Lenski did not provide evidence for macro change. No Fruit Fly Evolution Even after 600 Generations
https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t1804-lenski-did-not-provide-evidence-for-macro-change-no-fruit-fly-evolution-even-after-600-generations
Fruit flies breed new generations every few days. Running a continuous decades-long experiment on fruit flies will involve more generations of fruit flies than there have ever been of anything resembling humans on Earth. Evolution is supposed to be driven by random mutation and natural selection; they subjected those flies to everything in the world known to cause mutations and recombined the mutants every possible way, and all they ever got was fruit flies.
Richard Goldschmidt wrote the results of all of that up in 1940, noting that it was then obvious enough that no combination of mutation and selection could ever produce a new kind of animal.
There is no excuse for evolution to ever have been taught in schools after 1940.
http://www.icr.org/article/no-fruit-fly-evolution-even-after-600/
Proof from artificial selection
1. Performing experiments, from 1975 for 35 years, scientists looked for evidence of a “selective sweep” – the signature of a beneficial mutation becoming fixed in the population – and could not find it. They did the selection artificially, forcing the fly embryos to evolve toward faster embryonic development.
2. We conclude that, at least for life history characters such as development time, unconditionally advantageous alleles rarely arise, are associated with small net fitness gains or cannot fix because selection coefficients change over time.
3. Despite lots of mutations, they found the flies resistant to change. Not only that, the experiments showed that “forward experimental evolution can often be completely reversed with these populations, which suggests that any soft sweeps in our experiment are incomplete and/or of small effect.”
4. “Despite decades of sustained selection in relatively small, sexually reproducing laboratory populations, selection did not lead to the fixation of newly arising unconditionally advantageous alleles. This is notable because in wild populations we expect the strength of natural selection to be less intense and the environment unlikely to remain constant for ~600 generations. Consequently, the probability of fixation in wild populations should be even lower than its likelihood in these experiments. This suggests that selection does not readily expunge genetic variation in sexual populations…”
5. Natural or artificial selection cannot create new species.
6. There had to be an intelligent force that could arrange all the varieties of species to exist.
7. Intelligence and power to create belongs only to God.
8. Hence God exists.
The evidence of the hopeful monster
1. Richard Goldschmidt of the University of California had spent most of his adult life trying to prove that fruit flies could change into new species, but without success.
“After observing mutations in fruit flies for many years, Goldschmidt fell into despair. The changes, he lamented, were so hopelessly micro [small] that if a thousand mutations were combined in one specimen, there would still be no new species.”—Norman Macbeth, Darwin Retried (1971), p. 33.
Richard Goldschmidt was a veteran genetics researcher, and after many of his experiments on the fruit flies he gave up the idea that one-by-one mutations could accomplish the task of evolution.
After all Goldschmidt proposed his new “theory of saltation,” in which no transitional forms would be necessary. (“Saltation” means “sudden leap” in German.)
This theory is also popularly known as the “hopeful monster theory.” It taught that one day a reptile laid an egg and a “brown furry thing” hatched out of it. Chance would have it that, when it grew up, this mammal found a mate that had also suddenly by chance hatched out of another rep-tile egg—and the result was a new species of animal.
2. But Darwin, always said, “Natura non facit saltum” (nature does not take leaps).
3. In 2010 Tanguy Chouard a senior editor of the scientific magazine Nature, discussed evidence that nature does take leaps – big changes that can occur within a single generation. “Experimental evidence has shown that individual genetic changes can have vast effects on an organism without dooming it to the evolutionary rubbish heap,” he said. (The evolutionary rubbish heap would be the slow Darwinian evolution). In a bit reconciling way with Darwin theory Chouard continued: “But small-effect mutations still matter – a lot. They provide essential fine-tuning and sometimes pave the way for explosive evolution to follow.”
4. For evidence, Chouard exhibited an evolutionary pet, the stickleback fish. Offspring can vary substantially between armored and naked forms. This is due to a single gene location responsible for 2/3 of the spines. Chouard explained, “the reigning gradualist dogma regarded these as artificially protected monstrosities that would never survive the harsh hand of natural selection.” Later he continued, “How could a mutation in such a crucial gene result in anything but a hopeless monster?” However, Chouard added, “It remains to be seen, whether such elementary mechanisms of adaptation, often referred to as microevolution, can instruct the higher processes that constitute macroevolution, such as speciation and the emergence of biodiversity or complex organs.”
5. Also Goldschmidt, the hopeful-monster champion, doubted leaps that large could be made. And Jerry Coyne cautioned generalizing results from asexual bacteria with small genomes and high mutation rates.
6. Chouard admitted, “Large effect or small, evolution begins to look like an endless list of special cases...One reason is the general lack of knowledge about how changes in genes contribute to function and how this affects fitness.”
7. This is really essential for understanding evolution. So it seems way premature to claim that evolutionary biology has settled on a comprehensive theory of speciation, even 150 years after Darwin.
8. Despite the great advancement of science, many experiments and so-called advanced knowledge, all the possible explanations of evolution are still speculative, imperfect, incomplete and not proven by experiments.
9. The truth is that no mammoth mutations can or would occur. None occurred at Hiroshima, Nagasaki, or Chernobyl. Yet, in regard to number of mutations suddenly occurring, they are the monster mutation capitals of the world.
They did not occur in the irradiated budding eyes of research roses or the thousands of laboratory fruit fly jars. If they had occurred, we would have seen new species form. The 20th century, with all its laboratory and nuclear radiation, has been the century—above all others—for new species to arise. But it has not happened.
10. The only plausible theory therefore is that all the species were designed by an intelligent designer. That designer all men call God.
11. God exists.
Similarly, Michigan State University evolutionary biologists Richard Lenski and his colleagues searched for signs of evolution in bacteria for 20 years, tracking 40,000 generations.3 In the end, the species that they started with was hobbled by accumulated mutations, and the only changes that had occurred were degenerative. University of Bristol emeritus professor of bacteriology Alan Linton summarized the situation:
But where is the experimental evidence? None exists in the literature claiming that one species has been shown to evolve into another. Bacteria, the simplest form of independent life, are ideal for this kind of study, with generation times of 20 to 30 minutes, and populations achieved after 18 hours. But throughout 150 years of the science of bacteriology, there is no evidence that one species of bacteria has changed into another, in spite of the fact that populations have been exposed to potent chemical and physical mutagens and that, uniquely, bacteria possess extrachromosomal, transmissible plasmids. Since there is no evidence for species changes between the simplest forms of unicellular life, it is not surprising that there is no evidence for evolution from prokaryotic to eukaryotic cells, let alone throughout the whole array of higher multicellular organisms.4
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/01/uncooperative_f055311.html
https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t1804-lenski-did-not-provide-evidence-for-macro-change-no-fruit-fly-evolution-even-after-600-generations
Fruit flies breed new generations every few days. Running a continuous decades-long experiment on fruit flies will involve more generations of fruit flies than there have ever been of anything resembling humans on Earth. Evolution is supposed to be driven by random mutation and natural selection; they subjected those flies to everything in the world known to cause mutations and recombined the mutants every possible way, and all they ever got was fruit flies.
Richard Goldschmidt wrote the results of all of that up in 1940, noting that it was then obvious enough that no combination of mutation and selection could ever produce a new kind of animal.
There is no excuse for evolution to ever have been taught in schools after 1940.
http://www.icr.org/article/no-fruit-fly-evolution-even-after-600/
Proof from artificial selection
1. Performing experiments, from 1975 for 35 years, scientists looked for evidence of a “selective sweep” – the signature of a beneficial mutation becoming fixed in the population – and could not find it. They did the selection artificially, forcing the fly embryos to evolve toward faster embryonic development.
2. We conclude that, at least for life history characters such as development time, unconditionally advantageous alleles rarely arise, are associated with small net fitness gains or cannot fix because selection coefficients change over time.
3. Despite lots of mutations, they found the flies resistant to change. Not only that, the experiments showed that “forward experimental evolution can often be completely reversed with these populations, which suggests that any soft sweeps in our experiment are incomplete and/or of small effect.”
4. “Despite decades of sustained selection in relatively small, sexually reproducing laboratory populations, selection did not lead to the fixation of newly arising unconditionally advantageous alleles. This is notable because in wild populations we expect the strength of natural selection to be less intense and the environment unlikely to remain constant for ~600 generations. Consequently, the probability of fixation in wild populations should be even lower than its likelihood in these experiments. This suggests that selection does not readily expunge genetic variation in sexual populations…”
5. Natural or artificial selection cannot create new species.
6. There had to be an intelligent force that could arrange all the varieties of species to exist.
7. Intelligence and power to create belongs only to God.
8. Hence God exists.
The evidence of the hopeful monster
1. Richard Goldschmidt of the University of California had spent most of his adult life trying to prove that fruit flies could change into new species, but without success.
“After observing mutations in fruit flies for many years, Goldschmidt fell into despair. The changes, he lamented, were so hopelessly micro [small] that if a thousand mutations were combined in one specimen, there would still be no new species.”—Norman Macbeth, Darwin Retried (1971), p. 33.
Richard Goldschmidt was a veteran genetics researcher, and after many of his experiments on the fruit flies he gave up the idea that one-by-one mutations could accomplish the task of evolution.
After all Goldschmidt proposed his new “theory of saltation,” in which no transitional forms would be necessary. (“Saltation” means “sudden leap” in German.)
This theory is also popularly known as the “hopeful monster theory.” It taught that one day a reptile laid an egg and a “brown furry thing” hatched out of it. Chance would have it that, when it grew up, this mammal found a mate that had also suddenly by chance hatched out of another rep-tile egg—and the result was a new species of animal.
2. But Darwin, always said, “Natura non facit saltum” (nature does not take leaps).
3. In 2010 Tanguy Chouard a senior editor of the scientific magazine Nature, discussed evidence that nature does take leaps – big changes that can occur within a single generation. “Experimental evidence has shown that individual genetic changes can have vast effects on an organism without dooming it to the evolutionary rubbish heap,” he said. (The evolutionary rubbish heap would be the slow Darwinian evolution). In a bit reconciling way with Darwin theory Chouard continued: “But small-effect mutations still matter – a lot. They provide essential fine-tuning and sometimes pave the way for explosive evolution to follow.”
4. For evidence, Chouard exhibited an evolutionary pet, the stickleback fish. Offspring can vary substantially between armored and naked forms. This is due to a single gene location responsible for 2/3 of the spines. Chouard explained, “the reigning gradualist dogma regarded these as artificially protected monstrosities that would never survive the harsh hand of natural selection.” Later he continued, “How could a mutation in such a crucial gene result in anything but a hopeless monster?” However, Chouard added, “It remains to be seen, whether such elementary mechanisms of adaptation, often referred to as microevolution, can instruct the higher processes that constitute macroevolution, such as speciation and the emergence of biodiversity or complex organs.”
5. Also Goldschmidt, the hopeful-monster champion, doubted leaps that large could be made. And Jerry Coyne cautioned generalizing results from asexual bacteria with small genomes and high mutation rates.
6. Chouard admitted, “Large effect or small, evolution begins to look like an endless list of special cases...One reason is the general lack of knowledge about how changes in genes contribute to function and how this affects fitness.”
7. This is really essential for understanding evolution. So it seems way premature to claim that evolutionary biology has settled on a comprehensive theory of speciation, even 150 years after Darwin.
8. Despite the great advancement of science, many experiments and so-called advanced knowledge, all the possible explanations of evolution are still speculative, imperfect, incomplete and not proven by experiments.
9. The truth is that no mammoth mutations can or would occur. None occurred at Hiroshima, Nagasaki, or Chernobyl. Yet, in regard to number of mutations suddenly occurring, they are the monster mutation capitals of the world.
They did not occur in the irradiated budding eyes of research roses or the thousands of laboratory fruit fly jars. If they had occurred, we would have seen new species form. The 20th century, with all its laboratory and nuclear radiation, has been the century—above all others—for new species to arise. But it has not happened.
10. The only plausible theory therefore is that all the species were designed by an intelligent designer. That designer all men call God.
11. God exists.
Similarly, Michigan State University evolutionary biologists Richard Lenski and his colleagues searched for signs of evolution in bacteria for 20 years, tracking 40,000 generations.3 In the end, the species that they started with was hobbled by accumulated mutations, and the only changes that had occurred were degenerative. University of Bristol emeritus professor of bacteriology Alan Linton summarized the situation:
But where is the experimental evidence? None exists in the literature claiming that one species has been shown to evolve into another. Bacteria, the simplest form of independent life, are ideal for this kind of study, with generation times of 20 to 30 minutes, and populations achieved after 18 hours. But throughout 150 years of the science of bacteriology, there is no evidence that one species of bacteria has changed into another, in spite of the fact that populations have been exposed to potent chemical and physical mutagens and that, uniquely, bacteria possess extrachromosomal, transmissible plasmids. Since there is no evidence for species changes between the simplest forms of unicellular life, it is not surprising that there is no evidence for evolution from prokaryotic to eukaryotic cells, let alone throughout the whole array of higher multicellular organisms.4
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/01/uncooperative_f055311.html
