Study in Nature shoots down three basic claims of evolutionary theory

[Dredge]

[quote=“Lynn_Munter, post:112, topic:35830, full:true”]

@Dredge

But what if two conflicting theories (eg, evolution and creation) can make the same prediction? Which one do you accept?

if your variety of creationism predicts that life will be most parsimoniously organized in a ‘tree of life’ shape, with predictable distance between organisms and their DNA according to how long ago they ‘supposedly diverged,’ then the better part of my complaint against ‘science-deniers’ dissipates. [/quote]
Are you saying the “tree of life” is more than a product of Darwin’s imagination?
What do you mean by “predictable distance between organisms and their DNA”?

[Dredge]

[quote=“gbrooks9, post:166, topic:35830, full:true”]

@Dredge

It’s in the section “Predictions or postdictions?”, paragraph 5.

“Contrary to evolutionists’ expectations, breeding experiments reach limits; change is not unlimited. See the article by the creationist geneticist, Lane Lester. This matches what we would expect from Genesis 1, where it says that God created organisms to reproduce true to their different kinds.”[/quote]
I agree with CMI’s claim that there is a kinds boundary, but I don’t agree that Genesis 1 necessary says such a boundary exists - although this could well be what the Lord meant.

[Dredge]

[quote=“NonlinOrg, post:75, topic:35830, full:true”]

@cwhenderson

Lack of speciation in domesticated animals has been recently discussed. Two important things to consider are that 1) there is constant interbreeding and mixing of the gene pool, preventing reproductive isolation and 2) there is a very definite desire for dog breeders to keep producing dogs with reproductive viability.

This makes no sense. 1) Pure breeds are kept isolated to stay “pure”. 2) Yes, so? How would this be different that “natural evolution”? 3) Breeders don’t want regular mutts but the craziest “most evolved” dogs - if possible, even dogs with wings, neon color, ultra smart, big as an elephant, etc. etc. [/quote]
Good points, NonlinOrg.

[gbrooks9 (George Brooks)]

@Dredge

I agree with CMI’s claim that there is a kinds boundary, but I don’t agree that Genesis 1 necessary says such a boundary exists -

@Dredge,

Ahhh … a serious discussion!

The question, then, is how this “kind-confining boundary” would work!

1. There are no known criteria to define a kind, other than whether 2 animals can produce fertile offspring or not.

2. If one attempts to broaden the definition of “kind” … say… to “all cat-like animals”, and all “bird-like” animals, and so forth … is a mouse a bird-like animal? Is a fresh water perch in the same “kind” as a blue gill? If I produced laboratory results where I raised a generation of perch that ended up looking like blue gills, wouldn’t a YEC simply say:

“Those are the same kind, what’s the big deal?!”

3. In order to conceive of a boundary between kinds, one must imagine that the genetic leap between one kind to another kind … is just too great for it to happen. And yet the fossil record shows proto-whales with four limbs… and then more recent proto-whales with no rear limbs and 2 forward limbs like fins. And then finally we have non-modern whale fossils that are between the last stage and the modern stage. Are these various stages of proto-whales within a kind? Or are they branching into another “kind”?

To sum up:
A) Other than the definition of reproductive compatibility, nobody knows any workable criteria for any other definition of a “kind”.

B) There doesn’t seem to be any indication that genes should realize they have limits… and they can’t allow animals to continue to change generation after generation until they are clearly not like the “kind” they come from.

C) The Bible’s use of the term “kind” seems to confirm the idea of reproductive compatibility.

[Dredge]

@NonlinOrg

@cwhenderson

… 4) observed the new ability to exploit a previously untapped carbon source

4. How do you know is “new ability”?

Good question. Maybe mutations in bacteria are a bit like a merry-go-round - there’s movement and change and perhaps re-cycling, but the structure as a whole doesn’t actually go anywhere.

And I suspect that there is only a certain amount of genetic information to go around, so a mutation that produces a functional “gain” in one area will produce a corresponding functional “loss” somewhere else - ie, every “evolution” is matched by a corresponding “devolution”.

[Dredge]

@gbrooks9

And yet the fossil record shows proto-whales with four limbs… and then more recent proto-whales with no rear limbs and 2 forward limbs like fins. And then finally we have non-modern whale fossils that are between the last stage and the modern stage. Are these various stages of proto-whales within a kind? Or are they branching into another “kind”?[/quote]
Dunno. But it’s interesting that you link similarities in organisms to evolution. I see similarities as either variation within kinds or the Creator penchant for making creatures that are similar, but different - like the case of humans and chimps, for example.

[quote]There doesn’t seem to be any indication that genes should realize they have limits

On the other hand, I expect that no one can prove (using genetics only) that genes don’t have limits. (Now someone is going to say, You can’t prove a negative.)

[gbrooks9 (George Brooks)]

@Dredge

On the other hand, I expect that no one can prove (using genetics only) that genes don’t have limits. (Now someone is going to say, You can’t prove a negative.)

@Dredge,

Faith of this kind is tautological. No matter what someone presents as increasingly dramatic regarding change, you will continue to re-define what must be meant by “kind”, when the Bible is actually silent on any such definition or establishment of limits.

We can have 2 similar birds, that cannot inter-breed, and all we have to distinguish them from each other is their song… perhaps not even any real difference in geneteics.

We can have 2 similar birds, that cannot inter-breed, and all we have to distinguish them from each other is their genetics and the shape of their beak.

We can have 2 less similar birds, ditto, and all we have to distinguish them from each other is their is their genetics, coloring of plumage, shape of the beak, and what they eat.

We can have 2 increasingly less similar birds, ditto, and we have different genetics, color, size, shape, food source, and one no longer flies well.

We can have 2 small creatures, both fly, both eat insects, and one is a furry mammal we call a bat, and the other is an insect-eating bird that hunts in the evening hours.

We can have 2 marine creatures, both live, breed, and care for their young entirely in the open ocean, and one is a fish with gills and the other is a giant mammal, a whale, with no gills.

Or we can have two marine mammals, with unusually closely related genetics and wrist anatomy, one is a hippo and one is a whale.

There really isn’t any thing that cannot be presented to you where you would not be motivated to quibble that they are “just two of the same kind”… whatever you think a kind might be for that comparison.

[cwhenderson (Curtis Henderson)]

To avoid a spiral of “quote-ception”, let me briefly summarize these previous posts. I quoted a portion of one of Lenski’s new articles about his ongoing LTEE experiment since @NonlinOrg characterized it as a “failed experiment” because “E. coli is still E. coli”. No one with an understanding of evolution would predict that Lenski’s original strains would have evolved into a completely different organism in 30 years. However, there have been some very interesting observations, such as mutations allowing one of his lines of E. coli to now use citrate as a carbon source – highly unusual since diagnostic tests classify E. coli as “citrate negative”.

Ok, so now back to @NonlinOrg’s “good question” - How do you know this is a new ability? Lenski knows this is a new ability because the E.coli was unable to utilize citrate at the beginning of the experiment. This is rather straightforward, don’t overthink it.

Your speculation that a gain must also come with a loss is completely unsupported by scientific observation. This is true of Lenski’s bacteria as well as the alarmingly high numbers of antibiotic-resistant bacteria (and many other examples, I’m sure). What has MRSA lost as a result of its evolution? Unfortunately, it seems to be thriving rather well…

[benkirk (Benjamin Kirk)]

@Dredge

Maybe mutations in bacteria are a bit like a merry-go-round - there’s movement and change and perhaps re-cycling, but the structure as a whole doesn’t actually go anywhere.

Or more likely, maybe not.

[quote]And I suspect that there is only a certain amount of genetic information to go around…
[/quote]
I don’t. Why do you?

[T_aquaticus]

@NonlinOrg

Your theory predicts nothing whatsoever, but this was said and shown before.

Here are 29+ predictions, contrary to your claims:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

[T_aquaticus]

@Dredge

I am somewhat confused: As I understand it, the theory of evolution involves the accumulative effects of “microevolution” and natural selection. In other words, without microevolution, there can be macroevolution and therefore no common ancestry. So since Lenski’s experiment demonstrated microevolution, why is it some kind of no-no to suggest that it is evidence that supports the theory of common ancestry?

The Lenski experiment demonstrates how mutations accumulate in living species. That experiment can not tell us if those same processes were active in the history of life. In order to determine if natural selection was active in the past we have to compare the genomes of different species.

[T_aquaticus]

@Dredge

Are you saying the “tree of life” is more than a product of Darwin’s imagination?
What do you mean by “predictable distance between organisms and their DNA”?

The tree of life was already known of before Darwin was even born due to the work of Linnaeus and others.

As to predictable distances between organisms and their DNA, that is called genetic equidistance, a feature of genomes that is predicted by the theory of evolution. This is where the differences between two genes correlates with evolutionary distance. For example, let’s say that there is a 20% difference between a homologous human and mouse gene. There is a 30% difference between the same homologous human and chicken gene. The theory of evolution states that the mouse and chicken share the same common ancestor that humans and chickens share. Therefore, there should be the same distance between the human and chicken gene as there is between the mouse and chicken gene. Sure enough, there is. When we compare the mouse and chicken gene we see that same ~20% difference.

I have yet to see a single creationist show how creationism makes this same prediction, or see a single creationist explain why we consistently see this pattern when we compare genomes.

[benkirk (Benjamin Kirk)]

@T_aquaticus

In order to determine if natural selection was active in the past we have to compare the genomes of different species.

Compare, but just as importantly, contrast. It’s not mere similarity, but the mathematical patterns of the differences.

[T_aquaticus]

@benkirk

Compare, but just as importantly, contrast. It’s not mere similarity, but the mathematical patterns of the differences.

Comparing genomes indicates that you will look at both similarities and differences. Like love and marriage, you can’t one without the other.

[benkirk (Benjamin Kirk)]

[quote=“T_aquaticus, post:183, topic:35830”]
Comparing genomes indicates that you will look at both similarities and differences.[/quote]
Colloquially, not in formal English. And using it colloquially definitely helps creationists misinform others, who ignore nested hierarchies and pretend that all that sequence analysis only yields vague similarities.

You’re helping them by not explaining the contrasts.

[quote] Like love and marriage, you can’t one without the other.
[/quote]Huh? You can have either without the other. It’s analogous to denialists’ misinformation, too.

[NonlinOrg]

@cwhenderson

Ok, so now back to @NonlinOrg’s “good question” - How do you know this is a new ability? Lenski knows this is a new ability because the E.coli was unable to utilize citrate at the beginning of the experiment. This is rather straightforward, don’t overthink it.

Correction: Lenski’s particular strain was not metabolizing citrate in that particular lab at that particular time. Did he even start with a single bacteria (i.e. a true baseline)? Doubtful. Do you understand what a ‘true baseline’ is and why it is so critical?

Would you say you have a built in mechanism or “evolve” when developing immunity to a certain pathogen? Not everything that appears “new” is indeed new.

@cwhenderson

Your speculation that a gain must also come with a loss is completely unsupported by scientific observation.

@Dredge

every “evolution” is matched by a corresponding “devolution”.

Actually, we do know that. Antibiotic resistance is not “evolution” but a “devolution” also. How so, you ask? Because despite all fears, it never spreads outside of the specific environment. It goes away by itself once favorable human intervention is removed.

Now ask Lenski to release all his “evolved” e-coli in nature and see what happens. Will they take over the universe of e-coli? No! Wanna bet?

[cwhenderson (Curtis Henderson)]

Ok, humor me a little bit and check out this website: Welcome to Microbugz - Citrate Test
You will find that what I said (and you ignored) in the previous post is that diagnostic tests for enteric bacteria count E. coli as citrate negative (meaning it doesn’t metabolize citrate).

It really doesn’t matter how many bacterial cells Lenski used to start the experiment - they were ALL citrate negative. I can see that you think you have a legitimate argument, but microbiologists do not start cultures from single cells. This would be ideal, but is logistically near-impossible. Instead, microbiologists start cultures from isolated colonies - cells that are all derived from a single live cell. I expect Lenski would have done the same. Using “he didn’t start with a single cell!” is a pointless and fruitless argument.

Lenski’s bacteria would indeed suffer some “culture shock” (microbiology joke!) if dumped into the environment. I’ll bet you still would balk a little if I wanted to let it loose in your kitchen. Most would probably die out of their nice, comfortable flasks, but I would be willing to bet that a few mutants would adapt and indeed evolve to the environment of your kitchen. Would you “wanna bet” on that? I sure wouldn’t…

I know you are probably tired of hearing this, but you really don’t understand evolution (or microbiology) if you think development of antibiotic resistance is a bad thing for a bacterium and[quote=“NonlinOrg, post:185, topic:35830”]
Because despite all fears, it never spreads outside of the specific environment.
[/quote]

[jpm (Phil McCurdy)]

Not sure how you can say antibiotic resistance is “devolution”. There are multiple ways resistance develops, some of which involve mutations to existing enzymes making them more active, mutations resulting in changes to proteins in binding sites, phage transfer of DNA from bacteria to bacteria, both within and between species, and others, all of which results in new information. And unfortunately these new capabilities persist in the environment, as the spread of such things as MRSA attest to. Here is a pretty good overview article a quick google turned up:
http://mmbr.asm.org/content/74/3/417.full

[gbrooks9 (George Brooks)]

@NonlinOrg

Actually, we do know that. Antibiotic resistance is not “evolution” but a “devolution” also. How so, you ask? Because despite all fears, it never spreads outside of the specific environment. It goes away by itself once favorable human intervention is removed.

Anybody who talks about devolution like it’s an obvious conclusion has been listening to too much YEC radio.

If someone genetically engineers a new kind of mouse … that can tolerate double the levels of rat poison, but also has one less digit on his four appendages …

Is that Evolution or Devolution?

And if a different strain of mouse can tolerate double the levels of rat poison, and has perfectly normal appendages, is that Evolution or Devolution?

And if fish breeders take the largest specimens of each generation, until they have a stable genotype where the fish is twice as large, and twice as fast … is that Evolution or Devolution?

[Argon]

@NonlinOrg

Correction: Lenski’s particular strain was not metabolizing citrate in that particular lab at that particular time. Did he even start with a single bacteria (i.e. a true baseline)? Doubtful. Do you understand what a ‘true baseline’ is and why it is so critical?

Lenski’s strain used in the experiments started with a single cell. Here’s the technique microbiologists use to start colonies from a single cell.

Antibiotic resistance is not “evolution” but a “devolution” also. How so, you ask? Because despite all fears, it never spreads outside of the specific environment. It goes away by itself once favorable human intervention is removed.

That turns out to not be the case in many instances. It had been proposed by some that antibiotic resistant bacteria would tend to disappear from the local population if the antibiotic was removed from use for a period of time. However, when bacteria were surveyed after 5, 10 or more years, researchers found that resistance persisted in the populations. The key factor seemed to be the development of secondary, mutations that suppressed the negative effects of the initial resistance mutations. These further mutations allowed the bacteria to retain the resistance phenotype and compete the the ‘wild type’ non-resistant strains even when the antibiotic was not present. Here are three journal articles that people should be able to publically access (1,2,3). There are several conditions that can lead to this outcome. The emergence of secondary suppressor mutations could also be reproduced in the lab. Interestingly, in Lenski’s experiments, this sort of mutation/suppression change was found to continuously progress through the generation of cultures.