Dawkins, bacteria, etc.

Hey Brandon,

Stephen’s family was here for about a month—loved every minute of it, even though the grandkids kept us very busy.  They left on Monday, so now I have more time for writing—at least, until the stuff in the garden is ready to can/freeze.

Dawkins gives an example of a laboratory study where a bacterium evolved so that it could eat citric acid!

How does he know that this was true Darwinian evolution rather than simple adaptation to environmental conditions?  The evidence (the bacterial colony’s development of the ability to digest citric acid)  has been interpreted from an evolutionary perspective. Since the bacteria remained bacteria and never developed into any other sort of organism, even after thousands of generations, this example doesn’t do that much to promote Darwinian evolution.

From what I read, Lenski et al, evaluated the changes in over 30,000 generations of E. coli, concluding that millions of mutations and trillions of cells were needed to produce the estimated two to three mutations required to allow cells to bring citrate into the cell under oxic conditions. (Blount, Z., C. Borland, and R. Lenski. 2008. Historical Contingency and the Evolution of a Key Innovation in an Experimental Population of Escherichia coli. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science. 105: 7899-7906. )
If it takes that much to achieve just one helpful change, what would it take to  make multiple changes?  Just how many generations would be required for a simple bacterium to make the number of changes needed in order for it to progress to a completely different (no longer a bacterium), more complex organism?  

In 1978, microbiologist Werner Arber received a Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine for the discovery of restriction enzymes and their application to molecular genetics. In his studies, he observed that “changes in bacteria resulted almost solely from transposition and other types of chromosomal rearrangement, not mutations as required by macroevolution.”  He also said that genetically-encoded enzymes largely influence these rearrangements.  ( Papadopoulos, D. et al. 1999. Genomic Evolution During a 10,000-Generation Experiment with Bacteria. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science USA. 96: 3807-3812.  Arber, W. 2000. Genetic Variation: Molecular Mechanisms and Impact on Microbial Evolution. FEMS Microbiology Reviews. 24: 1-7.  Wasn’t able to read the full papers.)  Although much of his research dealt with evolutionary ideas, Arber concluded that the genetic mechanisms that produce variation are designed and are not products of Darwinian evolution. Furthermore, he said that “this variation--often called microevolution--has clear limits and is unable to produce macroevolution.”  Dawkins, in his books, apparently ignores these findings and instead insists that multiple mutations are what drives Darwinian evolution.

I personally love when Dawkins takes on the scientific consequences of events in the Bible. The section on what the dispersal patterns of the animals coming off the Ark would be? Awesome. Totally unlike what we see in the world. Did you read that?

Of course, I read it.  He makes a silly assumption about how the animals should have dispersed as they left Noah’s ark, then proceeds to tear apart his assumption—a straw man argument if there was one.  Just why should there “be some sort of law of decreasing species diversity as we move away from an epicentre [ark landing site]?”  Again, Dawkins is looking at evidence (the location of various kinds of animals) and interpreting it from an evolutionary perspective.  

So, in the course of our discussion, my list of unanswered questions has grown.  Here are some of the major ones:   What would it take to believe a fossil was in the wrong place?  How does Darwinian evolution overcome entropy (2nd law of thermodynamics)?   What would Dawkins say about Arber’s research?   How would evolutionists explain the existence of R and L isomers in the proteins of living organisms but not anywhere else?  What about Dawkins’ faulty assumption that volcanic rock has no Ar when first formed?  How would you explain, from a scientific perspective, how my evidences for a young earth are invalid?  How do evolutionists account for the low salt concentration in the oceans (would be much higher if earth were billions of years old)?  What, other than the fact that he believes in creation, makes Sanford a ‘not respected’ scientist?  How do evolutionists explain fossilization of organisms being slowly covered with mud, while at the same time not rotting or being eaten?  How do evolutionists explain fossils crossing strata?  How do evolutionists know that the various strata developed over long periods of time rather than within a few  months or years?

Enough for now....

Hope you’re having a wonderful summer.  

Susan