Why you should think that the Natural-Evolution of species is true


No. 10 characters.


Then I’m not sure what you’re claiming.

You say “bacterial recombination” as an answer to the Richard Lenski experiment, and link to an article which is about horizontal gene transfer.

It would imply that you’re arguing that bacterial gene transfer explains Richard Lenski’s experiment.


IDvolution overcomes his and other ID objections.


DNA actively fights against environmental mutations through several iterations of correction. DNA is fighting hard to be corrupted by unwanted attacks.

What we have now learned is the cell can actually by design and need change the genes and DNA.


Bacteria could already digest it. It was an issue of the presence of oxygen or not. I call this ability micro-evolution, aka adaptation.


That isn’t being disputed. But it developed a new version of the enzyme which could digest citrine in an oxygene less environment more than seven times better than the one it already had. This produced a novel strain.

The difference between microevolution and macroevolution is mostly one of degree. The definition of macroevolution is evolution that happens across a species level. Yet the definition of species is not exact enough to be properly applied.


It happens all the time. Not sure in this case or whether it is a case of pure adaptation from within.


This is not the case. DNA accrues cruft over successive generations. As I’ve outlined gene duplication often occurs, which leaves you with one gene that’s conserved and variants which aren’t. Chromosomes can also undergo similar mutations.

Its for this reason that onions have vastly greater and more complex DNA than humans have.

Most of it is junk with dubious functionality.


Perhaps because we tend to live in rather artificial conditions, alienated from what would be a natural setting that we may think that bacrteria were meant to live in a petri dish, animals in zoos, fish in aquariums. Those conditions are not those in which they thrive as they were meant to at the beginning.

You mean by ourselves, correct? The Galapagos is the perfect example of natural selection in action. Were it not for the time effort and money of dedicated individuals, species would be dying off at an even higher rate. Creation takes effort, commitment and especially caring.

It’s the way I see things possessing a certain amount of knowledge on the subject and using my God-given capacity to reason.

I think I read something about him some fifty years ago, in a reference no doubt since I’ve never come across his actual works.

There’s enough for people’s needs, but not their wants.

Life sacrifices itself to life to be sure. That there exist, however, ecosystems that are balanced and harmonious for very long periods of time, there is also no doubt. Everything is in flux and in part driven by built-in adaptive mechanisms. This would be in addition to the diversity seen in the sheer beauty of creation.

I’m pretty sure it sounds weird, but i think it’s the universe at its ontological foundations, from which all time and space, as they now appear, transformed since the fall of the angels, followed by our own. In Christ, through us who are the universe, represented in what is close to the smallest of creatures within its grand totality, journey towards the New Jerusalem, the cosmos fulfilled. No point responding since I already know how people tend to interpret this.


Through pre-existing cellular mechanisms.


Dr. Richard Lenski has the samples. It would be trivial for anyone to document that there had been a contamination of a foreign species. A simple test to be made.

I propose that you, or similarly inclined creationists, get in contact with a competent microbiologist to do such a study. If the microbiologist had a proper renown I’m sure Dr. Richard Lenski would clone a sample for study.

Because, you guys don’t seem to realise that we do have a sample of each and every single generation in that study, available for others to use.


Exactly. That’s how its proceeding. Variation of already existing features, giving rise to novel features.

The example is one that people here have argued would be impossible. Its an increase in complexity. Its a gaining of novel functionality. And it presents a marked adaption of a bacteria to a new environment. Which is exactly what we’d expect to occur.


Yes, it most certainly is. Perhaps you are not aware.


Which is true, but not relevant. Evolution depends on variation, and gene duplication is one of the mechanism behind that variation.

Darwin knew nothing of DNA, or gene duplication, but he did observe variation. Those variations provide the input for natural selection to select from.


That’s what they said about Human Junk DNA. It is now found to be functional and important. That statement was regarded as one of the biggest mistakes in biology in recent years.


That doesn’t quite reflect the situation. There are many stretches of non-coding DNA which are important, that much is true. And that has never been controversial. Some are regulatory mechanisms, others help with the particular folding of DNA.

I’m not aware of any microbiologist who’d go so far as to say that any part of the DNA which doesn’t describe a protein is non-coding.

However the opposite isn’t the case. It is not the case that we’ve found that most of the DNA performs important roles. Quite the opposite. There are multiple neutral inserts from various viruses. There gene duplications. There are genes there, but with regulatory mechanisms expressed in such a way that they’re never activated.

We have all the genes for building a tail, though a set of other parts of the DNA acts pretty much exclusively as an off switch for that part.

And this sort of jankiness, crufty complexity is normal in biology.

The idea that the complexity of DNA reflects the complexity of an organism is a long dead idea. The humble onion has many, many times the DNA that humans have. Most of that is pretty much irrelevant junk and can be cut out.


If you’re referring to the fact that DNA has error correction mechanism. That’s true, but that doesn’t prevent mutations from occuring, or gene duplication or anything else I’ve talked about.

You’re litterally denying science if you’re denying that. They’re well documented phenomena, and in many of the cases we’ve even documented how they occur.


Considering the nature of bacteria, or indeed any species, what you’re saying to amounts to little more than special pleading, unless you can demonstrate that the behaviour of these plants will change in different circumstances.

I can imagine ways of testing that already.

Not necessarily, as you point out, Galapagos Islands which is one of many examples where a biogeographical distribution can be explained in terms of an invasive species. There have been cases where climate change in the past has forced species to migrate.

I don’t think his works are important here. I merely called it the Malthusian principle in reference to Darwin’s use of the term. Really its just the natural fact of limited resources and competition for those.

I’m a little shocked that you’re denying that this is real.

I’m not discussing humans. Though even then it would be wrong. The Earth does not have an infinite amount of resources and can’t support and exponentially growing population forever. At some point we’d be shoulder to shoulder even if we’re still quite a bit away from that.

The point is that there is competition for resources, ergo descendents of a particular species that develop a novel adaption that allow them to be more competitive will tend to further that change.

I won’t comment much more on this. I’m a bit surprised to see people denying this.

I’ll stick to the scriptures and to what I can learn from science. Trying to make sense of both.



Which is pretty much what I said in the last post. Some sections, in this smaller sections near the center and ends of the DNA, have roles in maintaining the shape of DNA. The creationist article you linked to also doesn’t make this distinguishment, and seems to imply that all of the DNA serve this purpose, which is a far stronger claim than what the scientists actually claimed in their paper.


What about all the duplicated genes, where there’s one functional and one non-functional component? What about the horizontal transfer of genes from viruses? What about about the genes that are there, but their regulatory genes have them switched off.

Whether or not we find more functions, and neither me, nor anyone else have argued that non-coding DNA is non-functional, that’s mostly a creationist strawman of the science, there is not much doubting that there’s a lot of legacy cruft leftover from evolution which serve any purpose in the ongoing functioning of the body.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.