Dismiss Notice

Welcome to Christian Forums, a friendly forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
  • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
  • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting after you have posted 20 posts and have received 5 likes.
  • Access to private conversations with other members.

We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Arificial selection in populations of fruit flies.

Discussion in 'Creation & Evolution' started by Elendur, Aug 2, 2012.

  1. Elendur

    Elendur Gamer and mathematician

    Messages:
    2,407
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gender:
    Male
    Marital Status:
    Engaged
    Faith:
    Agnostic
    There is plenty of arguments raised due to 'macroevolution'.
    Some classical ones like 'a dog will aways be a dog', some complaining about speciation, etc etc.
    All that has got me thinking.

    Fruit fly that will be used (just for generation information, the fact that they're usually used etc):
    Drosophila melanogaster - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia





    I was just thinking about a hypothetical situation where we have:
    1. A population of fruit flies that has all they need to survive and breed.
    2. A habitat with walls and ceiling that is specially prepared to keep the fruitflies from walking around on them (they shouldn't be able to).
    3. When the population reach a certain number there are two additional areas opened, one area that is at floor height, one area that is a few decimeters above.
    4. These two areas are designed to be accessed by two different groups in the fruit fly population, the lower for flies who won't fly as high, the higher for flies who flies higher.
    5. The flies who flies into the higher area will be separated from the population.
    6. The steps 3-5 will be repeated until a pre-determined time, generation or goal has been reached.
    So what I'm really interested in is:

    What do you think would happen and why?
    What time, generation or goal would you set for step 6?
    What additional step, of your choice, would you like to add or remove, if any?

    Is there any other question that would interest you?


    Cheers :) Elendur

    Edit: Replaced "for" with "until".
     
    Last edited: Aug 2, 2012
  2. CabVet

    CabVet Question everything

    Messages:
    11,686
    Likes Received:
    0
    Marital Status:
    Married
    Politics:
    US-Others
    Faith:
    Agnostic
    There were several experiments that were done exactly like that, and changes were visible in morphology and mating preferences of Drosophila.

    The real problem is that creationists will just keep saying that even if speciation is observed in a human generation time, those will just be "flies". If they become different genera, they will still "just" be the same family. If they become different families, they will be the same order, and so on. Hundreds of years from now, if we could "evolve" a fish into a mammal in the lab, they would still say that they were all "vertebrates". After almost a year in this forum I am really lost as to what to propose to try to convince these guys.
     
  3. Mr Strawberry

    Mr Strawberry Newbie

    Messages:
    4,189
    Likes Received:
    22
    Marital Status:
    In Relationship
    Faith:
    Atheist
    Well, the thing is, they aren't actually listening. They already know they're right so you can talk to them until you're blue in the face and it will all just go in one ear and out the other. They aren't listening and they aren't thinking about what is being explained to them. We can all name creationists who have been on this forum years and still don't understand evolution. How many times have we seen creationists have their favourite argument/pet theory/distortion of the facts torn to pieces in front of them only to see them trot it out afresh a week later as if nothing had happened. How could they not have learned anything, we wonder. Because none of it registered, that's how. Why not? Because they weren't listening. All the careful explanations fell on deaf ears. They beam at you indulgently as you try to explain for the twentieth time the massive holes, errors and misunderstandings in their posts and it all sails straight past them because all they are thinking about is what their pastor said in church last Sunday or about how much Jesus loves them or how sad it is that you will be going to hell.
     
    Last edited: Aug 3, 2012
  4. Elendur

    Elendur Gamer and mathematician

    Messages:
    2,407
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gender:
    Male
    Marital Status:
    Engaged
    Faith:
    Agnostic
    Cool :) I expected that to be honest but I just felt that some 'anti-evolutionists' would be able to chip in if I made the thread in this form. (You know the old saying, "It's a trap!")

    Could you link any study like that? (Just out of curiosity)

    Mr Strawberry explained it quite nicely.
     
  5. rush1169

    rush1169 Newbie

    Messages:
    326
    Likes Received:
    5
    Marital Status:
    Married
    Faith:
    Christian
    Yeah, but they were still just flies :)

    Hey, if science can evolve a fly into a bee or a fish into a mammal in the lab, I'll be the first one on the scene to call it whatever it happened to turn into and add our scientific ability to manipulate life to that degree to my ever growing list of evidence that it was all designed.

    On a side note, I've always thought it strange that Dawkins uses the 50,000 generation bacteria experiment in The Greatest Show on Earth as an example of evolution in action, even though they are still just bacteria :)
     
  6. loktai

    loktai Newbie

    Messages:
    237
    Likes Received:
    0
    Marital Status:
    In Relationship
    Faith:
    Humanist
    How would that possibly constitute evidence for design?

    The above experiment would either prove or refute evolution. If nothing changed in the flies then it casts doubt on ToE. If the flies changed then it proves consistent with the ToE in testable and reproducible conditions.

    I fail to see how this either proves or refutes the idea of a creator, the evidence here is simply irrellevant.
     
  7. rush1169

    rush1169 Newbie

    Messages:
    326
    Likes Received:
    5
    Marital Status:
    Married
    Faith:
    Christian
    So what's the verdict?

    I'm confused. Are we talking about anything changing or talking about a fly into a bee or a fish into a mammal?

    How I see it: Before our advancement of science, humans had the biblical Genesis account to explain origins. That account is timeless and sufficient for all human levels of intellect and knowledge. Today, science is quickly understanding how it all works together as a system. Back in the "old days" the creation paradigm was such that God created one thing, paused, created another thing, paused, created another thing, paused, created another thing and continued with successive creation events, one-at-a-time over the course of time. What science is revealing is that the creation events were fewer and further between. "In the beginning" was a Big Bang (the creation event) that included everything needed for nature to run it's course and result in you, me, and this day we live.

    I'm much more impressed that everything that is and will be was incorporated into that one creation event than I was when I thought God used a series of individual events over time to get to where we are today. As an analogy, I'd be much more impressed if humans could build a machine that you feed hydrogen atoms and out comes whatever you tell it (a car, for example) than I am compared to the way we do it now (which is still pretty neat, but pales in comparison).
     
    Last edited: Aug 3, 2012
  8. Elendur

    Elendur Gamer and mathematician

    Messages:
    2,407
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gender:
    Male
    Marital Status:
    Engaged
    Faith:
    Agnostic
    If you're confused about what loktai means with the change you would need to brush up on what ToE really says.

    Evolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
     
  9. Loudmouth

    Loudmouth Contributor

    Messages:
    37,526
    Likes Received:
    435
    Faith:
    Agnostic
    Humans and bears are mammals, as was our common ancestor. It is mammals evolving into mammals. Are you saying that this doesn't count as an example of evolution because we can use the same name for all of these species?

    Evolution doesn't cause species to evolve into already existing species.

    See example above.
     
  10. Mr Strawberry

    Mr Strawberry Newbie

    Messages:
    4,189
    Likes Received:
    22
    Marital Status:
    In Relationship
    Faith:
    Atheist
    It is worth noting that for the first 2.5 billion years of the 3.5 billion year history of life on Earth, all life was single celled. Some consclusions can be drawn from that.
     
  11. pgp_protector

    pgp_protector Noted strange person

    Messages:
    49,431
    Likes Received:
    224
    Gender:
    Male
    Marital Status:
    Married
    Politics:
    US-Others
    Faith:
    Christian
    Also, isn't most life by biomass still single celled?
     
  12. Jamin4422

    Jamin4422 Member

    Messages:
    2,957
    Likes Received:
    0
    Marital Status:
    In Relationship
    Faith:
    UnitedChurchOfChrist
    Yep, they inserted a gene from a firefly and they could glow in the dark. But there were still just flys.

    [​IMG]
     
Loading...