Your "explanation" of the experiment with which I started this thread is totally invalid, which I showed. You claim the bacteria used in the experiment were created in a laboratory. Actually they were selected in a laboratory, not created. The selection allowed their characteristics to be carefully described. This allowed a very good understanding of what could be expected from them in a long term breeding experiment. The ability to metabolize citrates was totally unexpected. And it only happened in one of 12 breeding populations and only after 30,000 generations. Under those conditions I fail to see how you can say that the ability to metabolize citrates was already built into them. If it had been then more than one of the populations should have developed the ability long before 30,000 generations. The only viable explanation is that they evolved the ability over a lengthy period of time in terms of generations. That is just what would be expected from the theory of evolution.
mutations occur in nature , that is not evolution is is natural.
orac posted that in an image , inbreeding in humans causes mutations.
in only a few generation's of human in breeding the differences are easily seen.
continued in breeding results in deformities , large changes.
a dog will eat his own excrement if that is the only choice he has.
do you call that evolution?
the bacteria was only allowed a chosen selection to choose from.
but you call that evolution.
it was a rigged experiment to try and prove evolution , even though bacteria have metabolized citrates in the past and still do, which
can easily be proven , and it can easily be shown that this
particular breed of bacteria has ancestors that have metabolized citrates in the past.
