something different than the original species?

[GodGunsGuts]

No, Yahya is not the source of my quote, and no, I am not an adherent of the Muslim creation movement. I am a born again, Bible-believing Christian. Having said that, given the Muslim creationists loathing of terrorism committed in the name of Islam, the more Muslims who become creationists the safer the world will be IMHO.

PS Muslim creationists are not YEC.

[Kozak]

Two points: Evolution is directionless, not “upward”, and if there is a change in allele frequency due to environmental stresses, evolution has taken place. The author is wrong.

No fair, using actual science and logic in an argument on a "cretin" thread!/sarc



To mistrust science and deny the validity of the scientific method is to resign your job as a human. You'd better go look for work as a plant or wild animal.

P. J. O'Rourke

[jonno]

crevo bookmark

[count-your-change]

Now the definition of evolution is being expanded to include an UNWILLINGNESS to interbreed. The so-called ring species of California salamanders being an example.

[Cedric]

“In conclusion, evolution is not observable, repeatable, or refutable, and thus does not qualify as either a scientific fact or theory.”

Dr. David N. Menton
PhD Biology

“The success of Darwinism was accomplished by a decline in scientific integrity.”

Dr. W.R. Thompson
Entomologist

[GodGunsGuts]

PS Is Richard Dawkins, that preeminent atheist evolutionist and charlatan, footing the bill for your relentless false accusations against creationists/creation scientists?

[Ira_Louvin]

Evolution is observable and testable. The misconception here is that science is limited to controlled experiments that are conducted in laboratories by people in white lab coats. Actually, much of science is accomplished by gathering evidence from the real world and inferring how things work. Astronomers cannot hold stars in their hands and geologists cannot go back in time, but in both cases scientists can learn a great deal by using multiple lines of evidence to make valid and useful inferences about their objects of study. The same is true of the study of the evolutionary history of life on Earth, and as a matter of fact, many mechanisms of evolution are studied through direct experimentation as in more familiar sciences.

Fossils such as Archaeopteryx give us snapshots of organisms as they adapt and change over time.

Studying modern organisms such as elephant seals can reveal specific examples of evolutionary history and bolster concepts of evolution.

Artificial selection among guppies can demonstrate microevolution in the laboratory.

Laboratory experimentation with fruit flies demonstrates the power of genetic mutation.

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/misconceptions_faq.php#b6

[Cedric]

“(Archaeopteryx) the oldest-known fossil animal that is generally accepted as a bird.”

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/32599/Archaeopteryx

Not transitional.

[count-your-change]

Yeah GGG, Why do you get paid when everyone else does it for free? and has that great scholar, Imustaben Yokin, really been footing the cost of all those pixels? Fess up!

[D-fendr]

Evolution is directionless, not “upward”

I think a more correct statement would be that science cannot see 'direction' or be used teleologically - since this can only be done outside science's necessary limitations.

Second, using the only example we have, our earth, evolution IS upward - matter, life, mind, intelligence, consciousness.

[DallasMike]

Good morning, my brother in Christ!

Actually, there are several recent examples (within the past 100 years) of actual speciation taking place.

• Single-gene speciation by left–right reversal
• An assortment of observed speciation
• Bacteria that have evolved to eat nylon (includes rebuttals to Answeres in Genesis)
• Other assorted examples
• Tetraploidal rat (Tympanoctomys barrerae) -- big example of macroevolution.

It seems that many creationists -- both YEC and OEC -- now believe in microevolution. The problem now is the definition of microevolution. Some say that adaptation is not evolution. I believe that it is. The Bible says that God created "after its own kind." What does that mean? Species, order, genus?

I see evolution as a fact, and the examples above show demonstrates recent example of speciation. Do I believe that cows could evolve from gophers. No. But if I see solid scientific evidence to the contrary, I'm open to changing my mind because I believe that God speaks to us through his creation.

We may or may not disagre on this subject. But I thank you for bringing it up, my brother.

[DallasMike]

Adaption or evolution?

How about adaption equals evolution?

[Ira_Louvin]

This is from your own link: Archaeopteryx shared many anatomic characters with coelurosaurs, a group of theropods (carnivorous dinosaurs). In fact, only the identification of feathers on the first known specimens indicated that the animal was a bird . Unlike living birds, however, Archaeopteryx had well-developed teeth and a long well-developed tail similar to those of smaller dinosaurs, except that it had a row of feathers on each side. The three fingers bore claws and moved independently, unlike the fused fingers of living birds. Archaeopteryx had well-developed wings, and the structure and arrangement of its wing feathers—similar to that of most living birds—indicate that it could fly. Skeletal structures related to flight are incompletely developed, however, which suggests that Archaeopteryx may not have been able to sustain flight for great distances. Archaeopteryx is known to have evolved from small carnivorous dinosaurs, as it retains many features such as teeth and a long tail. It also retains a wishbone, a breastbone, hollow, thin-walled bones, air sacs in the backbones, and feathers, which are also found in the nonavian coelurosaurian relatives of birds. These structures, therefore, cannot be said to have evolved for the purpose of flight, because they were already present in dinosaurs before either birds or flight evolved. http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/32599/Archaeopteryx

[editor-surveyor]

No fair, using actual science and logic in an argument on a "cretin" thread!

Is this the best you children can do? No 'science' was involved, just a child playing simple semantic violations, and hoping that the teacher left her glasses home that day.

[Ha Ha Thats Very Logical]

Not transitional.

Thought experiment for you: if birds did evolve from dinosaurs, what would a transitional look like?

[Cedric]

Integrity experiment for you: If you were challenged to compose a straight forward, non loaded hypothetical question which did not contain an assumed false premise, would you be able to do so and, if so, what would it look like?