myDigitalLife Blogs

Blogs about Digital, Lifestyle, current news and opinions

Evolution Fail

Posted by: thenack

Tagged in: thenack , Science , religion , mutation , Jesus , fail , evolution , e-coli , bible

thenack

 

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.

 

The Background

 

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)

 

The implications:

 

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.

 

 

Because of evolutionary notions of our origin, our DNA was supposed to be mostly ‘junk’, leftovers of our animal ancestry.  This has proven to be yet another evolutionary impediment to scientific progress.

 Junk DNA, just another evolution lie that set science back 25 years

 

 

 

theNack

dolarani

Its NEW, Its Clever, Its Different! Put links like this at the bottom of your blogs and earn a longterm residual income, I do.

Comments (6)Add Comment
Dissol
...
written by Dissol, August 20, 2011
I can give plenty of evidence of evolution. Simple. Go to http://www.talkorigins.org/faq...tion2.html
Refute some of those...

Evolution is accepted by the vast majority of the scientific community. It is a fact. Only religious fundamentalists seem to have problems with it.
thenack
...
written by thenack, August 22, 2011
That argument is a total bluff
guardian angel
...
written by guardian angel, September 05, 2011
i totally agree with you TheNack. Evolution is punted and shoved down everybodies throats like nothing on earth, and for those not wanting to spend a little intelligent time reading, one will realise that it goes nowhere. Macro evolution is utter rubbish (cows to dolphins!!!!!!). Micro evolution possibly, but that does not change the actual organism or animal/human. they remain the same, just do things a little differently. I learnt how to drive, oh and run a printing machine, so i have possibly micro evolved. Our eyes are a different colour - maybe micro evolution - but we are still human beings with the same make-up. Evolutionists live in a vacuum of self belief - they take something they find (archeologists do this often), start at the end and then try to put a theory to how it came to be like this. one has to start at the beginning, work ones way through to get to an end result - with unrefuted evidence, not vice versa. Good write
Dissol
...
written by Dissol, September 05, 2011
I do think you both need to watch this stunning video by a scientist that I greatly admire:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ti3mtDC2fQo&feature=colike
Jawellnofine
...
written by Jawellnofine, September 06, 2011
Every time this type of article rears its head, the arguments/debates are the same. Why bother. It just goes around and around et al.

In my opinion, I think that these types of articles are written to attract hits...!
LousyNick
...
written by LousyNick, December 14, 2011
Interesting. I missed the whole debate, and I don't really want to get involved in the whole scientific proof of evolution thing right now (unless you're really really keen on it, I guess) but I thought I'd just throw in a few comments on your discussion of this particular experiment.

First off, when it comes to your calculation on the length of time it would take to accumulate human-chimp genetic differences between humans and chimps, your maths is a bit off. For one thing, sex (our brand, not the various kinds bacteria can employ) complicates things: having two copies of each allele allows mutations with no (current) fitness benefits to persist (even ones that are deleterious if their effects are masked by a more positive allele) and mating allows different streams of mutations to come together in offspring. On that note, population size is an im[portant factor as well: larger populations = more mutations, in much the same way that more time does.

Also, point mutations aren't the only kind of mutations - there's duplications and deletions and frameshifts of entire segments of DNA, so 150 million differences could take considerably less than 150 million mutations. It also depends on how you count the differences: for example, a single triplet (or even a single base pair) accidentally inserted 100 000 000 points into a 250 000 000 point long section of code would render that sequence at least 150 000 000 points different to its previous form in a single step.

And while there were only (at least) 2 mutations that dealt with the citrate ability (and the "complementary" part of that is kind of important) there were also a lot of other mutations along the way: Lenski and crew estimate hundreds of millions by the 20 000th generation in the experiment as a whole, with 10 to 20 beneficial ones in each flask population. Phenotypically, there were other changes as well: bacteria got larger, more efficient at using glucose, increased their mutation rate (by decreasing DNA repair ability) and some changed their shape as well.

Basically, it's a bit more complicated than you let on here, is what I'm getting at.

Anyhoo, sorry about the length of my comment, but do I tend to go on and on about stuff that interests me...and you just have the bad luck to share some of those interests smilies/smiley.gif

Add your 2Cents
You must be logged in to post a comment. Please register if you do not have an account yet.

busy

Member Login