Evolution is Actually Disproved (even though God & Atheism are Unfalsifiable)

[LampAndNightingale (6 Points>6 Lines>6 Triangles, Between Nile & Euphrates)]

@Flannel_Jesus

Bacteria has been observed in the lab to develop the ability to grow aerobically on citrate, an ability its ancestors didn’t have and which developed after many years, apparently, of generations of bacteria living in a citrate rich environment.

This is precisely what l was hoping for. Something that actually goes toward showing Evolution by Gene Mutation.

The article shows that the bacteria gained the ability to intake citric acid and metabolise it. It showed that the bacteria had in the past been known to live in citric acid (“citrate”) rich environments. The article also showed that the new citrate metabolising form of the bacteria was thriving.

This ticks pretty much all the boxes for me. However, there are a few niggles. Here is some preliminary critique:

1. The article seems loaded with intent, e.g. referencing famous evolutionary biologist Stephen Jay Gould, and even later on the article, stating: “We started the first replay experiment on the 3rd anniversary of Stephen Jay Gould’s death; we ended it on the 66th anniversary of his birth”
2. The article references cryptic genes, and l’m wondering if it was just the clever activation of cryptic genes. There are apparently a lot of fraud articles out there, l recall reading a magazine article via Firefox’s news wall, about a famous scientist who would gather with his team each morning to make presentations of research articles to discuss and sometimes / always debunk them as sham. It happens quite often - l’m not saying therefore this one’s a sham, l’m saying l want to take a closer look.
3. I don’t want to appear to be changing goalposts, but l really wanted a new PHYSICAL structure, i.e. a new structure per se, rather than a new way of doing things. However, it could could be argued that the enzymes which metabolise citric acid ARE structures, but l would say: anything transcribed from DNA would then be a structure and that’s meaningless. I mean structure at least on the cellular level (e.g. cytoplasmic organelles like mitrochondria). I’m not being arbitrary here, there’s some precedence:

@LampAndNightingale

The only way new structures that confer advantage in a given environment can form, is by gene mutation

@LampAndNightingale

The creature doesn’t have good mutation such that it gains a new attribute / structure which gives it advantage within its environment.

@LampAndNightingale

It is not evolution per se and does not lead to new structures.

@LampAndNightingale

The article you posted about the bacteria infecting mosquitoes wasn’t even natural selection, it was gene mutation and it led to no new structures.

4. (Following on from 3) I still feel it’s too little too late, l mean, it’s a bit ephemeral. We’ve had five documented mass extinctions on earth, but even if we didn’t, we’re moving too slow if all we have observed is this.
5. Nonethless, this is still evidence and l am happy to find it. I shall take a closer look at it soon and get back to the forum with my full opinion (l need to sleep now)
6. By the way, please note this from a past conversation:

@LampAndNightingale

I expect you to name one thing e.g.

1. Bacteria were bred and found to have developed the ability to metabolise citric acid. Article reference (abstract only): htttps://elsevier.com/article2323/abstract [made up URL don’t click]

I’ll be back with a fuller analysis