major evolutionary change seen in the lab

[_EAllusion]

This is making its way around the blogosphere.

http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/Lenski_affair

It's pwnage on an epic scale.

[_bcspace]

Thank goodness LDS doctrine allows room for evolution. Right Sethbag? lol

[_Doctor Steuss]

Really cool. Thanks for posting this Sethbag.

What will be interesting (to me) is if future generations become specialized in a way that they can only metabolize citrates, or that citrates become a necessary nutrient (else the unfortunate onset of scurvy for wayward E. coli mariners).

[_The Dude]

Thank goodness LDS doctrine allows room for evolution. Right Sethbag? lol

If LDS doctrine "allows room" for evolution by claiming evolution as a mechanism used by God, does that mean God directed some of the E. Coli mutations in Lenski's experiment?

[_Tarski]

Thank goodness LDS doctrine allows room for evolution. Right Sethbag? lol

If LDS doctrine "allows room" for evolution by claiming evolution as a mechanism used by God, does that mean God directed some of the E. Coli mutations in Lenski's experiment?

Yes. He was meddling in our science. It is a very subtle part of his master plan. LOL

[Doctor Steuss]

This is making its way around the blogosphere.

http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/Lenski_affair

It's pwnage on an epic scale.

The other day I got a phone call from some religious crank who looked up my grant on the web and wanted to know if I was using any human embryonic stem cells. Well, I'm not so I said "no" and he hung up. I can just imagine getting harassed like Lenski. Good reply.

[_The Dude]

If LDS doctrine "allows room" for evolution by claiming evolution as a mechanism used by God, does that mean God directed some of the E. Coli mutations in Lenski's experiment?

Yes. He was meddling in our science. It is a very subtle part of his master plan. LOL

Yes LOL, but some creationists are very serious about this. From the link posted by EA, one creationist had this to say about the claims in Lenski's paper:

Prof. Lenski claims that these bacteria ‘evolved’ novel traits and that these were preceded by the evolution of ‘potentiated genotypes’, from which the traits could be ‘reevolved’ using preserved colonies from those generations. But how are we to know if these traits weren’t ‘potentiated’ by the Creator when He designed the bacteria thousands of years ago, such that they would eventually reveal themselves when the time was right? The only way this can be settled is if we have access to the genetic sequences of the bacteria colonies so that we can apply CSI techniques and determine if these ‘potentiated genotypes’ originated through blind chance or intelligence. But with the physical specimens in the hands of Darwinists, who claim they will get around to the sequencing at some unspecifed future time, how can we trust that this data will be forthcoming and forthright? Thus, Prof. Lenski et al. should supply Conservapedia, as stewards, with samples of the preserved E. coli colonies so that the data can be accessible to unbiased researchers outside of the hegemony of the Darwinian academia

So does LDS theology allow for "blind chance" in the development of novel traits?

[_Tarski]

If LDS doctrine "allows room" for evolution by claiming evolution as a mechanism used by God, does that mean God directed some of the E. Coli mutations in Lenski's experiment?

Yes. He was meddling in our science. It is a very subtle part of his master plan. LOL

Yes LOL, but some creationists are very serious about this. From the link posted by EA, one creationist had this to say about the claims in Lenski's paper:

Prof. Lenski claims that these bacteria ‘evolved’ novel traits and that these were preceded by the evolution of ‘potentiated genotypes’, from which the traits could be ‘reevolved’ using preserved colonies from those generations. But how are we to know if these traits weren’t ‘potentiated’ by the Creator when He designed the bacteria thousands of years ago, such that they would eventually reveal themselves when the time was right? The only way this can be settled is if we have access to the genetic sequences of the bacteria colonies so that we can apply CSI techniques and determine if these ‘potentiated genotypes’ originated through blind chance or intelligence. But with the physical specimens in the hands of Darwinists, who claim they will get around to the sequencing at some unspecifed future time, how can we trust that this data will be forthcoming and forthright? Thus, Prof. Lenski et al. should supply Conservapedia, as stewards, with samples of the preserved E. coli colonies so that the data can be accessible to unbiased researchers outside of the hegemony of the Darwinian academia

So does LDS theology allow for "blind chance" in the development of novel traits?

How much meddling in our makeup does God do? Does he determine everything from haircolor to suseptibility to religion? Personally, I think maybe I would prefer that a good deal of what I am was "blown in" from the unknowable cosmos (via the contingiencies of evolution and nurture etc.), rather than planned by a cosmic engineer putting me together as if from a hobby kit.

[_bcspace]

So does LDS theology allow for "blind chance" in the development of novel traits?

I don't see why not. Of course one might object that it is indeed blind chance even if God simply set the initial conditions and then left it alone.