DaveScot, an IDiologist who writes for the uncommondescent blog has claimed to have found a mistake in Richard Lenski’s paper. (which I first talked about here)
He points to a statement made by Lenski: (DaveScot’s emphasis)
However, selection requires heritable variation
generated by random mutation, and even beneficial mutations
may be lost by random drift.
And then points to a study done by the Scripps institute that would seem to contradict this statement:
The bold portion is patently wrong. Selection operates on any heritable variation whether random or not… The Scripps researchers, in a nutshell, discovered that E. coli, when stressed (such as running out of food as in Lenski’s experiment or in the presence of antibiotics in the Scripps experiment) selectively increases the mutation rate on certain genes.
What DaveScot has wrong (and I believe he was refering to this experiment) is that the study says that mutations are purposefully induced on specific genes. However, the doesn’t say that only beneficial mutations are induced or that mutations were localized only to specific genes. This is a case of an organism increasing the rate of random mutations, which is a good survival strategy for a population to increase its genetic diversity. However, it does not appear to be the case, that the bacteria is select for their own survival.
So DaveScot is wrong in saying:
Thus the mutations in this case are not random but rather directed at a certain area in an attempt to solve a certain problem.
There is no basis to this teleological statement. Bacteria aren’t attempting to solve a problem, not in the same humans do when we create a new medicine or drug. They are simply increasing their genetic diversity (and probably not on purpose either, more likely in response to selection pressures), so that when antibiotics are around, the probability of a random mutation conferring antibiotic resistance is increased.
Richard Lenski, whose groundbreaking work witnessed the evolution of citrate-using E. coli in a mere 44,000 generations over 20 years of work.
He responds directly to conservapedia’s ignorant creationism populace published by conservapedia (amazingly enough) here:
Lenski’s second letter is particularly good, filled with lots of good biochemistry, scientific philosophy and general good sense. A highly recommended read.
The National Center for Science Education just put this new video up on Youtube; “Teaching Creationism in Schools.” This is a great organization the entire scientific community should support. This particular video seeks to call Ben Stein out on his ludicrous ideas.
Pay special attention to where the creationist lies about how fossils are dated, while standing in front of a placard describing about how it actually works.
I feel sorry for these kids that are getting brainwashed. I can only hope that they, like the museum curator, will one day be able to draw their own conclusions based on empirical evidence.
This is going back a few years now, but I just found it now. Objective: Missionaries has (or had, I can find a more recent link) a science fair devoted to children’s science projects that attempt prove creation science.
There are so many contradictions in that last statement, I don’t know where to start, but I prefer to let the “science fair” speak for itself:
“Scientists are supposed to be allowed to follow the evidence wherever it may lead…This attack on scientific freedom was so egregious that it prompted a congressional investigation.” – Ben Stein
Ben Stein is essentially correct in the first part of this quote. Science follows the evidence where it leads. Much to Ben Stein’s chagrin, it doesn’t lead to creationism.
I may be preaching to the choir here, but science has had hundreds of years to model neo-darwinist evolution, and none of the evidence requires a creator in the model. Still, that has not stopped creationists from infiltrating our schools and museums in the attempt to show an “alternative viewpoint.”
The attack actually comes from the creationists, in their attempt to inject religious doctrine into a scientific discipline without any evidence. Since creationists don’t provide a falsifiable model of creationism, it cannot be accepted as science.
For the purposes of this article, I consider Creationism, also falsely know as “Creation Science,” as the same thing as “Intelligent Design.” While in reality, there are subtle differences, the Intelligent Design movement is merely a renewed attempted at hijacking science for the sake of religion, by the religious right in this (and other) countries. As the principles behind these two beliefs are the same, I can treat them as the same, for the purposes of this article, because I am only interested in dealing with their principles.
global RSS feed.