The View From 1776

Darwinians Have A Mythical Bridge To Sell You

Researchers Ran a Massive Yearlong Experiment to Get Bacteria to Evolve. Guess What Happened?

Believers in the religion of secular materialism will insist that any experiment should last at least a few million years to allow for the slow accretion of mutations that would lead to creation of a new species.  Perhaps so, but in the mean time Darwinians can’t point to any evidence of the predicted evolutionary process, other than minor variations within a single species.  Farmers and animal breeders have been familiar with such species manipulation for thousands of years.

No evidence of any kind in fossil records reveals any example of slow changes of one species into a wholly different species, let alone evolution from one genus to another.  Such evidence must be present if there truly is such a thing as Darwinian evolution in the real world.

Faith, without proof, in this nonsense besmirches science.

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 09/07 at 09:39 PM
  1. Thomas,
    The writer of the article posted concludes that the experiment suggested that "intelligent design" may allow organisms to generate mutations during times of stress and that therefore the adaptation observed in the experiment (increased tolerance to heat by E-coli) could be explained that way. (But it is hard not to conclude from the text presented that the writer is a lay person with little familiarity with the science involved in the experiment described.)

    Your insistence that there is no fossil record of change of species tends also to suggest a lack of familiarity with paleontology. Although the science itself has a long history (Greek Xenophanes in 480 BC observed sea shells indicating certain areas of land had once been under water), since the advent of DNA analysis in the 1960s, the phylogenetic history of organisms has become much better understood.

    You may have read about a recent discovery of a 130,000 pound dinosaur, the largest land animal every found. These kinds of exciting discoveries continue to enrich our knowledge of the history of life on the planet.
    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  09/08  at  09:56 AM
  2. Mr. Jay, this is another example of your all-purpose rejoinder that any person who doesn’t agree with your views lacks sufficient credentials to do so, or doesn’t understand the science involved. That’s just a way to avoid engaging with the issue raised. Perhaps you can provide a critique of the article with specific points.

    As for the fossil record, surely you are aware of the Cambrian explosion of new life forms, which no one from Darwin to today can explain in terms of Darwin’s evolutionary hypothesis. The late Harvard Darwinian Stephen Jay Gould simply threw up his hands and fell back on a black-box thesis of punctuated equilibrium.

    Darwin himself admitted that his hypothesis of evolution could not stand if intermediate forms of life between the Cambrian layer and earlier ones were not found. They have not been found, nor are there any examples of the millions of gradual changes from one genus to another, changes that have to exist if Darwin is correct that all life originated by chance in one single, simple life form.

    As the posted article notes, all efforts to explain the towering inconsistencies in Darwinian theory come down to “we can suppose,” “probably,” or “we may assume.”

    The truth is that Darwinian evolution is not science; as Darwin stated in his autobiography, it’s an effort to deny that humans have souls and a nature made in the image of God.
    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  09/08  at  11:33 AM
  3. JJay makes a great point, Tom, you should not take it as a personal attack. Just look how we just recently discovered the largest land animal ever found.. Gaps in paleontological remains or evidence about anything we do not have 100% of the information that we lack may tempt us to say "God did it" but please understand the point is that it is better to assume things on the basis of fact and common sense natural observations.

    By the way, here's an recent study/experiment that we did not have to wait a few million years in order to see results in documenting the way that skeletal changes were observed in fish when they were raised on land vs those of the same kind raised in water:

    "The bichirs [fish] raised on land were better walkers, with changes in their bones that likely help improve terrestrial locomotion, she and her colleagues report online today in Nature.... In the land-raised fish, the front fins, instead of being splayed out to the sides, extended almost straight down, lifting the animals’ heads higher off the ground so they could put more weight on the fins. Thus, when these bichirs push off with a fin to take a step, their fins don’t slip and they can take quicker steps (see video).

    "The bones that support the fins and attach them to the back of the head TOOK ON NEW SHAPES. Those bones make up the pectoral girdle. One bone, the equivalent of our collarbone that extends under the chest, grew longer so that it could better support the body. The connection between it and another bone that goes up the side of the fish got stronger, but that bone itself thinned to allow more room for the head to swing from side to side. Contact between another pectoral girdle bone and the skull was also reduced, allowing the head to move up and down. Most fish don’t need such flexibility in the head, because in water they can easily move the body to look or eat in a different direction. “All the changes [we saw] are changes that you see in the fossil record,” says Standen, who is now an evolutionary and comparative biomechanist at the University of Ottawa."
    Posted by Sirc_Valence2  on  09/15  at  07:43 PM
  4. Thanks, Sirc Valence2, for your comment.

    I don't take Mr. Jay's comments as a personal attack. I just disagree with most of his views.

    As for your reference to walking fish, if fish were to have evolved into land based, air-breathing creatures, how and why did the apparently develop over many millennia parallel lungs and gills, along with completely different hearts and circulatory systems? Under Darwin's natural selection hypothesis, there could have been no survival benefit to producing such an awkward creature.
    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  09/16  at  09:19 AM
Commenting is not available in this channel entry.