Update on E. coli long term experiment

[T_aquaticus]

@aarceng

E. Coli starts with all the genetic instructions and molecular machinery for citrate metabolism;

Then why wasn’t it able to utilize citrate in an aerobic environment?

@aarceng

Normally in E. Coli this is turned off in the presence of oxygen. However the transition to Cit+ in the presence of oxygen is well within what Behe calls the edge of evolution as has been shown by experiments.

That seems to be a bare assertion lacking any evidence. Where are the calculations and science backing this claim?

[Chris_Falter]

Wile never describes the creationist “prediction” or why it would be any different than that of evolutionary biology. Nor does he offer any support for the notion that the predictions of evolutionary biology were not met by the LTEE.

Finally, if Wile thinks that creationism predicts no speciation, how does that reconcile with AiG’s hypothesis that all species in the cat family descended in the last few thousand years from a single feline pair (that was ostensibly aboard the ark)?

Thanks,
Chris Falter

[rsewell (RON SEWELL)]

@Chris_Falter

how does that reconcile with AiG’s hypothesis that all species in the cat family descended in the last few thousand years from a single feline pair (that was ostensibly aboard the ark)?

In the genes of the proto-cat there was a little lion, a little house cat, a little saber tooth, snow leopard, and all other cats, just not dogs. The kittens lost a bunch of genes and devolved to today’s familiar cats. Did you know that lions can mate with tigers and produce ligors? QED.

[jpm (Phil McCurdy)]

It is interesting that we spend a lot of bandwidth discussing human genetic bottlenecks with the flood, and tend to ignore that it also would have resulted in even more severe bottlenecks in every animal surviving on the ark.
The AIG proposal of these bizarre proto-species is outlandish. It has no genetic basis, no historical basis (no proto-cats in the Bible), no fossil evidence, and most important from the AIG view, no Biblical support. I suppose they could claim some transitional fossils are young and represent the cat kind, but that would seemingly admit that they were transitional fossils as well. The AIG ark truly is full of imaginary animals.

[rsewell (RON SEWELL)]

@jpm

no genetic basis, no historical basis (no proto-cats in the Bible), no fossil evidence, and most important from the AIG view, no Biblical support.

One could also add no time, seeing as house cats, cheetahs, lions, and leopards are all represented in early Egyptian art dating back to before the Bishop Ussher flood date in the most accepted chronologies, and even in the untenable AiG ANE chronology only allows a few hundred years for the cat radiation.

[cwhenderson (Curtis Henderson)]

@jpm

It has no genetic basis, no historical basis (no proto-cats in the Bible), no fossil evidence, and most important from the AIG view, no Biblical support. I suppose they could claim some transitional fossils are young and represent the cat kind, but that would seemingly admit that they were transitional fossils as well.

Perhaps I’m being overly critical, but I find this trend with several YEC explanations for currently observed phenomena, such as astronomical objects being billions of light-years distant. “Our hypothesis is that xxxx happened, and although there is no scientific or Biblical support for this, it would explain our current observations.”

[Boscopup]

@jpm

The AIG proposal of these bizarre proto-species is outlandish. It has no genetic basis, no historical basis (no proto-cats in the Bible), no fossil evidence, and most important from the AIG view, no Biblical support.

Yeah, I’m pretty sure when Moses wrote Genesis 1, he had in mind that a lion will give birth to a lion, a tiger will give birth to a tiger, a house cat will give birth to a house cat, etc. And that’s entirely consistent with real evolution. The hyperevolution idea seems decidedly anti-biblical.