A few days ago we reported on a major new paper dealing with the results of a twenty year laboratory experiment in evolution. During the course of 30,000 generations of E.coli bacteria, a new and significant trait evolved, the ability to use the citrate found in the culture medium as a food source.
Comments are beginning to roll in. Car Zimmer has a rather complete description of the experiment. Pharyngula has a lengthy commentary, which is cross posted at Panda’s Thumb.
But the most amusing comment comes from Michael Behe, whose Book, The Edge of Evolution argues that traits requiring two or more coordinated mutations are beyond the power of Darwinian evolution. Behe reposts his blog at Uncommon Descent, wisely hiding behind the pseudonym “Patrick.”
Here we find the breathtaking statement:
If the development of many of the features of the cell required multiple mutations during the course of evolution, then the cell is beyond Darwinian explanation. I show in The Edge of Evolution that it is very reasonable to conclude they did.
We must pause to remind ourselves that the experiment under discussion demonstrates the evolution of a trait requiring three successive mutations. Behe appears to be arguing that the observed phenomenon cannot be explained by “Darwnism.” So how does he explain the result? [Silence]
It is possible that Behe thinks that “Darwinism” requires that every mutation leading to a beneficial trait must by itself be beneficial. Perhaps the tenured professor of Biology has been asleep for the last fifty years. Is he arguing that neutral or weakly beneficial mutions are inserted by the Designer in anticipation of future need? Is this the long held secret Theory of Intelligent Design?
At any rate the comments at Uncommon Descent seem to fall along traditional lines.
- Phenomenon X is impossible, or so extremely unlikely that it is essentially impossible.
- It is claimed that phenomenon X has been observed, but it is really just a trivial subset of X
- Of course X occurs. I said so all along, and it proves my point.
UPDATE: here’s a wonderful blog containing a massive list of reviews of Behe’s Edge of Evolution.
Obviously the answer is #4: The Designer once again stepped into our world and tweaked one of the E.coli’s genes to help them along.
IOW, sometime during the last 20 years, A MIRACLE HAPPENED!!!
HALLELUJAH!!!!1!!!!!!1!!!!
Perhaps the tenured professor of Biology has been asleep for the last fifty years.
Behe isn’t a biologist; he’s a biochemist. He just makes up the stuff about living systems as he goes along, but he never really works with them or studies them professionally.
But can Mr Citrate-eating-bacterium make a baby with Ms Non-citrate-eating-bacterium?
If Yes, it just shows that they’re really the same species, so no *real* evolution has taken place.
If No, it’s because God is punishing them for not respecting the sanctity of holy matrimony. Fornication is still a sin, even on a petri dish.
And don’t hide behind that mitosis-and-cell-division crap: Reproduction without a partner is just applied masturbation! Do you want your kids learning about that?
Thanks for the link. I keep wondering if I could do something with that massive list so that it becomes something other than, well, a massive list, but I’ve yet to have any spectacular ideas.