"Am I therefore become your enemy, because I tell you the truth?" Galatians 4:16

"The new experiment provides a surprising glimpse at how easily viruses can evolve entirely new traits..."

-Carl Zimmer, "Study Finds Virus to Be Fast Learner on Infecting," New York Times, Jan 26, 2012, [http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/27/science/in-real-time-a-virus-learns-a-new-way-to-infect.htm?_r=1]

"In a laboratory in Michigan State University, Richard Lenski repeatedly replays evolution from saved files. Lenski’s aptly named 'long-term evolution experiment' is the longest-running in history, and one of the most important."
-Ed Yong, "Replaying evolution reveals the benefits of being slow and steady," Discover Magazine, Mar 17, 2011, [http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketscience/2011/03/17/replaying-evolution-reveals-the-benefits-of-being-slow-and-steady/]

In 1988, Richard Lenski started an experiment to breed 12 separate sets of E.coli [Escherichia Coli] bacteria in petri dishes. They've run about 50,000 generations so far, and the experiment is still going. The team working on this project have received numerous scientific awards for "demonstrating" evolution, but evolutionists are so desperate for evidence for evolution, they have once again ignored basic presuppositional assumptions and drawn false conclusions.
(For experiment website, see Richard Lenski, "Experimental Evolution," Michigan State University, [http://myxo.css.msu.edu/index.html])

The Bible says creatures bring forth after their kind, but it does not say creatures would not produce a variety of colors and sizes within the kinds. The is often referred to as MICRO-evolution, which is just variations within the genetic boundaries between kinds of animals. Notice the quotations above, when they talk about "evolving" or "evolution," they do not define what they mean. This is another example of a common bait and switch tactic where they say "evolution," by giving examples of MICRO, which is scientifically observable, and implying MACRO, which is NOT scientifically observable. Evolution has become a general term where evolutionists mix science with their religious beliefs (i.e. they believe because bacteria have some minor varitions, therefore, a horse and banana have a common ancestor) and the average reader doesn't catch the magic trick.

Before we talk about the errors of assumption, we need to point out the obvious: They started the experiment with bacteria, and after 50,000 generations they are still producing bacteria. A logically thinking person would stop and consider that if anything would have shown us MACRO-evolution, this experiment surely would have done so by now, but the only thing it has proved so far is that they bring forth after their kind. (Gen 1:20) So decades of experimentation have proven the Bible is correct in its predictions.

Five hundred generations after the start of the experiment, all the surviving bacteria had selected for one gene that helped them survive, and 383 generations later, a few had selected for another gene (called spoT) that helped them grow faster, so they survived and took over the population. I don't question that this took place, but what I do question is how this gene came about. The people working on the project, as well as the magazines, newspapers, and award committees all say these bacteria "evolved" this information brand new that had never existed before, but here's what they refuse to see: It's 100% assumed, with no evidence to back up the claim, and there is a much more reasonable option that we have common scientific examples to back up.

For example, this black couple had a white baby. This is not an albino situation, but an all black family (the father is from Nigeria) had a blonde-haired white baby girl. First, it should be noted that evolution teaches monkeys evolved into black Africans, that eventually evolved into whites, asians, etc, and if this were true, how could a black family produce a white baby in one generation? This makes no sense according to the evolution model, but from a Biblical standpoint, where all men come from one family after the flood (Acts 17:26), it makes a lot more sense that recessive gene for white skin and blonde hair got chosen for in a single generation. It's rare for a black couple to have an all-white baby, but it provides more evidence that the Bible's account of history is correct.

(For story and images, see Virginia Wheeler, "Black parents... white baby," The Sun, Jan 12, 2011, [http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/3060907/Black-parents-give-birth-to-white-baby.html])
Now the question arises: "How did these scientists prove that these genes were not already recessive traits in the bacteria?" They didn't, and that's the problem. They ASSUMED the genes were new information that never existed before because they started the experiment with the ASSUMPTION that billions of years of evolution had occured. They have a religious presupposition they maintain before they even begin the experiment, so explanations that do not support their religious theory are not even considered.

When you look at the experiment with the presupposition that God created this world in six days a few thousand years ago, and that the Biblical account of history is correct, then the experiment makes perfect sense that these recessive traits were being selected for in rare occassions, and if they are more beneficial than the currently dominate traits, then the recessive then becomes the dominate trait. All they did was prove the Bible is correct, they'll bring forth after their kind, and that natural selection (aka quality control) works, both of which we already knew.

Though it is a mildly interesting project, the only thing it has been good for is disproving the MACRO-evolution model, which again, we already knew was religious speculation. Other than that, it's really been a waste of time and tax-payer money, and citizens of Michigan ought to be outraged that their money is being wasted on useless projects like this when we're in a failing socialist economy.

🔍