More Proof of Evolution - Page 2

I think the point is, it is a beginning in a difference. And that is only apparent  in the passing of time, even past a normal human lifespan. That is the key relevence, I think. If science is about accurate observations to determine what laws govern the world we live in, we need to consider the role time fits into how our interpretations affect those observations.

My personal POV, is that the proving of Evolution will only prove the existance of God. So none of this bothers me at all. 

And GSDAdmin, I can't figure out what you believe, lately, but I'm pretty sure faith in the word of God as put forth though His grace, via the apostles or any of His believers, never came through in all the posts I have read, that have been authored by you.  And that is a pretty strong indicator of a Christian belief, or not. Not that I care one way or the other what you believe; I hope I end up being clear on that. 

IMHO

This is posted as a member and not an admin, since I don't have a regular user name .

@ Micaho

When genes evolve that is micro-evolution. It doesn't need to be a new species, it is still evolution. It seems these scientists believe it is evolution so I guess you can disagree with them on it. lol. I am sure they are idiots to you as no one can compare with your self appointed genius. lol. I remember you putting my intelligence down because that is how you show your self appointed superiority.

http://myxo.css.msu.edu/ecoli/

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v461/n7268/full/nature08480.html


http://www.globalchange.umich.edu/globalchange1/current/lectures/speciation/speciation.html

Definitions of Biological Evolution

We begin with two working definitions of biological evolution, which capture these two facets of genetics and differences among life forms. Then we will ask what is a species, and how does a species arise?

• Definition 1:


• Changes in the genetic composition of a population with the passage of each generation
   
• Definition 2:


• The gradual change of living things from one form into another over the course of time, the origin of species and lineages by descent of living forms from ancestral forms, and the generation of diversity

Note that the first definition emphasizes genetic change. It commonly is referred to as microevolution. The second definition emphasizes the appearance of new, physically distinct life forms that can be grouped with similar appearing life forms in a taxonomic hierarchy. It commonly is referred to as macroevolution.

A full explanation of evolution requires that we link these two levels. Can small, gradual change produce distinct species? How does it occur, and how do we decide when species are species? Hopefully you will see the connections by the end of these three lectures.

Today we will discuss how species are formed. But to do this, we need to define what we are talking about.
 

What is a Species?

Despite our increasing ability to understand the finest details of organisms, there is still debate about what constitutes a species. Definitions of species tend to fall into two main camps, the morphological and the biological species concepts.

• Morphological species concept: Oak trees look like oak trees, tigers look like tigers. Morphology refers to the form and structure of an organism or any of its parts. The morphological species concept supports the widely held view that "members of a species are individuals that look similar to one another." This school of thought was the basis for Linneaus' original classification, which is still broadly accepted and applicable today.

This concept became criticized by biologists because it was arbitrary. Many examples were found in which individuals of two populations were very hard to tell apart but would not mate with one another, suggesting that they were in fact different species.

Mimicry complexes supplied further evidence against the concept, as organisms of the same species can look very different, depending upon where they are reared or their life cycle stage (some insects produce a spring brood that looks like one host plant and a summer brood that looks like another).

The morphological species concept was replaced by another viewpoint that puts more emphasis on the biological differences between species.

• Biological species concept: This concept states that "a species is a group of actually or potentially interbreeding individuals who are reproductively isolated from other such groups."

This definition was attractive to biologists and became widely adopted by the 1940's. It suggested a critical test of species-hood: two individuals belong to the same species if their gametes can unite with each other under natural conditions to produce fertile offspring.

This concept also emphasized that a species is an evolutionary unit. Members share genes with other members of their species, and not with members of other species.

Although this definition clearly is attractive, it has problems. Can you test it on museum specimens or fossil data? Can it explain the existence of species in a line of descent, such as the well-known lineage of fossil horses? Obviously not.

In fact, one cannot apply this definition easily, or at all, with many living organisms. What if species do not live in the same place? What about the hybrids that we know occur in zoos? These problems are serious enough that some biologists recently argued for a return to the morphological species concept.

So what is the best way to define a species?

Most scientists feel that the biological species concept should be kept, but with some qualifications. It can only be used with living species, and cannot always be applied to species that do not live in the same place. The real test applies to species that have the potential to interbreed.

Most importantly, the biological species concept helps us ask how species are formed, because it focuses our attention on the question of how reproductive isolation comes about. Let us first examine types of reproductive isolation, because there are quite a few.

Did anyone ever take RAW yogurt (made with RAW milk) and smear it on the ground or on wood ? Do you know what the end result will be ?

Green Moss, yep, if you want pretty green moss all over that ugly siding of an outhouse - just paint the outhouse with RAW yogurt.

Is that "evolution" ? Or just something YOU didn't know before this post.  LMAO

The word “Evolution” has many meanings, only one of which is scientific.
 

1. Cosmic Evolution: the origin of time, space and matter, i.e. Big Bang.
2. Chemical Evolution – the origin of higher elements from hydrogen.
3. Stellar and Planetary evolution. Origin of stars and planets. (No one has ever seen a star form).
4. Organic Evolution. Origin of Life.
5. Macro-Evolution. Changing from one kind into another.
6. Micro-Evolution. Variations within kinds. (Only this one has been observed).

Number 6# option is Micro-Evolution - that happens. But the first other five options of evolution are purely religious, it’s NOT science, we never observed any of those. And all evolutionist people all they give is example number 6# which there is no argument about – it happens. But then they imply that is somehow magically evidence for all other 5 options of evolution and it is NOT.

Option number 6# which is evolution is really not an evolution – all it is - variations between same types of creatures, any creature produce within its kind or maybe with minor or some little changes and evolutionist people calls it micro-evolution.

Shtal,

If it took 40,000 generations (many years) for micro on e-coli don't you think macro will take a lot longer? If it took a somewhat simple organism like e-coli 40,000 generations, how long would you expect it to take on a more complex organism? Say a human, hell it may take 1,000,000 generations. Things evolve. It doesn't mean there is no GOD. What does scripture say about evolution?

I already told you Neither experiment adds genetic information, it is simply just faith, they believe it is possible.


Therefore, this is not evolution.



Shtal.

It did change the genome. Read the links. The genes changed. They were able to see the change as the froze samples from every generation. Dude you are wrong.

No, it is your faith that is keeping you from reading the studies and understanding that the genes did change.

I gave you a link, may I needed it to paste here for you.

Keywords: Creationists, Richard Lenski, evolution, biology, Michigan State University, information, functional systems, E. coli, bacteria, mutation, adaption

Jerry Coyne, evolutionary biologist at the University of Chicago, thinks that Richard Lenski’s recently published research on citrate utilization by Escherichia coli¹ is just that—“another poke in the eye for anti-evolutionists.”² He goes on to say, “The thing I like most is it says you can get these complex traits evolving by a combination of unlikely events. That’s just what creationists say can’t happen.”² I agree that creationists say that cannot happen; however, Lenski’s research does not show that it did! Instead Lenski’s research is another “feather in the cap” for creationists and further demolishes evolutionary ideas that complex traits can arise by random mutations.

Lenski’s 20-Year experiment

In 1988 Richard Lenski, an evolutionary biologist at Michigan State University, began culturing 12 identical lines of E. coli. Over 44,000 generations and 20 years later, the experiment continues. The bacteria are grown in medium, which has a small amount of glucose (a primary carbon source for E. coli) and abundant citrate (a carbon source not utilized by E. coli). Every 500 generations, his lab takes samples of the bacteria, which in essence produces a “fossil record” of the different lines. Lenski has observed many changes in the E. coli as they adapt to the culture conditions in his lab. While the fitness of the bacteria has increased (as compared to the starting bacteria), it has come at a cost. For example, all the lines have lost the ability to catabolize ribose (a sugar).³ Some lines have lost the ability to repair DNA.⁴ These bacteria may indeed be more fit in a lab setting, but if put in competition with their wild-type (normal) counterparts in a natural setting, they would not stand a chance. [A detailed analysis of Lenski’s work from a creationist perspective will be presented at the International Conference on Creationism (ICC) 2008 and in a paper published in the ICC Proceedings⁵].

Many evolutionists state that the bacteria are experiencing “adaptive evolution.” However, this is not evolution but rather adaptation. Molecules-to-man evolution requires an increase in information and functional systems. Instead, these bacteria are likely experiencing a loss of information and functional systems as has been observed in other mutant bacteria in Lenski’s lab. While these changes are beneficial in the lab environment, they do not lead to a net gain that moves bacteria in an upward evolutionary direction.

The Magic Generation: 31,500

Lenski’s lab discovered that at generation 31,500, one line of E. coli could utilize citrate (Cit+). As mentioned previously, E. coli are not usually able to utilize citrate (Cit-), and this fact is typically used as diagnostic identification of E. coli. A New Scientist writer proclaims, “A major innovation has unfurled right in front of researchers’ eyes. It’s the first time evolution has been caught in the act of making such a rare and complex new trait.”² However, as we will see, this is a gross overstatement in regards to what actually occurred.

Previous research has shown that wild-type E. coli can utilize citrate when oxygen levels are low.⁶ Under these conditions, citrate is taken into the cell and used in a fermentation pathway. The gene (citT) in E. coli is believed to encode a citrate transporter (a protein which transports citrate into the cell).⁶ When oxygen levels are high, it is thought that the citrate transporter does not function or is not produced (even though they still possess the enzymes necessary to utilize citrate). Thus, wild-type E. coli already have the ability to transport citrate into the cell and utilize it—so much for the idea of a “major innovation” and “evolution . . . making a rare and complex new trait”! Other labs have also produced Cit+ E. coli and speculated that mutation(s) in citT (or its regulators) allow the citrate transporter to function or be produced under high oxygen levels.^{6, 7} These types of changes are very consistent with the creation model (see below), but cannot serve as a means for evolution.

Lenski’s lab has not yet identified the genetic alterations of the Cit+ E. coli line, but he believes that there are multiple mutations involved. Studies of the “fossil record” of this line indicate that one or more mutations occurred around generation 20,000 which he terms “potentiating” mutations that were necessary before additional mutations around generation 31,500 led to Cit+ cells. Lenski thinks that the mutations may have activated a “cryptic” transporter (a once functional transporter that has been damaged due to the accumulation of mutations) that can now transport citrate. However, he states, “A more likely possibility, in our view, is that an existing transporter has been coopted [sic] for citrate transport under oxic [high oxygen levels] conditions.”¹ He believes this could be the same citrate transporter (citT) used in low oxygen conditions (inferring a loss of regulation) or a transporter for another substrate that has been modified to transport citrate (inferring a loss of specificity).

Lenski states (based on calculated mutation rates in E. coli), “It is clearly very difficult for E. coli to evolve this function. In fact, the mutation rate of the ancestral strain from Cit- to Cit+ is immeasurably low . . . .”¹ If developing the ability to utilize citrate under certain conditions using random mutations of a pre-existing citrate utilization system is so rare, then how even more improbable is it to believe that these same random mutations can lead to completely new information and functional systems that allow dinosaurs to turn into birds! Lenski’s work shows a clear case of adaptation and not evolution.

A Creationist Perspective

Mutations which lead to adaptation, termed adaptive mutations, can readily fit within a creation model where adaptive mechanisms are a designed feature of bacteria allowing them to survive in a fallen world.⁸ Since E. coli already possess the ability to transport and utilize citrate under certain conditions, it is conceivable that they could adapt and gain the ability to utilize citrate under broader conditions. This does not require the addition of new genetic information or functional systems (there are no known “additive” mechanisms). Instead degenerative events are likely to have occurred resulting in the loss of regulation and/or specificity. It is possible that the first mutations or potentiating mutations (at generation 20,000) were either slightly beneficial or neutral in their effect.

Given the selective pressure exerted by the media of a limited carbon source (glucose) but abundant alternative carbon source (citrate), the cells with slightly beneficial mutations would be selected for and increase in the population. Alternatively, if the mutational effects were neutral the cells with these mutations might remain in the population just by chance, since they would not be selected for or against. Around generation 31,500 additional mutations enabled the cells to utilize citrate and grow more rapidly than cells without the adaptive mutations. Adaptive mechanisms in bacteria work by altering currently existing genetic information or functional systems to make the bacteria more suitable for a particular environment. Further understanding of Lenski’s research is valuable for development of a creation model for adaptation of bacterial populations in response to the adverse environmental conditions in a post-Fall, post-Flood world.

Conclusion

It is interesting that in spite of the clear evidence for the adaptation of E. coli, Lenski refers to his findings as evidence for bacteria developing a “key innovation” and a “new function” and a “fascinating case of evolution in action.”¹ Obviously, presuppositions (human reason vs. God’s Word) play a major role in interpreting the evidence. Richard Lenski and I are looking at the same evidence but drawing different conclusions based on our source of truth—man’s ideas or God’s ideas. It is only possible to obtain truth about the past if we start with the only source of absolute truth in the present—the inerrant Word of God.

Four years ago, I wrote an article titled “A Poke in the Eye? Lenski and the adaptive acrobatics of E. coli.” The article highlighted the work of evolutionary biologist Richard Lenski and his discovery of bacteria that had reportedly evolved a new complex trait. During the recent Bill Nye controversy (see here and here), Huff Post decried my supposed ignorance of Lenski’s work that they acknowledged as “evolution that has been observed in a laboratory setting.” Obviously, as I stated in a response to Huff Post, they didn’t do their homework!

Interestingly, as all this was going on, Lenski released a new paper showing the genetic changes that had occurred in E. coli. First, let’s review what Lenski reported in 2008.[1] E. coli (such as those found in our gut or in the soil outside our home) have the ability to utilize citrate as a carbon and energy source when oxygen levels are low. They transport citrate into the cell and break it down. Lenski’s lab reported that the E. coli they had been culturing in the lab for many years could now utilize citrate under normal oxygen levels. It’s fairly easy to see that this was not “a major innovation” or the “making of a rare and complex new trait”; it was simply a change in the regulation of when citrate was used by E. coli.

In Lenski’s 2012 paper he shows the genetic mechanism that caused E. coli to make this change.[2] The E. coli that had been cultured for many years in his lab had a duplication of a portion of their DNA that included the citrate transporter gene called citT. The citT gene encodes a protein that transports citrate into the cell. The duplicated citT gene was under different regulatory control than the original citT gene. This allowed the citrate transporter to be produced and citrate to be utilized under normal oxygen levels.

Clearly this is not a case of adding new genetic information as the DNA that already existed in the bacteria was merely duplicated. It’s also not an example of the gain of a new function because the bacteria could already utilize citrate under certain conditions. There was a definite loss of regulation as the original citT gene was only expressed under low oxygen levels. These types of changes do not provide a mechanism for adding the new genetic information required for the evolutionary “novelties” necessary for molecules-to-man evolution.

Lenski also noted that certain mutations occurred before and after the duplication event. Those before were deemed necessary to “potentiate” the duplication event and those after were deemed necessary to “refine” the duplication event. I was amazed at just how many changes were necessary to allow the bacteria to perform a pre-existing function (using citrate) under different conditions (normal oxygen levels). Imagine how many changes would be necessary to generate truly novel proteins with truly novel functions necessary for molecules-to-man evolution.  Impossible!

Lenski concluded in his recent paper, “The evolution of citrate use in an experimental E. coli population provided an unusual opportunity to study the multi-step origin of a key innovation.” No, it did not. It did provide further understanding of mechanisms that bacteria use to adapt to varying environmental conditions. God designed bacteria to be “master adapters” to survive and thrive in a post-Fall, post-Flood world. At times this can be to our detriment when bacteria cause disease, but this ability to adapt can also be put to good use for bioremediation and cleaning up our planet.

Shital,
If you'd really like to win this evolutionary debate why don't you and your followers simply prove that your god exists, is real, and did in fact create everything he claims.

Proof, undeniable evidence.

You are the one's who should have the burden of proof to support your argument, where's your evidence?


Moons.