The best-known of these experiments are the ones by Richard Lenski's group at Michigan State. In 2008, this group observed aerobic citrate metabolism in E. coli, a surprise. However, the mutations behind this adaptation are unknown and thus could not be categorized in Behe's system. But Behe admits, "If the phenotype is due to one or more mutations that result in, for example, the addition of a novel genetic regulatory element, gene-duplication with sequence divergence, or the gain of a new binding site, then it will be a noteworthy gain-of-FCT mutation."

Behe concludes from his analysis, and logic, that gain-of-function is much rarer than loss- or modification-. And any gain, so far, must be simple, he thinks, because "...complex gain-of-FCT mutations likely would occur only on long time-scales unavailable to laboratory studies...." We note that 50,000 generations in a population that is large (compared to, say, primates, ten million years ago), and mutating at the prokaryotic rate, is not nothing. But if that's his viewpoint, would Behe consider looking at computer models of evolution? For them, enough time has already elapsed.

Michael J. Behe, "Experimental Evolution, Loss-of-Function Mutations, and 'The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution'," [

For example, these bacteria would certanly not be harmed by the surface gravity of only 10 to 100 Gs on failed stars known as brown dwarfs. Even the extreme acceleration from impacts powerful enough to launch meteorites into space would not kill them. Team member Shigeru Deguchi comments, "If life does exist in other places in the universe, our study provides further evidence that it could spread within solar systems by the mechanism often discussed in panspermia hypotheses -- i.e., impact-based transport of meteorites between bodies of the same solar system."

Viruses are efficient agents of horizontal gene transfer (HGT). Now we see additional evidence linking them to transposable elements, a clue that 50% to 90% of the human genome was acquired by HGT. This sounds preposterous to most darwinists, but it would be consistent with cosmic ancestry.

• There is no gradualism in the fossil record.
• The critics, including the creationist critics, are right about their criticism.
• I believe in acquired genomes.
• The evolutionary pattern is a web–the branches fuse....

The latest report from the MSU team observes that a fast-evolving population eventually lost out to a stodgier one by becoming trapped on a lower fitness plateau. Of course this is interesting. But we are most interested by what hasn't happened — no new genetic programs. Incidentally, in this experiment fitness is measured by direct competition between populations. If one population outgrows (outnumbers) the other, it is, by definition, more fit. But this measure says nothing about new genetic programs for new systems or features.

We believe that only closed experiments like this one are able to discern the power and range of strictly darwinian evolution. Ordinary experiments that are not quarantined from external input will only reveal what happens in open systems like Earth's biosphere. In open systems, new genetic programs for new systems or features may come from external input (such as viruses or other contamination). But if darwinian evolution can compose new genetic programs, closed experiments like this one at MSU should be able to demonstrate that capability. Logically, closed experiments are the only way to prove it. That's why we are so interested in this project.

We should mention that in 2008, this experiment produced a population that could metabolize citrate aerobically: 05 Jun 2008: Cloned bacteria evolved an unexpected feature.... This process requires specific genes that E. coli are believed not to posess. However, the one-time event may have been caused by cryptic genes or contamination. By itself, it does not demonstrate the composition of a wholly new genetic program. Better evidence is needed for that. 20 Sep 2012: Richard Lenski's research group has analysed the evolution of aerobic citrate metabolism....

We are very pleased that his insights harmonize with our own understanding of evolution — mainly that acquired genetic programs contribute to major evolutionary advances. Ryan politely promotes his additional mechanisms as important but benign amendments to standard evolutionary theory. Yet we wonder, how does darwinism account for the "meaningful, preformed genes" or "pre-evolved genes" that contain new biological programs? And are there any clear examples of major evolutionary advances without acquired genetic programs? Could we interest him in these questions? We will ask him. In any case, we recommend this book.

Are the microfossils nonbiological "extrusions"? ...CI1 carbonaceous meteorites are microregolith breccias in which the tiny mineral grains are cemented together with epsomite and other water soluble salts. ...[The proponent of extrusions] fails to cite any publications with examples and images in terrestrial rocks in which his extrusions have been found which exhibit the size and detailed morphologies of any recognizable genera and species of filamentous cyanobacteria of the Orders Oscillatoriaceae, Nostocaceae and Stigonometaceae that could be accepted as biological by any phycologist.

Nitrogen absent in microfossils

Are the microfossils recent contaminants? ...[Those who] have contended these forms represent modern biological contaminants have never set forth a hypothesis to explain a mechanism whereby recent biological materials (<150 years in age) could have nitrogen levels below the 0.5% level that can easily be detected with the EDS on the FESEM we are using. Furthermore they never try to explain how the CI1 and CM2 carbonaceous meteorites have never been found to contain all twenty protein amino acids, all life-critical nucleobases of the sugars ribose, de-oxyribose, or any of the other sugars and polysaccharides that are present (and absolutely essential) in all living organisms.

What about liquid water in comets? ...Several years ago, I wrote papers with Chandra Wickramasinghe and the late Sir Fred Hoyle in which we argued that melted ice beneath the crust could form pockets of water in which diatoms, cyanobacteria, sulfur bacteria or other microbial extremophiles might live and grow. ...The Wild 2 data announced [April 5] clearly provide support for the hypothesis that pockets of water can exist near the crust of a comet, which could very well support cyanobacteria and filamentous sulfur bacteria which could very well explain the microfossils that I am finding in the CI1 and CM2 carbonaceous meteorites.

Hap McSween, a geochemist at the University of Tennessee, says that the microfossils seen by Hoover are obviously recent contaminants. But Hoover carefully considered this possibility. Recent contaminants contain the chemical signatures of life including all twenty amino acids, all five nucleobases, detectable nitrogen and phosphorus, and little-racemized chirality. Instead, these fossils are missing half the amino acids, two nucleobases, virtually all nitrogen and phosphorus; and the chirality is well-racemized. These features (lacks) are shared with multi-million-year-old fossils on Earth, and not anything recently alive. The microfossils could hardly be recent contaminants.

Conversely, Rosie Redfield, a microbiologist at the University of British Columbia, apparently accepts that the microfossils are ancient (came from space), but denies that they are biological. "Hoover's pictures look like microscopic versions of flattened tubes and tangled strings," in AP's paraphrase. But if McSween is right — the microfossils are contaminants — then Redfield is wrong and they are biological. Something's amiss here. And Seth Shostak of the SETI Institute disputes the evidence, saying, "If similarity in appearance were all it took to prove similarity in kind, then it would be pretty easy for me to demonstrate that there are big animals living in the sky, because I see clouds that look like them." Is he serious?

Hasty dismissal is wrong. Challenging evidence needs careful review.