Scientists Beginning to Doubt Discovery Once Touted as Evidence for Evolution

BacteriaAn 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.

  • Connect with Christian News

“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.”


A special message from the publisher...

Dear Reader, our hearts are deeply grieved by the ongoing devastation in Iraq, and through this we have been compelled to take a stand at the gates of hell against the enemy who came to kill and destroy. Bibles for Iraq is a project to put Arabic and Kurdish audio Bibles into the hands of Iraqi and Syrian refugees—many of whom are illiterate and who have never heard the gospel.Will you stand with us and make a donation today to this important effort? Please click here to send a Bible to a refugee >>

Print Friendly
  • The Last Trump

    “However, a growing number of scientists are now calling Lenski’s findings into question”
    Seems to be the norm these days as evolution just can’t hold up to scientific scrutiny.
    Yaaay science! NO to magic.

    • Jalapeno

      Do you have anything that goes against it rather than just the idea that one piece of supporting evidence might not be as well-supporting as they thought?

      • The Last Trump

        Yes.
        The Internet. Chalk full of examples. Happy studies Mr Pepper!

        • Jalapeno

          I’ve yet to find a single valid example, but okay.

          • The Last Trump

            You should be concerned then.
            Modern scientific discovery is leaving you in the Dark Ages.
            Stay informed!

          • Jalapeno

            About what, exactly?

          • The Last Trump

            ?
            Where did we lose you?
            See above posts.
            If you get back to this post still confused, revert back to post one and repeat.
            No worries bud! You’ll get it!

          • Jalapeno

            I didn’t see any actual examples.

            Oh well, I was just interested if there were any pieces of “evidence against evolution” that I hadn’t seen.

          • The Last Trump

            You checked the ENTIRE Internet already in the 4 minutes we’ve been talking!? Hmmm….I think I see the problem.
            Oh well. I pointed you in the right direction. Up to you to from there.

          • Jalapeno

            Oh?

            You gave something other than “internet”?

          • The Last Trump

            Sorry, was I supposed to dress you too?
            Self reliance just isn’t what it used to be.
            No work ethic these kids today.
            Never mind bud.
            Stick with magic then and leave the scientific discoveries to the rest of us.

          • Jalapeno

            Okay. So you don’t have a single piece of evidence. Thanks for trying.

          • The Last Trump

            Exactly. Not one single piece.
            It’s actually overwhelming! Irrefutable! Concrete and conclusive!
            Too many online links to count!
            But, hey, once again, magic sounds nice too. Ignorance IS bliss.

          • Jalapeno

            If there’s dozens or hundreds of pieces out there, it should be easy for you to name one, right?

          • The Last Trump

            ?
            Seriously? We’re back to that again?
            See above posts.
            You have heard of the Internet, right? Google? Where you literally have access to limitless information at the touch of a button? But no. You want ME, whom you have no reason to trust, to spoon feed you links that you will be forced to be suspect of? Instead of sourcing it out yourself from sites you trust?
            Yeah. Makes sense I guess…. (Yikes!)

          • Jalapeno

            As I said, I’ve yet to see anything actually legitimate against evolution on the internet.

            My statement still stands. You said that YOU knew of evidence, I asked what evidence YOU had.

            Apparently the answer to that is “none”, and I’ll just be mildly disappointed. Oh well.

          • The Last Trump

            As I said, remain in your ignorance by childishly refusing to do your own due diligence, keep sucking that thumb in defiance of science and continue to embrace magic. No skin off my back. To each their own.
            So….why are we still talking about this??
            Next.

          • Jalapeno

            I have done my research.

            There is nothing out there.

            You are unable to backup your claim, so..kudos.

          • The Last Trump

            Yes, your research seems to be done alright. 🙂
            Kudos.

          • Jalapeno

            What research do you think I’m missing?

          • The Last Trump

            Scroll up.
            Again.

          • Jalapeno

            To you telling me to research on the internet at the piles of links?

            Nothing more specific?

          • gogo0

            the most prominent creationist proponent is Ken Ham and his arguments have all been easily dissected and dismissed.
            i think you are actually smart enough to be embarrassed of whatever sources you have. either you realize they are flimsy or you already know that they dont hold up to even a modicum of scrutiny, and so you dont share them and pretend you hold the high ground when people cant find anything that convinces them

          • gogo0

            he doesnt have anything, he just wants you to go on a snipe hunt for easily-dismissed creationist ramblings that eventually lead back to ‘the bible says so and the bible says that it is correct, therefore that is the answer’.

          • Amos Moses

            How ……….. by what mechanism ………. did the inanimate become animate? ………

          • Jalapeno

            Here’s a good idea for you.

            Go to google, type in “how did life start”. There’s some theories you can read about.

          • The Last Trump

            You didn’t just direct somebody to use Google did you?
            No way. Couldn’t have happened.
            I know you actually meant to list dozens of links here.
            You just couldn’t find any.

          • Jalapeno

            He wanted an explanation of something that has been explained dozens of times.

            I asked for what evidence YOU had in mind.

            Not quite the same thing.

          • The Last Trump

            Of course.
            No worries. We’re not surprised at your hypocrisy one bit.

          • Jalapeno

            Remember something..I’m not asking you to explain things to me, I asked you *what exactly I should look up*

            That’s something I provided for him, and it leads directly to an explanation instead of a giant pile of different things.

            Why are you not willing to do the same?

            “look up the second law of thermodynamics”

            “look up the missing link”

            “look up how microevolution isn’t the same as macro”

            “look up why the fossil record is unreliable”

            ..Etc.

          • Amos Moses

            Theories are not what i am asking about ……………… heres an good idea ………… answer the question ………….. How did the inanimate become animate?

          • Jalapeno

            Theories are what we have right now.

            I’m sure the internet can explain it better than I can.

          • Amos Moses

            No ………… “theories” ……… are all that you recognize ………….. and that is your problem ……. not everyone elses …………….

          • gogo0

            clearly it was dust from the ground formed into the shape of a person and then breathed into, then it’s meaty rib was taken out and used to create another person. i mean its obvious to anyone that this is not only possible but also the most plausible answer

          • Amos Moses

            Clearly it was created ………… and everything returns to what it was ….. its constituent components when it degrades ………….. so what do you degrade to ……………. and BTW ……. while you may choose not to believe that it is as you just said …………. you have NO OTHER PLAUSIBLE explanation …………….

            So ………….. HOW did the inanimate become animate? ………….

          • gogo0

            likely by chance, which is not problematic because I am not offended by the thought of not having been personally formed by god (lucky he didn’t decide to stillbirth me, *fwew*).
            as we don’t know how things began, I am fully-open to the idea of a ‘creator’ having done it. only thing that keeps me from taking the idea seriously is that there is zero evidence of any kind of “creator’s” existence.

      • Dallas

        This is a somewhat perplexing question. Not because we dont have any evidence that contradicts macro-evolution, but because so much exists it is a wonder you should ask. Off the top of my head, the Second Law of Thermodynamics comes to mind, stating that order tends to chaos, or heat tends to cold. This directly contradicts macro-evolution, as that supposed process requires chaos to coalesce into intricate, finely tuned order.

        Also another line of evidence we have that contradicts the theory of evolution is that no new genetic information is created from generation to generation. Mutations occur, but they are not observed to pass from generation to generation, amd anyway the mutations we do observe are always harmful to the creature and not helpful.

        On the other hand, you say that just one peice of supporting evidence is taken away from the theory of evolution. You seem to say it like it’s merely one peice out of many available supports. This however is opposite of the actual situation. Aside from cartoons and CGI and hollywood prosthetics, there is precious little true evidence for macro-evolution available today. This was, as the article states, a major support for the theory, and now it is eroding under scrutiny, just as all so-called evidence has historically been. I’m thinking of all the missing links-piltdown, lucy, etc., etc.-which each made a boisterous enterance on the scientific stage, but at last, only a slinking exit.

        • Jalapeno

          ” This directly contradicts macro-evolution, as that supposed process requires chaos to coalesce into intricate, finely tuned order.”

          No..because that only applies in a closed system.

          “Also another line of evidence we have that contradicts the theory of evolution is that no new genetic information is created from generation to generation.”

          That’s just not true at all.

          “This was, as the article states, a major support for the theory,”

          I wouldn’t really consider it “major”..it was a major part of the understanding of it but the theory stands easily without it.

          Evolution still remains the theory that fits the evidence the best.

          • The Last Trump

            You mean magic, right?
            “Magic” remains the theory that fits the evidence the best?
            Okey dokey, there. Yeah, just disregard this article and the thousands of others online you refuse to acknowledge.
            Hee, hee! Today’s “science” lovers!

          • Jalapeno

            No magic involved, everything acknowledged.

          • gogo0

            magic is when an omnipotent supernatural being that has existed for infinity wills everything into existence. only reason you dont call it magic is because you believe in it

          • Oboehner

            magic is when an exploding dot that has existed for infinity poofs everything into existence through accidental random chance. only reason you don’t call it magic is because you believe in it

          • Ronald Carter

            And your creationist God DOESN’T just magically poof everything into existence? And ours is the magic, ours is the religion, ours is the blind faith? You have it all completely backwards.

          • Oboehner

            What was that about the exploding dot and the magic life-producing ooze?

          • Ronald Carter

            Yes, what WAS that? It sure sounds like a strawman to me, since no educated believer in science would make statements like those. Meanwhile, in your 2000 year old book with talking donkeys and snakes…

          • Oboehner

            Now you whine about a straw man because you have nothing else, you even deny your own religion. Yes they do make statements like that using flowery language that when boiled down are exactly that – figures that YOU don’t understand the claimed origins.

          • Ronald Carter

            Well, stop claiming scientists say stupid things they never said. Is it too much to ask that you knock off the intellectual dishonesty? Also, calling science religion and religion science over and over stopped being cute a long time ago.

          • Ronald Carter

            You are not being intellectually honest when you put words in your opponents” mouths.

          • Oboehner

            More whining and avoiding, but do continue proving my “nothing but blind faith” observation.

          • Dallas

            So do you say we are in an open system? And do you also say that new genetic information is added from generation to generation???

          • Jalapeno

            Yes..we are in an open system here on earth.

            The second theory of thermodynamics doesn’t really apply to changes on a local level.

            There’s a couple problems with that argument about no new genetic information. First off..it doesn’t actually need to be an addition of information, per se. The new information is added as part of the general pool of genes, not to the individuals gene itself.

          • Amos Moses

            “The second theory of thermodynamics doesn’t really apply to changes on a local level.”

            It applies to the theory that it “Meeellions and Meeeellions” of years ………..

          • gogo0

            are you guys really saying that you have no knowledge of genetic abnormalities, birth defects, cancer, effects of radiation, etc on human DNA and genetics?? the sun, cosmic rays, local sources… this is what you are saying doesnt exist

          • Amos Moses

            “No..because that only applies in a closed system.”

            Got news for ……………… Earth ………….. is a closed system ……………

          • Jalapeno

            Oh?

            How do you think we get energy from the sun then?

          • Amos Moses

            We are talking about evolution …………… there is no new DNA added by the sun ……. and ………. if evolution is to be true ….. that it takes millions and millions of years …………… thermodynamics does come in ……… because the sun gets progressively cooler …….. to the point that life ………. as we know it on this planet ………. ceases to be able ……. the more time passes ……….. so time is your enemy in evolution ……

            “Evolution still remains the theory that fits the evidence the best.”

            Sorry ………. we both have the exact same evidence ………. how that evidence is perceived by the perceiver and in what context is the only thing that changes ……… and if you remove God from it ………. A Priori …. with no discernable reason ………… it changes what you see ….. that is selective inattention to the evidence …….. and it corrupts your theory ……

          • Jalapeno

            You said that we are in a closed system.

            What do you think a closed system is?

            “Sorry ………. we both have the exact same evidence”

            Yup. Evidence that makes more sense when the theory of evolution is accounted for.

          • Amos Moses

            A closed system ……….. in the context of life here ………….. and DNA ……… has no other energy added to it ……….. and neither does the sun have any energy added to it …… the suns energy does not add DNA …………. nor add anything to it …………

          • Jalapeno

            I’d suggest you go learn exactly what the second theory of thermodynamics means.

          • Amos Moses

            The second law of thermodynamics states that the total entropy of an isolated system always increases over time, or remains constant in ideal cases where the system is in a steady state or undergoing a reversible process. The increase in entropy accounts for the irreversibility of natural processes, and the asymmetry between future and past.

            Time is required for evolution ……………. time does not reinforce evolution ………… it degrades it …………… it is not friendly to your idea of the evidence …………… lose …

          • Jalapeno

            Isolated system.

          • John N

            So tell me Amos, where in the definition of evolution does time appear? Because you are not making this up, are you?

            And while you’re looking in that book of yours, where in the second law of thermodynamics does ‘order’ or ‘disorder’ is mentioned? Or DNA?

            And did you already discover in that book why the earth is neither a closed, nor an isolated system, and what the difference is?

          • Amos Moses

            “So tell me Amos, where in the definition of evolution does time appear? Because you are not making this up, are you?”

            So is it a young earth or if you have some other idea of how long it took “evolution” to get to you …………… please enlighten us ………

            So how is this NOT time ……………”64.8 ± 0.9 million years ago.”

            Dinosaur – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
            Dinosaurs are a diverse group of animals of the clade Dinosauria. They first appeared during …… dating of the bones themselves has supported the later date , with U–Pb dating methods resulting in a precise age of 64.8 ± 0.9 million years ago.

            HOW did the inanimate become animate? ……………….

          • TheKingOfRhye

            How ‘the inanimate became animate’ (or, in more conventional terms, the origin of life) doesn’t have anything to do with evolution.

          • The Last Trump

            Great.
            So where did evolution originate?
            Where did everything in creation get its start in order to even evolve?

          • TheKingOfRhye

            I’ve never claimed to have the answer for that, myself. Some sort of god or gods, abiogenesis, maybe even the ‘panspermia’ idea (which doesn’t really answer the question, though, just kind of shifts the answer). My point was it’s a completely separate question…unless, of course, you have an idea of how life began, and you think the idea of life evolving slowly over time into its present form is incompatible with that.

          • The Last Trump

            So God is an option you are open to?

          • TheKingOfRhye

            Well, I don’t believe that’s something that CAN be answered, not in this lifetime, anyway. That’s why I always say I’m an agnostic and an atheist.

          • The Last Trump

            Well, if God exists then there should be evidence, right? And there is. Boatloads!
            Truth cannot be hidden and remain undiscovered. Not for long anyway.
            Truth always finds a way of coming to the surface and being discovered.
            So follow the evidence. I did.
            And nobody was more surprised than me to find out where it led.
            We don’t have to wait until we die to discover whether or not God exists.
            He wants a relationship with us HERE and NOW. One that is tangible and verifiable.
            And you just don’t get that from a myth.
            I guarantee you that you can verify His existence. In so many countless ways!
            But the onus is on YOU to seek Him. He will not force Himself onto anybody.
            I hope one day , when you are ready, you’ll at least give Him the opportunity to prove Himself to you. And then buckle up! Your life will never be the same again! ; )

          • Sir Osis

            Oh that is rich. Oh my lord.
            Yes KingofRhye, buy this load of hateful horse manure from one of the most angry and neurotic people who ever called himself a Christian. YOU TOO can hate on homosexuals, the transgendered, liberals, and anyone else who is out to get you (no really, they are!). YOU TOO can fret daily about how “Bizarro Amerika” has lost its way, and take no pleasure out of life at all until the rapture comes. YOU TOO can post smug, self-obsessed and condescending diatribes daily because Jesus.

            I can seriously think of no Christian I would want to be less like than you Trump.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            I just gave you what you thought might be a little glimmer of hope, and you couldn’t resist, huh? I wouldn’t hold your breath on that one if I were you….

            Even if I did become a Christian…again…I’m sure I’d be one of those liberal Christian types that you’d probably say is not a “TRUE Christian”…

          • The Last Trump

            Yes, based on your anti-Christian worldview today.
            I would tend to agree.
            But there is always hope.
            Discovering the truth about God is generally all about timing.
            You’re just not ready yet. No worries.
            He’ll still be there when you are.
            Remember that in the dark days ahead.

          • Amos Moses

            It most certainly does ………….. if you believe the big bang theory ……….. then nothing was animate at that time …….. so you have to answer the question ………… HOW did the animate become animate and begin to “evolve”? ……….. What is the mechanism ……

          • TheKingOfRhye

            The big bang isn’t the origin of life, either.

          • Amos Moses

            There was no life to “evolve” after the big bang if it ever happened ……………… SO….. AGAIN …… HOW did the inanimate become ANIMATE? …………………………..

          • TheKingOfRhye

            There are various hypotheses as to that. Like I’ve said elsewhere in this thread, I don’t claim to have the answer to that myself.

          • Amos Moses

            Then how did you get here ……………………. and hypotheses are not answers …….

          • TheKingOfRhye

            How did I get here? I took a left off the highway.

            Seriously though, I think I’ve tried to explain this to you before, I’m an agnostic atheist. I don’t claim to have all the answers to things like that. I don’t think some things like that CAN be known. (because even if you go with abiogenesis, who’s to say some god didn’t cause that to happen?)

          • Amos Moses

            Then from where did life come from to “evolve”? …………… so you are going to argue “science of the gaps” ….. is this the new “gap theory” …………

          • John N

            >’So is it a young earth or if you have some other idea of how long it took “evolution” to get to you …………… please enlighten us ………’

            Yes, we have a rather good idea. Why? Do you think there is not enough time? So you did your own calculation? Please elaborate.

            But first, please show us where in the definition of evolution ‘time’ is mentionned. Or take back your silly claim.

            How the inanimate became animate? Well, that is certainly not by evolution. How did you yourself became animate starting from inanimate matter? Same answer. It is not that difficult, you know.

          • Amos Moses

            Explain how the inanimate became animate? ……………. time is involved in everything ……. in this plane of existence at least ………….. and i am not the one claiming dinosaurs existed millions of years ago ….. according to “science” (well more psuedo-science , really) ……. and dinosaurs are part of evolution….. RIGHT …….. so nothing to retract …………… and now please proceed …………… Explain how the inanimate became animate?

          • John N

            Thanks Amos, but no.

            First show us where in the definition of evolution ‘time’ is mentionned, where in the second law of thermodynamics ‘order’, ‘disorder’ or ‘DNA’ is mentioned.

            You seem to be an expert in science, it can not be that difficult, can it? Or are you going to admit you just invented all of this?

          • Amos Moses

            What universe do you live in where time is not a factor ………. Enquiring minds REALLY want to know ……

          • Amos Moses

            Lines of evidence: The science of evolution :

            Distribution in time and space

            Understanding the history of life on Earth requires a grasp of the depth of time and breadth of space. We must keep in mind that the time involved is vast compared to a human lifetime and the space necessary for this to occur includes all the water and land surfaces of the world. Establishing chronologies, both relative and absolute, and geographic change over time are essential for viewing the motion picture that is the history of life on Earth.

            Do you need the web address? …………… It is Berkley EDU ….

            Also …………

            Evolution
            | Lead Editor: Nick Bisceglia
            EVOLUTION
            Evolution Is Change in the Inherited Traits of a Population through Successive Generations
            By: Andrew A. Forbes (Dept. of Biology, University of Iowa) & Billy A. Krimmel (Dept. of Entomology, University of California at Davis) © 2010 Nature Education
            Citation: Forbes, A. A. & Krimmel, B. A. (2010) Evolution Is Change in the Inherited Traits of a Population through Successive Generations. Nature Education Knowledge 3(10)

            Generations …………. though not precise ………. ARE a unit of TIME ………..

            And ……………. FROM THIS ARTICLE …….

            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.

            20 years and 31,000 GENERATIONS ………Not to mention LTEE…….. so time ……………… any thing further ….

          • John N

            >’Evolution Is Change in the Inherited Traits of a Population through Successive Generations’

            At least you are able to copy and paste without errors.

            No try to understand what you have written here. And then explain these claims:

            ‘Time is required for evolution ……………. time does not reinforce evolution ………… it degrades it …………… it is not friendly to your idea of the evidence …………… lose …’

          • Amos Moses

            No ……… i typed all that because i knew you would something inane like that …….. Bye ….

          • John N

            Thanks for acknowledging you had no argument in the first place.

            See you.

          • Amos Moses

            Back at ‘cha sport …………..

          • Steve Blackmon

            Very interesting discussion going on here. I am enjoying the read. John N, you said, “please show us where in the definition of evolution ‘time’ is mentioned.” I looked it up, and found this definition of evolution…
            “Evolution is change in the heritable traits of biological populations over successive generations.” Not taking sides here, but it seems that “over successive generations” would pretty much cover “time”.
            I have a question for everybody, on both sides of this…I’ve seen a lot of comments about “evidence” of this, or “lack of evidence” of that…comments about “the empirical data” that scientists have gathered and studied. Here’s the question…. where does that “evidence”, that “empirical data” come from. Scientists study what already exists. What caused it to exist in the first place? Who cares what has happened to it over millions of years. How did it come to exist to begin with? Even if one says that gasses or matter, or whatever, suddenly spun, or stopped, or exploded, into the beginnings of our world, where did the gasses come from to begin with? What put those gasses or matter into place for this to take place?

          • John N

            >’…it seems that “over successive generations” would pretty much cover “time”.’

            The generation time of bacteria is typically measured in hours. Changes in the genome (mutations) can be seen within days. Lenski’s experiment is running for 28 years and has seen more than 65.000 generations.

            With 3.5 billion years of life on earth, I would say there is more than enough time for evolution to occur.

            Where matter came from at the beginning of the universe? All matter originated from plasma and elementary particles during the first inflation-phase of the Big Bang. Before that we don’t know. Yet.

            But of course that has nothing to do with evolution. Even when matter or life was created artificially, evolution would still occur.

          • gogo0

            the sun alters/damages human DNA all the time.
            what evidence do you have for creationism? the scientific community would be very interested in that, provided you dont simply mean your special book

          • Amos Moses

            Mutation almost always causes death ………. and that is not adding anything ….. it may alter it ……… but that change is not meaningful …………….

          • gogo0

            your own words; “almost always”, invalidated your argument.
            genetic mutations happen, sometimes they are beneficial and have the possibility to carry on to future generations. there is a word for this phenomenon…

      • Ronald Carter

        This is an excellent response. I expect nothing in return, however. Minds such as these are told they must fight science.

    • gogo0

      creationism is magic

      • Oboehner

        Magic like exploding dots randomly turning into the complexities of life we see today?

        • gogo0

          if you want to ignore everything about evolution and call it exploding dots, yeah sure.

          • Oboehner

            You must mean ignoring all of the assumptions and speculation that the pseudo-science is based on, right?

          • gogo0

            you can talk down a hundred years of scientific study, progress, and knowledge by thousands of people, but you cant do it rationally when your explanation is that a thousand year old book’s claim that everything was made by an omnipotent being that has existed for infinity but only leaves a book claiming of its existence a thousand years ago as proof.
            just about any other theory you posit would be better, but you have none, because the religious communities gave up on learning the moment after they read their respective book (or more likely, were told what their book says sans ever reading it).

          • Oboehner

            Ladies and gentlemen, we are now in the portion of the evolutionism show where the contestant who has nothing attempts to prove his religion through some kind of popular opinion and attacking the religious beliefs of others, followed by a dash of “you’re stupid”…

          • Ronald Carter

            Actually no, we are still in the part of the show where you stunned everyone into disbelief and silence by calling evolution a pseudoscience.

          • Oboehner

            Again substance-less bilge.

          • Ronald Carter

            You have to be open to the substance. Clearly you are not.

          • Oboehner

            None exists or you would have posted it, clearly you have nothing.

          • Ronald Carter

            There isn’t room to post it all. Visit a library sometime. Or try the Internet.

          • Oboehner

            I’ve searched, and I’ve searched – all that exists, is just more religious belief falsely labeled as science.

          • Ronald Carter

            Who told you it was false?

          • John N

            Oboehner said it. That is enough. After all, it is in this book of his. Isn’t it?

          • Ronald Carter

            I suppose so. I just wonder what book of his is telling him to take all established scientific facts regarding evolution and pretend they don’t exist.

          • Oboehner

            Common sense.

          • Ronald Carter

            Not so common then.

          • Oboehner

            Not my problem it’s not more common.

          • Sir Osis

            Thank God there aren’t more people thinking like you or we’d have people still afraid of the sky falling on their heads or sailing off the edge of the world.

          • The Last Trump

            I’ve looked too. Couldn’t find a single shred of evidence.
            Which was very frustrating as I once was an avid supporter of it.
            Just got tired of having absolutely no evidence to back up its claims.
            So I followed the science to God.
            Wasn’t even that difficult. The breadcrumbs are literally EVERYWHERE!

          • The Last Trump

            Well then, I’m convinced!
            Who can argue with such a strong case? 🙂

          • Oboehner

            One has to have faith to believe that.

    • edgein

      You guys have been saying that since 1859.

  • http://www.bing.com/ Martin Smit

    Oh dear! Oxygen! What a disaster! How can we make evolution true now?

    • gogo0

      scientists questioning their previously-held beliefs!? completely unprecedented! truly this is science’s last gasping breath before it dies and religion takes humanity back to the 1200CE. congratulations god, you won

      • MikanJeni Cagle

        Don’t you mean science fiction? After all the true science has always confirmed what God has said all along. But hey not to worry your Godhating, liberally deluted head off. Those polar caps will melt. And the sky will fall and the aliens will be back and Bigfoot will be found…..

        • John N

          >’After all the true science has always confirmed what God has said all along…’

          Care to show an example of that? Like why bats are actually birds, snakes do talk, how to breed striped goats, and why the earth is really flat?

      • Oboehner

        Evolution IS religion so you can save your “back to the 1200CE” idiocy.

        • gogo0

          just like the religion of gravity and religion of atheism, right?
          it is funny how you try to apply the title of ‘religion’ to attack things, though.

          • Oboehner

            Gravity is observable, testable, repeatable, why don’t you show me the “common ancestor” evolving into something?
            Atheism is a belief system like any other religion, one cannot prove there is no God, one has faith there isn’t.
            It is funny how you try to apply the title of ‘science’ to attack things, though, or how you attempt to lump your religion with real science.

          • gogo0

            gravitational waves were entirely unobserved theory until this year. guess gravity was a religion before now, per your definition.

            if not believing in a god is a religion, then your not believing in unicorns is a religion. and your not believing in Zeus, and a perfect 1:10000 scale replica of city of New York existing inside a rubber band ball orbiting Alpha Centauri are also your religions.

            it takes faith to not believe the miniature citizens of Alpha Centauri wont send your soul to become a single scale on a multidimensional catfish for ten years (the length of time a soul exists after physical death) because it is complete nonsense and there is no reason to believe any of it in the first place. same with allah/god/yeshuah/xenu/zeus and the rest of man’s fairy tales spun to explain where the bright thing in the sky goes at night.

          • Oboehner

            A test, I’ll demonstrate gravity by dropping a bowling ball out of a tenth story window, you demonstrate evolution by standing under it and evolving into something that can withstand the hit.
            Atheists don’t merely not believe in God, they believe there is no God – a belief that has life directing implications. That is unlike the asinine examples you gave about unicorns. One could also state that believing in God is not a religion as believing that tomato’s are a fruit is not a religion.

          • edgein

            You dont understand evolution. No surprise. Most xtians hare science

          • Oboehner

            Now it’s the part where I don’t understand evolution. I understand it better than you apparently, I can plainly see it is a religion.

          • edgein

            You define it as a religion because your religion is wrong. So you square the circle with emotional illogic

          • Oboehner

            Denial doesn’t make it any less of a religion – unless you can produce an 8X10 glossy of some common ancestor.

          • edgein

            The Hawthorne fruit fly…evolution in acrion, and where can we SEE creationism?

          • Oboehner

            Again with the lame fruit fly story, yet it is still a fruit fly that just hangs out on different fruit – wow, how profound… or whatever.
            Creation? How about the life created in the womb?

          • edgein

            And we’re still apes.

            The life in the womb is creationism? Seems pretty natural. I’m married. Never saw god do anything in my bedroom!

          • Oboehner

            Opinion. Life in the womb must be evolutionism then? Yeah right, denial of the obvious, willful ignorance based on your emotional attachment to your chosen religion.

          • edgein

            Since i am different than my parents, yes it’s evolution. It’s observed. And I note again you failed to tell us how creation works or where it’s observed

          • Oboehner

            Creation isn’t taught at taxpayer expense in government schools so you can stop trying to shift the focus.
            Now you’re trying to tell me that slight variations somehow magically means someday you offspring will be a pig or zebra or something? How ludicrous can you get? Observed, ROFL!!

          • edgein

            Not for lack of trying. Cf the “Edwards” decision. Again you don’t understand evolution

            LOL

          • Oboehner

            The old “You don’t understand evolutionism” crap. Too bad no one else does either or they might be able to produce something the isn’t rife with assumption and speculation, or as lame as fruit flies jumping fruit.

          • bpuharic

            Jesus was never crucified. Did you know that? You want to make dumb statements about evolution? I get the same privilege about religion

          • Oboehner

            Evolution is a religion, and stupid statements don’t prove otherwise.

          • Oboehner

            Now you can explain how when our life expectancy is going down, how that will “evolve” us into something more complex.

          • edgein

            When you have a serious question on science let me know. Typical creationist loser bitterness isn’t worth my time

          • Oboehner

            Typical evolutionist copout when they have nothing, isn’t worth my time.

          • Robert Widdowson

            edgein wrote:

            ‘Most xtians hate science.’

            And you know this how? You interviewed most Christians? It is the most numerous religion in the world. It numbers 2.2 billion people or 31% of the world’s population. How many of these Christians, which encompass about 1/3 of the world’s people, have you questioned on this topic?

            What’s more, the New Testament church has existed since the Pentecost event, which occurred roughly 2,000 years ago. Were you able to ask any of the previous generations of Christians what they thought of science?

            Your statement is a merely an assertion without a shred of verifiable proof.

            Another empty assertion that attempts to smear character and obscure facts, rather than understand and explain in a meaningful, sensible, intelligent way.

          • ed gein

            64% of Evangelical Protestants are creationists according to the Pew Poll dated Dec 13, 2013.

            Science didn’t exist until about the 17th century so asking former xtians what they thought would have been useless.

            So yeah, I have proof.

          • Robert Widdowson

            You are engaging in logical fallacies, friend.

            You assume that if someone is an evangelical Protestant than they are essentially anti-science. Such an assumption is based on a false equivalency. You equate the one group with the other, conflating the two. It’s sloppy thinking.

            Also, you seem to operate with a public school understanding of science. You do realize that ‘science’ simply means knowledge, right? And people have had a theoretical and practical knowledge of the phenomenal world since the dawn of civilization.

          • Oboehner

            It’s really a shame evolutionism isn’t science, therefore “xtians” don’t hate science, just fraud *COUGH* Piltdown *COUGH, COUGH*.

          • Ronald Carter

            Tell me you didn’t just say Piltdown, which was disproven by – guess who? – scientists.

          • Oboehner

            What? Was perpetrated by – guess who? – “scientists”?

          • Ronald Carter

            No, it was a hoax. Why didn’t your magical religion debunk it?

          • Oboehner

            A hoax perpetrated by “scientists” from your magic religion. Why do you think they finally had to admit to it?

          • Ronald Carter

            …because it was a hoax?

          • Oboehner

            That’s why they perpetrated it in the first place, to try and prove their other hoax.

          • Ronald Carter

            Which of course doesn’t sound like crazed fundamentalist conspiracy theory at all.

          • Ronald Carter

            Which of course doesn’t sound like a conspiracy theory at all.

          • Oboehner

            Nice, a “conspiracy theory” comment. I guess someone just accidentally grafted an ape’s jawbone to a human skull and forgot they did that right? How asinine.

          • Ronald Carter

            As asinine as anything I’d expect to read on the rapture ready website, yes. Is that where you come from?

            So science bands together to create an elaborate hoax and very nearly succeed in hoodwinking everyone, but along comes – guess who – SCIENCE, to foil the big bad scientists. No, that’s not in any way nuts, is it?

            “Perpetrators”, he says. Yoiks.

          • Oboehner

            Explain how the “rapture website” has anything to do with the topic at hand other than your feeble attempt to shift focus again.

            “So science bands together to create an elaborate hoax..” More feeble elaborations.

          • Ronald Carter

            It isn’t a shift in focus, it’s a reference to about the only place on the internet I can think of that would say anything one tenth as bizarre as what you are trying to sell.

            “So science bands together to create an elaborate hoax” is YOUR belief, not mine. So yeah, of COURSE it’s feeble.

          • Oboehner

            You quote yourself and say it’s my belief, you’re so confused you don’t even know who said what.

          • Ronald Carter

            Yes I quoted myself regarding your belief. That is essentially what you said: that science created a hoax. Which is ridiculous and is conspiracy theory and you have zero proof…as always.

          • edgein

            Xtians arent scientists. Scientists are. You stick to your myths and. Wont pla y jesus freak

          • Oboehner

            Useless opinions and ad hominem attacks aren’t science either, really sad that’s all you have.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            Not only do you not understand evolution, you do not understand atheism. Some atheists believe there is no god. Some just do not believe in a god. They’re still both atheists.

          • Oboehner

            Believe – faith – religion.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            It’s not faith to not believe. I’m agnostic in that I claim no knowledge of whether or not any god exists.

          • George Van Apeldoorn

            Right, one can make a case for the fact that God exists. That would likely lead to a religious conviction.
            It is very hard if not impossible to conclusively proof that something or someone does not exist.
            But often we make the mistake to equate science with religion. The last couple of decades there is a different “breed” of scientists emerging who have come to the conclusion that this universe is the result of intelligent design, because the sheer hardcore evidence against accidental mutations, punctuated equilibriums, reduced atmospheres etc etc have not withstood the rigor of scientific testing.
            So perhaps we could keep this conversation, as interesting and entertaining as it is already, to the actual observations of the world around us and the probability that evolution caused it to come about. Science has determined that the probability of this (allegedly) ongoing event is less than the number of particles in our universe.

            Back to the initial posts of Martin Smit and Gogo0. Mr Smit chided the oxygen factor and Mr. Gogo0 congratulated God with his win.
            Fact of science, however, is that the early atmosphere, according to evolutionary belief, had no place for oxygen.
            Rather than congratulating God with his win, science proved that there was considerable oxygen in the early atmosphere as evidenced by Polonium 218 halos.
            Therefore, rather than launching unsubstantiated generalisations as Mr. Gogo0 has abundantly presented, I would like to have a case presented with background, which can be examined by the readers.Apart from showing a philosophical like or dislike, a tit for tat session about whether God does or does not exist does not lead us anywhere useful.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            “It is very hard if not impossible to conclusively proof that something or someone does not exist.”

            Yeah, that’s kind of my whole point. It’s not that I’m trying to convert others to what I believe, I’m just really trying to make people understand it in the first place. Some seem to just fail to understand it no matter how many times I explain.

          • Oboehner

            Do you believe you are right in that claim?

          • TheKingOfRhye

            What claim? I’m NOT making a claim, other than that I don’t know whether there’s a god or not. If you call that a claim, then yes. I am absolutely certain I don’t know.

          • Oboehner

            Tis a claim you believe to be true.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            Yeah, so? I believe I don’t know. I know I don’t know. Are you trying to tell me that that is something that requires faith? That it takes faith to believe that I don’t know something?????

          • Oboehner

            It is a belief, beliefs require a certain amount of faith.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            How does it require faith to say what you believe, though?

            Does it require faith for you to say that you’re a Christian? Sure, it requires faith to BE a Christian, but not to say that’s what you are.

          • Oboehner

            Much like faith that one originated from a rock 4.6 billion years ago which you do.

          • Ronald Carter

            Sneering condescension does not negate hundreds of years of scientific research.

          • Oboehner

            Sneering condescension does not create hundreds of years of scientific research.

          • Ronald Carter

            No, scientific research does that on its own.

          • Oboehner

            Too bad your evolutionism religion doesn’t have any proof, and isn’t science.

          • Jalapeno

            It tends to work better if you think about it as “what would I expect to see” not “is it something that I can quickly validate with a simple test”.

            For instance, with the theory of gravity being true..what would you expect? What could happen to easily disprove it?

            With evolution…what would you actually expect to see? Would things be happening quickly enough to have a nice simple test, or would there just be bits and pieces of evidence throughout different scientific realms?

          • Oboehner

            What I WOULD see, not what I expect to see, science is observable.

          • Jalapeno

            Yes..it is.

            I’ll re-word.

            Say that we came up with a theory that all life was created by an insane programmer from another dimension.

            What would we expect to see to prove that theory?

            Would we necessarily see actual literal programming code in DNA, or is it possible we wouldn’t notice?

            Would the lack of visible programming language be enough to disprove the theory?

          • Oboehner

            So then in your little exploding dot world, is there not coding in our DNA?
            Does ANYONE know everything there is to know about DNA? If not, can you say with anything other than faith the “literal programming doesn’t exist?

          • Jalapeno

            You do understand that it’s a hypothetical situation, right?

            If someone was trying to claim that the theory was true, would the fact that we can’t see an actual programming language, like Java or HTML, in our DNA be proof that it was false?

          • Oboehner

            So you are conceding that there is no proof or even exclusive evidence for evolutionism?

          • Jalapeno

            No.

            I’m saying that you need to remember what would actually be expected in a situation instead of making claims that are equivalent to “we can’t see the code so the theory is false”

          • Oboehner

            “be expected” as in preconceived religious belief?

          • Jalapeno

            No.

            Think back to the hypothetical.

            What would we expect to see in the DNA if the theory was true?

          • Oboehner

            What are you getting at? Out with it already, or are you just attempting to justify the total lack of anything proving evolutionism?

          • Jalapeno

            …Okay.

            Lets try this again.

            You need to remember, when trying to say that something is evidence against evolution, whether or not it’s something that could truly be expected in the case that evolution was true.

            When determining whether or not there is enough evidence FOR it, you need to consider whether or not this evidence needs to exist for evolution to be true, or whether or not the lack of that specific evidence actually disproves anything.

          • Oboehner

            What is expected is that matter tends to gravitate toward disorder, but believing in evolution despite the total lack of any proof is… (say it with me now) …FAITH!

          • Oboehner

            So you are trying to justify the complete lack of any proof of your religion, got it.

          • Jalapeno

            No, I’m trying to help you understand a concept.

            What evidence specifically do you think is lacking that should exist?

          • Oboehner

            How about that pesky “missing link” – not Piltdown the fraud, Nebraska man the pig’s tooth, or Lucy the baboon. There should be thousands of examples, heck they found a complete wooly mammoth with food still in it’s mouth.

          • Jalapeno

            So..you think that, if evolution is true, we MUST be able to show more fossils for steps in between the different evolutionary stages?

            How does that account for how rare fossils are to begin with?

          • Oboehner

            Over bazillions of years and fossils are rare? Is that why “scientists” have to continually make crap up?

          • Ronald Carter

            Wow. You are really sad.

          • Oboehner

            Sad is desperately clinging to a religion claiming it’s “iron-clad” science despite not being able to produce one shred of anything to back it up.

          • Ronald Carter

            Correction: Mountains of evidence you refuse to acknowledge because Jesus.

          • Oboehner

            Correction: Mountains of baseless claims you keep boring me while hoping that attacking the beliefs of others somehow proves your blind faith.

          • Ronald Carter

            They aren’t baseless. You know this. You are trolling.

          • Oboehner

            C’mon now, you surely can do better than the old “you are trolling” whine, especially since you are on a Christian news site blathering on about some ridiculous religion you can’t defend.

          • Ronald Carter

            You’re obviously trolling. It isn’t possible that someone could actually be arguing against the open and shut evidence that science has been working with for over 100 years. Going to tell us that we belong to a religion that believes that sky is blue next when you say it’s green?

          • Oboehner

            I can observe the sky, evolutionism has to be taken on faith. As far as trolling, which one of us is on a Christian website lying about open and shut evidence for a false religion? I believe that would be you.

          • Ronald Carter

            No, that would be you. And, as I’m sure you’ve been told over and over, lying for Jesus is still lying.
            Burying your head in the sand to avoid facing the truth is a form of lying, too.

          • Oboehner

            What exactly have I lied about, be specific and don’t bore me with generalities.

          • Ronald Carter

            Calling evolution “evolutionism” is a lie.
            Calling evolution a religion is a lie.
            Calling science/evolution “blind faith” is a lie.
            Calling the consultation of scientific resources an “appeal to authority” is a lie.
            Saying the world is 6000 years old is a lie.

            Gosh. There are just so many. Shall I continue?

          • Oboehner

            Prove any of that, or go away.

          • Ronald Carter

            They are your statements, burden of proof is on you. You have proven nothing. And you’re very good at attacking science without once ever stating your own belief. Obviously it is Christian fundamentalism, but you are always curiously silent about that. I wonder why. Are you ashamed of it?

          • Oboehner

            No genius, prove they are lies – YOUR claim. You have proven nothing. And you’re very good at attacking other’s beliefs without ever proving yours or doing anything other than stomping your feet claiming “science”. I wonder why. Are you ignorant of it?
            My belief is irrelevant to evolution being a religion, it does that all by itself

          • Ronald Carter

            Evolution is actually evolutionism. My claim? No. Yours. Burden of proof: yours.
            Evolution is a religion. Your claim. Your burden.
            Evolution is blind faith. Your claim. Your burden.

            Shall I go on, genius?

            I am clear about my beliefs. I believe science. You, however, never discuss yours, period. I call that cowardly.

          • Jalapeno

            Yes..fossils are rare. It takes a rare set of circumstances to even come close to being able to have one form, much less being lucky enough to actually FIND it.

            So…why do you think that evolution isn’t true if it isn’t as common as you want it to be? It’s not evidence against it any more than the lack of english programming language in our DNA is evidence against the hypothetical alien programmer.

          • Oboehner

            You mean evidence against it like the second law of thermodynamics?

          • Jalapeno

            Yes…except it needs to be something that holds up to two minutes of scrutiny.

          • Oboehner

            So the old second law doesn’t hold up then? Or perhaps it’s the whole “a minor adaptation suddenly means life evolved from ooze bazillions of years ago” shtick?

          • Jalapeno

            It doesn’t apply.

          • Oboehner

            Applies to everything.

          • Jalapeno

            What exactly do you think it applies to in the context? How do you think it contradicts?

          • Oboehner

            *sigh* matter gravitates toward disorder – it doesn’t “evolve” into something more complex.

          • Jalapeno

            Yes… Within a closed system.

            That doesn’t mean that it works that way locally *within* the system.

          • Oboehner

            Lame, beyond a stretch.

          • Jalapeno

            So.. You don’t know why it would apply?

            Okay.

          • Oboehner

            *sigh* again, matter gravitates toward disorder – it doesn’t “evolve” into something more complex.

          • Jalapeno

            Yes, it does.

            That applies to a closed system though, not necessarily all parts of that system.

          • Oboehner

            The Second Law of Thermodynamics applies to the universe as a whole.

          • Jalapeno

            Yes..that doesn’t mean it applies to every individual part of the whole.

          • Oboehner

            Except of course to one’s religion of choice if their beliefs happen to contradict reality, then it’s all different.

          • Jalapeno

            Changing subjects entirely because you don’t understand what you’re talking about?

          • Oboehner

            Seems none of you can enlighten me either, your blind faith is showing.

          • Jalapeno

            It’s not faith, it’s understanding.

          • Oboehner

            Still showing, despite lame denial.

          • Jalapeno

            I’d welcome your explanation for why I’m wrong.

          • Oboehner

            Stop at an old folks home, then get back to me.
            Even Dolly the cloned sheep was a corrupted copy of the original.

          • Jalapeno

            That doesn’t answer the question that all.

          • Oboehner

            2nd law most definitely includes living things, that’s where you are wrong.

          • Jalapeno

            Nope..definitely doesn’t answer the question.

            The second law of thermodynamics does not mean that things cannot become more chaotic on a LOCAL level, it applies to the closed system as a whole.

          • Oboehner

            It applies to the universe as a whole.

          • Jalapeno

            That doesn’t mean it applies to every part of the whole…

            The universe AS A WHOLE trends in that direction, but localized parts can trend differently.

          • Oboehner

            Like I said, visit an old folks home then tell me how it doesn’t apply to living things.

          • Jalapeno

            That’s not what I said at all. Try again.

          • Oboehner

            No one really knows what you are jabbering on about.

          • Jalapeno

            Are you that easily confused?

            I didn’t talk about living things, I talked about how the law doesn’t necessarily apply to every individual part of the whole.

          • Oboehner

            Do name one thing that doesn’t degrade over time.

          • Jalapeno

            You’re right..most things DO degrade over time.

            That does not prove evolution false.

          • Oboehner

            Hardly demonstrates it even has one leg to stand on, couple that with a total lack of proof, the wild conjecture that somehow a minor adaptation (which as the finches revert back when left alone) leads to speciation – what do you have? A big hot steamy pile of nothing but blind faith.

          • Jalapeno

            No..it doesn’t conflict with the theory of evolution in the slightest.

            “which as the finches revert back when left alone”

            Oh my gosh. This is a riot.

            “A big hot steamy pile of nothing but blind faith.”

            No..no..just all of science. I wouldn’t be surprised if you considered the whole of biology to be “nothing”, but youre wrong about that.

            What exactly do you think happens if micro-evolution leads to a point where there are two separate sets of animals that are now visibly different and cannot mate with each other? Say..there’s an earthquake and the animals that were once living in the same area are now unable to reach other. One set of animals go up into the mountains, the other go closer to the stream.

          • Oboehner

            How exactly if the finches beaks revert back does “micro evolution” lead to anything but nonsense?

          • Jalapeno

            What exactly do you think the “reversion” means?

          • Oboehner

            The beaks went back to their original size.

          • Jalapeno

            Yeah, I understand that. What do you think it means?

            Does it mean that a diety changed their mind? Does it mean that the birds had a shift in environment?

          • Oboehner

            “an act or process of returning to an earlier condition or state”
            What exactly does any diety[sic] have to do with the nonsense of evolution? Does that mean that the birds are not still birds?

          • Jalapeno

            Let me be more clear.

            Why do you think that would have happened?

            Did a diety change their mind? Did the environment change?

          • Oboehner

            It is in their genetic makeup to be as they are with the ability to adapt when needed, then revert beck when not needed. It does not include the “changing over time” fallacy, just minor adaptations, not mountain out of mole hill religious belief.

          • Jalapeno

            So.. You think that they just stop being evolved?

            What other evidence do you have for that?

          • Oboehner

            The fact that the beaks went back to original size isn’t enough? BTW, that would be “de-evolving”.

          • Jalapeno

            I’m asking what exactly you think happened.

            What makes you think that it wasn’t the case of involving in a different direction?

            Lets think about a hypothetical situation for a second. Say there was an area that got colder for a long time, and the animals started to get thicker fur as a result. It heats back up, though, and all of a sudden the animals start losing the extra fur.

            Would that be “de-evolving”, or would it be animals adapting to the situation?

          • Oboehner

            Adapting only, no “involving”.

          • Jalapeno

            Then.. Why did you call it evolution with the finches?

          • Oboehner

            That’s how it supposedly starts.

          • Jalapeno

            You said that it’s evolution reverting in one case..but it’s just adaptation in another.

            Why?

          • Oboehner

            It is an adaptation that reverts in every case.

          • Jalapeno

            So..the finches AREN’T devolving because they didn’t evolve in the first place?

            What’s your definition for evolution then? Different species? Different family? Genus?

          • Oboehner

            Nothing evolves. My definition of evolutionism is a religious belief.

          • Jalapeno

            Okay..so you can’t even DEFINE the thing that you’re denying.

            That pretty much says everything.

          • Oboehner

            Okay..so you can’t even COMPREHEND a simple statement that you’re denying.
            That pretty much says everything.

          • Jalapeno

            What statement do you think I’m not comprehending?

          • Oboehner

            What’s with all of the asinine questions a third-grader would know the answers to?

          • Jalapeno

            Should be easy for you to answer then.

          • Oboehner

            You first.

          • Jalapeno

            What question would you like me to answer? Need me to explain what evolution is to you?

          • Oboehner

            I already know evolution is a religion based on an atheistic world view.

          • Jalapeno

            Sure..sure, but what IS it?

            Even religions have definitions, something they stand for and mean.

          • Oboehner

            I already stated what it stands for, the belief is that (in the picture as a whole) that after an exploding dot life mysteriously popped out of ooze. The through accidental random chance all of the complexities known and unknown just happened – as someone once said, like a tornado blowing through a junkyard assembling a 747.

          • Jalapeno

            ” already stated what it stands for, the belief is that (in the picture as a whole) that after an exploding dot life mysteriously popped out of ooze.”

            Are you mixing up biogenesis with evolution?

          • Oboehner

            “(in the picture as a whole)” Now tell me you don’t believe that.

          • Jalapeno

            You’re talking about abiogenesis.

            Why are you changing the subject?

          • TheKingOfRhye

            The missing link? Ha. Ha ha ha ha…..yeah, that one is the creationists’ FAVORITE argument to go back to time and time again. Scientists find one transitional form, the creationists ask for a ‘missing link’ between THAT one and something else….blah blah blah, yadda yadda yadda, lather, rinse, repeat. It’s an argument that will never end, because you can always ask for another ‘missing link’….and it doesn’t really prove anything if they can’t find one anyway.

          • Oboehner

            Which transitional form was that exactly? Pigs tooth? Baboon? human skull with a carefully crafted ape’s jawbone? Can you prove it was transitional or are you making assumptions it is anything more that just a dead member of an extinct species? You wish to laugh, laugh at yourself for foolish religious belief.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            www scientificamerican com/article/15-answers-to-creationist/

            (Rebuttals to pretty much all of the arguments you use)

            I find it interesting how you, and most other people that make this kind of argument, use statements like “it’s faith”, “it’s just a religion”, or even better, “foolish religious belief”…..as some kind of insult against evolution.

          • Oboehner

            Your vague link just sent me to some kind of search, why don’t you post something in your own words – if you are able.
            Yes evolution is a foolish religious belief.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            Put dots where the spaces are after the www and before the com. This place doesn’t let you put links in a post, so that’s how you gotta get around it.

          • Oboehner

            Why don’t you post something in your own words – if you are able.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            Because I’m getting tired of playing chess with pigeons, that’s why.

          • Oboehner

            There it is, the lame copout. Knew that was coming.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            You don’t understand what evolution IS in the first place, so it’s completely pointless to even argue about it with you.

          • Oboehner

            More lame copout, apparently YOU don’t understand what evolution is or you would post some explanation in your own words which obviously you cannot as all you have is blind faith. How sad.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            I’ve BEEN ‘posting some explanation in my own words’. We’ve been down this road before. I explain something, you just say something like “that’s not proof”, blah blah blah.

            That article said just about the same exact thing that I just said a little while ago about the “missing link” question. If scientists produce one ‘missing link’, someone like you just asks for another one, and so on and so forth. Do you really EXPECT the fossil record to be complete?

          • Ronald Carter

            It’s all right, everyone reading this knows you decimated him in this argument. He will go in circles forever because he refuses to believe accepted science.

          • Oboehner

            Perhaps if you actually said something of substance it might go somewhere like if “scientists” could produce at least ONE hominid other that pig and baboon parts. All you do is dance around yelling “science!”, then tossing insults around. No substance, no evidence, no proof – just religious belief and lame copouts, KingOfLame.

          • Oboehner

            Found your “rebuttals”, a sad pathetic attempt would be more appropriate, “Many people learned in elementary school” “All sciences frequently rely on indirect evidence.” Lame, no evidence or any worthwhile substance, just more opinions and assumptions.

          • gogo0

            very good, now test gravitational waves. test a black hole. test dark matter. test human consciousness of a fetus in the womb. cant do it? those are some new religions for you to practice, I guess.
            aside from religious texts, there is no evidence of any god existing at all. there is no reason to believe in something that provides no evidence of existing, like unicorns or god (any of them). if any god wants to pop in and throw us critical thnkers a bone, I would be singing a different tune.

          • Oboehner

            Yet you blindly follow evolutionism as it is what you WANT to believe, your religion of choice.
            aside from religious texts, there is no evidence of any common ancestor existing at all. there is no reason to believe in something that provides no evidence of existing, like unicorns or Piltdown Man (any of them). There should be thousands of example of hominid remains, yet all we get are fragments of baboons.

          • gogo0

            blind? no, there is over a hundred years of continuing reasearch and refinement. over a dozen different human ancestors have been discovered, and stories like the one we are commenting on display how science does not make a decision and stick with it despite new findings

            i will also acknowledge how the bible continues to change. the laws of leviticus used to be absolute, however now some of them are literal while others are said to be analogies. christianity’s willingness to reinterpret it’s holy book to fall in line with modern morality is admirable, so i wouldnt call that entirely blind either.

          • Oboehner

            Blind. There is always the fairytales about human ancestors which invariably end up being fabricated BS, and stories how someone points out the emperor has no clothes and it is reluctantly admitted.
            BTW, the Bible has nothing to do with the utter pathetic lack of any proof for evolutionism. Nor does the apostate condition of mainstream “Christianity” have anything to do with the Bible.

          • gogo0

            you choose to ignore the studies, findings, evidence, and evolving (heh) conclusions of years of continuing research. faked discoveries are discarded when discovered, as are old theories when new evidence is discovered. this is a basic tenant of science. no one is surprised that you don’t believe in evolution because you know little about it and don’t understand it.
            and unless you are stoning divorcees, you are an apostate too. instead of seeing that as a bad thing, enjoy the fact that you can eat shrimp, and that you don’t have to execute people for mundane things that were crimes thousands of years ago.

          • Oboehner

            All I EVER hear are baseless claims of “findings”, you religious evolutionists must think empty claims are some kind of proof – how sad. No one is surprised that you do believe in evolution because you know little about it and don’t understand it, nor can you even remotely begin to defend it.
            BTW, I’m not Jewish and am not under their law.

          • gogo0

            the alternative is that we should believe a book. laughable

          • Oboehner

            Right, origin of species IS laughable. Darwin’s little finches reverted back when the need for the minor adaptation was gone.

          • gogo0

            you’re saying that all the laws in leviticus dont apply to christians, only jews?

          • Oboehner

            Are you trying to cover your lack of substance with a topic shift?

          • George Van Apeldoorn

            “There is over a 100 years of continuing research and refinement”.
            Yep it takes a long time to make certain ideas palatable and massage them so much that they can be used to explain anything and everything. Just take the notion that Nothing exploded in Nowhere, traveled in this absolute vacuum to a point where it spontaneously slowed down, stopped and collapsed into a dense little ball of (still) Nothing which then exploded and voila, here we are. Talking about faith!!
            “Over a dozen different human ancestors have been discovered”
            You mean examples like Piltdown man, Java Man, Nebraska Man, Peking man etc right??

          • Ronald Carter

            “A test, I’ll demonstrate gravity by dropping a bowling ball out of a
            tenth story window, you demonstrate evolution by standing under it and
            evolving into something that can withstand the hit.”

            How on EARTH would this be a demonstration of evolution? No one says people evolve into something on the spot, right this minute. People evolve over millions of years.

          • Oboehner

            So you were there millions of years ago and have pictures – or do I have to take that on faith?

          • Ronald Carter

            Try taking it on science instead.

          • Oboehner

            Science is observable, so produce the photos or admit it’s all blind faith.

          • Ronald Carter

            I don’t need to produce them. And you know exactly where to find them.

          • Oboehner

            Right, in the blind faith aisle.

          • Ronald Carter

            We aren’t discussing Christianity. Stay on topic.

          • Oboehner

            Look, more diverting to another topic, how quaint.

          • Ronald Carter

            If you’re not able to accept factual evidence you really should stop your self-righteous charade. We have science, we have evolution, we have fossils. You have a book that you believe God wrote. If that ain’t blind faith, then I don’t know what is. You certainly don’t.

          • Oboehner

            I accept factual evidence, you have none. You have pseudo-science, you have the evolutionism religion, you have fossils that only show something died, not that it ever procreated let alone “evolved” – just blind faith it did. I have a book that has nothing at all to do with your baseless religion, so try to stay on topic.

          • Ronald Carter

            No, you DON’T accept factual evidence. Let’s talk for a minute about what you accept. You accept a 2000 year old book which to you was absolutely perfect and God-breathed and which cannot possibly be improved on by men of science, who test, measure, observe, and learn this stuff for a living but which you can’t begin to understand with your double-digit IQ and therefore elect to dismiss it all as “religion” and “evolutionism” and “pseudo-science”. Dating methods? Oh, just more appeals to authority, right? Even though they have proven over and over to be accurate.

          • Oboehner

            What factual evidence have you provided that I don’t accept? You still haven’t told me when the car left the driveway. You also seem to be obsessed with the Bible as you continually bring it up even though it has absolutely nothing to do with the subject of evolutionism – merely a pathetic feeble attempt to shift the focus. Then we have the old ad hominem, (evolutionism staple): “your double-digit IQ” which only demonstrates your own.

          • Ronald Carter

            I’m not entertaining your car in the driveway scenario because it’s irrelevant and serves only to embarrass you. Your understanding of evolution is so sorely lacking that you don’t even realize that half the time you’re not even TALKING about evolution, but abiogenesis.

            When did the car leave the driveway? 5:43:21 pm. There, now make whatever non-sequitur point you intended to make.

          • Oboehner

            Wrong answer, try again but this time use the same formula your “scientists” use to determine the radioactive decay in their little dating scenarios without knowing the initial radiation levels.

          • edgein

            We see the hawthorne fruit fly evolving today. Observed evolution. Where’s the evidence for creation?

          • Oboehner

            So what does the fruit fly become, another fruit fly? LOL!

          • edgein

            And humans are just another kind of ape. Just like they’re another species of fruit fly. But that’s observed evolution.

            Where can we observe creation in action? Ph. Nowhere

          • Robert Widdowson

            You clearly don’t understand the doctrine of Creation. Creation was a one-time event, unique and unrepeatable. It was the moment that God spoke the universe into existence by the power of his word, in the space of six days.

            God ordained only one universe to be created. One is enough. He isn’t continually creating, because the act of Creation is complete.

            Now, God is sustaining and preserving his Creation.

            You are asking for the wrong proof.

          • ed gein

            The failure of your argument is in its first sentence; the ‘doctrine’ (sic) of creation. Science has no ‘doctrine’. Doctrine leads to failure.

            If creation is one time unique and unrepeatable, supernatural in origin, then it is, by definition, not science.

            Since we’ve learned more about the universe in the 300 years of the existence of science than we did under 2000 years of creationism, it’s obvious your argument is wrong.

          • Robert Widdowson

            ed gein

            I see you are jumping to conclusions, again.

            You do realize that ‘doctrine’ simply means ‘teaching’? It’s Latin.

            As I pointed out already, ‘science’ means knowledge. Revealed knowledge is knowledge, even if you don’t like it.

            And, no, despite your arrogant assertions, humankind has not learned more about the universe in the last 300 years than the previous 2000.

            Yes, we know facts about the universe. And we do more of certain things. But we have failed miserably in many, many ways.

          • Oboehner

            Where can we observe evolution in action? Nowhere, all we get is adaptation and we need faith to believe anything else – like exploding dots.

          • edgein

            Creationists hate science so they invent a language to circumvent sciemce. I dont have to play by your theological rules. Science explained more of the world in 300 years than religion did in 3000. Religion failed

          • Oboehner

            *sigh* science is observable, evolutionism is nothing more than assumption with blind faith, no one has ever witnessed anything remotely like a cow turning into a whale. It is not science, therefore Creationists don’t hate science, just false religions like yours.

          • edgein

            Sigh I’m a scientist with 3 decades of experience. You? You’re a fundie. You can’t even specify the 4 basic pricipl s of evolution…al of which are observable.

            You can’t tell us how creationism works nor where it’s seen. I can do both for evolution

            Sigh

          • Oboehner

            Sigh you claim to be a scientist with 3 decades of experience. You can’t even specify the 4 basic pricipl s of evolution…none of which are anything more than minor adaptations embellished with empty claims, assumptions, religious belief, and attacks on the beliefs of others.
            You can’t tell us how evolutionism works nor where it’s seen other than something extremely lame about a fruit fly that filed a change of address.
            Sigh

          • edgein

            I notice you didn’t specify the 4 observed priniples of evolution. It’s apparent you don’t know how scientists say it works yet you criticize it.

            How can you criticize it if you are ignorant of it?

            that’s probably WHY you criticize it!

          • Oboehner

            You’re wasting time, you might as well be talking about unicorns – all talk with absolutely nothing backing it up, that’s probably why I criticize it, it is just a fairytale.

          • edgein

            Says the guy who doesnt understand evolution enough to criticize it

          • Ronald Carter

            If he’s a scientist with three decades of experience, why do you think your Bible knows better than he does?

          • Oboehner

            Do explain what the Bible has to do with the farce of evolutionism?

          • Ronald Carter

            Couldn’t tell you, since only you seems to know what “evolutionism” is. I know what evolution is. What does the Bible have to do with it? Why, it’s the completely blind-faith religion you DO put all your trust in. Only you never seem to say it out loud.

          • Oboehner

            Then we will be dropping that subject then.

            Since the English language seems to elude you:
            Full Definition of evolution:
            1 : one of a set of prescribed movements

            Full Definition of ism
            1 : a distinctive doctrine, cause, or theory

          • Ronald Carter

            That’s the full definition of evolution? From what dictionary, the Reader’s Digest version?

            Evolution isn’t an ism. It’s not a belief. It’s a science.

          • Oboehner

            It’s a belief unless you were around 4.6 Billion years ago.

          • Ronald Carter

            Fortunately because of scientific advances, that is not necessary. Your refusal to believe in scientific advances does not make them go away, much as you wish they would.

          • Oboehner

            Your constant droning on about “scientific advances” doesn’t make them any more than assumption and speculation.

          • Ronald Carter

            How would you know that when you show no signs of having read them, never mind comprehending them?

          • Oboehner

            What next, You’re going to tell me I’m a big dummy-head for not sharing your faith?

          • Ronald Carter

            I don’t have a faith, LOL. You do.

          • Oboehner

            So you were there bazillions of years ago?

          • Ronald Carter

            Why is it necessary for me to have been?

          • Oboehner

            Otherwise it is just blind faith – you BELIEVE it happened that way.

          • Ronald Carter

            Because goddiditism is worth more than all the proof in the world to you.

          • Oboehner

            Again your total lack of ANYTHING brings you to change the subject, you are a sad waste of time blind faith boy.

          • Sir Osis

            You are a science hater. You take all the things your religion is – blind faith, unprovable, magic – and try to use those same words to describe evolution which is none of those things. You take the whole of scientific evolution study – all the measurements, tests, fossils, the vast wealth of decades of research and dismiss it all because if you actually look at it you will be forced to accept it, which your church could never allow. And somehow, your little magic book, written by people whose IQs were probably single digits 2000 years ago, know better than the people whose living is studying it and learning about it. That’s some cognitive dissonance on a level I have never seen before.

          • Oboehner

            “200 years ago, the ancestors of apple maggot flies laid their eggs only on hawthorns — but today, these flies lay eggs on hawthorns (which are native to America) and domestic apples (which were introduced to America by immigrants and bred).” Wow, quite the example of evolution – I can barely type I’m laughing so hard!!

          • edgein

            Another xtian who doesnt understand evolution. There are MANY types of speciation. But there are 0 forms of creation. The joke’s on you, Christian

          • Oboehner

            A cow never evolved to anything other than a cow, bacteria is always bacteria, jokes on you.

          • edgein

            Prove it

          • Oboehner

            A total lack of proof is all I need to know evolutionism is nothing more than a blind faith religion.

          • edgein

            We can see evolution. We have never seen creationism. Not one

          • Oboehner

            Well there now, creation is a religious belief, but do show the “evolution” you keep yammering on about.

          • edgein

            The Hawthorn fruit fly…evolution in action. Now….you may not like it but that merely shows you don’t know how science works.

            Glad to see you conced creationism is religion

          • Oboehner

            More fruit fly stories, wow!! They evolved into another fruit fly exactly the same except for their hang out, wow what profound scientific proof of evolutionism!! I am in awe or whatever…

          • edgein

            Your comment shows you don’t understand evolution. Speciation is the unit of evolution and this is exactly how speciation works. It’s observed.

            Thanks for provimg my point

          • Oboehner

            Still a fruit fly, will always be a fruit fly – thanks for proving my point.

          • edgein

            And humans will always be apes proving evolution is a fact

          • Oboehner

            Opinion, proving evolutionism has nothing to stand on but belief. Humans share some characteristics with apes, nothing more.

          • bpuharic

            Jesus was an agent and disciple of Satan. Did you know that? Jesus wrote the Quran. That’s the level of theology similar to your knowledge of evolution

          • Oboehner

            I hear that all the time yet not one evolutionist has been able to enlighten me as to the proof of it all without resorting to assumption, speculation, and blind faith. How sad.

          • Peter

            I promise you, you want be laughing when you stand before your maker.

          • Oboehner

            Nobody will.

          • Sir Osis

            I will.

          • Oboehner

            Good luck with that.

          • Joe Soap

            So you can prove Allah doesn’t exist? After all isn’t that what religion is all about. No gods exist except mine. Can you prove no other gods exist besides yours?

          • Oboehner

            That’s why they call it faith in case you were unaware.

          • Joe Soap

            Well I have faith that there are no Gods. Including yours.

          • Oboehner

            Your religious belief as well.

          • Joe Soap

            No. My rational belief.

          • Oboehner

            The rationality of your belief is opinion, yours.

        • edgein

          A cliche.

          • Oboehner

            A yawner.

    • davidreilly7

      Make evolution true? It is a fact. Just like gravity, germs, atoms, heliocentricity.

    • Donald J Trump

      You know that if you can prove evolution is wrong, you will get millions of dollars and a couple of Nobel Prizes?
      Get to it.

  • http://www.RNA-mediated.com jvkohl

    RNA mediated molecular epigenetics and virus driven entropy (youtube video available)
    Published on 2 Mar 2016
    Poster:
    Energy-dependent molecular epigenetics support Einstein’s complete
    molecular mechanical theory via established links from microRNA flanking
    sequences to DNA base pair substitutions and amino acid substitutions
    in adhesion proteins. The adhesion proteins include heat shock proteins
    that link the epigenetic landscape to biophysically constrained
    nutrient-dependent RNA-mediated protein folding chemistry and cell type
    differentiation via the structure and function of supercoiled DNA.
    Einstein’s theory fits into the context of Darwin’s “conditions of life”
    via the de novo creation of nucleic acids; the nutrient-dependent
    function of the ribosome; and the de novo creation of olfactory receptor
    genes. De novo gene creation is the “holy grail” of biophysically
    constrained chemistry and biologically-based cause and effect. The
    discoveries reviewed here link the nutrient-dependent microRNA/messenger
    RNA balance from metabolic networks to genetic networks and to healthy
    longevity or virus-driven pathology in the context of what is known
    about all model organisms.

  • mic1969

    bacteria ? evidence for evolution?.. really ? The study was a waste of money ! Creation is the reality. Get used to it.

    • Ronald Carter

      How is it a waste of money to continue to study, discover, learn?
      No one should ever be afraid of finding out their past beliefs were incorrect. The mistake is pride keeping you in denial.

      • Oboehner

        It is a waste of money to filter everything through the evolutionism religious filter and claim it’s “science”.

        • Ronald Carter

          Wow, a militant evolution denier.
          I feel sorry for you.

          • Oboehner

            Typical evolutionist idiotic response.

          • Ronald Carter

            No point in further discussion with a mind so firmly welded closed. Bye.

          • Oboehner

            Ok there have-nothing boy, see ya.

          • Ronald Carter

            Everything is always nothing when you refuse to look at it.

          • Oboehner

            Ok there have-nothing boy.

          • Ronald Carter

            If you’re looking for me, I’ll be in the have-nothing section of the book store reading all the scientific data and evidence that we’ve learned over the years. Enjoy your denial.

          • Oboehner

            All the scientific data you can’t seem to share.

          • Ronald Carter

            Google “Origin of Species”
            Google “Evolution” (note: do not misspell it “evolutionism” as you often do)
            There. Finished. Data presented. Empirical evidence shown. Game over. You lose. Thanks for playing. Bye.

          • Oboehner

            Appeal to authority, then run – good one. Why don’t you post something yourself, or are you just running on faith?

          • Ronald Carter

            Appeal to what? I’m not appealing to anything, I’m consulting an iron-clad factual source. This isn’t a matter of somebody’s opinion and hasn’t been for decades.

          • Oboehner

            Iron-clad, ROFL!! That’s what is known as an appeal to authority, coupled with you obvious blind faith as you can’t even provide one shred of anything in your own words.

          • Ronald Carter

            If you don’t beliefve what is on the internet, in public libraries, or in science texts, it’s your problem. It isn’t up to me or to anyone else to prove it to you, it’s already proven and your refusal to accept that is why you remain in ignorance.

          • Oboehner

            Alright then blind-faith appeal to authority boy.

          • Ronald Carter

            It’s already been proven to you that it’s not an appeal to authority since it’s a factual source and not some person with an opnion. Fail number one. Blind faith is what you have – a religion that tells you to believe it just because. That’s fail number two. Both of which should embarrass you.

          • Oboehner

            Then you were around bazillions of years to witness evolution, or do you have blind faith, it’s a simple case of one or the other. Sitting at you computer spouting “proven science” doesn’t cut it – especially when you can’t even prove that.

          • Ronald Carter

            It isn’t necessary to have been around for a bazillion years. It is necessary to understand that science has accurate dating methods from which we can learn facts. Not opinions. Facts.

          • Oboehner

            It is necessary to understand that science has accurate dating methods from which we can learn facts. So do tell the beginning level of radioactivity, and any conditions that had affected those levels, of ANY dated fossil so you can demonstrate just how accurate the dating methods are and how they are completely void of any assumptions and speculations but are purely scientific. Then you can tell me when the car going by at 60 MPH left the driveway.

          • Oboehner

            Then you can explain why anyone should believe a system the says anything under 100,000 years can’t be dated and has a fudge factor of 3,500,000 years.

          • Ronald Carter

            The magnitude of those numbers should just tell you how fantastically off base you are when you claim a young earth. 6000 years compared to 4,500,000,000 years? That’s not just wrong, that’s hilariously wrong. That’s like saying McDonald’s has made at least 5 cheeseburgers over the years.

          • Oboehner

            McDonald’s has records, do you? I know, I have to take it on faith.

          • Ronald Carter

            Records? You mean like the fossil record? Oh, but your religion doesn’t allow you to believe in that, therefore it doesn’t.

          • Oboehner

            Fossil record, a bunch of dead things somebody arranged to fit their religious view. Doesn’t prove anything more than if I arranged a Pontiac Fiero, a Firebird, a Corvette, and a Lamborghini; then I claimed “that’s proof the Fiero evolved into the Lamborghini because the Firebird and the Corvette are transitional cars. Just more useless assumption, speculation, and religious belief.

          • Ronald Carter

            Fossil record, a bunch of dead things that died in a specific order you don’t want to look at or acknowledge because it would prove you wrong, science denier.

          • Oboehner

            A man-made order, science fabricator.

          • Ronald Carter

            No, a chronological one, science denier.

          • Oboehner

            Your religious belief void of proof, reality denier.

          • Ronald Carter

            Fossils are science, not religion, science denier.

          • Oboehner

            Sure fossils are science, some guy arranging them to fit his worldview, then calling it proof isn’t. Or perhaps that Fiero really did evolve into a Lamborghini…

          • Ronald Carter

            “Some guy”? No, thousands of scientists. But you are smarter than all of them, right?

          • Oboehner

            “Thousands” of people sharing the same faith? Not hard to find.

          • Ronald Carter

            LOL, right, thousands of scientists who understand evolution and have advanced science degrees are practicing a “religion” who want to make up the same story about fossils.

          • Madmouse

            John 12:40 He hath blinded their eyes, and hardened their heart; that they should not see with their eyes, nor understand with their heart, and be converted, and I should heal them.
            They can’t understand. Denying Christ as they do, I doubt they ever will 🙁

          • Sir Osis

            What do you expect him to post, a nice convenient easy to digest (for fundies) one-liner that sums up this vastly complicated topic? Want a coloring book too?

    • edgein

      Where can we observe creation? We only see evolution

  • http://www.lulu.com/spotlight/fisherhl Mr. Avatar

    We are too ignorant as a species to define how we got here, only that we have learned to adapt within this sphere of uncertainty. it seems we have digressed in some areas into calling insanity fact and logic with phobia type labels.

    • Grace Kim Kwon

      We really don’t adapt at all. Planet Earth is specifically designed to be habitable anyway. Is anything adapting on Venus or Mars? On the moon? None.

      • John N

        Designed?

        Do you happen to have any evidence for that or ar you just argumenting from ignorance?

        • Grace Kim Kwon

          The world’s composition is more complicated than your language usage and your brain. You could have typed that you saw a designed world instead of ranting what you did. Everything is constructed and sustained under purposes whether you acknowledge or not.

          • edgein

            Here let me respond. No, it’s not. That which is asserted w/o evidence can be dismissed w/o evidence

          • Grace Kim Kwon

            You just do not desire to see the evidence for the Creator God, though the evidences are overwhelmingly many.

          • edgein

            I want a pony, too. Why can’t I have one?

          • Grace Kim Kwon

            You need Biblical truth. No animal abuse.

          • John N

            Everything is constructed?

            Right.

            So, who constructed your god?

            Let me guess – ignorant human beings in need of explaining a complicated world. Some never learn.

          • Grace Kim Kwon

            God is forever self-existing. You need humility before the Creator God who is holy. Atheists are ignorant and evil. “The fool says in his heart, ‘There is no God.’ They are corrupt, their deeds are vile; there is no one who does good.” (Psalm ch. 14)

          • John N

            Oh no, Grace, you just said that ‘Everything is constructed’. Therefore your god has to be constructed as well. If not, then there is no reason to think anything is constructed.

            So, make up your mind. Is everything everything constructed or not?

            And please keep your poor judgements fo yourself, this is a scientific discussion.

          • Grace Kim Kwon

            God is not included in creation. He is the Creator. Christian workers invented the written English language and many other written languages, and the study of grammar was developed by Christian Europeans to be able to comprehend the Holy Bible, all so that no child would become erroneous and malicious like today’s Western atheists are. You guys are never interested in finding the truth and are never serious; that’s your problem.

          • John N

            Oh, the special pleading fallacy. Your logic is lousy. Christian perhaps?

            And the English language is invented to interprete the bible? Do you really think the bible was originally written in English? Your knowledge of history is even worse. Fundamentalistic Christian perhaps?

            Indeed, I’m not interested in finding your ‘revealed’ truth; I prefer evidence, much more usefull in real life. And evidence (or: the abscence of it) is pointing to your bible being a book of myths written by ancient people ignorant of how the world functions. But of course ‘You guys’ are not really interested in realit; that’s your poblem.

          • Grace Kim Kwon

            Read correctly. Christian monks invented the written English language so that the Britons could read the Holy Scripture and read/record Christian writings. Christian workers created many other written languages all over the world so that everyone could read the Holy Bible. Human civilizations had nothing valuable enough for everyone to read other than the Holy Bible. The necessity to know the Holy Bible caused universal literacy, starting in the Western civilization. Evidences are: Christianity is good and atheism is evil. The Western atheists are particularly more evil because you repay the good with evil to everyone especially your Christian ancestors.

          • John N

            No, they didn’t. Old English originated in the 6th century and used runes, Only a few hundreds of years later these were replaced by the roman alphabet.

            One of the oldest English manuscripts remaining is Beowulf, an epic poem. It was certainly not written by a monk.

          • Grace Kim Kwon

            You are wrong. Beowulf is too late. Go back further in time. It’s Christian monks who started English writings to educate illiterate Britons with Christianity. The purpose of written European languages was to teach Christianity. Europeans thus Americans would have stayed illiterate like the rest of mankind if the Church did not educate them.

          • John N

            Oh, I would like to see your evidence for this.

            By the way, using the moral guidelines of your bible those ‘literate’ and ‘advanced’ christians of back then conquered and killed millions of foreign people, enslaved most of Africa, burned witches and heretics all over the world and are now trying to remove human rights for people they don’t like in the countries where they have a majority. Some education!

          • Grace Kim Kwon

            Study the history of written English language. You are wrong on history. The white Christian missionaries brought into the world Christianity, charity, medicine, literacy, education, advancement, classic music and musical instruments, literature, inventions, lawfulness, and modernization everywhere. In the Non-christendom, men were just oppressing women and minorities while sword-fighting with no development or deep thoughts, You didn’t notice anything on the planet because you’ve been locked in your small region. Bible translators and distributors have been most severely persecuted in the West both then and now; all other groups were treated better.

            Every human society has been slave owners, but the Christian West is the first one to abolish slavery on its own in human history without foreign powers interfering. Reading the Holy Bible free slaves. Now foreign people will take your land because you guys are feminized with Sodomy. You guys are the brainwashed slaves to the perv rich companies and are acting like real witches killing the unwanted children in wombs. Your racist ancestors are better than you in everything. Sin has no equal rights. The world had to deal with dominant West before, but now it’s perv West. Stop your filthy colonization.

  • TheBottomline4This

    Eventually the Truth will prevail 🙂

    • davidreilly7

      Yes just as Lenski has already thoroughly debunked these articles, more experimentation will continue to affirm the fact of evolution.

      • TheBottomline4This

        God trumps evolution 🙂

        • John N

          Does he? Must have missed it. Well, I think everbody must have missed it.

          • TheBottomline4This

            It’s good you know He’s a He 🙂

          • John N

            Well, a unicorn is also a he. And since I have a book about unicorns, it mus be True.

        • edgein

          God made trump. That’s proof god doesn’t exist

          • TheBottomline4This

            God trumps evolution 🙂

          • edgein

            Trump trumps god!

          • TheBottomline4This

            God trumps evolution, you and Trump.

          • edgein

            Trump IS god…at least that’s what He says…

          • TheBottomline4This

            lol

          • TheBottomline4This

            Just an fyi…I’m an Independent and am not voting for the “Trumpster”…nor Lying Hillary nor Socialist Sanders 🙂

          • The Last Trump

            Aw, c’mon!
            What’s wrong with a guy named “Trump”!?
            😉

  • Grace Kim Kwon

    Lies do not last long even in the atheists’ guild. The scientists are not given the wisdom to produce a spacecraft to space-travel because they keep being godless deniers. And no one is listening to their warning against pollution’s effects on the planet, though it’s real. So sad. We could have had a much better world if these scientists are not so determined Anti-God in everything. Collective artificial intelligence must have scolded them already for dishonesty. Scientists should stop going against the overwhelming evidences for the holy Creator God.

    • edgein

      Grace? We’ve landed spacecraft on the moon and Mars so you statement is just bizarre

      • Grace Kim Kwon

        It’s a 70’s dream. I mean the moon bases and Mars colonies. ^^ Actually I don’t care about those. If more scientists were godly instead of evil proud against the Creator God, things could have been better and Planet Earth could have been cleaner and more “livable” than now. Eden is what we lost. Mankind gets exactly what they desire, you know. (Genesis ch.11-12, John ch.3)

        • edgein

          You mean if people believed like you do they’d be as great as you are.

          • TheBottomline4This

            Or if people believed as you do they’d be as great as you are.

          • edgein

            I don’t have a Great Commission to go into the world…see…I know my bible. I don’t care what you believe

          • TheBottomline4This

            What does your bible tell you about evolution?

          • edgein

            It tells me creationism is warped

          • TheBottomline4This

            Which bible do you use? NIV? TLB? RSV? ???

          • edgein

            All of them. New American Bible, English bible, Jerusalem

          • Grace Kim Kwon

            No, you never read the Holy Bible. Those who read the Holy Bible NEVER talk like you do.

          • Grace Kim Kwon

            God decides the greatness. You mustn’t care whether you could be great or not; those are not of importance to any including to yourself. Believe in Jesus and live for God’s glory. You’ll be at least cease to be a coward who does personal attacks online if you become a Christian. Read the Word of God.

          • TheBottomline4This

            Amen!!!

          • edgein

            And yet you’re the narcissist. Go figure

          • Grace Kim Kwon

            You are the shame to your own father. Act like a man even online.

          • edgein

            You’re the one arrogantly telling me you know the mind of god. That’s pretty naricissistic

          • Grace Kim Kwon

            Read the Holy Bible to find the mind of God. Stop being self-centered.

          • edgein

            You’re self centered enough to say you have the Truth of God. THAT is self centered

          • Grace Kim Kwon

            I read the Holy Bible and remember the content. You have never. That’s the difference. Be more objective about yourself and about others. Grow up. Be humble before God and ask Him to make you understand His Word and read it like an honest man. Stop attacking the Christians for talking with you. Go to church on Sunday to hear God’s Word, too.

          • edgein

            You’ve never read the bible. It shows

          • Grace Kim Kwon

            The Holy Bible tells you to repent of your sins and believe in Jesus to get saved. I did. Read John ch. 3.

  • Peter

    Its not one’s past beliefs to be afraid of, its your future, you need to be afraid of when you stand before the Lord on the day of judgement, of course if you are truly born of the Spirit of God then you don’t have to be afraid of anything. The truth is evolution is a lie.

    • edgein

      Meaningless statement. What was never observed was the resurrection. Evolution is observed

  • Edward MacGuire

    “… E. coli in LTEE did not mutate. They simply adapted to function better in their environment.”

    What does this author think evolution is?
    What does this author think a speciation event is?

    The author of this piece is badly in need of a course in high-school biology and a basic knowledge of the scientific method.

  • benJephunneh

    I’ve been saying since the beginning that the experiment was a simple example of pleomorphism. What is probably also true, in addition to what they found, is that the bacteria can just as easily “lose” the ability to metabolize citrate, and back and forth and back and forth.

    This was being researched some 80 years ago by Arthur Kendall and others and was shut down by the medical industry, NOT by evolutionists. We often fail to see that evolutionism protects certain business models.

    • edgein

      It’s funny to see xtianity, with its prosperity gospel, and millionaire preachers, talk about rich scientists

      • benJephunneh

        Those preachers aren’t Christians. Those are non-believers who take advantage of Christians. Go to a Christian seminary. You’ll find even atheists, there. And why do they say they go? Because fleecing Christians is a lucrative business.

        • edgein

          Blah blah. They say they’re xtians just like you say you are. No creationist is an xtian if xtianity has truth. How’s the view from your petard?

          • benJephunneh

            We know they’re not Christians because some of the more honest ones have even talked about how they lied for the money. You don’t even have to connect any dots. They say they’re not Christians, so I believe them.

          • edgein

            And some former creationists have done the same. Oops

          • benJephunneh

            They’ve done what, exactly?

          • edgein

            Recanted their belief in magic

          • benJephunneh

            That wasn’t what we were talking about, so what’s your point?

          • ed gein

            Creationism is magic.

    • John N

      Pleiomorphism is variation in size and or shape. The ability to metabolise citrate is due to several specific mutations. Try again.

      Point mutations are known to be reversible, so what is your point?

      And what has Kendall got to do with mutations?

      • benJephunneh

        You are incorrect. Did you really think you’d know it all after looking it up in Wikipedia? Have you read any of the research from the 1930s and ’40s?

        • John N

          Why should I read any of the research of almost 100 years ago? Is that your standard of science?

          You do realize in the meantime we discovered genes? Try to keep up.

          • benJephunneh

            I was and am still aware of the fact that we’re talking about a process. “Genes” are not a process. And if it’s so humiliating to learn about old research, it must be really humiliating to spend millions of dollars on a new experiment only to find that you could have simply read about what the last guy’s results were from 80 years ago.

          • John N

            Ok, you want to discuss a process.

            So, what’s your guy’s explanation form gene mutation, then?

          • benJephunneh

            While there certainly are mutations, the genetic changes that confer new abilities are almost certainly going to be simply the on or off switching of genes. The 80-year-old research showed that a bacteria could be made to change AND it could be made to change back. It’s proof that “evolution” is not based on mutation. It’s based on programming.

          • ed gein

            Nonsense. We share many of our genes with other apes. The gene controlling jaw strength has been deactivated in humans via a mutation in the regulatory gene.

            Why in the world would humans share with other apes this gene if we weren’t related by evolution? Evolution explains it. Creationism? Magic.

          • John N

            >’While there certainly are mutations, the genetic changes that confer new abilities are almost certainly going to be simply the on or off switching of genes’

            OK. So what’s your evidence? And where did these genes come from in the first place? Are you claiming the first organisme ever did already contain all the genetic material existing today?

            >’The 80-year-old research showed that a bacteria could be made to change AND it could be made to change back’
            Did it show bacteria could change there metabolism? If not, how is this relevant?

            >’ It’s proof that “evolution” is not based on mutation. It’s based on programming.’
            So you claim living organisms are actually ‘programmed’. Next thing you’ll be claiming there is also a ‘programmer’. Ant evidence for that? And why are you talking about ‘proof’? Science does not recognize ‘proof’.

          • benJephunneh

            Man, why do you have any opinion at all if you know so little?

  • ShemSilber

    What the Master Yahushua (Lord Jesus) said of the religious leaders when He was here in His flesh (the Pharisees and Sadducees), He also says of the religious leaders of our day, the evolutionists: “Every plant which My heavenly Abba (Father) has not planted shall be rooted up. Leave them alone: they are blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch.” AND when they have fallen into that ditch, maybe they will wake up and turn to Him for proper understanding and salvation, omein!

    • edgein

      Xtians call everything they don’t understand “religion”. Saves them from having to think

      • ShemSilber

        So who’s a Christian? I’m not Jewish, but I am a Hebrew, and I say all religion is infiltrated with countless lies by the evil one that people call Satan the devil, whether it Christianity, Islam, rabbinic Judaism, or EVOLUTION (which is a form of self-worship, and therefore “religion”).

        If one can stop scoffing long enough to dig out the truth from between the pages of Genesis to Revelation, there is LIFE to be had through our Master Yahushua (Lord Jesus). Yahuwah forbid that you should scoff yourself into a literal dead end, but wake up and LIVE, in the Name of the Master Yahushua, omein.

        • edgein

          You project your views onto scientists then say those are vaild because you did it. You’re not Jewish, you’re xtian.

          • ShemSilber

            Believe what you will, I am NEITHER Jewish NOR Christian, but I know the Master Yahushua is the Creator and that He will have only Torah-submissive servants in His Kingdom. We all have a choice between life and blessing on the one hand, and death and curses on the other, and homosexuality is among those sins that, if we don’t ask the Master to forgive us and set us straight, we will be out of His Kingdom and IN the Lake of Fire, there to burn to ashes and never rise again. Your choice.

  • edgein

    Xtians have been predicting evolution’s death for 150 years. The only thing that’s died is creationism.

  • edgein

    As a chemist I don’t care whether evolution or creationism is correct. I just happen to know evolution is science and creationism is religion

    • benJephunneh

      I know of one chemist with three PhDs and a half dozen full professorships who says the theories of evolution are false. That’s coming from his ex-atheist perspective, as well.

      • davidreilly7

        In the earth and life sciences there are approximately 700 scientists who reject evolution, and 480,000 who accept it.

        • benJephunneh

          Very good point, david. Intelligence is rare, even among scientists.

          • davidreilly7

            This has nothing to do with intelligence and everything to do with personal religious belief. If you are a born-again evangelical Christian, and you believe that the Bible is the inspired inerrant word of God, then you will probably reject evolution.

            A hermeneutic that accepts evolution is considered liberal and dangerous, a “slippery slope.”

            A notable exception is the eminent geneticist and evangelical Christian, Francis Collins. You should check out his website biologos dot org.

          • edgein

            Says the creatiionist using the scientist invented computer.

      • edgein

        You missed the point didn’t you? No surprise…you’re xtian

      • John N

        Does he?

        Well, there is only one theory of evolution. So one – or both – of you do not know what you are talking about.

  • archaeologist

    if evolution were true they would not have these problems/

    • edgein

      We still have issues with atomic theory and we know atoms exist. You’re wrong

      • benJephunneh

        What are the issues with atomic theory to which you’re referring, edgein?

        • edgein

          Mass of the proton for example. Far from settled

  • Seen From Space

    In the abstract they say “Here we show why it probably was not a speciation event.” Note the word probably! It’s an interesting addition to the debate, but it doesn’t prove Lenski is wrong or that the LTEE isn’t a good demonstration of evolution in action. What you have to realise is that scientists LOVE to debunk each other’s work. Which of itself IS proof of the robustness of Darwin’s theory. It remains the foundation of modern biology despite propaganda to the contrary.

  • axelbeingcivil

    Wait, shifts, changes, and alterations of bacterial gene structure aren’t evolution somehow? Or a path towards speciation? What?