(from the second in a series of articles on evolution and ID in the NYTimes):
Dr. Behe, however, said he might find it compelling if scientists were to observe evolutionary leaps in the laboratory. He pointed to an experiment by Richard E. Lenski, a professor of microbial ecology at Michigan State University, who has been observing the evolution of E. coli bacteria for more than 15 years. “If anything cool came out of that,” Dr. Behe said, “that would be one way to convince me.”
Dr. Behe said that if he was correct, then the E. coli in Dr. Lenski’s lab would evolve in small ways but never change in such a way that the bacteria would develop entirely new abilities.
In fact, such an ability seems to have developed. Dr. Lenski said his experiment was not intended to explore this aspect of evolution, but nonetheless, “We have recently discovered a pretty dramatic exception, one where a new and surprising function has evolved,” he said.
Dr. Lenski declined to give any details until the research is published. But, he said, “If anyone is resting his or her faith in God on the outcome that our experiment will not produce some major biological innovation, then I humbly suggest they should rethink the distinction between science and religion.”
Why does believing in evolution make someone a God hater?
Who says that God didn’t allow evolution to shape things?
Does the Bible say, “God created everything just like you see is right now and did not allow things to evolve.”
Why do Christians (myself being one) spend so much time worrying about evolution. If science proves things evolve will it destroy your faith? I hope not.
I would much rather spend my time trying to love my neighbor and pull the log out of my eye then getting upset about evolution. I don’t care how God made it happen, because I know that God made it happen one way or another.
I thought the original post was rather interesting. In the probably hopeless task of getting the thread back on track, I ask the following:
Who is Dr. Behe, and why would he think the development of a new trait in bacteria reproduction would provide important evidence supporting evolution?
By evolution I mean the term in the common sense of man having an unbroken line of ancestry from some virus or whatever from a billion years or so ago, not some butterfly changing color over a period of generations.
Now had the lab bacteria evolved into a rose or something, it would be a different story.
Well actually I think the point is that if a strain of E-coli can develope new ‘function’ as the scientist put it, then it could develope another new function, and over a period of time be a completely different organism.
I’m curious, do the people who are skeptical of evolution believe that every creature was created as it is, and that we have no common lineage with other primates?
I don’t claim to speak for others at all. For myself I don’t believe that every creature was created as is. Over time, any population will develop diversity. We have short and tall people for example.
Personally, I don’t buy what I will call macro evolution mostly because of the sharp delineation of separate species that is so evident in every aspect of living things. A gradual change model such as you describe doesn’t lend itself to such development in any obvious fashion.
Does man have some common lineage with other primates? Maybe. My take would be that some outside intelligence periodically stirred the broth to effect the major changes that produced the various species.
The idea that a bacteria can develop a new “function,” whatever that means is not interesting to me unless that new function is something major. If it grew roots and bloomed, you would have my attention.
I thought the original post was rather interesting. In the probably hopeless task of getting the thread back on track, I ask the following:
Who is Dr. Behe, and why would he think the development of a new trait in bacteria reproduction would provide important evidence supporting evolution?
By evolution I mean the term in the common sense of man having an unbroken line of ancestry from some virus or whatever from a billion years or so ago, not some butterfly changing color over a period of generations.
Now had the lab bacteria evolved into a rose or something, it would be a different story.
You expect that in 15 years?
Behe is one of the main proponents of ID, and whose examples of supposed irreducible complexity have been shown to be incorrect. He doesn’t think that really complex biological systems can evolve, hence his view that observing a new inheritable trait would support evolution.
