Science Disproves Evolution

[Sgt. Kendra]

Fruit Flies

A century of fruit fly experiments, involving 3,000 consecutive generations, gives absolutely no basis for believing that any natural or artificial process can cause an increase in complexity and viability. No clear genetic improvement has ever been observed in any form of life, despite the many unnatural efforts to increase mutation rates (a).

a. “Most mutants which arise in any organism are more or less disadvantageous to their possessors. The classical mutants obtained in Drosophila [the fruit fly] usually show deterioration, breakdown, or disappearance of some organs. Mutants are known which diminish the quantity or destroy the pigment in the eyes, and in the body reduce the wings, eyes, bristles, legs. Many mutants are, in fact, lethal to their possessors. Mutants which equal the normal fly in vigor are a minority, and mutants that would make a major improvement of the normal organization in the normal environments are unknown.” Theodosius Dobzhansky, Evolution, Genetics, and Man (New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1955), p. 105.

“A review of known facts about their [mutated fruit flies’] ability to survive has led to no other conclusion than that they are always constitutionally weaker than their parent form or species, and in a population with free competition they are eliminated. Therefore they are never found in nature (e.g., not a single one of the several hundreds of Drosophila mutations), and therefore they are able to appear only in the favourable environment of the experimental field or laboratory...” Nilsson, p. 1186.

“In the best-known organisms, like Drosophila, innumerable mutants are known. If we were able to combine a thousand or more of such mutants in a single individual, this still would have no resemblance whatsoever to any type known as a [new] species in nature.” Goldschmidt, p. 94.

“It is a striking, but not much mentioned fact that, though geneticists have been breeding fruit-flies for sixty years or more in labs all round the world—flies which produce a new generation every eleven days—they have never yet seen the emergence of a new species or even a new enzyme.” Gordon Rattray Taylor (former Chief Science Advisor, BBC Television), The Great Evolution Mystery (New York: Harper & Row, 1983), p. 48.

“Fruit flies refuse to become anything but fruit flies under any circumstances yet devised.” Hitching, p. 61.

“The fruitfly (Drosophila melanogaster), the favorite pet insect of the geneticists, whose geographical, biotopical, urban, and rural genotypes are now known inside out, seems not to have changed since the remotest times.” Grassé, p. 130.

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences10.html#wp1048910]

 

[The Joker: Midnight Clown]

I guess I should start attending church and praying on a regular basis.

 

[Johner]

 

[miaugh]

3,000 whole generations?!!!! Why that has to be the equivelent of millions of years! :

There are plenty of examples showing that there are changes over time...hence "evolution". Bacterial antibiotic resistance jumps to mind. Was this guy expecting that fruit flies would evolve into small fruit bats within just a few generations?

 

[momof2girls]

This topic can go back and forth forever. Religion vs Evolution, on and on.

 

[ikeman155]

Rivoli, all your post actually shows is that either yourself or the creationist you cite does not actually understand evolutionary theory. Random selection of quotes without noting either the context in which they were made is a fools way to try and deceive people. Most of the quotes are about fruit flies (drosophila), which reach maturity in about 11-12 days. Because evolution works on generation not clock time, fruit flies are great for experimenting. Let's just deal with one well-known fact. In the 1950's they easily bred fruit flies that were resistant to DDT. This is called artificial selection. It is false to say evolution was not observed by claiming advantageous traits did not evolve or that mutation have side effects or that physical characteristic not advantageous arose. Evolution is about fitness to an environment. In a DDT rich environment the DDT resistant fruit flies out-reproduced non-DDT resistant fruit flies (the control group). THAT is natural selection at work. The quotes reproduced by the creationist are very selective, as the original sources most likely went on to make the same point all evolutionists make, that it is very difficult to select for just one characteristic. This is why artificial selection is plagued by unwanted mutations, crucially because there was a design in mind, thereby providing a criterion of fitness not related to reproductive success. So you see here the creationist rewrites evolution as surely directed toward increasing perfection, and then when they read evolutionists saying you might get reproductive success coupled with disadvantageous traits, they claim evolution doesn't happen because perfection was not shown. Only someone ignorant of evolutionary theory buys that sleight-of-hand.

 

[Nana B]

Evolution is a religion to those who believe in it.

 

[canaan90]

[

 

[B H]

Nice phrase, but totally inaccurate. Most who think Evolution a credible theory regard science and religion as very different kinds of things. For instance, that science is a set of questions amenable to evidence-based argument and disciplined by results that are fallible, revisable and open to peer review. Religion is many things, but it's hardly meant to be fallible, revisable and subject to human-based peer review. Thus, whatever else evolution might be, it is NOT a religion. Except to those unable to think in a secular fashion.

 

[Silent]

The OP doesn't seem to understand that evolutionary theory actually claims that the vast majority of mutations are pointless for most species and while the fruit fly has the ability to reproduce generations quickly 3,000 generations is hardly a big sample. However take something that actually creates generations at a faster rate and you do see examples of evolution:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14094-bacteria-make-major-evolutionary-shift-in-the-lab.html

I really get a kick out of people who are actually ignorant about a theory they think is within their ability to be a critic.

Evolution theory really is about mutations in generations and how sometimes an improvement for the specis takes place ... the fact that mutations take place in the 3000 generations of fruit flys is actually a proof of the evolutionary argument ... the lack of improvement is actually pointless in that the current form of the fruit fly maybe all that this creature needs to survive and reproduce.

kf1

 

[littlemoomaid]

Omg, so it's true, did we really evolve from apes?

[video=youtube;xKC7jV4T-to]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xKC7jV4T-to&feature=related[/video]

 

[Dave B]

Damn monkey needs to go for a mixer real bad!:

It would be nice if the evolution theory had it all wrong and there actually is a supreme being just so I can continue to poon in the after life but unfortunately my big head is telling me otherwise.

 

[Future?Artist]

Why can't it be both?! What's often forgotten is that the Theory of Evolution doesn't say anything about how life began on earth. I'm all for evolution as a process for organisms on earth changing over time. I could also see there being a supernatural being out there that created everything...including the process of evolution. I've never really seen anything that makes them mutually exclusive posiblities.

I think the problem that creationists have is that their faith in their religious teachings doesn't leave any room for adjustments due to new information. Science rarely if ever says "THIS IS HOW IT WAS"....it's more like "This is what evidence tells us happened and we've run some tests and they support the previous evidence so until/unless we find something that contradicts this theory, we're going to go with it."

That's why I like science more than religion...I don't recall any scientists burning Christians for disagreeing with various theories over the millenia.

Thank you [/end rant]

 

[Pompal 09.]

Any theory in scientific sense must meet two major criteria:
1) make testable predictions
2) must be refutable

Evolution meets both and therefore, evolution IS science. There is no scientific alternative to evolution. Some evolutionary concepts may be challenged by some other evolutionary concepts, but none of them questions evolution. Evolution can be refuted by finding, for example, rabbit's fossil in Silurian period (or oak's fossil in Triassic). It's that easy. And yet, there was no single evidence whatsoever that would refute evolution. Some "evidence" offered was so stupid that even creationists stopped quoting it.

Creationism doesn't meet either of the above criteria and therefore it cannot be called scientific theory. Period.

The silliest thing of all is that evolution actually doesn't deny deity. That is more domain of physics. There is so much obvious evidence supporting evolution and people DENY it. Why creationists say nothing about black holes and quarks? That would be much easier job, because there is no direct evidence that they exist. Neither has ever been DIRECTLY observed in any experiment. Nobody knows what black holes really are, because our best theories (Standard Model - quantum theory and general gravity) fall apart when it comes to physics of black holes. Quarks and gluons have never been directly detected, but still nobody questions quantum chromodynamics (a part of Standard Model) that very successfully describes quarks, gluons and strong force. Evolution, like the Standard Model are our most successful scientific theories, each in its own domain. (BTW, quarks make up protons, neutrons and other particles called hadrons; they are kept together in atomic nuclei by strong force and gluons are carriers of strong force, similarly to photons that are the carriers of the electromagnetic force.)

As far as I'm concerned, let people believe whatever they want. By the same token, nobody will ever tell me what I have to think. I chose science.

 

[artan]

This actually reminds me about something Einstein said in answer to a reporters question when he arrived at Yale. Some smart ass reporter thought he would get Einstein in trouble with the public when he asked him if he believed in God thinking that as a scientist at the fore front of how the Universe works would say no. Einstein answered the reporter that with all he knew about the Universe he could not possibly consider a Universe without God.

Not a very scientific response but an intelligent one.


kf1

 

[Steven Q. Urkel]

That monkey is ready for Dr. Drew's sex rehab