Macro-evolution observed in the laboratory

Brilliant article. I highly recommend the new book on E. coli by Carl Zimmer. The book is entitled “Microcosm”. It’s genius and the epitome of good science writing.

Katie,

The point that evolutionists always try to dodge is this: even if macro-evolution could be proven, when it all began, where did that first cell or strand of DNA come from?

I think what you perceive as dodging is something else, perhaps indifference. I say that because it’s not relevant to this conversation (or any conversion about debating evolution): what does the origin of life have to do with the evolutionary process? Why is an answer needed for the origin of life in order to accept evolutionary theory?

IF the article and studies are correct and a strand of Ecoli is now able to survive where no Ecoli survived before… it’s still Ecoli. It’s not changing a tadpole into a monkey into a human.

First, your idea of evolution is incorrect in your tadpole-monkey-human comparison. That’s not how it works. Assuming you do understand the process, though, and were just being glib, you may want to read more about macroevolution. The “it’s still e. coli” argument is not true – macroevolution is a change at a level above the species, not below.

David,I would like to comment on your statement about who created the creator. While I understand your point here and how it seems logical to ask such a question, I must bring up the infinite regress concept. God is a sufficient cause to have created the universe(whether he did or not) and to ask where God came from would beg the question where did God’s creator come from and so on and so forth, which would lead to an infinite regress which is rather illogical.

Chase,

Just because asking the question can, but does not necessarily, lead to an infinite regression does not make the question invalid, it just makes the answer more difficult.

Bob,

I would prefer a designed universe if it were designed by an omni-benevolent being — No childhood cancer, no cruelty, poverty, starvation, disease, war, terrorism. Unfortunately the evidence points to a universe that wasn’t designed by an omnipotent omnibenevolent God.

David

Dear Kind People,

Something I am failing to understand is why, when we are genuinely seeking nothing but scientific knowledge, as I am, and when considering the possibility of intelligent design, why folks try to define a possible designer. Can we not just leave it at that and leave speculation about a possible designer’s motives, if it even has emotions and, as someone pointed out that the evidence of a benevolent designer is not present because of, for one example given: childhood cancer. Cancer effects people of all ages, but for the sake of facts, speculating as to a possible designer being malevolent is outside the field of scientific knowledge.

Also, there is an considerable and important difference between micro and macro-evolution. Micro-evolution is and has been an observable fact throughout history and I have never heard of anyone questioning or debating that fact. Macro-evolution (changes that involve an increase in genetic information) is questionable and also necessary for the evolution of man from the “same descendant as the apes”, whatever that is. Some say life from chemicals in the oceans to a single-celled organism and on up the evolutionary tree to man.

Professor Darwin observed micro-evolution and made interesting, but unimportant notes on that subject and then guessed that, given enough time that macro-evolution is possible. It seems that many people have adopted an attitude that given enough time that anything is possible and cling to anything to support the oldest universe possible. I seem to be the only student of this subject so far that has no preference if things came about by random chance (which I believe takes as much faith in the unknown as scientists who consider the possibility of a designer) or by design.

What I stated above is so simple that I am afraid I must be overlooking something obvious. Please don’t worry about embarrassing me by explaining what I am missing.

Thank you folks very much and I look forward to all respectful discussions on the evolution/intelligent design study.

Bob

Dear Kind People,

I was so eager to ask my question about people who seek knowledge on the question of origins that I hastily dispatched a letter, not even taking the time to read my own letter. Unlike our president during his campaign, I do know the proper use of a and an. It is no reflection on his intelligence or education (I would guess he got it from his parents before entering school). I believe my question would more appropiately be: If we have a preference, do we allow it to interfere with our sincere quest for knowledge. I am more than willing to accept that I am just a refined monkey, if it is a proven fact, but I am not convinced of it based on verifiable evidence.

I have more thoughts to share, but they are based upon a premise that it takes as much, if not more, faith in the unknown to believe that the universe is so finely tuned for man and is that way as a result of an undirected explosion of a “cosmic egg”. I should have stressed “undirected”. I have thought that we could evolved to conform to that fine tuning instead of the other way around, but that would not explain such “handy” things, such as a water table, enough oil and coal in the ground to fuel the world until we come up with better things, trees to supply building supplies for our shelters, again, until we develope better things and I may add, the sooner the better for all the above, and many, many other “conveniences” (spelling?}

I believe “Intelligent Design” is worthy of consideration and I personally would not even pretend to have the ability to try to describe a possible designer, but my hunch is that a possible designer does not supervise the day-to-day goings on in the world. That was Einstein’s theory and I believe he was a much more remarkable scientist than Darwin, but not for that reason. I recognize that I could be completely wrong.

Again, thanks and I will continue to keep my feelers out for proof of macro-evolution.

ps Did anyone see the TV program on “National Geographic” about a researcher who claims to believe that viruses are the missing link to account for our evolution. Always looking for a missing linc when there may not be one.

Hey Jeff,

yes, it is trying to apply human conclusions to a non-human being.

However, so is calling it benevolent or anything else. If we’re going to adhere to such standards of not being able to judge the alleged actions of a creator, then there is no way to tell whether it is actually good or bad. In the case of Christianity, how would one tell whether God was the good guy and not Satan?

We can either judge a god or not judge a god… there’s no such thing as “we can judge that God’s good but not bad”.

This is an invalid article, it does not prove that macroevolution is observable or even true. This article simply proves that all organisms adapt to their environment but organisms certainly do not create new species.

Qazinix, look up “genetic entropy and the mystery of the genome.” Natural selection by random mutation doesn’t exist. The cost of a good mutation is extinction. There is a programmed intelligence into the genome and that’s how large changes happen.

No one ever has seen real speciation positively I think there’s a debate on it, but there’s little doubt in my mind that it happens because we see evolution happening in the finch beaks etc fast. .. A new phyla is another matter yet the cambrian explosion had 50 phyla evolving and none since then. We have 30 something phyla now. So that’s a good case for ID because the genomes started complex like they were seeded here. The man from monkeys theory is based on chromosome two being fused which was predicted but I don’t see how they can say chromosome fusion isn’t ID’d by aliens or something, don’t know much about that but I don’t think anyone does. The question is, how do you have a genome which is observed to only go toward entropy, and yet making a new phyla or even little mutations involves new data harmoniously encoded in an expanding genome? We only have genomes falling apart. Steven meyer’s articles on the discovery institute site are easy to read he covers the whole debate.

Also there’s irreducibly complex eyes, teeth, flagellum, and vision and all the senses connections to the brain. The problem with biology right now is there’s so much valid criticism and it’s brushed off by handwaving because you aren’t allowed to violate the paradigm.

Qazinix,

Evolution says that there was chaos and somehow over billions of years(sounds like my sister’s fairy tales) order formed,

That’s not what evolution says. That sounds more like a religious creation myth.

why is it that some Professors become very angry when you ask how it happened?

It might be in how you’re asking. What do you ask? And are you asking because you want to know the answer? Or do you have an ulterior motive that’s showing through?

Andy

I read the article thank you very much.

Horses Scientific name “Equus Caballus” and mules “Equus asinus x caballus ” is still part of the “Equidae” family.

The flycatcher’s scientific name is “Monarcha castaneiventris megarhynchus” while the other is “Monarcha castaneiventris ugiensis” and while I agree that there are differences I can’t help but notice that they are both still part of the “Monarchidae” family.

Evolution is a process that takes a very long time. Just like I can’t see my son growing over a period of a week, you won’t see evolution of an entire new family happen in a century. However, just as I can gather evidence that tells me kids grow, I can gather evidence that shows me that species evolve. This is one more example among many. We see micro-evolution which is the first step in macro-evolution and happens quickly all the time. It is not just logic that tells us that enough micro-evolution leads to macro evolution, there is evidence of it all around us: the genes on the human chromosome 2, the genes conserved from bacteria on up, the evidence in these studies and thousands of others.

The truth is that no amount of evidence will convince those who believe that the species were all created by God – because they value faith which requires belief even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.