Science Disproves Evolution

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Jun 27, 2013
133
0
0
Now IronTricycle,

Parts of evolution are factual, like microevolution or in other words, variation within a species. Other parts are purely mythical, like everything happened from nothing. It is called the theory of evolution. Stop assuming you have already won parts of an argument and show me some ole fashioned honesty, K?
The expert scientists disagree. If you think microevolution is factual then you must
also accept macroevolution. There's no difference between micro and macro evolution.
They are both the same process. Macro is just micro over a longer period of time.
To say that micro is possible but macro is not is the same as saying that you can
walk to the end of your street but you can't walk from LA to New York. Sure you can,
it just takes you a long time.

And as Grey pointed out the study of the origin of life is abiogenesis. Got that?
 
D

ddallen

Guest
Now IronTricycle,

Parts of evolution are factual, like microevolution or in other words, variation within a species. Other parts are purely mythical, like everything happened from nothing. It is called the theory of evolution. Stop assuming you have already won parts of an argument and show me some ole fashioned honesty, K?
Lets put one thing to bed - this whole thing about saying that evolution is only a theory.
A scientific theory is a well substantiated explanation of a phenomenon based on a body of knowledge that has been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experimentation. They represent the most reliable facts and observations. As such gravity is a theory, germs are a theory, how gasses behave is a theory, electromagnetism is a theory.
 
D

ddallen

Guest

Fossil Gaps 6


“...there are about 25 major living subdivisions (phyla) of the animal kingdom alone, all with gaps between them that are not bridged by known intermediates.” Francisco J. Ayala and James W. Valentine, Evolving, The Theory and Processes of Organic Evolution (Menlo Park, California: The Benjamin Cummings Publishing Co., 1979), p. 258.

“Most orders, classes, and phyla appear abruptly, and commonly have already acquired all the characters that distinguish them.” Ibid., p. 266.
Quote mining - Ayala was an evolutionist and was a critic of creationism and ID, calling them a pseudoscience. These quotes are out of context and both men go on to explain the reasons in this and other papers

“All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious little in the way of intermediate forms; transitions between major groups are characteristically abrupt.” Gould, “The Return of Hopeful Monsters,” p. 23.

“The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils....We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life’s history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we never see the very process we profess to study.” Stephen Jay Gould, “Evolution’s Erratic Pace,” Natural History, Vol. 86, May 1977, p. 14.

“New species almost always appeared suddenly in the fossil record with no intermediate links to ancestors in older rocks of the same region.” Ibid., p. 12.This is Gould paraphrasing a letter from Thomas Huxley to Darwin in 1859

“The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution.” Stephen Jay Gould, “Is a New and General Theory of Evolution Emerging?” Paleobiology, Vol. 6, No. 1, 1980, p. 127. Gould paraphrasing a letter from George Mivart 1871.
Quote mining - Again Gould was a paleontologist and evolutionary biologist who developed the theory of punctuated equilibrium.


[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown]
See above in red
 

Pahu

Senior Member
Jul 5, 2011
684
6
0

Fossil Gaps 7


In a published interview, Dr. Niles Eldredge, an invertebrate paleontologist at the American Museum of Natural History, stated:

“But the smooth transition from one form of life to another which is implied in the theory is...not borne out by the facts. The search for “missing links” between various living creatures, like humans and apes, is probably fruitless...because they probably never existed as distinct transitional types...But no one has yet found any evidence of such transitional creatures. This oddity has been attributed to gaps in the fossil record which gradualists expected to fill when rock strata of the proper age had been found. In the last decade, however, geologists have found rock layers of all divisions of the last 500 million years and no transitional forms were contained in them. If it is not the fossil record which is incomplete then it must be the theory.” “Missing, Believed Nonexistent,” Manchester Guardian (The Washington Post Weekly), Vol. 119, No. 22, 26 November 1978, p. 1.

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown]
 
G

Grey

Guest
Are you able to bring anything new to the table?
 
D

ddallen

Guest

Fossil Gaps 7


In a published interview, Dr. Niles Eldredge, an invertebrate paleontologist at the American Museum of Natural History, stated:

“But the smooth transition from one form of life to another which is implied in the theory is...not borne out by the facts. The search for “missing links” between various living creatures, like humans and apes, is probably fruitless...because they probably never existed as distinct transitional types...But no one has yet found any evidence of such transitional creatures. This oddity has been attributed to gaps in the fossil record which gradualists expected to fill when rock strata of the proper age had been found. In the last decade, however, geologists have found rock layers of all divisions of the last 500 million years and no transitional forms were contained in them. If it is not the fossil record which is incomplete then it must be the theory.” “Missing, Believed Nonexistent,” Manchester Guardian (The Washington Post Weekly), Vol. 119, No. 22, 26 November 1978, p. 1.

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown]
A) this is from a newspaper article NOT a peer reviewed article. It cannot be checked easily and the context is completely missing. What was said before or after this quote.
B) Dr. Eldredge is an biologist and paleontologist who proposed the theory of punctuated equilibrium in evolution.
 

Pahu

Senior Member
Jul 5, 2011
684
6
0

Fossil Gaps 8


Gould and Eldredge claimed transitional fossils are missing because relatively rapid evolutionary jumps (which they called punctuated equilibria) occurred over these gaps. They did not explain how this could happen.

Many geneticists are shocked by the proposal of Gould and Eldredge. Why would they propose something so contradictory to genetics? Gould and Eldredge were forced to say that evolution must proceed in jumps. Never explained, in genetic and mathematical terms, is how such large jumps could occur. To some, this desperation is justified.

“...the gradual morphological transitions between presumed ancestors and descendants, anticipated by most biologists, are missing.” David E. Schindel (Curator of Invertebrate Fossils, Peabody Museum of Natural History), “The Gaps in the Fossil Record,” Nature, Vol. 297, 27 May 1982, p. 282.

“Despite the bright promise that paleontology provides a means of ‘seeing’ evolution, it has presented some nasty difficulties for evolutionists the most notorious of which is the presence of ‘gaps’ in the fossil record. Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology does not provide them.” David B. Kitts (School of Geology and Geophysics, University of Oklahoma), “Paleontology and Evolutionary Theory,” Evolution, Vol. 28, September 1974, p. 467.

“In spite of the immense amount of the paleontological material and the existence of long series of intact stratigraphic sequences with perfect records for the lower categories, transitions between the higher categories are missing.” Goldschmidt, p. 98.

“When a new phylum, class, or order appears, there follows a quick, explosive (in terms of geological time) diversification so that practically all orders or families known appear suddenly and without any apparent transitions.” Ibid., p. 97.

“There is no fossil record establishing historical continuity of structure for most characters that might be used to assess relationships among phyla.” Katherine G. Field et al., “Molecular Phylogeny of the Animal Kingdom,” Science, Vol. 239, 12 February 1988, p. 748.

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown]
 

Pahu

Senior Member
Jul 5, 2011
684
6
0

Fossil Gaps 9


At the most fundamental level, a big gap exists between forms of life whose cells have nuclei (eukaryotes, such as plants, animals, and fungi) and those that don’t (prokaryotes such as bacteria and blue-green algae) (b).

b. “The prokaryotes came first; eukaryotes (all plants, animals, fungi and protists) evolved from them, and to this day biologists hotly debate how this transition took place, with about 20 different theories on the go.... [What was thought to be an intermediate between prokaryotes and eukaryotes] is no longer tenable.” Katrin Henze and William Martin, “Essence of Mitochondria,” Nature, Vol. 426, 13 November 2003, p. 127.

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown]
 
Sep 8, 2012
4,367
59
0
Abiogenesis isn't evolution, and most mutations truthfully are neutral. Thats why change occurs over a long period of time.
No they aren't.
All are on the negative side.
None are 'beneficial'.
Not one.
For one, no evidence has been shown for a mutation that benefits the system it appears in.
Unless you are speaking of viruses or cancers.
But even then those 'mutations' are ingrained within the DNA of the virus.
In other words, those mutations are not as such - 'mutations', but actually the cell finding a path to stay alive by using a code it already has within it. - So in the empirical sense those are not mutations at all, but natural selection.
- No new code.
- - The idiocy of depending on vast amounts of time to evolve an eye.
- - - Total tomfoolery; and an embarrassment to science.
 
G

Grey

Guest
No they aren't.
All are on the negative side.
None are 'beneficial'.
Not one.
For one, no evidence has been shown for a mutation that benefits the system it appears in.
Unless you are speaking of viruses or cancers.
But even then those 'mutations' are ingrained within the DNA of the virus.
In other words, those mutations are not as such - 'mutations', but actually the cell finding a path to stay alive by using a code it already has within it. - So in the empirical sense those are not mutations at all, but natural selection.
- No new code.
- - The idiocy of depending on vast amounts of time to evolve an eye.
- - - Total tomfoolery; and an embarrassment to science.
ccr5-Δ32 yup.. not one at all.
 
D

danschance

Guest
No they aren't.
All are on the negative side.
None are 'beneficial'.
Not one.
For one, no evidence has been shown for a mutation that benefits the system it appears in.
Unless you are speaking of viruses or cancers.
But even then those 'mutations' are ingrained within the DNA of the virus.
In other words, those mutations are not as such - 'mutations', but actually the cell finding a path to stay alive by using a code it already has within it. - So in the empirical sense those are not mutations at all, but natural selection.
- No new code.
- - The idiocy of depending on vast amounts of time to evolve an eye.
- - - Total tomfoolery; and an embarrassment to science.
Yes, I agree. It is an adolescent pipe dream that species can change to another species. How can gills suddenly turn into lungs? How can scales magically become feathers? It is pure fantasy and fossil evidence does not show species turning from one thing to another thing.

Evolutionists are very gullible. Just make it sound rational and against God and the swallow it.
 
Sep 8, 2012
4,367
59
0
Yea Dan,
They are indoctrinated in school.
I believed it when I was young, ....(it was all I was told).
It took some research to find the truth.
- Namely that there is no such thing as a 'simple single cell', and there is no such thing as spontaneous generation.
Also, Earnst Haeckel committed forgery. After those few discoveries I researched further. The whole proposition is so much less than a theory it doesn't even qualify as a hypothesis.
True science has disproved the dream of evolution so completely by now that it is an embarrassment that anyone still believes in it.
- I say 'believes' to connotate the leap of faith it takes.
- - But a lie repeated often enough is held as truth, no matter how preposterous it is.
 
Last edited:
D

danschance

Guest
Yea Dan,
They are indoctrinated in school.
I believed it when I was young, ....(it was all I was told).
It took some research to find the truth.
- Namely that there is no such thing as a 'simple single cell', and there is no such thing as spontaneous generation.
Also, Earnst Haeckel committed forgery. After those few discoveries I researched further. The whole proposition is so much less than a theory it doesn't even qualify as a hypothesis.
True science has disproved the dream of evolution so completely by now that it is an embarrassment that anyone still believes in it.
- I say 'believes' to connotate the leap of faith it takes.
- - But a lie repeated often enough is held as truth, no matter how preposterous it is.

I agree. If evolution is true, we should find birds with scales as a transitional species. The point to archaeopteryx which is identical to a bird! It has feathers and a breast bone, so how is that a reptile-bird species?? Clearly it is not. Yes, any "scientists" have produced fraudulent results. If someone wants to believe in the bankrupt theory of evolution or the tooth fairy, so be it. Just do not include me in those delusions.
 
D

DannyC

Guest
No they aren't.
All are on the negative side.
None are 'beneficial'.
Not one.
For one, no evidence has been shown for a mutation that benefits the system it appears in.
Unless you are speaking of viruses or cancers.
But even then those 'mutations' are ingrained within the DNA of the virus.
In other words, those mutations are not as such - 'mutations', but actually the cell finding a path to stay alive by using a code it already has within it. - So in the empirical sense those are not mutations at all, but natural selection.
- No new code.
- - The idiocy of depending on vast amounts of time to evolve an eye.
- - - Total tomfoolery; and an embarrassment to science.
Well your statement is compeltely false as it shows you have not even bothered to look at some of the modern evidence for evolution.


The beneficial mutations as seen in the Dr. Richard Lenski experiments.

Dr. Richard Lenski, is a Distinguished Professor from Michigan University, who has conducted a 25 year experiment on E. Coli. The LTEE experiments as I believe they are called. For me these experiments are a beautiful example of the power of natural selection and evolution in action. While men and women like Lenski spend their lives producing evidence for evolution as I shall show, creationists ignore their work and tend to attempt to refute their evidence in broad sweeping claims, which do not stand up to empirical criticism especially when most of these refutations are ad hoc remarks. The experiment of Dr. Lenski is an example of mutations which proved beneficial to the E. Coli. 2013 is the anniversary of the experiments marking 25 years of research. His work completely refutes your claims.


With the life span and amount of bacteria, as Lenski states ' There is a lot of opportunity for evolution'. Dr. Lenski conducted an experiment in which he got 12 flasks of E. Coli all identical and infected each one with a glucose-rich broth. As expected the E. Coli would feed off the broth and then skyrocket in populations and then level off. Each day Lenski and his highly trained team would take a small sample from each flask and then infect a brand new flask with a small portion of the previous E. Coli. Basically moving the 12 tribes from 12 old flasks to 12 new flasks, with care not to infect any of them by an outside source. He would then repeat the process and give them the glucose rich-broth. As you can see the generations of E. Coli would live and die, a lot faster than humans or other animals, making them perfect for observing whether beneficial mutations are kept and preserved over time. As natural selection would predict.
As predicted over 20 years of experimenting, 7,000 flasks and 45,000 generations had passed. For human equivalent it would roughly be a million years to the time of homo erectus. Obviously Dr. Lenski could check if any of the flasks had contaminated any other flask, by use of ARA- and ARA+, but that is not important right now. Now as Darwinian evolution would predict, if a single mutation arose which would exploit the broth and perhaps take more nutrients in, then natural selection would obviously select the individual mutation and spread it throughout the population. Word for word natural selection in process if observed. What did the scientists observe? Exactly that, in fact each tribe had harnessed a mutation and were able to better live off the broth but in separate ways. By Freezing 'fossil' forms of the earlier generations Lenski was literally able to preserve remnants of the older E. Coli. By unfreezing and mixing the E. Coli from past and present they could calculate and observe the effectiveness of the two lineages. As predicted the modern E. Coli had been able to take in far more broth than the older one.


In looking at their 12 tribes they noticed something amazing, all tribes had been able to produce and preserve mutations which helped them in taking in the broth. Not to mention each tribe in a hyperbola expression on a mathematical graph increased in size and productivity. Now as any scientist could tell you, there are many different mutations to make the body of the E. Coli bigger. More impressively the odds of two separate flasks following the exact path of each other to increase in size is far more improbable. In ARA+1 and ARA-1 each in 20,000 generations had followed the exact same evolutionary path and 59 genes had changed their expression. Now if this was by change then it would be so improbable, but as natural selection is not chance but specific picking of mutations then this is just an improbable event not an event so improbable it could never happen. On the creationist view this cannot happen. This is gradual culmination natural selection.

The most impressive event of all though, I have left for last. In ARA-3 in the 33,000 generation the population went absolutely berserk, and skyrocketed. The OD which is optical density went from a standard 0.04 to about 0.25. The ARA-3 was in broth of glucose, but not just glucose. also citrate. As found in lemons. This substance cannot be used by the E. Coli if there is oxygen in the water, which there was in each flask unless a mutation came along which could take in citrate and use it as food. That is exactly what happened. As I am only touching the surface of this experiment I can give you a little more information. As Lenski states the idea one mutation arose is improbable because why has it not occurred in all the other flasks and generations. So another hypothesis was also presented, what if 2 or 3 mutations culminated and then upon reaching the second or third the ability was made available for the E. Coli. This is irreducible complexity refuted if found true. If E. Coli managed to preserve 1 or 2 mutations which served no purpose as known, until the third or second came along then it would be an amazing example of the precision of natural selection. Blount one of Lenski's students underwent the experiment by unfreezing the 'fossil' generations and tested them to see if they were primed for evolving the ability to take in citrate. At generation 20,000 ARA-3 evolved the mutation known in the experiment as ' mutation A ' . This mutation primed the E. Coli for increasing its likelihood of acquiring the ability to take in citrate. As observed all the tribes had this mutation A but only ARA-3 had been able to acquire mutation B and with that it was able to take in citrate.

The experiments show evolution by natural selection; adaptation to the same environment by separate routes independently: the way successive mutations build on their predecessors to produce evolutionary changes; the way some genes rely, for their effects, on the presence of other of other genes. If you would like my links I can provide them, or you can just google his paper and read it yourself, instead of making wide claims and having no evidence to back them up.
 
Sep 8, 2012
4,367
59
0
Oh viruses????
What did I say about them?
You wouldn't know because you don't bother to read.
You don't even know that evolution and natural selection are two separate categories.
There is no such thing as evolution through natural selection.
Natural selection does not change species.

Next?
 
D

DannyC

Guest
Oh viruses????
What did I say about them?
You wouldn't know because you don't bother to read.
You don't even know that evolution and natural selection are two separate categories.
There is no such thing as evolution through natural selection.
Natural selection does not change species.

Next?
You asserted the mutations are 'ingrained' into the viruses. E. Coli is a bacteria firstly and secondly show me some data proving that E. Coli contains an ingrained bacteria so that it can take in citrate. Provide the study stating that



1. E. Coli contains this sort of genetic 'ingraining' for citrate coding.

2. The experiment above is false.

3. The qualified and trained biologists willing to provide scientific data as to why the graphs and results on this 20 year experiment are false let alone the entire experiment is false.

4. E. Coli is a virus, E. coli 0157:H7 is a gram-negative bacterium, one which can cause illness. It is not a virus.


Your statement no benificial mutations exist is refuted by this experiment. This is clearly a closed discussion and I am satisfied I have provided information you are unable to refute. I know quite alot about natural selection and evolution, that is why I provided evidence for natural selection the driving mechanism in the theory of evolution. Since you have provided no evidence for your argument and I have provided a 25 year detailed study against your argument, you seem to be unable to discuss this.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Pahu

Senior Member
Jul 5, 2011
684
6
0
You asserted the mutations are 'ingrained' into the viruses. E. Coli is a bacteria firstly and secondly show me some data proving that E. Coli contains an ingrained bacteria so that it can take in citrate. Provide the study stating that



1. E. Coli contains this sort of genetic 'ingraining' for citrate coding.

2. The experiment above is false.

3. The qualified and trained biologists willing to provide scientific data as to why the graphs and results on this 20 year experiment are false let alone the entire experiment is false.

4. E. Coli is a virus, E. coli 0157:H7 is a gram-negative bacterium, one which can cause illness. It is not a virus.


Your statement no benificial mutations exist is refuted by this experiment. This is clearly a closed discussion and I am satisfied I have provided information you are unable to refute. I know quite alot about natural selection and evolution, that is why I provided evidence for natural selection the driving mechanism in the theory of evolution. Since you have provided no evidence for your argument and I have provided a 25 year detailed study against your argument, you seem to be unable to discuss this.
A New Scientist article proclaims:

‘Lenski’s experiment is also yet another poke in the eye for anti-evolutionists, notes Jerry Coyne, an evolutionary biologist at the University of Chicago. “The thing I like most is it says you can get these complex traits evolving by a combination of unlikely events," he says. “That’s just what creationists say can’t happen."’1

The many comments posted on the New Scientist website shows just how excited the atheists are about this report. They are positively gloating.

The context

In 1988, Richard Lenski, Michigan State University, East Lansing, founded 12 cultures of E. coli and grew them in a laboratory, generation after generation, for twenty years (he deserves some marks for persistence!). The culture medium had a little glucose but lots more citrate, so once the microbes consumed the glucose, they would continue to grow only if they could evolve some way of using citrate. Lenski expected to see evolution in action. This was an appropriate expectation for one who believes in evolution, because bacteria reproduce quickly and can have huge populations, as in this case. They can also sustain higher mutation rates than organisms with much larger genomes, like vertebrates such as us.2 All of this adds up, according to neo-Darwinism, to the almost certainty of seeing lots of evolution happen in real time (instead of imagining it all happening in the unobservable past). With the short generation times, in 20 years this has amounted to some 44,000 generations, equivalent to some million years of generations of a human population (but the evolutionary opportunities for humans would be far, far less, due to the small population numbers limiting the number of mutational possibilities; and the much larger genome, which cannot sustain a similar mutation rate without error catastrophe; i.e. extinction; and sexual reproduction means that there is 50% chance of failing to pass on a beneficial mutation ).

As noted elsewhere (see ‘Giving up on reality’), Lenski seemed to have given up on ‘evolution in the lab’ and resorted to computer modelling of ‘evolution’ with a program called Avida (see evaluation by Dr Royal Truman, Part 1 and Part 2, which are technical papers). Indeed, Lenski had good reason to abandon hope. He had calculated[SUP]1[/SUP] that all possible simple mutations must have occurred several times over but without any addition of even a simple adaptive trait.

Lenski and co-workers now claim that they have finally observed his hoped for evolution in the lab.

The science: what did they find?

In a paper published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, Lenski and co-workers describe how one of 12 culture lines of their bacteria has developed the capacity for metabolizing citrate as an energy source under aerobic conditions.3

This happened by the 31,500[SUP]th[/SUP] generation. Using frozen samples of bacteria from previous generations they showed that something happened at about the 20,000[SUP]th[/SUP] generation that paved the way for only this culture line to be able to change to citrate metabolism. They surmised, quite reasonably, that this could have been a mutation that paved the way for a further mutation that enabled citrate utilization.

This is close to what Michael Behe calls ‘The Edge of Evolution’—the limit of what ‘evolution’ (non-intelligent natural processes) can do. For example, an adaptive change needing one mutation might occur every so often just by chance. This is why the malaria parasite can adapt to most antimalarial drugs; but chloroquine resistance took much longer to develop because two specific mutations needed to occur together in the one gene. Even this tiny change is beyond the reach of organisms like humans with much longer generation times.4 With bacteria, there might be a chance for even three coordinated mutations, but it’s doubtful that Lenski’s E. coli have achieved any more than two mutations, so have not even reached Behe’s edge, let alone progressed on the path to elephants or crocodiles.

Now the popularist treatments of this research (e.g. in New Scientist) give the impression that the E. coli developed the ability to metabolize citrate, whereas it supposedly could not do so before. However, this is clearly not the case, because the citric acid, tricarboxcylic acid (TCA), or Krebs, cycle (all names for the same thing) generates and utilizes citrate in its normal oxidative metabolism of glucose and other carbohydrates.5

Furthermore, E. coli is normally capable of utilizing citrate as an energy source under anaerobic conditions, with a whole suite of genes involved in its fermentation. This includes a citrate transporter gene that codes for a transporter protein embedded in the cell wall that takes citrate into the cell.6 This suite of genes (operon) is normally only activated under anaerobic conditions.

So what happened? It is not yet clear from the published information, but a likely scenario is that mutations jammed the regulation of this operon so that the bacteria produce citrate transporter regardless of the oxidative state of the bacterium’s environment (that is, it is permanently switched on). This can be likened to having a light that switches on when the sun goes down—a sensor detects the lack of light and turns the light on. A fault in the sensor could result in the light being on all the time. That is the sort of change we are talking about.

Another possibility is that an existing transporter gene, such as the one that normally takes up tartrate,[SUP]3[/SUP] which does not normally transport citrate, mutated such that it lost specificity and could then transport citrate into the cell. Such a loss of specificity is also an expected outcome of random mutations. A loss of specificity equals a loss of information, but evolution is supposed to account for the creation of new information; information that specifies the enzymes and cofactors in new biochemical pathways, how to make feathers and bone, nerves, or the components and assembly of complex motors such as ATP synthase, for example.

However, mutations are good at destroying things, not creating them. Sometimes destroying things can be helpful (adaptive),7 but that does not account for the creation of the staggering amount of information in the DNA of all living things. Behe (in The Edge of Evolution) likened the role of mutations in antibiotic resistance and pathogen resistance, for example, to trench warfare, whereby mutations destroy some of the functionality of the target or host to overcome susceptibility. It’s like putting chewing gum in a mechanical watch; it’s not the way the watch could have been created.

Much ado about nothing (again)

Behe is quite right; there is nothing here that is beyond ‘the edge of evolution’, which means it has no relevance to the origin of enzymes and catalytic pathways that evolution is supposed to explain.8

Bacteria 'evolving in the lab'? (Lenski, citrate-digesting E. coli)