0
   

Evolution and Fruit Fly Experiments

 
 
Reply Sat 30 Aug, 2008 06:02 am
http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/Encyclopedia/10mut10.htm

Fruit flies breed new generations every couple of days. If you run experiments on them for several DECADES, as has been done starting in the early 1900s, then the experiments will involve more generations of fruit flies than there have ever been of humans or anything close to humans on this planet. What this was, was a laboratory test of the theory of evolution in an attempt to create new animal species via mutation, as evolution requires.

These flies were bombarded with everything known to cause mutations: chemicals, radiation, extreme temperatures, blast, noise,, etc. etc. and attempts were made to recombine mutants, and all they ever got was precisely what the breeders told Chuck Darwin would be all he'd ever get, which was sterile individuals, and individuals which returned, boomarang-like, to the norm for a fruit-fly. Basically, all they ever got was fruit flies. No gnats, no wasps, no ants, no roaches, hornets, spiders, or anything else, just fruit flies. With our present knowledge of the information code called DNA/RNA, we now know that this was because the entire process was driven by information, and the only information they ever had to begin with was that for fruit flies.

Again, a decades-long experiment like that would be equivalent to hundreds of thousands of years worth of accumulated genetic change amongst humans or higher animals. The results were so unambiguous that a number of the people involved publicly renounced evolution as a consequence, the most notable case being Goldschmidt who noted that, as a consequence, we was subjected to treatment similar to the two-minute hate sessions in Orwells famous novel. Such is American academia.

 
Walter Hinteler
 
  2  
Reply Sat 30 Aug, 2008 06:11 am
@gungasnake,
Convincing.

As are all the other chapters in that encyclopedia.,, for instance dozen of pages which are summarised here:
http://i35.tinypic.com/33ascqe.jpg
rosborne979
 
  5  
Reply Sat 30 Aug, 2008 07:48 am
@gungasnake,
The site you quoted has nothing to do with evolution. It assumes things about the theory of evolution which are incorrect and then proceeds to expand upon those invalid assumptions.

Here's the first problem: The site says, "Introduction - Evolutionists tell us that natural selection and mutations are the only possible means of cross-species changes". That statement is incorrect.

Changes between species do not rely solely on natural selection and mutation. Mutation is not even a primary contributor to the process. This is a mistake which most Creationists make because they have learned everything they know about evolution from other Creationists who do not understand it.

gungasnake
 
  0  
Reply Sat 30 Aug, 2008 08:24 am
@rosborne979,
Quote:

Here's the first problem: The site says, "Introduction - Evolutionists tell us that natural selection and mutations are the only possible means of cross-species changes". That statement is incorrect.


How, and why? I mean, that's basically my understanding of it. Once you start talking about anything other than mutation and selection, AFAIK, you're talking ab out something other than evolution.

Gould et. al. of course in talking about PE do not say very much about mechanisms but you have to assume they're still talking about mutation and selection even in their small populations in isolated areas. They do not talk about any OTHER sort of a mechanism.
rosborne979
 
  3  
Reply Sat 30 Aug, 2008 07:47 pm
@gungasnake,
Quote:
How, and why? I mean, that's basically my understanding of it. Once you start talking about anything other than mutation and selection, AFAIK, you're talking ab out something other than evolution.

Then your understanding of evolution is inaccurate and incomplete.

The majority of speciation occurs through the natural selection of variation which results from the mixing of existing genes (no mutation required). Mutation is required at some point in the process of evolution, but it is not anywhere near the major contributor to variation at this stage of life on this planet. Mutation was a larger factor billions of years ago when asexual bacteria dominated the biosphere. But since bacteria divide at billions of time the rate of complex organisms, the aggregation of viable mutation within the population is mathematically probable.

Modern evolutionary theory as described by Earnst Mayr recognizes the relative contribution of mutation compared with other elements of basic variation.

gungasnake
 
  2  
Reply Sun 31 Aug, 2008 07:11 am
@rosborne979,
Quote:
The majority of speciation occurs through the natural selection of variation which results from the mixing of existing genes (no mutation required).


All that's ever going to buy you is variation within a species, like the thing about the darker and lighter moths. You'd never see a new KIND of animal from that and by KIND I mean a creature with new organs, new requirements for the use of the new organs and/or for systems integration between the new organs and older ones, and a new basic plan for existence. It's doubtful you'd ever see anything you could really call microevolution from such fluctuations of alleles and it's certain that you'd never see anything you could call MACROEVOLUTION, and the theory of evolution is about macroevolution and not about microevolution.

Macroevolution requires mutations at least and most experts are on the record to the effect that even that would not be enough.
rosborne979
 
  3  
Reply Sun 31 Aug, 2008 07:52 am
@gungasnake,
Quote:
All that's ever going to buy you is variation within a species

Incorrect. Not only is there enough potential variation within the existing genome to create new species, they appears to be enough to evolve at least new genus, possibly more.
gungasnake
 
  2  
Reply Sun 31 Aug, 2008 09:03 am
@rosborne979,
The thing which makes it hard to argue this case is that you are the only person on the planet who has ever made it. In other words, the idea of allele frequency variations causing macroevolution is not something I or anybody else could try to research or do google searches on since information on the subject does not exist.

Everybody else who tries or has ever tried to peddle evolutionism is talking about mutation and natural selection.
rosborne979
 
  2  
Reply Sun 31 Aug, 2008 03:48 pm
@gungasnake,
Quote:
The thing which makes it hard to argue this case is that you are the only person on the planet who has ever made it. In other words, the idea of allele frequency variations causing macroevolution is not something I or anybody else could try to research or do google searches on since information on the subject does not exist.

Everybody else who tries or has ever tried to peddle evolutionism is talking about mutation and natural selection.

That's because you never got past the elementary school introduction to evolution. Ever heard of Genetic Drift, or Founder Effect? Evolutionary theory has come a long way since Darwin.

And I appreciate you giving me credit for discovering this aspect of evolution, but I must admit, I learned it by researching and understanding the modern theory of evolution. The idea has been around since before I was born.

0 Replies
 
iamsam82
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Jul, 2009 06:44 am
@gungasnake,
For evolution to happen the mutations would need to turn out to be useful in terms of success in the natural world. I doubt these flies were released into the wild to test their mutations, while the scientists patiently waited for them to return with news of their adventures.

Had they done so they may have ended up beating competitors and becoming the norm. But since the flies were untested by nature, obviously successive generations returned to normal.
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Jul, 2009 12:02 pm
@iamsam82,
iamsam82 wrote:
But since the flies were untested by nature, obviously successive generations returned to normal.

Well, they didn't really return to "normal" because each fly in-and-of itself is "normal". It's probably more accurate to say that the alleles in the new flies were overwhelmed by the alleles in the general population and because there were no selective pressures, they were diminished (or lost) within the population.

We just don't want Gunga to misunderstand and think that genes "rebound" to a standard form within a population without there being a mechanism to make it happen. Smile
iamsam82
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Jul, 2009 05:08 pm
@rosborne979,
You are, of course, not only right but prudent. I should have been clearer. That was poorly worded. Was trying to keep it simple.

Let me try again...

Yo gungameister! Check this out. The flies yeh, they ain't evolved, oh no. Check this. God made them. That's right. God made them. And He made them out of mud. The male ones that is. He didn't make the females out of mud. That'd just mental. The females he made out of one of the male's thorax. Word.
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Jul, 2009 09:18 pm
@iamsam82,
iamsam82 wrote:
Yo gungameister! Check this out. The flies yeh, they ain't evolved, oh no. Check this. God made them. That's right. God made them. And He made them out of mud. The male ones that is. He didn't make the females out of mud. That'd just mental. The females he made out of one of the male's thorax. Word.

Much better. Although Gunga tends to lean more toward the "Aliens visited the Earth and abducted primates and modified their genetics to turn them into people" theory. He seems to prefer just a little dash of sci-fi mixed in with his fantasy.
0 Replies
 
TimeTravel
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Aug, 2012 09:55 am
@gungasnake,
I disagree, to me God is a sarcastic genius with a sense of humor, and all scripture has many layers of hidden meanings as he is evolving us to be smarter than the idiots making fun of Leviticus and dropping dead like fruit flies from heart attacks from omega 6 fats that intelligent atheists and Wise Jews avoid. Evolution and Genesis and Generation are all just simple words apparent to the universal truths that come from GOD and cannot be summarized in the Bible ... unless it is a big joke to see if you have a brain that works. Let me explain; EVE started modern man's EVE o LOOT Zion. Did you read that. Realize all words are cryptic messages from God, he exists now, in all language. What is the first 4 letters in the Bible ... is it GENE what is GENESIS and is a generation a Gene Ration or am i just a cave man again. Creationists are correct, but if God is above time travel, then all your assumed time lines are assumptions. Alternate truths can be correct. As I study Biology I actually listen to my words, I just said Buy Ala G and ala is just an old Norse word meaning Birth or to Nurture. Now lets think insects, you are trying to be God ... he is already evolving hemlock tree mites, and as they march north each year, winter wipes them out some, but some evolve to suit the cold, the strong survive, so each year more northern hemlocks die than the year before. They are evolving, just as Tibet people in the high mountains evolved larger lungs, and eskimo evolved extra fat under the skin. You strike me as Agnostic, if you think God cannot condense 7 billion years into 7 days, and then write a children's book called the Bible for preschool kids, who get smarter every gene-ration. My God is all powerful and can explain things like gene formation, mutations in corn, thermodynamics and nuclear fusion, the fundamentals of deep space travel and evolution in transport. G is a letter standing for God, Genes, and Genesis. Ever hear of intelligent design?
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Aug, 2012 10:23 am
@Walter Hinteler,
That's some good stuff there Walter.

Of course radioactive elements should be extinct. 2 half lives must make up a whole one. That's scientific.
0 Replies
 
panzade
 
  1  
Reply Sat 9 Nov, 2013 01:04 pm
Mind blowing!

Quote:
This is unbelievable, but the fruit fly G tridens has somehow evolved to have what looks like pictures of ants on its wings. Seriously, its transparent wings have an ant design on them complete with "six legs, two antennae, a head, thorax and tapered abdomen." It's nature's evolutionary art painted on a fly's wings.

The idea of the ant design, as explained to The National by Dr Brigitte Howarth of Zayed University who first discovered G tridens in the UAE, is that these flies use their wings to ward off predators. The fly flashes it wings back and forth to make it seem as if the ants are moving around and that movement would confuse the predator.

http://img.gawkerassets.com/img/195rnox2mggepjpg/original.jpg

http://img.gawkerassets.com/img/195rq0i0zos3pjpg/ku-xlarge.jpg
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
  1. Forums
  2. » Evolution and Fruit Fly Experiments
Copyright © 2014 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.06 seconds on 08/22/2014 at 09:33:33