Fruit Flies Disprove Darwin!
Jason Hodin
show that "evolution is a fake" by examining experiments with the
popular lab animal, the fruit fly Drosophila melanogaster. Since I
did my Ph.D. on evolution in Drosophila melanogaster and its close
relatives, I was surprised to hear this species held up as proof that
"evolution is a fake." In any case, the authors of the "Fruit Flies
Speak Up" page (which is supposedly an excerpt from the book
"Mutations" available through pathlights.com) have made 14 major
claims on this page, and have used quotations (some from creationists,
some from evolutionary biologists) to bolster their contention that
fruit fly experiments prove that "evolution is a fake."
Here is their URL:
http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/10mut10.htm
At the following page, I go through each of their 14 claims in turn.
If the pathlights page presented a quote to supposedly bolster their
claim, then I have reprinted that quote there, followed by my response
to the claim.
http://www.hartnell.cc.ca.us/faculty/jhodin/superfly.htm
Jason Hodin
Seattle, WA USA
ho...@u.washington.edu
Dale
Louann Miller
Hodin) wrote:
(In critique of creationist misuse of a section of science he knows
well)
>Here is their URL:
>
>http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/10mut10.htm
>
>At the following page, I go through each of their 14 claims in turn.
>If the pathlights page presented a quote to supposedly bolster their
>claim, then I have reprinted that quote there, followed by my response
>to the claim.
>
>http://www.hartnell.cc.ca.us/faculty/jhodin/superfly.htm
Friom time to time around here we post lists of "Questions
Creationists Never Want to Answer". The long-running favorite is "What
is the scientific theory of creation, and what evidence supports it?"
but your experience reminds us that "Why do so many creationists lie
like f*ck?" would be equally appropriate.
Mike Dworetsky
"Jason Hodin" <ho...@u.washington.edu> wrote in message
news:8f73cf4f.04030...@posting.google.com...
Any chance you could offer your analysis and replies as a FAQ on
talkorigins.org? It would be handy next time a creationist drops by waving
fruit flies at us.
--
Mike Dworetsky
(Remove "pants" spamblock to send e-mail)
Ferrous Patella
> And time files like an arrow!
>
>
>
But fruit flies like bananas better!
--
Ferrous Patella
"Great is the guilt of an unnecessary war."
--John Adams, letter to Abigail, 1797
Ferrous Patella
<plati...@pants.btinternet.com>:
And why were you not at the Seattle Howlerfest?
John Harshman
Jason Hodin wrote:
Nice. But hasn't at least one new species of fruit fly been produced in
the lab? And if I recall, it was Dobzhansky's lab at that. Isn't there
also a sizable experimental literature on disruptive selection,
assortative mating, and selection for reproductive isolation in D.
melanogaster? I also wonder what effect artifically induced Wollbachia
infections would have on "speciation". Of course, they're still fruit
flies. And still insects. And still ecdysozoans. Etc.
Mike Dworetsky
news:Xns94A06B3AD710B...@199.45.49.11...
I was 5,000 miles away, but Jason seems a bit closer...
Editor of EvilBible.com
That's a nice response. Could I offer one very minor comment? On claim #2
the quote from Ernst Mayr comes from a book by the lunatic Jeremy Rifkin.
That's why Rifkin's name comes at the end of the quote. If you quickly skim
through the material as I did, it may seem at first glance that you are
calling Jeremy Rifkin "a father of modern evolutionary thought". I almost
died laughing because Jeremy Rifkin is not a scientist at all. He is a
crazed lunatic best known for his anti-biotechnology crusades. Then I read
it again and it was clear that you intended to call Ernst Mayr "a father of
modern evolutionary thought". Perhaps you could insert Mayr's name in the
first sentence to avoid confusion.
Joe W Larson
If this ends up in the talk.origins faq, the "repeated russian roullette"
illustration should be used. I'm not sure if this is what its called, but i
remember ages ago someone using this argument, and though i can't find it,
i'll recap:
Say you're playing russian roullette with a 6 chamber pistol. 1 bullet
gives you one fitness point. 1 bullet takes away a fitness point. 1 bullet
takes all your fitness points and kills you. The rest are blanks.
Play once, the odds are 1/6 you'll be one point fitter, 1/6 you'll be one
point less fitter, and 1/6 you'll be killed.
Play twice, and odds are 1/36 you'll be two points fitter, 1/6 you'll be one
point fitter, 11/36 you'll be unchanged or break even,1/6 you'll be one
point less fit, 1/36 you'll be two points less fit, and 11/36 that you'll
be killed.
I don't have time to play through the continuing cycle, but obviously, each
time you play, the chances of something good happening get slimmer and
slimmer, and the bad stuff is far more likely. Obviously this is grossly
simplified vs. what really happens, but it is a good illustration.
Is there a more formal or intelligently described version of this?
Thanks,
joe w larson
http://www.soundclick.com/joewlarson
david ford
Compare
1970 Mayr on organisms' observed resistance to change
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.4.44L.01.0309181335410.2863259-100000%40irix2.gl.umbc.edu
Rensberger, Alberch
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=8bepfm%24h45%241%40nnrp1.deja.com
fruit flies, Hampton Carson, Koestler
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=8dbdpj%24p14%241%40nnrp1.deja.com
1950 Anthony Standen
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0403061926.298a316f%40posting.google.com
1959 Gertrude Himmelfarb on 1871 Darwin backtracking; 1892 Henry de
Varigny
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0312222212.4728f71b%40posting.google.com
Dobzhansky on genetic variability in
Essay on Problems with Darwin's Theory of Natural Selection
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.LNX.4.10A.B3.10005310900310.17702-100000%40jabba.gl.umbc.edu
the word "species"
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0402022042.2584c45e%40posting.google.com