Posted by: thenack on Aug 19, 2011
On a recent debate on philosopher aka philopastry aka pastryboys blog, I challenged him to give one scientifically proven case of evolution. He dodged the question completely, which is understandable, THERE ARE NONE. However, Ennui came to his rescue by claiming the E.Coli metabolising citrate of Lenski as an example of Evolution. Well here is an examination of that claim.
E.Coli and how you get it
Scientists often study the effects of mutations using bacteria (not viruses as pastryboy stated, in fact, at one point he said scientists studies viruses mutating to develop resistance against BACTERIA...confusion spreads like a disease). The reason for using bacteria is that you need thousands of generations to get mutations to manifest in a population.
In a study done by Richard Lenski, it took 35 000 generations for E.Coli to develop the ability to metabolise Citrate. In 20 years of study, the EColi went through 44 0000 generations. at 35 000 generations the E.Coli developed the ability to metabolise Citrate under aerobic conditions, ie with oxygen present. They had 12 simultaneous test groups, and 1 of the 12 developed this ability. They went back to previous generations (you can freeze samples) and found out that the special group had a difference at generation 20 000. So simply put, it took 2 mutations, 15 000 generations apart, to acquire this new ability.
Is this the whole truth?
turns out, E.coli already had a citric acid metabolising cycle, that already used citrate to metabolise carbohydrates etc. But wait, there's more!!!. E.Coli can metabolise citrate already, under anaerobic conditions (no oxygen). So what happened? Lenski hasn't told us, but is most likely that these mutations broke the regulation of the anaerobic cycle, causing the existing citrate transporter to function under aerobic conditions. Another possibility is that one of the many otehr transporter genes lost specificity and ended up transporting citrate as well as something else. Or the e.Coli can no longer transport something else, but do the citrate.
So what is the bottom line?
there was already a functioning genome to begin with.
It took 35 000 generations to accumulate two "complementary" mutations.
These mutations operated on genes that were already doing the thing, they just changed the object. (you could use a petrol pump to pump oil if you tweak it a little)
This actually shows that mutations can hardly generate anything significant in bacteria. It is not like the bacteria grew limbs! Existing functionality was re-used to do something it could do already, just under new conditions.
Given the amount of generations it took to do this, it would take even longer in sexually reproducing organism with longer generation times. In sexually reproducing organisms, mutations are generally avoided because the genome of both parents are present, and designed to take the correct copy of DNA, and not the one with the mutation. Also animals that are more complex than bacteria have vastly longer generation cycles.
This means that to reach 44 000 generations in humans would take millions of years. TO GET ONE SMALL, TINY change.
So, even if (and I am not saying this is so) humans and chimps have only 5% difference in our genes, this amounts to 150,000,000 DNA base pairs that are different between them. So to go from common ancestor to humans and chimps would require between 1 and 2 X 150 000 000 mutations, at average 20 years generation time. Let’s say that we won't need 35 000 generations to do this, let’s say we need only 10 000. That would be 10 000 X 150 000 000 mutations X 20 years. Evolutionists say our common ancestor lived 200 000 years ago. ? ? ? ? ? Yeaaaahh.....nice story
So what have we seen?
Scientific studies show how insanely impossible molecules to man evolution is. Mutations and natural selection can only account for small changes in existing creatures. Pigs won't fly. Period.
Now they will come with all sorts of smoke and mirrors, but just break it down. Think clearly for yourself and get the actual story. Then you will see, evolution is a lie, and science proves it, even if some scientists do not want it to.
Junk DNA, just another evolution lie that set science back 25 years