Could you please enlighten me on all the progress that intelligent design has made in the last couple of years? Could you also point out the failures of evolutionary theory? I really don’t see how evolution was a dead theory since it’s arrival.

papangu1988@gmail.com

I agree with the observable science of micro-evolution, and am a firm supporter of Natural Selection. I’m a paleontologist, and I have NOT seen any CONVINCING evidence for ANY transitional species in the Fossil record. In other words, evolution on a macro level is Not observed in science. It is, however, still a theory often taught as fact.
We know there is plenty of genetic room for adaptation in DNA, but there is still no evidence for a creature becoming (turning into) another type of creature.

This is especially true via mutation, where as some mutations are beneficial, most are not. Information is NOT added to the DNA by mutation, the organism actually looses (though it is not a permanent loss) information by a mutation copied in RNA transfer. This is a perfect example of what we observe with canine. What suggests that these dogs are actually different species? Just because they can’t all interbreed? A terrible definition of “species” notwithstanding, dogs are still dogs. Even though Bears share many convergences with canines, they are still bears. However, there is plenty evidence of convergences across different types of creatures; similarities that may have adapted across numerous “species” and/or families, has No trace evidence of a dolphin evolving into a whale, or a dog into a dolphin for that matter. Therefore, there is something to be said about the use of the words “according to their kinds” in the Bible. As a species IS more difficult to universally define there may be something to this broad taxonomy don’t you agree?

To Luke, on the contrary, I have seen “species” that are virtually unchanged in the fossil record. Some, more recently, have actually been found to be extant and show hardly any observable difference at all. The Coelacanth is a pretty good example and you can find its remains all over the Devonian. Coelacanthiforms do have some minor differences between “species,” what is currently accepted as the definition of a species. Cumulative observations on coelacanthiform morphology are minor. This is just one example.

The same could be said for many other Families in the fossil record. Tyrannosauridae, Diplodocidae, etc. All have slight variations that do not always suggest a different “species.” New evidence for Apatosaurus and Diplodocus suggests that the different morphologies are actually related to gender vs. species. In all actuality, we only have about 50-60 different types of dinosaurs; even if there exist many variations of the type “species.”

Hybridization is a whole other topic, but can be viewed as relevant here as well. Plant “species” are even more difficult to define due to the almost limitless possibilities for reproduction.

Using BSC (The Biological Species Concept),the Phenetic (or Morphological) Species Concept, or Phylogenetic Species Concepts have not proven to be universal in standard.
I think, that it will be some time, before we will discover any solid method for describing a “species” universally in nature.

“In the June issue of the open-access journal PloS Biology, the team describes how a protein called LexA in the bacterium Escherichia coli promotes mutations and helps the pathogen evolve resistance to antibiotics. The scientists also show that E. coli evolution could be halted in its tracks by subjecting the bacteria to compounds that block LexA. Interfering with this protein renders the bacteria unable to evolve resistance to the common antibiotics ciprofloxacin and rifampicin.”

“When E. coli cells are subjected to damage, they upregulate repair enzymes, which then go to work trying to fix the problem. If the damage persists, the cell upregulates recombination enzymes, which are tasked with recombining the DNA — another way to repair it. And, says Romesberg, if the damage still persists, the cells upregulate enzymes whose sole task is to make mutations.”

“Romesberg reasoned that since mutations can be turned on full-force, perhaps they could be shut off as well. Doing so, he says, would put a halt to evolution — an interesting prospect because the mutations responsible for evolution are the underlying causes of cancer and aging as well.”

The Scripps researchers, discovered that E. coli, when stressed (such as running out of food as in Lenski’s experiment or in the presence of antibiotics in the Scripps experiment) selectively increases the mutation rate on certain genes. Thus the mutations in this case are not random but rather directed at a certain area in an attempt to solve a certain problem. Lenski should have have been aware of this but even if he weren’t he should have known just by definition alone selection can operate on any heritable change no matter how the change happened.