'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...

[GodGunsGuts]

Quote of the Day:

"Micromutations do occur, but the theory that these alone can account for evolutionary change is either falsified, or else it is an unfalsifiable, hence metaphysical theory. I suppose that nobody will deny that it is a great misfortune if an entire branch of science becomes addicted to a false theory. But this is what has happened in biology: ... I believe that one day the Darwinian myth will be ranked the greatest deceit in the history of science. When this happens many people will pose the question: How did this ever happen?"

S Lovtrup, Darwinism: The Refutation of a Myth

[scottinoc]

So far not a single instance of one species morphing into another species. Kind of contrary to logic anyway, even if you don’t believe in a creator. But that won’t stop the evolution religion from aserting itself as the only truth.

[stormer]

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.

[ExtremeUnction]

Evolution happens.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the ping!

[ClearCase_guy]

if there is a change in allele frequency due to environmental stresses, evolution has taken place.

That is the convenient definition of evolution, chosen specifically so that Evos can say "evolution happens all the time".

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.

[stormer]

“That is the convenient definition of evolution...”

No, that is the scientific definition of evolution.

“There have been no observed cases.”

Google “ring species”.

[Liberty1970]

I think the big point of confusion that most non-creationists are stuck on is the assumption that any observation of change is automatically evidence for wholesale evolution by purely natural processes with all life coming from a single common ancestor. But that's like saying that the world must be flat because your front yard is flat.

We observe a variety of evolutionary change, so properly speaking all informed creationists are "evolutionists." The difference is that we do not have blind faith in the omnipotence of chance + natural selection. With the help of science we can map out what is and is not possible for evolutionary mechanisms to perform. Anything above that threshhold is, in our experience, the results of an intelligent designer.

This is why we believe the clothing we are wearing was intelligently designed, for example - not because we've seen the factory or the clothing designer at work, but because we all know and accept that nature doesn't produce blue jeans and shirts by itself. (If you say it's because you read the clothing tag, dear reader, I'll tear the tag off and paste it to a rock - do you then believe the rock was intelligently designed?)

[valkyry1]

But that won’t stop the evolution religion from asserting itself as the only truth

Thats an understatement! 

[chuck_the_tv_out]

No different than a selective breeding program.

"300 generations" proves the information was already IN the DNA, not a mutation. The information was selected out.

[GourmetDan]

"I think the big point of confusion that most non-creationists are stuck on is the assumption that any observation of change is automatically evidence for wholesale evolution by purely natural processes with all life coming from a single common ancestor."

Also known as the fallacy of affirming the consequent.

[the long march]

When a definition doesn’t fit the evidence then change the defintion. It is always easy to prove “evolution” as long as the definition is always changing. Too bad Newton was so rigid as to define Force as a function of mass and momentum

[ClearCase_guy]

I'm aware of ring species. I believe one example involves salamanders turning into salamanders that can't breed with some other salamanders. Another big example involves sea gulls turning into sea gulls that can't breed with some other sea gulls.

Yawn.

[Hacklehead]

Considering that the classic definition of species is based on the inability to crossbreed, doing the test on organisms that reproduce asexually (by binary fission) makes no sense.

[Don Corleone]

the broad Darwinian philosophy that life continually evolves upward...

Until it reaches the US Congress where it rapidly goes into retrograde!!!

[demshateGod]

“When this happens many people will pose the question: How did this ever happen?”

I’m weary of people saying that some group will come to their senses. I just don’t know about that? People will wax worse and worse the Bible says.

Thanks for the pings.

[agere_contra]

Very interesting point.

[Cedric]

The Darwinists promised us bones & fossils, millions of bones & fossils and, yet, this is what they’ve been reduced to - (intentionally) misinterpreted, adapting bacteria experiments.

Pathetic.

[autumnraine]

Adaption or evolution?