Arificial selection in populations of fruit flies.

Elendur

Gamer and mathematician
Feb 27, 2012
2,405
30
Sweden - Umeå
✟17,952.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Engaged
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:

CabVet

Question everything
Dec 7, 2011
11,738
176
Los Altos, CA
✟28,402.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
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.
 
Upvote 0

Mr Strawberry

Newbie
Jan 20, 2012
4,180
81
Great Britain
✟12,542.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
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.

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:
Upvote 0

Elendur

Gamer and mathematician
Feb 27, 2012
2,405
30
Sweden - Umeå
✟17,952.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Engaged
There were several experiments that were done exactly like that, and changes were visible in morphology and mating preferences of Drosophila.
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)

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.
Mr Strawberry explained it quite nicely.
 
Upvote 0

rush1169

Newbie
Jun 13, 2012
327
6
✟9,601.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
There were several experiments that were done exactly like that, and changes were visible in morphology and mating preferences of Drosophila.
Yeah, but they were still just flies :)

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".
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 :)
 
Upvote 0

loktai

Newbie
Jun 26, 2012
237
7
✟423.00
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
In Relationship
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.

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.
 
Upvote 0

rush1169

Newbie
Jun 13, 2012
327
6
✟9,601.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
The above experiment [of artificially evolving a bee into a fly or a fish into a mammal] would either prove or refute evolution.
So what's the verdict?

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

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

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:
Upvote 0

Elendur

Gamer and mathematician
Feb 27, 2012
2,405
30
Sweden - Umeå
✟17,952.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Engaged
Upvote 0

Loudmouth

Contributor
Aug 26, 2003
51,417
6,141
Visit site
✟98,005.00
Faith
Agnostic
Yeah, but they were still just flies :)

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?

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.

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

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 :)

See example above.
 
Upvote 0

Mr Strawberry

Newbie
Jan 20, 2012
4,180
81
Great Britain
✟12,542.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
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 :)

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.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

pgp_protector

Noted strange person
Dec 17, 2003
51,661
17,590
55
Earth For Now
Visit site
✟390,187.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
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.

Also, isn't most life by biomass still single celled?
 
Upvote 0

Jamin4422

Member
Jul 5, 2012
2,957
17
✟3,349.00
Faith
United Ch. of Christ
Marital Status
In Relationship
Yeah, but they were still just flies :)
Yep, they inserted a gene from a firefly and they could glow in the dark. But there were still just flys.

drosophila.jpg
 
Upvote 0