[ARCHIVED] - Creation vs. Evolution

[atrasicarius]

Hey everybody. Just a little background, I'm a senior in highschool, and I've been an atheist pretty much all my life. I'm pretty new to this forum, but I've had a lot of experience debating this issue in other places. Alright, I think I'll go ahead and have a look at this article first.

Ok, Adrian. It's Sunday and I don't have all the time in the world. So I researched the E. coli. It's all I have time for. One good link deserves another. Here ya go:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles...in-the-eye

If I get a chance, I'll research it some more. If you just go to AIG home page, and type in E. coli, you'll get an amazing selection of articles. Cyl

The problem here is that the author doesnt really understand evolution. This line keyed me into it:

While the fitness of the bacteria has increased (as compared to the starting bacteria), it has come at a cost. For example, all the lines have lost the ability to catabolize ribose (a sugar).3 Some lines have lost the ability to repair DNA.4 These bacteria may indeed be more fit in a lab setting, but if put in competition with their wild-type (normal) counterparts in a natural setting, they would not stand a chance.

This is similar to another common argument I've heard that goes, "If evolution were true, humans would have wings, because that would be an improvement." The thing is, evolution isnt about improvement so much as it's about survivability. It doesnt matter what's "better" in our view. What matters is what gives an organism an increased chance of survival. In the example above, ribose was not present in the bacteria's environment, so the ability to metabolize it wasnt an advantage. It may be true that a bacteria from that lab dropped into the wild would die quickly, but it's also true that a bacteria from the wild dropped into the lab would also die quickly. Polar bears and tigers are both well adapted to their respective environments, and they would both die if you switched them. Neither one is "better."

Got to go right now, more later.

---

Alright, let's keep going with this article.

Many evolutionists state that the bacteria are experiencing “adaptive evolution.” However, this is not evolution but rather adaptation. Molecules-to-man evolution requires an increase in information and functional systems. Instead, these bacteria are likely experiencing a loss of information and functional systems as has been observed in other mutant bacteria in Lenski’s lab. While these changes are beneficial in the lab environment, they do not lead to a net gain that moves bacteria in an upward evolutionary direction.

As I said before, the author doesnt really understand evolution. Adaption is evolution. Bacteria need to change their genetic code to be able to metabolize new food, therefore becoming new species, which is the definition of evolution. It's just harder to see in bacteria than it is in larger organisms. Also, note the use of the word "likely." To me, this implies that the author doesnt know, and probably chooses not to know, because the answers might undermine his point. Finally, as I said before, the whole point of evolution is an increase in survivability in the current environment. The increase in complexity over time is just a side effect.

Lenski states (based on calculated mutation rates in E. coli), “It is clearly very difficult for E. coli to evolve this function. In fact, the mutation rate of the ancestral strain from Cit- to Cit+ is immeasurably low . . . .”1 If developing the ability to utilize citrate under certain conditions using random mutations of a pre-existing citrate utilization system is so rare, then how even more improbable is it to believe that these same random mutations can lead to completely new information and functional systems that allow dinosaurs to turn into birds!

First of all, this mutation took less than two decades to occur, whereas dinosaurs have been evolving into birds for around 200 million years. This is consistent with the much longer reproductive cycle of animals. Secondly, just because bacteria are much smaller than animals doesnt mean that their mutations are less significant. Animal genomes are arranged so that changing certain genes has huge effects on physiology. The bacteria have been evolving for 44,000 generations. In human terms, that's about 900,000 years, or the difference between homo sapiens and homo erectus. Not a massive difference, compared to dinosaurs and birds, but still significant. To get the same degree of evolution in the experiment as between dinosaurs and birds, the experiment would have to be run for about 38,000 years, assuming a 3 year generation for birds/dinosaurs.

Since E. coli already possess the ability to transport and utilize citrate under certain conditions, it is conceivable that they could adapt and gain the ability to utilize citrate under broader conditions. This does not require the addition of new genetic information or functional systems (there are no known “additive” mechanisms).

This is incorrect.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutation#By..._structure

It is interesting that in spite of the clear evidence for the adaptation of E. coli, Lenski refers to his findings as evidence for bacteria developing a “key innovation” and a “new function” and a “fascinating case of evolution in action.”

Again, the author does not understand evolution. Adaption is evolution.

Obviously, presuppositions (human reason vs. God’s Word) play a major role in interpreting the evidence. Richard Lenski and I are looking at the same evidence but drawing different conclusions based on our source of truth—man’s ideas or God’s ideas. It is only possible to obtain truth about the past if we start with the only source of absolute truth in the present—the inerrant Word of God.

It seems to me that the author is presupposing god's existence. Do any of you have any evidence for that aside from a 2000 year old book of folk tales? I would say that this is very relevant, as the theory of Creation by definition requires a creator, just evolution requires mutation and natural selection. Mutation and natural selection are both very well documented. Can the same be said about a creator?

---

To all the creationists here, I suggest you take a look at this video:
[youtube]mcAq9bmCeR0[/youtube]
It does an excellent job of explaining evolution through a metaphor, and also of correcting some common misconceptions about evolution.