Is the evolution story really scientific?

[theprof00]

ICStats said:

OooSnap said:
Some have brought up the Lenski experiment. It is emperical, empirical evidence for evolution, right? Not at all.

Interesting example however recent research shows it is just another example of degeneration or "deevolution":

"The gene that mutated to enable bacteria to metabolize nylon is on a small loop of exchangeable DNA. This gene, prior to its mutation, coded for a protein called EII with a special ability to break down small, circularized proteins. Though synthetic, nylon is very protein-like because inventor Wallace Carothers modeled the original fiber based on known protein chemistry. Thus, after the mutation, the new EII protein was able to interact with both circular and straightened-out nylon. This is a clear example of a loss of specification of the original enzyme. It is like damaging the interior of a lock so that more and different keys can now unlock it.

This degeneration of a protein-eating protein required both the specially-shaped protein and the pre-existence of its gene. The degeneration of a gene, even when it provides a new benefit to the bacteria, does not explain the origin of that gene. One cannot build a lock by damaging pre-existing locks." http://www.icr.org/article/4089/

Despite the unscientific creationist opinion here, this IS a great example of evolution.  Deevolution is a misnomer, as it implies that evolution must mean "progress" to a "more advanced" (as in complex) organism.  There is no defined direction for progress, only natural selection through viability of an organism to live and reproduce.

Some bacteria accidentally mutated a gene in a "small", way which made it metabolize nylon, which presumably increased its rate and ability to reproduce in the medium thereby giving rise to the population of nylon eating bacteria.  Hello evolution!  This bacteria now has the machinery to metabolise a substance that it was not designed by anyone to do, purely by random mutation of existing biological systems.

Evolution has no designer, so randomly damaging pre-existing locks is the only way to create new kind of locks.

"Nylon-eating bacteria actually exemplify microevolution (adaptation), not macroevolution. Science continues to reveal, though, how benevolent is our Creator God, who permits bacteria to benefit from degradation, and man also to benefit from bacteria that can recycle synthetic waste back into the environment."

Yes, thank you to the benevolent Creator for evolution.  The Creator has done a fantastic job of creating a nature that looks just like something that developed through evolution over billions of years.

Unfortunately (or fortunately) science is not the business of proving or disproving the existence of a Creator.

wow well said, you certainly have a strong command of language. I could never say so much with so few words lol.