Scientists Lie About Evolving Bacteria

Evolutionists have never seen anything evolve, as the word is technically understood, including evolving bacteria. Change, yes. Evolve, no. There’s a difference. Developmental changes within a species takes place all the time. My grandfathers were barely 5’ 5” tall. I’m a fraction of an inch over six feet. I did not evolve. I’m still a human being. My youngest son is an inch taller than I am, and my older son is a tad shorter. This is not evolution in action.

A new study is making the claim that “experiments using bacteria and other fast-breeding organisms, scientists can replay evolution many times over in their labs. And the results of a new experiment published . . . in the journal Cell Reports demonstrate — with movies — that evolution can be astoundingly predictable,” in particular, evolving bacteria. Nonsense.

Change within a species is not evolution. The bacteria are still bacteria. And given the timeline of evolutionary theory, they’ve been bacteria for billions of years.

Fruit flies are still fruit flies, and viruses are still viruses. No one has shown fruit flies evolving into birds, wasps, hornets, or mosquitoes. Generational changes take place within humans, but in the end, they’re still humans.

Long before Darwin, cattle, horse, and dog breeders understood the principle of modification within species. And guess what? After hundreds of years of directed breeding, they’re still dogs, cattle, and horses. “All cows — however divergent — remain cows; all men, men; all types in a kind remain their type characteristics. So it is in the highest degree improbable that the line that separates them is passable.”1

Claiming that evolution is merely change is a common tactic of evolutionists. Tim Berra, professor of zoology at Ohio State University, compares biological evolution with the evolution of the Corvette:

“Everything evolves, in the sense of ‘descent with modification,’ whether it be government policy, religion, sports cars, or organisms. The revolutionary fiberglass Corvette evolved from more mundane automotive ancestors in 1953. Other high points in the Corvette’s evolutionary refinement included the 1962 model, in which the original 102-inch was shortened to 98 inches and the new closed-coupe Stingray model was introduced; the 1968 model, the forerunner of today’s Corvette morphology, which emerged with removable roof panels; and the 1978 silver anniversary model, with fastback styling. Today’s version continues the stepwise refinements that have been accumulating since 1953. The point is that the Corvette evolved through a selection process acting on variations that resulted in a series of transitional forms and an endpoint rather distinct from the starting point. A similar process shapes the evolution of organisms.”2

Anybody with an ounce of sense understands that changes to the Corvette are nothing like the claims that life evolved from non-life and gradual changes within species resulted in the development of new species.

  1. Benjamin B. Warfield, “Evolution Development” (1889). Quoted in Mark A. Noll and David N. Livingstone, eds., Evolution, Science, and Scripture (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2000), 124. []
  2. Tim Berra, Evolution and the Myth of Creationism: A Basic Guide to the Facts in the Evolution Debate (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1999), 118–119. []