Okay, I'm going to go through those examples one by one.

Quote:

1.) Adaptation to High and Low Temperatures by E. coli.


A single clone of E. coli was cultured at 37 C (that is 37 degrees Celsius) for 2000 generations. A single clone was then extracted from this population and divided into replicates that were then cultured at either 32 C , 37 C, or 42 C for a total of another 2000 generations. Adaptation of the new lines was periodically measured by competing these selection lines against the ancestor population. By the end of the experiment, the lines cultured at 32 C were shown to be 10% fitter that the ancestor population (at 32 C), and the line cultured at 42 C was shown to be 20% more fit than the ancestor population. The replicate line that was cultured at 37 C showed little improvement over the ancestral line.



Does this prove evolution?

I'll start with the easiest one. The line recultured at 37* was just as fit. This is to be expected, and goes to show nothing. The one cultured at 32* as expected were a bit more fit (or able to reproduce).

Where I think they're getting the idea that this is evolution is at the line cultured at 42*. Its 20% fitter than the other lines. This is evolution?

Well, it reproduced at a greater rate when introduced to an even higher temperature. However, this site has deceptively very little information on what exactly happened to the bacteria to allow it to propogate better.

However, this can still fall under the general category of natural selection. The variance of data that allows certain copies of the bacteria to survive better in different temperatures already existed. The higher temperatures just cleaved off the bacteria that couldn't survive as well in higher temperatures, allowing the bacteria that already existed to survive in higher temperature to breed on, and as such this is useless.

Here's another possible answer, in e coli there is a palindromic structure around the ribosome binding site (I'll include some links to definitions) that can be eliminated to allow it to live better in heat. So if this was a mutation to live better in heat, we can assume on past experience that it was a mutation of elimination, which doesn't prove progressive evolution. In fact, the data to thrive in warm temperatures already exists in e coli, it just isn't expressed unless this mutation of loss occurs. Showing you still haven't proved how new data was created.

That's only if you want to take it that far, this can still be easily explained within the framework of the e coli's original genetics which vary and show that when you change the environment and rid the creature of some of the other genetic material, you can end up with something fitter relative to the new environment, though less variant. But not something that has progressed genetically speaking.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palindrome (this will semi-explain the palindromic structure mentioned, although you have to kind of understand the bare basics of genetics and you have to wade through some of the examples that have no bearing on this discussion, but the genetic definition is in there)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ribosome

Next!

Actually, I'll have to do one or two a day because I don't have that much time for this stuff. Not like it matters anyway, I can disprove every single one of your so called 'good mutations' and you'll still find some excuse to believe evolution. And its not really a matter of good mutations which both creationists and evolutionists agree exist, it might be better described as disproving progressive mutations which evolutionists believe either based on lies or faith, and creationists know do not exist.

I'll give you another lesson tomorrow.

"The task force finds that...the unborn child is a whole human being from the moment of fertilization, that all abortions terminate the life of a human being, and that the unborn child is a separate human patient under the care of modern medicine."