British publisher Hillhouse has published a new textbook that should add real value to the scientific exploration of evolution and origins. Rather than being dumbed down, Explore Evolution: The Arguments For and Against Neo-Darwinism is full of information on evolution, and employs an ‘inquiry based learning‘, promoting ‘discovery, deliberation, and argument.’
You can read (or listen to) the CSC’s take on the book, and visit the Explore Evolution site. One endorser wrote:
I think Explore Evolution does a very good job in its stated purpose, namely, to provide a forensicadj. employing scientific analysis of physical evidence (as from a crime scene) More presentation of the open questions surrounding the Neo-Darwinian orthodoxy in contemporary biology. The style of the textbook alone is a breath of fresh air from the sterile dogmatism that students normally encounter in the classroom.
Evolution observed in the lab…
Evolution in Escherichia Coli Bacterium Observed During Lab Tests
I think that it is tragically humorous that people consider this change to be ‘evolution’ without knowing much about the actual molecular mechanism.
First and foremost, you don’t know if new information was created or not. Second, the bacteria ‘evolved’ into…wait for it…another bacteria!
It’s also laughable that the author marvels that this is the FIRST POSSIBLE example. You mean there are NO others?!? That’s right!!! Oh, how the believers must be rejoicing now that their formerly unsubstantiated claims have ONE possible piece of direct evidence! LOL. Believers indeed.
Non-evolutionary possibilities for this change abound:
– a pre-existing gene was turned on
– a gene for processing a very similar compound has mutated, and can now partially metabolize citric acid – meaning that this is merely a benefit based on chemical homology of citric acid
– a gene duplication or other non-information creating event created this functionality
– he has a contaminated sample or made some other mistake, or worse, is lying like a growing number of scientists are doing to get funded
Other questions – by ‘metabolize’ does he mean that the bacteria actually USE citric acid for energy or cell structure, or that it merely breaks it down chemically?
Lastly, inheritance in self-replicating bacteria is easy, but in larger organisms, such a mutation would have to be effected not only in somatic cells, but in germ cells too. Now your odds have just gotten astronomically impossible.
Keep hoping on the stars, boys.
BWT, ARN has a more detailed response to the Lenksi claims at On the evolution of a “key innovation” in Escherichia coli including this:
In fact, that seems more likely, since the rest of the machinery was already there, doesn’t it? Yes.
This is probably NOT evolution, but instead, evidence for design, i.e. the complex system was already there, but non-functional. What Lenksi witnessed was more likely to be a *repair* of a pre-existing (designed) system.
Also, Lenski has been trying to prove evolution this way for years, and this, his first possible breakthrough, is the first evidence of any kind he’s had beyond his hopeful theories, which have been previously critiqued.
And having dismissed his current findings above, I’d say he needs to keep trying. However, he is proving that evolution does NOT happen, even across millions of generations of bacteria in a controlled environment.
Creationist critics get their comeuppance
“A couple of weeks ago we reported on the work of Richard Lenski, who has spent much of the last 20 years maintaining cultures of E. coli to see how they evolve. His paper describes how one of his populations evolved the ability to metabolise citrate, something E. coli cannot do by definition.
It’s one of the most dramatic examples of evolution in action ever seen, and because Lenski freezes samples of the population every 500 generations, it is possible to go back and track how the ability developed. Lenski and his team are now doing so, and hope to have a detailed history of the ability developing, mutation by mutation.
All in all we thought it was a pretty excellent piece of research, and plenty of other sites agreed: Pharyngula, for instance, devoted a lengthy post to it. However, such an unambiguous example of evolution in action was always going to bring the kooks out of the woodwork.”
Actually, I already feel like I debunked this claim as evolution, and still suspect that it is rather the *restoration* of existing functionality – as evidenced by the fact that the rest of the machinery for processing citrate was already in place.
As I said, if this is the best that evolutionists can do, and claim this type of thing as “one of the most dramatic examples of evolution,” I can sleep soundly at night knowing that they are still blowing smoke, all giddy over something that isn’t even evolution at all.
“It is my impression that you seem to think we have only paper and electronic records of having seen some unusual E. coli. If we made serious errors or misrepresentations, you would surely like to find them in those records. If we did not, then – as some of your acolytes have suggested – you might assert that our records are themselves untrustworthy because, well, because you said so, I guess. But perhaps because you did not bother even to read our paper, or perhaps because you aren’t very bright, you seem not to understand that we have the actual, living bacteria that exhibit the properties reported in our paper, including both the ancestral strain used to start this long-term experiment and its evolved citrate-using descendants. In other words, it’s not that we claim to have glimpsed “a unicorn in the garden” – we have a whole population of them living in my lab! [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Unicorn_in_the_Garden] And lest you accuse me further of fraud, I do not literally mean that we have unicorns in the lab. Rather, I am making a literary allusion. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allusion]”
Dr. Richard Lenski to creationists
The accusation I and others are making is not fraud at all, but rather, the interpretation of his results – what he thinks of as evolution, upon closer inspection, is merely the chance restoration of a highly complex citrate system that was not working due to a simple flaw that accidentally got fixed.
But the original system, of course, could NOT have been created by mutation and selection. I have yet to see any genetic analysis of the bacteria showing where the rest of the citrate system came from, or of what the genetic change actually was.
If this is your evolutionary trump card, I am laughing all the way to church.
“If this is your evolutionary trump card, I am laughing all the way to church.”
Of course, you are a creationist after all and shouldn’t be taken seriously.
Of course not. I see you are neatly fulfilling points one and two of The 7 steps to suppressing opponents’ ideas. Good job NOT arguing the merits of your data.
“Good job NOT arguing the merits of your data.”
You make it sound as if it’s worthwhile speaking to you about it. It’s not. You’re a creationist Seeker and that’s all there is to it.
Compare your words…
“The accusation I and others are making is not fraud at all, but rather, the interpretation of his results – “
to…
“…when the interpretation of scientific data contradicts the true history of the world as revealed in the Bible, then it’s the interpretation of the data that is at fault.”
That’s it in a nutshell. I’m not going to bother anymore with you on this thread. I don’t want to waste anymore time.
You make it sound as if it’s worthwhile speaking to you about it. It’s not. You’re a creationist Seeker and that’s all there is to it.
I suppose I could say “You make it sound as if it’s worthwhile speaking to you about it. It’s not. You’re a Darwinist Cineaste and that’s all there is to it.”
You are unwilling to dialogue. You can excuse it as giving up in disgust, but I, and those reading see that you fail to answer my logical objections. You can’t even seem to get to the point of disagreeing on foundational assumptions or interpretations – you just dismiss me based on my affiliation. That’s fine for you, but don’t call it reasonable or mature. Call it what it is – failure to acknowledge meaningful criticisms. The court of public opinion, however, will decide.
“…when the interpretation of scientific data contradicts the true history of the world as revealed in the Bible, then it’s the interpretation of the data that is at fault.”
Interesting how YOU make that leap of logic when I don’t. That’s called a straw man.
I don’t want to waste anymore time.
No problem. I’ll find someone worthy of intellectual debate rather than ad hominems and guilt by association. I answered the claims of this experiment with logical objections, you failed to answer. You are convinced without skepticism. Religious people always are.
…failure to acknowledge meaningful criticisms.
You have none on this topic. You are a creationist. It’s like an astrologer arguing against astronomy.
Of course. You are so wise and smart. Forgive me for bringing up any objections to your amazing intellect. No one should question you, or Darwinism, evolution, global warming, or any other thing you think you have proved. We will all follow you like religious sheep. Baaaah.
Too bad smart people won’t just bow down to such anti-intellectual self-gratification (pun intended). Enjoy your superiority, and I will enjoy mine.
Seeker’s argument: Cineaste is L33T.
BTW, here’s a nice riddle for you to attempt to unravel with your towering intellect (hint: the answer is not “the bible contradicts itself”)
No, my argument: Cineaste is a f00l.
The fool (that’s you Seeker) hath said in his heart, There is no evolution.
Lenski affair
I tried to be polite, civil and respectful in my reply to your first email, despite its rude tone and uninformed content. Given the continued rudeness of your second email, and the willfully ignorant and slanderous content on your website, my second response will be less polite. I expect you to post my response in its entirety; if not, I will make sure that is made publicly available through other channels.
I offer this lengthy reply because I am an educator as well as a scientist. It is my sincere hope that some readers might learn something from this exchange, even if you do not…
Beautiful!
It is nicely done, and perhaps abusive fools should be taken to task in that manner. But of course, this has no relevance to valid criticisms of his work, nor did it answer my or other objections to the statement that this is a stunning example of evolution in action.
I am stunned by the LACK of evidence (I mean, evolutionists are partying at this “first time evolution has been caught in the act of making such a rare and complex new trait” – the irony of this statement is rich), as well as the LACK of a reasonable reply to logical objections.
OK, I am not really stunned by such illogical theatrics, since I know there is a self-serving Mass Delusion going on, but I continue to be stunned by the dullness of evolutionists who don’t see how weak their claims are, and how they are blind to their religiously dogmatic tenacity in defense of evolution. I miss Stephen J. Gould.
There are no valid criticisms from creationists. It's like astrologers criticizing the work of astronomers. Only real scientists are qualified to criticize Lenski's work. Remember the creationist mantra…
"…when the interpretation of scientific data contradicts the true history of the world as revealed in the Bible, then it's the interpretation of the data that is at fault."
"The accusation I and others are making is not fraud at all, but rather, the interpretation of his results – " – Seeker
There are no valid criticisms from creationists.
Actually, since you are refusing to answer scientific questions at all except from people who agree with you, it is very clear to all onlookers that, rather than deal with the science, all skeptics are classified as "crazy people" – typical cult behavior. It keeps from having to be introspective or skeptical about your faith. You keep telling yourself you are being scientific, but the rest of us know better.
"…when the interpretation of scientific data contradicts the true history of the world as revealed in the Bible, then it's the interpretation of the data that is at fault."
"The accusation I and others are making is not fraud at all, but rather, the interpretation of his results – " – Seeker
Seeker = Creationist. Ignore him. He has no real scientific objections, just religious conviction.