Evolution or Creationism, Where does the evidence lead?

[smloeffelholz]

When you called evolutionists predictable, that was the pot calling the kettle black. The instant I posted about the Cit+ bacteria I knew exactly how you were going to refute it. The same way that every creationist, and coincidentally the same way that every major creationist website, tries to refute it. Simply claim that the mutation was a very minor change and point out that the bacteria is still bacteria. Despite the fact that the first statement is false and the second statement is not only obvious but expected by the researchers themselves, it sounds good and can make the uneducated nod their heads.

First, I have to point out (even though others already did) that the E-coli bacteria used in the experiment could not metabolize citrate under aerobic conditions at the beginning of the experiment. This point cannot be emphasized enough because that shows that the Cit+ bacteria developed a unique, beneficial mutation. It doesn't matter that other strains of bacteria already had that ability, this particular strain didn't. Using this logic, if a child who has never spoken before speaks, it is no big deal because other children can do it (not the greatest example because it does not involve generations and evolution but I hope you understand my point).

The second statement from above is just moving the goal posts. Creationists love to do this and have been for as long as evolution has been around. First they wanted proof that random mutation and natural selection could produce beneficial changes in an organism. Once this was displayed many times, they wanted evidence that these traits could accumulate and cause speciation events. Then several examples of this were found. Now creationists have resorted to asking to see the impossible. Even though evolution has only been studied for about 150 years, they want to see changes that should take hundreds of thousand to millions of years. This is akin to not believing in erosion because no scientist has been able to reproduce the Grand Canyon in 20 years. The real kicker here is that the only way this evidence could be obtained in our lifetime, is by experimentally speeding up mutations and selection using non-natural means. Then even if a scientist succeeds at this monumental feat, creationists will claim that intelligence was involved and evolution was not the driving force. Each time a scientist completes a challenge set forth by creationists, they try to explain away the research and put forth a new, much more difficult, challenge.

Interestingly enough, after you gave your predictable reply to the Cit+ study, I was going to mention the nylon bacteria, but someone beat me to it. You have not addressed this topic, and it is much harder to explain away than the Cit+ bacteria. These organisms are able to digest molecules that did not exist 100 years ago. Either the bacteria always had the ability to digest a substance that never existed (something that makes no sense at all), or they developed this novel trait through random mutations such as gene duplications. If you concede that the latter is true, this obliterates the claim that useful additions to the genome cannot come about through random mutation, and that the probabilities involved in developing novel proteins is prohibitively high.

Finally, I would like to address the point you keep making about beneficial mutations making something less fit in a different environment. If you think about it, this makes perfect sense. An animal cannot be perfectly adapted to every conceivable environment, and any trait that is beneficial in one environment will be detrimental in another. Evolutionary processes do not have foresight and cannot possibly plan for the future. Pandas are an excellent example of this. They are animals that are perfectly suited to occupy a very specific niche in the environment (the ability to digest a rapidly growing and bountiful plant is obviously beneficial). Now that their niche is all but gone, they are all but extinct. This doesn't mean that they were poorly evolved, it just means that the environment they had evolved to live in is now basically destroyed. I doubt that anyone would claim that arctic wolves or scorpions are poorly adapted to their environments, yet place a scorpion in the arctic and an arctic wolf in the desert and see how well they do. Becoming more highly adapted, and therefore more evolved, to an environment requires that you are more poorly adapted for other environments.

 

[Garry Webb]

Excuse me, paximperium, just for clarification, are you calling me an idiot? (ID-iots and creationists) Your quote: “It would be equivalent to a car being able to burn hydrogen instead of gasoline. To an ignorant layperson, the car sure looks the same but just about everything internally is new.” You really should be more cautious when posting responses before actually doing a little research on a given topic. Do you think that a car cannot burn hydrogen?

Try Googling “Running a gasoline engine on hydrogen”. To an ignorant layperson, the ability of an internal combustion gas engine to be converted to burn hydrogen might seem like a great undertaking, but to an educated person, it can actually be accomplished in less than an hour with a very few converted parts. The ability has been there all the time. The biggest problem is delivering the fuel to the carburetor. And converting it over is not, evolution, but design. Like the E. coli in Lenski’s research, the “hydrogen”, or citrate, provided in the medium in which the bacteria were grown, was provided by the researchers. And the ability to convert is already designed into the cell’s information, as accomplished in wild strains.

WoWBagger stated that “Behe, etc… can't figure out how something evolved, does NOT mean someone else won't eventually figure it out.” And “If evolution is so utterly flawed and laughable, then what alternative would you propose, that fits all the evidence better, and also helps us continue to make new discoveries?” How about science!

Steve, just for the record, if a mutation in Lenski’s E. coli occurred, please tell us what is was and how it occurred. What was the mutation? I cannot seem to find it in any documentation, but as Mr. Maxipad has suggested, I may not have the ability to comprehend it. But, neither did Lenski and friends!

As to your first point above: “the E-coli bacteria used in the experiment could not metabolize citrate under aerobic conditions at the beginning of the experiment. This point cannot be emphasized enough because that shows that the Cit+ bacteria developed a unique, beneficial mutation. It doesn't matter that other strains of bacteria already had that ability, this particular strain didn't. Using this logic, if a child who has never spoken before speaks, it is no big deal because other children can do it (not the greatest example because it does not involve generations and evolution but I hope you understand my point).” What kind of logic is this? Has it been shown that a normal child has the ability to speak? Yes. Has it been shown that E. coli can metabolise citrate? Yes.

As to the second: “First they (creationists) wanted proof that random mutation and natural selection could produce beneficial changes in an organism. Once this was displayed many times, they wanted evidence that these traits could accumulate and cause speciation events. Then several examples of this were found. Now creationists have resorted to asking to see the impossible.”

You admit that “…about beneficial mutations making something less fit in a different environment. If you think about it, this makes perfect sense. An animal cannot be perfectly adapted to every conceivable environment, and any trait that is beneficial in one environment will be detrimental in another.”

Random mutation and natural selection cannot and never have produced changes in any organism. An organism simply reacts to the environment in which it exists. Mutation is a natural event in biological organisms and have no goal one way or the other. If the environment in which an organism resides is “user friendly” the organism can be “selected” to survive. If the environment is deleterious, the organism can be equally “selected” to perish, ending all possibility of further survival. So much for an accumulation of causal speciation events! (You did not cite what these were)

When organisms are given continual un-natural selective opportunities at success within an artificial controlled environment, I would not be too excited about making a claim as to what is actually being witnesssed. “Beneficial changes” are guaranteed within a protected environment but not in the real world.

You state that “I doubt that anyone would claim that arctic wolves or scorpions are poorly adapted to their environments, yet place a scorpion in the arctic and an arctic wolf in the desert and see how well they do.” I guarantee that I could keep an arctic wolf alive in the desert and a scorpion alive in the arctic with air conditioning and heat!

 

[paximperium]

You really should be more cautious when posting responses before actually doing a little research on a given topic.

Coming from you, it is not only ironic but hypocritical.

Do you think that a car cannot burn hydrogen?

Did I say that? No, looks like you're talking to yourself.

Try Googling “Running a gasoline engine on hydrogen”. To an ignorant layperson, the ability of an internal combustion gas engine to be converted to burn hydrogen might seem like a great undertaking, but to an educated person, it can actually be accomplished in less than an hour with a very few converted parts.

I love the backtracking and moving of the goapost.

To someone attempting to make false analogies, claiming that a car's ability to burn hydrogen via some significant internal changes is miraculously the same as the original false analogy of claiming that the mutation of e.coli to metabolize citrate it similar to adding a moonroof is exceedingly dishonest.

The ability has been there all the time. The biggest problem is delivering the fuel to the carburetor. And converting it over is not, evolution, but design. Like the E. coli in Lenski’s research, the “hydrogen”, or citrate, provided in the medium in which the bacteria were grown, was provided by the researchers. And the ability to convert is already designed into the cell’s information, as accomplished in wild strains.

Nice handwaving and ignoring of evidence as usual. And where did the ability to transport the citrate come from?

Using you silly car analogy, the car which used to run of gas has suddenly developed the ability to electrolyze hydrogen, compress it into a new hydrogen tank and then transport it into the carborator. Wow, what a small change

You claim it is a tiny little change which is as disingenous as any Creationists and ID-iot claim.

 

[paximperium]

Steve, just for the record, if a mutation in Lenski’s E. coli occurred, please tell us what is was and how it occurred. What was the mutation?

Don't know. They are working on it. Scientists don't make up answers.

I cannot seem to find it in any documentation, but as Mr. Maxipad has suggested, I may not have the ability to comprehend it.

That is blatantly obvious.

But, neither did Lenski and friends!

That's because unlike people who attack science based on dogma, Lenski and scientists do not pretend to have answers they don't have. He is working on it.

What kind of logic is this? Has it been shown that a normal child has the ability to speak? Yes. Has it been shown that E. coli can metabolise citrate? Yes.

You must have missed the entire major section in the paper where they test and explain their hypothesis to determine if the phenotypic change is due to preexisting genes or a new mutation.

Not surprising at all.

Random mutation and natural selection cannot and never have produced changes in any organism.

Which is a complete and utter lie.

An organism simply reacts to the environment in which it exists. Mutation is a natural event in biological organisms and have no goal one way or the other. If the environment in which an organism resides is “user friendly” the organism can be “selected” to survive. If the environment is deleterious, the organism can be equally “selected” to perish, ending all possibility of further survival. So much for an accumulation of causal speciation events!

I no follow. Me dumb or more likely you're making a giant leap off the precipice of ignorance as example of the the use of an Argument from Ignorance and Non-Sequitur again.

When organisms are given continual un-natural selective opportunities at success within an artificial controlled environment, I would not be too excited about making a claim as to what is actually being witnesssed. “Beneficial changes” are guaranteed within a protected environment but not in the real world.

Would you care to tell us the difference? What about the "real" world would prevent beneficial changes or are you making things up again?

I guarantee that I could keep an arctic wolf alive in the desert and a scorpion alive in the arctic with air conditioning and heat!

Which has nothing to do with the research in question. Are you sure you know what you're talking about or are you making another nonsensical analogy?

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

Garry, let me make a double play here. Could you start using some of the quote/multiquote functions of this forum? It will make it a lot easier to reply to you. For instance, here's your quote from above that I have chopped down to the one part I want to reply to with tags turned off.

[QUOTE="Garry Webb, post: 4517698, member: 30686"]Steve, just for the record, if a mutation in Lenski’s E. coli occurred, please tell us what is was and how it occurred. What was the mutation? I cannot seem to find it in any documentation, but as Mr. Maxipad has suggested, I may not have the ability to comprehend it. But, neither did Lenski and friends![/QUOTE]

With the tags tuned on it looks like this:

Steve, just for the record, if a mutation in Lenski’s E. coli occurred, please tell us what is was and how it occurred. What was the mutation? I cannot seem to find it in any documentation, but as Mr. Maxipad has suggested, I may not have the ability to comprehend it. But, neither did Lenski and friends!

I think I asked earlier in the thread why you want to know the specific loci of the mutation. Are you a microbiologist or a geneticist? Will that information mean anything to you?

Well, I couldn't find anything in the paper that stuck out, but I did find something on the Supporting Information supplement.

Confirmation of Cit+ Variants. Each putative Cit+ variant was streaked on MC agar and Christensen’s citrate agar to confirm its phenotype. One colony was then selected from the MC plate, and its Ara marker status, sensitivity to phage T5, and resistance to phage T6 were checked to confirmthat it was derived from the ancestral E. coli B strain (1). We also sequenced the pykF and nadR loci of Cit+ variants and their parental Cit+ clones to confirm single base pair substitutions that uniquely identify the Ara-3 population (5).

To me this reads that the pykF and nadR genes were the areas effected by the mutation. I don't know though since I'm not a microbiologist or geneticist. Perhaps it will mean more to you.

 

[paximperium]

To me this reads that the pykF and nadR genes were the areas effected by the mutation. I don't know though since I'm not a microbiologist or geneticist. Perhaps it will mean more to you.

No it isn't. These are genetic markers to determine if the e.coli that developed the Cit+ is from the original e.coli line(Ara-3) or a contaminant. These markers show that these Cit+ e.coli are from the original lineage.

The specific mutations leading to citrate transport are unknown as of yet but they are likely being studied. There is also a significant write-up in the paper to determine if the new phenotype is an entirely new mutation or a preexisting gene. They show that it is a new mutation.

It will be interesting to see if the mutation is similar to other e.coli cit+ cell lines or an entirey new mutation. But then scientists find new discoveries interesting while Creationists and ID-iots just deny and lie.

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

No it isn't.

Thankee Doc. Perhaps that data will mean something to Garry since he seems to be so insistant on knowing the specifics which he has yet to show why he needs or what he plans on doing with it.

 

[paximperium]

Thankee Doc. Perhaps that data will mean something to Garry since he seems to be so insistant on knowing the specifics which he has yet to show why he needs or what he plans on doing with it.

I have little doubt he will claim that we cannot "prove" that the Cit+ phenotype is due to mutation since we do not know the exact genotypical changes involved therefore this experiment cannot be used as evidence for evolution. It is more god of the gaps and argument from ignorance but I have little doubt he will try. He will then will move the goalpost once the specific genes are found.

It is as amusing as watching a high school dropout criticize a neurosurgeon for not doing a brain surgery like how he heard it was suppose to be done by his witch doctor.

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

SinnerMan highlighted this quote of mine: “It is likened to baking powder being mixed with water as opposed to vinegar. The baking powder does not choose to react differently from one to the other. It simply is forced to.” And then retorted “Poor analogy since water, baking powder nor vinegar is alive.” But, isn’t this how life began according to evolutionists? Sorry, the dreaded “C” word!

That's quite a Gish Gallop in one paragraph so let's break it down.

1. Your baking powder and water/vingear analogy was poor since we weren't talking about a chemical reaction, we were talking about metablization and thus my analogies of a fish "breathing" directly through it's gills, a lion eating grass and leaves and Pax's example of a car running on hydrogen were more salient. If you want to stretch analogies, Lenski's experiment was more an example of a plant evolving the ability to live off Pepto Bismol rather than nitrogen based fertilizers.
2. "Isn't this how life began according to evolutionists"? Instead of giving you a lecture I'm sure you won't pay any attention to, how about you just explain to me where anyone who advocates abiogenesis thinks life sprang from a 5th grade science fair simulated volcano?
3. What the heck is the "dreaded C word"?
4. I'm sorry for not holding my tongue in the patronizing department as much as I've tried to in this discussion, but given the areas of evolution you seem utterly unfamiliar with thus far, I'm not sure a tangent into abiogenesis would serve any other purpose than you attempting to avoid answers to questions you have previously asked and avoided.

When you make a comparison such as this: “Tell me. Do you know how many species of bacteria there are? Saying "it's still a bacteria" is like saying "it's still a beetle" only more vacuous.” I would respond by saying that what is being posited by Lenski is like putting a moon roof on a Cadillac and calling it a space shuttle!

Really? Does an organism that cannot eat something that evolves the ability to eat said something seem that extreme a change to you? I stand by my original analogy of a fish absorbig oxygen from the air through its gills or a lion eating vegetation only and Pax's car on hydrogen rebuttals. You have yet to explain why this is such an insurmoutable mutation apart from your own incrdulity.

Admittedly, I baited you guys into committing yourselves to this medal winning example of Darwinism when I asked: “Are you willing to cite any evidence of a prepared and artificial environment, wherein these processes have been found to produce viable new organisms known to evolve through an induced natural selection

As long as you're admitting things, how about admitting you totally ingored my links to examples of observed speciation to myopically focus on Lenski's experiment so you could use ad hoc objections like "where did the mutations occur" as if it would have any effect on your understanding of the experiment or mutations in general.

Not surprisingly, you immediately cited one of the most recently released documents in defense of “the proof of evolution”. And why? Because it has not yet been studied in depth and there are few opposing views thus far. Your greatest problem now becomes: What will present and future research prove that Lenski actually accomplished?

You certainly love to adopt a triumphal tone when you're on the ropes don't you? Steve has already noted your myopia on Lenski's experiment and you have had ample opportunity to address his citation of the nylonase bacteria, but you've apparently got your talking points from C/ID websites and you're going to stick with them instead of where the actual evidence leads it seems.

Another “Haeckel’s embryos” I would venture to say.

Oh please. Two points. Haeckel fudging his embryo drawings doesn't change the fact that embryology is an important evidence for evolution. That and I'm calling you out. Since you've baught into the C/IDer urban legend that biology textbooks are still using Haeckel's drawings as evidence of evolution instead of as a teaching point, how about you cite the textbook in question and provide a scanned page? I've checked IDer websites and have yet to see any scanned page evidencing their claim about this.

I cannot help but be amused by the willingness of Darwinites that so eagerly accept human experimentation within the confines of a controlled laboratory setting, and gloat that “naturalistic evolution” has been witnessed. Does natural selection change the environment every time an organism reaches any given point in its evolutionary progression? Does it re-supply the food source? Does it save the ancestoral organisms for another chance at a later time? Does Intelligent Design ring a bell? Evolutionists are so predictable!

What is it like to go through life without a sense of irony?

And I hope you're not still letting your students read this discussion. Just my $.02.

 

[paximperium]

3. What the heck is the "dreaded C word"?

Creation...I consider it as dreaded as any mindset that makes humanity exceedingly stupid.

You certainly love to adopt a triumphal tone when you're on the ropes don't you?

Smug ignorance is a hallmark sign of a Creationist/ID-iot.

 

[Wowbagger]

WoWBagger stated that “Behe, etc… can't figure out how something evolved, does NOT mean someone else won't eventually figure it out.” And “If evolution is so utterly flawed and laughable, then what alternative would you propose, that fits all the evidence better, and also helps us continue to make new discoveries?” How about science!

That is not answering my question. What scientific concept would help us make new discoveries about life, better than evolution has, so far?

 

[Wowbagger]

Perhaps it might help if we came up with a fictional scenario we can play with.

Pretend that I am a materials scientist, who is interested in developing new technologies and materials out of microbial components. For example, I might be interested in researching possible ways to build roll-up video displays, that use a sheet of biological elements that light up different color under different stimuli. Or, alternatively, I could be interested in breeding bacterial agents that can be used to clean up certain pollutants my previous material products seem to cough up.

Now, in order to research and develop these technologies, as effectively and as efficiently as possible, I am going to need to work with any scientific framework that helps me understand all of the nitty-gritty biochemical details of all these microbes.

Let us assume, for argument sake, that I already have been using the Theory of Evolution, with great success, so far. I have subjected microbes to certain conditions, and found often surprising ways they could adapt to them.
For example, I have identified specific sets of chemicals configurations microbes are prone to fall into, when selecting and breeding ones that reflect certain colors, over many generations. Or, alternatively, I have discovered a few different ways the bacteria could be adapted to "digest" certain polluting elements.

But, my work is not yet complete, of course. There are still a few details to be investigated ironed out, before I can confidently sell the product. Perhaps the reliability of the adaptations is not yet 100%, and I would like to know what are the driving forces behind some of the failures.

It is now your turn, Garry, to tell me what I am missing. I would like to know what concepts and frameworks are going to help me iron those last details. Is there an alternative that would work better than Evolution?
Is it Intelligent Design? If so, please tell me how inserting the idea of an Intelligent Designer is going to help me understand my microbes to an even greater degree of detail!

(And, to be clear, claiming that I am acting as an Intelligent Designer is a cop out. I am not interested in how I am behaving. I am interested in understanding how and why my microbes are behaving the way they are, and I want that understanding to be as specific and as detailed as possible!)

 

[paximperium]

Wow...will we actually see an ID-iot actually propose an actual working ID model that can actually be useful and testable?

This will be a first in history.

 

[TraneWreck]

I was surprised this made it past one posted reply.

 

[Wowbagger]

ID-iot

Name calling is counter-productive. I am trying to encourage him to respond to my questions in this thread. You're only going to drive him away, thinking we're all a bunch of snot-heads or something.

 

[Garry Webb]

I was assured that this website would provide an atmosphere in which honest debate would be made available. Attacking the argument is one thing, but the personal attacks are uncalled for. Four times in the last several posts I was called an idiot and will not stand for it. Several of you need to go back and read the rules for posting as I did. I was told that this would not happen here. Several of these posters' tones are exactly like those on the skeptoid website, and if they are not the same individuals, I would be surprised. I will not be posting here again . I can post where this type of response is not allowed.

 

[paximperium]

I was assured that this website would provide an atmosphere in which honest debate would be made available. Attacking the argument is one thing, but the personal attacks are uncalled for. Four times in the last several posts I was called an idiot and will not stand for it. Several of you need to go back and read the rules for posting as I did. I was told that this would not happen here. Several of these posters' tones are exactly like those on the skeptoid website, and if they are not the same individuals, I would be surprised. I will not be posting here again . I can post where this type of response is not allowed.

I'm not surprised by a Creationists playing the martyr and running away like they usually do when backed into a corner and shown to be a complete and utter liar.

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

I'm not surprised by a Creationists playing the martyr and running away like they usually do when backed into a corner and shown to be a complete and utter liar.

Seriously. I concur with Wowbagger. You're not helping. Garry clearly came here with a chip on his shoulder (hence the "trinitarian troll" post title), but that's no reason we shouldn't be, well, not abusive if not entirely cordial.

 

[paximperium]

Seriously. I concur with Wowbagger. You're not helping. Garry clearly came here with a chip on his shoulder (hence the "trinitarian troll" post title), but that's no reason we shouldn't be, well, not abusive if not entirely cordial.

I have little inclination or interest to be polite to blatant liars.

They are Creationists who are actively ignorant and can be educated. I've had much success with a bunch of them who after being educated will actually accept evolution or realize that not all the crap they are being told by their fellow fundementalists is true. These guys are honest if ignorant.

Garry is an apologists. He has no interest in learning anything at all. He is trying out his little pile of apolegetics and seeing what lies and disinformation he can get away with before using it on his flock. Using the nice guy approach does not accomplish anything except to drag out his nonsense into ten pages before he leaves in a huff and cries about the evil Darwinists.

I apologize if I find smugly ignorant people who are liars to be exceedingly vile.

 

[dafydd]

Evolution