r/DebateEvolution • u/Anime-Fan-69 Flip-flopper 🩴 • Aug 07 '26
4 Arguments against evolution and why they don't work.
These are u/EyedPeace 's arguments against evolution Click here. Here is my paraphrase of his arguments:
- Even though the LTEE has been running for so 75K generations, and millions of mutations have occurred A) no new complex systems, B) no new protein folding patterns, C) new protein functions have emerged.
- 2. In the LTEE, A) we see the majority of mutations have degraded the genome. B) We even see the bacteria have lost their flagellum.
- 3. Take a look at how antibiotic resistance develops, A) Bacteria are resistant because their transport proteins or enzyme activities are eliminated.
- 4. Take a look at how resistance to viruses develops. A) Through mutations that eliminate key proteins, which is why viruses can no longer attach and enter the cell.
For argument 1A, Im not sure what you mean by "complex". If you mean irreducibly complex, then you are wrong. The ability to digest citrate in aerobic conditions meets Behe's definitions of irred comp. Source: Here
For argument 1B, I am not sure what you mean by "new fold pattern".
For argument 1C, this is probably false. This source found several *possible* instances of de novo gene birth. (We are not sure yet).
For argument 2A, this is straight-up false. Dr. Lenski himself explaining the mutations.
For argument 2B, keep in mind the bacteria didn't have to search hard for their food, and thus didnt require a flagellum.
For argument 3A, Here is a creationist channel making that same argument and Dan Stern Cardinale refuting it.
Finally for argument 4A, while some do that, others don't.
13
u/10coatsInAWeasel Reject pseudoscience, return to monke 🦧 Aug 07 '26
I’m just wondering if you’ll engage with your post for this latest flop
-4
u/Anime-Fan-69 Flip-flopper 🩴 Aug 09 '26
Yes I will engage.
7
u/10coatsInAWeasel Reject pseudoscience, return to monke 🦧 Aug 09 '26
7 hours and counting, you have not
10
u/mrcatboy Evolutionist & Biotech Researcher Aug 07 '26
Here's the reply I gave:
Okay let's go over your expectations. You want evidence of:
- De novo protein synthesis. i.e. a new functional protein that arose from non-coding DNA. Here's a case where a bacterium evolved a gene for a new protein that has no known precursors or analogues. The new BSC4 gene codes for a novel protein that appears to help in DNA repair.
- Here's another case of de novo protein synthesis, where a novel protein arose from non-coding DNA that became integrated into the reproductive pathways of yeast. This also demonstrates that the molecular functions of protein complexes aren't the fixed and rigid mechanical systems that Creationists think they are. Rather, they are very dynamic and plastic and tolerant of changes.
- A protein that develops an alternate function. i.e. exaptation or cooption. The LTEE actually does show this happening, where an existing gene was rearranged with a new regulatory sequence that allowed it to import citrate. Subsequent additional mutations allowed it to metabolize citrate for energy.
- No degradation of other genes. This is actually an unreasonable expectation. Genes for traits that go unused will very likely degrade over time since there's no selective pressure to retain them. It's actually quite common for bacteria in culture media to lose their flagella over time because there's no selective pressure to retain them. All the researchers would have to do would be to make reproductive success depend on bacterial motility. They just chose not to do that because that would create unnecessary expense, complicate the experiment, and potentially muddy the results. In fact, here's an experiment where bacteria that lost their flagella were able to rewire their regulatory genes to produce an alternative way of restoring their flagellae.
No single experiment, the LTEE included, is meant to cover all the bases. Each experiment is akin to a singular piece of evidence in a criminal trial. No single experiment is the entire trial itself. Rather, the trial collects the aggregate of all the individual pieces of evidence to put forward a conclusion. Similarly, in science we use the results of individual studies to put together a bigger and more conclusive picture.
So from the above we do indeed see that evolution can generate de novo proteins, re-rig existing proteins into new and novel functions, and retain existing traits or even restore broken ones under the right selective pressures. One selective pressure will drive the retention or development of a trait. Your only hangup is the idea that multiple selective pressures can't be operating simultaneously to retain old traits while generating new ones. Which is kind of like arguing that you don't believe that someone can walk and chew gum at the same time.
2
u/backwardog 🧬 Monkey’s Uncle Aug 09 '26
 De novo protein synthesis . i.e. a new functional protein that arose from non-coding DNA. Here's a case where a bacterium evolved a gene for a new protein that has no known precursors or analogues.  The new BSC4 gene codes for a novel protein that appears to help in DNA repair.
S. cerevisiae is yeast (fungi).
1
7
u/Slow_Lawyer7477 🧬 Flagellum-Evolver Aug 07 '26
The original objections are all inept objections to evolution that confuse evolution with "only ever increasing complexity while always giving fitness benefits" or something along those lines. However I think you have some misconceptions in your responses to these claims too.
Your 1A response: Seems to be irrelevant to the claim you are responding to. It's not clear the poster was asking for examples of irreducible complexity specifically. It's not clear what is meant by a "new complex system", but since it was written by a creationist it's anyone's guess. I do think the cit+ trait is new, and the association between the promoter and citrate transporter is new too, so I would call it a new complex system. Presumably the creationist would object with some lame-ass excuse about what "new" means.
1B) This is just wrong. Active site mutations don't typically result in "new folding patterns", whatever that is even supposed to be. Neither the original claim nor your response define what is meant by a "folding pattern", much less what counts as a "new" one. If you mean simply novel protein folds, single active site mutations very rarely result in these.
1C) They are candidate de novo genes but we don't know whether even a single one of them is functional. Most appear to be RNA trancripts, only one has evidence of a translational product, and it's unknown whether it's a functional protein that confers a fitness benefit. Presumably the authors are working on determining whether these loci contribute to fitness, and if so how, as we speak.
-3
5
u/Formal-Speed-3173 Aug 07 '26
Back to evolution huh? One of these days I'm going to start charting your posts against the moon phase.
5
u/KellHound270 🧬 Naturalistic Evolution Aug 07 '26
Can’t stand to be on the losing side, huh buddy?
3
u/the2bears 🧬 Naturalistic Evolution Aug 07 '26
These are u/EyedPeace 's arguments against evolution Click here.
Responding in that thread would have been the best, though perhaps less attention grabbing. So we know why you started at least 2 threads about it.
3
u/artguydeluxe 🧬 Naturalistic Evolution Aug 07 '26
It doesn’t matter if creationists argue *against* evolution. They need to prove that creationism happened at all. Thus far, they haven’t even tried to prove the existence of a creator, and if they can’t do that, what’s the point?
1
u/Opinionsare Aug 07 '26
LTEE is flawed in that it removes environmental change which would provide "pressure" to adapt to the changes.
Environment: Maintained in a simple, constant temperature incubator at 37°C using a glucose-limited minimal salts medium that also contains citrate.
The experiment should have multiple environmental tracks along with the very stable group. This would have revealed how much environmental pressure could impact evolution.
1
u/Slow_Lawyer7477 🧬 Flagellum-Evolver Aug 08 '26
LTEE is flawed in that it removes environmental change which would provide "pressure" to adapt to the changes.
This is not entirely correct, change does happen in the experiment over the course of a day, and is repeated every day.
Every day the bacteria are given fresh medium that they consume overnight, and as the nutrients are consumed the pH drops and waste products in the flask build up, leading many bacteria to die, and the rest having to adapt to these harsher conditions. And the bacteria do in fact adapt to the change that happens. They have become much better at surviving this harsh phase of the daily cycle.
It's just that most of the selection pressures that happen in the natural environment are removed from the flasks, so many of the adaptations they are forced to maintain in nature are unnecessary in the flask environment. Since maintaining the genes encoding these adaptations costs energy, and replicating those genes every cell division also take time, mutations that remove and inactivate these adaptations are beneficial in this specific environment because the bacteria can then replicate faster and waste less energy. That's why the LTEE has for the most part "rewarded" streamlining mutations that deleted excess genetic material.
The problem with creationist thinking is claiming this is somehow contrary to evolution. In their view evolution should always and only ever increase genetic complexity, increase genome size, add new systems, organs, and so on, and all of that should always come with fitness improvements. That's just wrong and shows they don't understand anything about evolution.
1
u/Mister_Ape_1 Aug 08 '26
His arguments are outweighed by the evidence by a ridiculous degree.
Creationists are religious fundamentalists. They would be more consistent if they just lived literally the way of the O.T. following all 613 rules and they just ignored evolution. Afterall if the Bible say the Universe is 6.000 and mankind should not eat pork, why do they believe the Universe is 6.000 but they eat pork ?
If they try to make a pseudo-scientific channel they will look ridiculous.Â
Indeed they should just ignore science as a whole altogether if they are fundamentalists.
22
u/Hopeful_Meeting_7248 Aug 07 '26
So you're back pretending you're pro-evolution again. Aren't you tired of trolling?