Scientists Beginning to Doubt Discovery Once Touted as Evidence for Evolution
By Garrett Haley on May 29, 2016
An influential scientific discovery that was once celebrated as compelling evidence for evolution may require reinterpretation, according to a growing number of scientists and researchers.
In 2008, biologist Richard Lenski of Michigan State University jubilantly announced that he had witnessed a “major evolutionary innovation.” Lenski, as part of his Long-Term Experimental Evolution (LTEE) project, had been carefully observing the bacteria Escherichia coli (E. coli) reproduce in a lab. Finally, after 20 years and 31,000 E. coli generations, Lenski noticed that one of the bacteria populations had seemingly mutated and acquired the ability to process the chemical citrate when oxygen was present.
Lenski detailed his findings in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences and claimed that the E. coli development was a “fascinating case of evolution in action.” Other sources described the discovery as “dramatic” and “profound.”
“Lenski’s experiment is also yet another poke in the eye for anti-evolutionists,” reported the website NewScientist.com. The site also quoted evolution promoter Jerry Coyne as saying, “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.”
Later, in a 2011 article in Microbe Magazine, Lenski wrote a “salute to Charles Darwin” and asserted that his LTEE project confirmed Darwin’s ideas. Then, in a 2012 journal article published in Nature, Lenski again drew attention to the supposed evolution of the E. coli bacteria, stating that the ability to process citrate was “a novel trait” made possible by evolution.
However, a growing number of scientists are now calling Lenski’s findings into question. In February, a journal article from the American Society for Microbiology written by a team of biologists from the University of Idaho rebutted one of Lenski’s central claims.
“Here we show why [Lenski’s discovery] probably was not a speciation event,” the biologists wrote. As it turns out, E. coli populations tested by the University of Idaho biologists rapidly acquired the ability to process citrate when oxygen was present. So it wasn’t a rare evolutionary event—it was simply the bacteria adapting to their environment.
“We conclude that the rarity of the LTEE mutant was an artifact of the experimental conditions and not a unique evolutionary event,” the researchers wrote. “No new genetic information (novel gene function) evolved.”
Another journal article published this year by the American Society for Microbiology cast further doubt on the celebrated LTEE discovery and proposed that Lenski’s findings “may require interpretation.”
In a May 16 blog post, Dr. Jay Wile said these recent developments should come as no surprise. In fact, Wile noted, a Christian molecular geneticist—Dr. Georgia Purdom with Answers in Genesis—predicted that the E. coli in LTEE did not mutate. They simply adapted to function better in their environment.
“This was definitely not any kind of speciation event,” he wrote in reference to the E. coli adaptations. “Instead, the same genetic changes seen in the LTEE were achieved repeatedly after a short amount of time. This tells us that the ability to use citrate in the presence of oxygen is the result of adaptive mutation, as predicted by Dr. Purdom nearly 8 years ago.”
Therefore, Dr. Wile wrote, these recent developments have “specifically confirmed a creationist prediction while, at the same time, falsifying an evolutionary one.” ______________________________________
My comment:
Or perhaps the ability to use citrate in the presence of oxygen was already present in the genome, and only needed to be selected by environment. Such a change could not be a mutation, because it happens too quickly, too often.
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
Hey Ron are you ever going to respond to my post about how the Germans were actually in fact doomed to lose WWII? Maybe you should complete the discussions you've started instead of starting new ones that you will find a way to also lose and then cut and run from.
Posted by PanaceaSanans (Member # 13395) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Lenski noticed that one of the bacteria populations had seemingly mutated and acquired the ability to process the chemical citrate when oxygen was present.
...
“Here we show why [Lenski’s discovery] probably was not a speciation event,” the biologists wrote. As it turns out, E. coli populations tested by the University of Idaho biologists rapidly acquired the ability to process citrate when oxygen was present. So it wasn’t a rare evolutionary event—it was simply the bacteria adapting to their environment.
“We conclude that the rarity of the LTEE mutant was an artifact of the experimental conditions and not a unique evolutionary event,” the researchers wrote. “No new genetic information (novel gene function) evolved.”
...
Dr. Jay Wile said these recent developments should come as no surprise. In fact, Wile noted, a Christian molecular geneticist—Dr. Georgia Purdom with Answers in Genesis—predicted that the E. coli in LTEE did not mutate. They simply adapted to function better in their environment.
“This was definitely not any kind of speciation event,” he wrote in reference to the E. coli adaptations. “Instead, the same genetic changes seen in the LTEE were achieved repeatedly after a short amount of time. This tells us that the ability to use citrate in the presence of oxygen is the result of adaptive mutation, as predicted by Dr. Purdom nearly 8 years ago.”
As far as I know Darwin never claimed there was one unique mutation in one individual that led to the development of a new species. Rather he explained that of those mutations that happen frequently, those that give advantage to the individual are more likely to be transmitted to following generations. E.g.: the fact that horses' eyes "moved" from the front toward the sides of their skull would REQUIRE a likely mutation to happen frequently - and probably not just in ONE population - to enable that trait to prevail.
While the E.coli case may not prove evolution happened, it certainly proves that evolution is possible. The change in genome that leads to the ability to use citrate in the presence of oxygen happens frequently? Sounds to me like an adaptation that would be "useful"/ an advantage to the species. Couple that with the assumption that the underlying mutation is so likely that it happens frequently (even when there IS no oxygen present, in which case it will just be ignored - i.e. no consequence results of it - or discarded), et voilà, when there is oxygen the mutation poses an advantage and the "gifted" individuals will more likely prevail. Thus evolution is possible.
[ June 05, 2016, 08:02 AM: Message edited by: PanaceaSanans ]
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Elison R. Salazar--I have already answered you in detail TWICE.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
PanaceaSanans--What is this mutation supposed to consist of? A cosmic ray hitting one particle in one single atom in one single gene? How could this produce thousands of changes in a gene necessary to write code for an entirely new genetic ability? I must compliment evolutionists for their fantastic degree of faith, that allows them to believe that such not only happens, but happens frequently and often.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Even if that were an accurate summary of the evolutionary theories you're mocking, it would still be less improbable than the idea of a vast intelligence with vast abilities that spans reality, that tinkers in life and cares about individual human beings and created everything yet was itself uncreated.
Posted by PanaceaSanans (Member # 13395) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: PanaceaSanans--What is this mutation supposed to consist of? A cosmic ray hitting one particle in one single atom in one single gene? How could this produce thousands of changes in a gene necessary to write code for an entirely new genetic ability? I must compliment evolutionists for their fantastic degree of faith, that allows them to believe that such not only happens, but happens frequently and often.
There seem to be fundamental differences in our understanding of how mutations happen...
I understand now why there was no vibrant discussion here before. I am new to this forum, and I thought you were inviting communication, thought you were going to appreciate hearing our views. Which is why I replied. I did not mean to challenge your faith, for that is futile.
But you do not seem to yearn for exchange of ideas. Instead you mock my answer, bluntly dismissing everything I said without ever thinking about it.
That is a pity.
If you posted this merely to gain approval, I am the wrong person to have answered, and I am sorry for misunderstanding your intention.
Posted by Heisenberg (Member # 13004) on :
quote:Originally posted by PanaceaSanans:
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: PanaceaSanans--What is this mutation supposed to consist of? A cosmic ray hitting one particle in one single atom in one single gene? How could this produce thousands of changes in a gene necessary to write code for an entirely new genetic ability? I must compliment evolutionists for their fantastic degree of faith, that allows them to believe that such not only happens, but happens frequently and often.
There seem to be fundamental differences in our understanding of how mutations happen...
I understand now why there was no vibrant discussion here before. I am new to this forum, and I thought you were inviting communication, thought you were going to appreciate hearing our views. Which is why I replied. I did not mean to challenge your faith, for that is futile.
But you do not seem to yearn for exchange of ideas. Instead you mock my answer, bluntly dismissing everything I said without ever thinking about it.
That is a pity.
If you posted this merely to gain approval, I am the wrong person to have answered, and I am sorry for misunderstanding your intention.
I like the cut of your jib.
Posted by Heisenberg (Member # 13004) on :
Hi Ron.
Since you took exception to Elison's claim that you like to cut and run, I'll ask my question again, since you obviously must have missed it in the other thread. It's okay. It happens.
"Ron Lambert
I'm genuinely curious here; if Obama leaves office without signing a National Sunday Law, will the country be safe from the prophesied disaster until it once again elects a black man president?"
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Elison R. Salazar--I have already answered you in detail TWICE.
No you haven't. You never responded to my post on May 30, 2016 07:51 PM or the one before that. I responded to your earlier response, that is what is known as a "debate".
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Can someone who is not on a mobile device please find and repost the Last few threads where Ron got a talking to on evolution, got mad, and left
It would be easier.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Ron Lambert: Address this post.
It is amazing how pathological some people are in their determination to deny and obfuscate anything that contradicts even the most irresponsible claims that proponents of creationism have made.
Cannot creationist proponents concede anything--even something so obvious and simple as this? What are they afraid of? That if they give in to fairness and honesty, their whole beloved paradigm of creationism might be refuted? This really demonstrates to me how weak creationism really is, despite all the bluster and trash talking. Deep down in their hearts, they know their position is not impregnable. Evolution will win the battle of ideas.
What do you think, Ron?
Posted by The White Whale (Member # 6594) on :
quote: What if anything would ever change your mind?
Bill Nye: "We would need just one piece of evidence...and you would change me immediately."
Ken Ham: "...no one is ever going to convince me..."
Posted by PanaceaSanans (Member # 13395) on :
Guys, I appreciate your backup. I really do.
But please let us agree to stop here.
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: Can someone who is not on a mobile device please find and repost the Last few threads where Ron got a talking to on evolution, got mad, and left?
Please let us agree to not do that. I suspect Ron remembers all those times all too painfully anyway, and we gain nothing from bashing him. This does not feel good to me anymore. We have done more than enough.
It is not necessary - nor possible, we believe - to sway him. And there is no need to suppress. Let him believe whatever he wants, as we wish to be allowed to believe whatever we want.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
there is no compelling moral or strategic reason, in a discussion forum, voiding the validity or the utility of providing a preponderance of evidence, in advance, that Ron Lambert is incapable of arguing evolution vs creationism in good faith and will not make credible arguments here, because he never does, not in his decade (!) long tenure of not arguing in good faith nor providing credible arguments.
Ron Lambert does not remember these incidents 'all too painfully;' he has an immense wall of cognitive dissonance which is worth ridiculing as readily as it is worth pointing out that prevents him from ever really understanding that he has ever lost an argument here, even though he pretty much loses all of them. he denies any incident (on this entire forum across years and years in which his arguments were found lacking) ever happened and continues to assert, strenuously and laughably, that he has never been validly contested or found wrong on this forum. This is despite the fact that he has (rightfully) earned a reputation as a person who is sometimes so chronically and constantly wrong about so many things that it defies statistical belief. The laws of chance alone would dictate he would be right at least a few times more than he ever is. He is like a machine designed to dogmatically and unyieldingly argue his beliefs, arrogantly, and fixatively, no matter how many untrue things he is caught saying, as if the penalty for yielding even the most trivial things comes with a promise of an instant and painful death.
He acts theologically paranoid, and this paranoia is at the heart of every sustained argument he makes in any public forum. When he is challenged on his beliefs, even by individuals who maintain complete politeness, he begins to make insults and personally attack all other posters who are disagreeing with his facts or providing evidence validly against his claims. If people continue to challenge his views, and he's stuck around long enough (instead of vanishing) he moves inevitably to asserting that he is right because he is on the side of God, and the people arguing against him are under satanic influences and are driven to commit evil and extinguish God's protection of the United States against meteors, and that a person's tendency to contradict Ron in an internet argument is evidence that they are being possessed by demonic influences to kill good christians. I am not making this up.
Posted by Heisenberg (Member # 13004) on :
Yo Sam just for shigs link me to the thread where he accused you of being demonic?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
it's really hard to find, much like the thread where ron lambert reveals that a large portion of his neurosis about president obama is because 25 years ago he listened to a pastor talk about how he had a dream that it would be a black president who would usher in the apocalypse
but the Yellowcake thread is where I first recall him pretty much saying that unless we were saved by truth we were likely to become slavering murderous hordes that would kill him and people like him
NOTE that this thread acts as something of a microcosm of Ron-ism in itself; ron makes an absolutely factually incorrect statement, is called on it, digs in and arrogantly asserts how he is always correct, and the only explanation for our disagreement with his incorrect statements is because we are dishonest and incapable of rational thought and/or dialogue.
NOTE ALSO you will see this pretty much literally any time from Ron, almost guaranteed, in any instance where he elects to join or create what he thinks is a discussion about specific topics (most importantly, politics and science)
NOTE ALSO AS WELL that arguments with Ron typically become suffused with bigoted statements from Ron indicating a significant complex involving race relations with blacks (he is afraid that Obama has always intended to spark a race war and send blacks to disrupt or murder people like him in order to usurp totalitarian power in the US) and absolute and clear bigotry for gays and the transgendered, as well sometimes towards the whole of all people who follow the Islamic faith.
NOTE ALSO AS WELL ALSO that arguments with Ron with anyone, whether they are polite about disagreeing with him on facts in almost any field or not, return always to him asserting absolute and unshakable confidence in scripture, and he will begin quoting scripture and/or insisting in very deliberate statements about his beliefs are born of the unshaken truth of God and the Bible, and that people trying to 'distort' or otherwise disbelieve his truth will have to answer to God for their God-denying cowardice. (essentially, you're going to hell for denying things Ron believes in, unless you repent in time!)
NOTE ALSO ALSO AS WELL ALSO that these suffusings (suffusifications? suffusifyings?) of bigotry and rambling quotation of Scripture and segues into "I'm right because God" often occur spontaneously in all but the most disconnected topics. One minute you're talking to him about mitochondria and the next he's talking about Obama's conscription of innercity blacks for a race war, or that letting gays marry literally means that God is going to withdraw an angel-powered shield around the united states that has protected us from meteor strikes because we have ruined marriage, and marriage in the united states specifically is somehow theologically exceptional and was the most vital one to God for some reason, and that makes God very angry and a lot of us have to die now in natural calamities. Yes, Ron's descriptions of God detail what would be an insecure, neurotic, violent asshole — so please be charitable to God and assume that Ron does not know or understand God in the least.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:Originally posted by PanaceaSanans: Guys, I appreciate your backup. I really do.
But please let us agree to stop here.
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: Can someone who is not on a mobile device please find and repost the Last few threads where Ron got a talking to on evolution, got mad, and left?
Please let us agree to not do that. I suspect Ron remembers all those times all too painfully anyway, and we gain nothing from bashing him. This does not feel good to me anymore. We have done more than enough.
It is not necessary - nor possible, we believe - to sway him. And there is no need to suppress. Let him believe whatever he wants, as we wish to be allowed to believe whatever we want.
Good luck with that. Posted by NobleHunter (Member # 12043) on :
Tilting with Ron is often an opportunity for people to explain things. The laughably wrong seldom provide much of interest in their own right but the responses to them are usually more useful.
Posted by Heisenberg (Member # 13004) on :
To be honest I highly value Ron as a poster for the entertainment value alone.
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
quote:Originally posted by PanaceaSanans: Guys, I appreciate your backup. I really do.
But please let us agree to stop here.
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: Can someone who is not on a mobile device please find and repost the Last few threads where Ron got a talking to on evolution, got mad, and left?
Please let us agree to not do that. I suspect Ron remembers all those times all too painfully anyway, and we gain nothing from bashing him. This does not feel good to me anymore. We have done more than enough.
It is not necessary - nor possible, we believe - to sway him. And there is no need to suppress. Let him believe whatever he wants, as we wish to be allowed to believe whatever we want.
Hahahaha.... Welcome to Hatrack Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Heisenberg: To be honest I highly value Ron as a poster for the entertainment value alone.
he definitely keeps this place lively and i certainly have no lack of personal entertainment derived from responding to his antics
Posted by Jake (Member # 206) on :
quote:Originally posted by PanaceaSanans: I understand now why there was no vibrant discussion here before.
By "here", do you mean this thread, or this forum? The thread is new enough that even if Ron were someone open to considering new ideas, or looking at his existing understanding of things from different angles, it would be unlikely for much discussion to have occurred yet. If you mean the forum, yeah; it used to be an amazing place; we had so many people invested in the community, for so long. Everything ends, though, and Hatrack's best years are behind it. You'll find some of the old content still here, but at one point OSC ordered a purge of old threads, and much of the forum's most interesting content was lost. It's a real shame.
Posted by PanaceaSanans (Member # 13395) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jake:
quote:Originally posted by PanaceaSanans: I understand now why there was no vibrant discussion here before.
By "here", do you mean this thread, or this forum?
At the time I was referring to this threat specifically.
I have noticed since that the forum has a bit of a somnambulant feel to it. But the fact that there are people here who have registered more than fifteen years before I ever read Ender's Game leaves me awestruck and humbled, and hoping to rekindle, if not a flame, then a spark of interest in those of you who remember the amazing place this once was, i.e. those who made it so.
quote:Originally posted by Jake: You'll find some of the old content still here, but at one point OSC ordered a purge of old threads, and much of the forum's most interesting content was lost. It's a real shame.
Why would he have done that? (Where's Jane when you need her?)
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
The forum software is ancient, and at one point the accumulated archives were causing stability problems for the server (and, I imagine, other issues for the webmaster, like slow backup times.)
Posted by PanaceaSanans (Member # 13395) on :
Like a burning of books, this makes me more than a little sad... But I understand.
Are there any threats in particular that you remember especially fondly?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
And, God, it is SO WEIRD to have so much of my youth preserved and accessible through search. I can't imagine being much younger and having my old high-school self available for browsing at leisure. The past is a foreign country.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
most of my youth is inaccessible because i spent it playing doom or hanging drywall
Posted by Heisenberg (Member # 13004) on :
I was learning Spanish at a Burger King and spending waaay too much time playing a MUD.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
I used to play Armageddon MUD. I was brefly an imm.
Posted by narrativium (Member # 3230) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: And, God, it is SO WEIRD to have so much of my youth preserved and accessible through search. I can't imagine being much younger and having my old high-school self available for browsing at leisure. The past is a foreign country.
Weirder than having a character you created become the lead in a cable network's flagship drama program?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Yes, oddly enough. Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
As a journal, my internet presence isn't very good. It doesn't remind me of many details of what happened in my life over that timespan. The exception is Facebook, which is sparsely populated but is usually about "life".
My general internet history does seem to be a fairly decent log of what topics I found diverting enough to help me procrastinate, though.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
My youth is also preserved - on rocks. But you have to be able to read Ogham. Also the occasional cave painting.
Posted by Heisenberg (Member # 13004) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: I used to play Armageddon MUD. I was brefly an imm.
At the time I was into an obscure one called Dead of Night. I still play Carrion Fields now and then.
Posted by Heisenberg (Member # 13004) on :
quote:Originally posted by narrativium:
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: And, God, it is SO WEIRD to have so much of my youth preserved and accessible through search. I can't imagine being much younger and having my old high-school self available for browsing at leisure. The past is a foreign country.
Weirder than having a character you created become the lead in a cable network's flagship drama program?
Hold on, Tom, are you the creator of a well known television character? This is something I hadn't heard before.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
For a given value of "well-known." It's on basic cable.
Slash -- Ty -- ran an online RPG for a few years, and then teamed up with Daniel Abraham (under the name James Corey) to turn it into a very successful series of novels called "The Expanse." Syfy picked up the novels and had a minor hit with the first season; the second will be airing soon. One of the two main viewpoint characters of the first book (and arguably the main character of the whole series) is James Holden, the character I came up with for the game; his backstory, ideology, weird hangups, and dialogue patterns are pretty close to how I originally wrote him, to the point that I frequently find myself a little unnerved by the similarity between things Ty puts into his mouth and things I would actually say. Posted by Heisenberg (Member # 13004) on :
That's really cool. ☺
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: For a given value of "well-known." It's on basic cable.
Slash -- Ty -- ran an online RPG for a few years, and then teamed up with Daniel Abraham (under the name James Corey) to turn it into a very successful series of novels called "The Expanse." Syfy picked up the novels and had a minor hit with the first season; the second will be airing soon. One of the two main viewpoint characters of the first book (and arguably the main character of the whole series) is James Holden, the character I came up with for the game; his backstory, ideology, weird hangups, and dialogue patterns are pretty close to how I originally wrote him, to the point that I frequently find myself a little unnerved by the similarity between things Ty puts into his mouth and things I would actually say.
You have literally blown my mind.
No wonder he seems so much like a Paladin.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:You have literally blown my mind.
that sounds disgusting or violent or both
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
I got better.
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
Is Slash someone that posted on Hatrack? Or how do you know him?
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)