Creationist and Bacterial Evolution
Here is a comment I made on one of my favorite blogs, "Dispatches from the Culture Wars" hosted by Ed Brayton.
The specific post was "Response to the Anonymous Creationist"
As one of the 95% who have only a basic understanding of evolution, I appreciate the many explanatory details you have provided.
At first, when I read AC's statements, I had a vague feeling that something was wrong, they didn't make sense, but I couldn't put my finger on it. Now I see some of his remarks as such an illogical interpretation of misstated data that even I can see right through them. Thanks for the time you have invested in your commentary.
His idea that bacteria under stress are more likely to mutate in areas which would lead to more adaptable outcomes shows that something more "intelligent" than evolution is involved in selecting these points was a real hoot, I nearly fell off my chair laughing!
Obviously, any bacteria which showed a preference for mutating in areas that did not lead to more adaptive outcomes died off eons ago. Only those that mutate at these more adaptive places are around today. This is a perfect example of natural selection which is a corner stone of evolution. His example supports evolution, not the contrary.
What I really don't understand is why some people have this near pathological need to maintain a supernatural explanation for phenomena that the evidence clearly shows arise from rather mundane naturally occurring processes. I know the Greeks and Romans had gods in control of the weather, the hearth, fertility and just about everything else, but geez, hasn't our ever increasing knowledge of nature served to dispel these myths? Why someone today feels it necessary to conjure up a mini-god of the genome to "explain" why bacteria under stress mutate in places which are more likely to produce adaptive outcomes when the simple process of natural selection addresses this so eloquently is well beyond my ken.
Thanks again for your cometary. Hi to Lynn. B