Science Disproves Evolution

Discussion in 'The Cesspool' started by Pahu, Nov 9, 2010.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Pahu Guest

    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]
  2. Guest Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. mathman Valued Senior Member

    So what?
  4. Guest Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. alephnull you can count on me Registered Senior Member

    Well thank God for that, I was starting to think my bible was wrong.
  6. Guest Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. spidergoat Liddle' Dick Tater Valued Senior Member

    Speciation has been seen in the lab, and many mutations. I can think of one that causes flies to be born with red eyes. If, for some reason, the environment favored a fly with red eyes, those mutants would be superior.

    The Theory of Evolution has always maintained that mutations are most often neutral or harmful. That does not undermine the theory one bit.

    Furthermore, your quotes are creationist copypasta.
  8. Skeptical Registered Senior Member

    Here is an item showing evolutionary change actually seen happening in the wild, in African cichlid fishes.

    Quote from my reference.

    " Fish in a remote crater lake in Nicaragua are splitting into separate species at breakneck speed.

    It has taken the lake cichlids just 100 generations and as many years to evolve an entirely new physical feature: very fat lips. Most estimates of how fast species evolve new features are based on models, which generally indicate that it could take up to 10,000 generations. Some models suggest just tens of generations are enough, but such rapid change has never been documented before. "
  9. spidergoat Liddle' Dick Tater Valued Senior Member

  10. krreagan Registered Senior Member

    Your bible is only fiction so being wrong and irrelevant is expected!

  11. NO1 I Am DARKNESS Registered Senior Member

  12. cosmictraveler Be kind to yourself always. Valued Senior Member

  13. woowoo Registered Senior Member

    not a monkey, ET, horizontal gene transfer from extraterrestrial DNA delivered to earth by
    comets and asteroid.
  14. jmpet Valued Senior Member

    Influenza mutates every year. One year it'll mutate into a deadly strain and kill 10,000 people.
  15. Gremmie "Happiness is a warm gun" Valued Senior Member


    On the bright side...That would open more jobs, and help with overpopulation.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  16. Hercules Rockefeller Beatings will continue until morale improves. Moderator


    Ha ha ha ha, classic! You’ve reguriposted some creationist crap without the slightest understanding of the material you’ve posted.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    One of the classic creationist wilfully ignorant mistruths is that mutations are nearly always detrimental, hence invalidating evolution based on selection of mutations. This is false. The fact is that the significant majority of mutations are neutral; only a small percentage is either beneficial or detrimental to the organism’s survival. You are living proof of this, Mr. Pahu. Your genome differs from an unrelated individual, on average, every 1000th base. These are referred to as single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) and they are the result of mutations. In other words, your genome has inherited millions of different mutations compared to me. Are you suggesting that you are “constitutionally weaker” than me?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Now let’s address your misunderstanding of genetic screens. I have a developmental biology background and have performed the very same types of mutagenesis screens that you are commenting on. Admittedly, I worked with C.elegans and zebrafish, not Drosophila. But these are all developmental biology model organisms and they are all utilised in mutagenesis screens in the same fashion.

    To cut a long complex story short, when you perform a mutagenesis screen for recessive mutations you expose the parental line to a mutagen (chemical, radiation, mobile genetic element) then breed them through two generations (see schematic diagram). In the case of zebrafish, you end up a few dozen F2 organisms that you pair-wise breed and screen the F3 clutches for physiological traits of interest. The initial dosing and breeding regimen is designed to ensure that each F3 clutch is carrying multiple homozygous recessive mutations.

    Now, here’s the kicker....

    The majority of F3 clutches are perfectly normal despite carrying multiple induced mutations! I cannot tell you how many cumulative hours I spent looking down a microscope at endless F3 clutches searching for mutants of interest (in my case I was looking alterations to motor neuron precursor numbers in a transgenic line expressing fluorescent proteins in neuronal precursor subpopulations).

    When scientists report the results of mutagenesis screens and describe the mutants they have pulled out, they are describing the rare mutants that they have specifically pulled out. Such screens are specifically biased towards identifying mutations that result in a physiological detriment during embryogenesis. Such screens do not pull out potentially beneficial mutations.

    This all fits perfectly with what we know as fact – the majority of mutations are not harmful, they’re neutral. This is hardly surprising given that complex metazoan genomes are mostly non-coding. <5% of the human genome coding DNA (ie. genes).

    So, your first three reguriposts are erroneously attempting to suggest that just because a mutagenesis screen pulls out mutants that are less fit than wildtype, that this is evidence that mutations are always harmful and, therefore, evolution must be false.


    Your final three reguriposts are merely the age-old wilfully ignorant creationist rubbish that evolution can’t be true because no one has ever seen an organism evolve into anything else. This is false and a mega-fail. It’s been refuted so many times that it’s not worth wasting time on.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  17. dhcracker Registered Senior Member

    Science disproves evolution.. instead God is apparently obsessive and violently perfectionist and he may wipe all life out again and start over any second now...

    Sorry I prefer random mutations than random God who apparently had a very long learning curve for successfull species of life.
  18. Ophiolite Valued Senior Member

    Have you heard of irony. It can be an effective rhetorical device, but only if the audience pay attention.

    Thanks to Hercules for his succinct and highly informative description of mutagenesis screening. It made the time spent in the last month reading the interminable rubbish on sciforums worthwhile: like finding one diamond in forty tons of mine tailings.
  19. Mr MacGillivray Banned Banned


    I love how you use outdated references and quoting out of context to make your point.
  20. Kennyc Registered Senior Member

    Oh My!
  21. Kennyc Registered Senior Member

  22. ULTRA Realistically Surreal Registered Senior Member

    Try telling the victims of Hiroshima that thier kids were meant to be born all deformed then. Mutations happen all the time naturally, but victims of Hiroshima, Nagasaki and Chernobyl see it in a vastly accelerated form. Your arguement is creationist rubbish.
  23. Stryder Keeper of "good" ideas. Valued Senior Member

    Now apply the same reasoning to "evolving a more efficient design of The Wheel", sooner or later at some point through an evolutionary path, there is going to be a point where the design is just as efficient as you can get, you can't better it.

    So all that could really be proven if the initial statement was correct is that Fruit flies are at their ergonomic maximum and completely efficient enough to survive without mutation.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page