Classic case of evolution refuted

[Vaccine]

"Scientists at the University of Chicago have created the first genetically modified animals containing reconstructed ancient genes, which they used to test the evolutionary effects of genetic changes that happened in the deep past on the animals' biology and fitness."

"We found that the accepted wisdom about the molecular causes of the flies' evolution is simply wrong."

Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2017-01-scientists-animals-ancient-genes-evolution.html#jCp
https://phys.org/news/2017-01-scientists-animals-ancient-genes-evolution.html#jCp



Sounds like they will be testing more cases in the future:

"Nevertheless, because of technical and conceptual advances, it should now be possible to experimentally assess the causal predictions of many previously untested or weakly tested hypotheses of historical molecular adaptation, allowing them to be corroborated or, like the classic hypothesis of ADH divergence in D. melanogaster, decisively refuted."

Experimental test and refutation of a classic case of molecular adaptation in Drosophila melanogaster : Nature Ecology & Evolution

 

[KCfromNC]

I'm going to go out on a limb and guess quote-mining.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'm going to go out on a limb and guess quote-mining.

From an article that the OP did not understand. The article was about how one gene was thought to be the gene that allowed fruit flies to eat fruit high in alcohol. They found out that that was wrong. Even without that one gene they could digest alcohol just fine.

This in no way will overturn the theory of evolution. It will only confirm or negate certain evolutionary pathways.

 

[Archie the Preacher]

In other words, in actual words, the article does not 'refute' any theory or theories, it merely shows one particular aspect or suspected means of change does not work as suspected and an alternate is more likely.

I find myself in the curious position of agreeing with S.D. In this instance he's right and Vaccine is in error. Then again, I have long suspected YEC types and anti-God types are far closer to each other in methods of thinking (or not thinking) than either suspect; while each are terribly wrong in their conclusions.

Life goes on.

 

[Subduction Zone]

In other words, in actual words, the article does not 'refute' any theory or theories, it merely shows one particular aspect or suspected means of change does not work as suspected and an alternate is more likely.

I find myself in the curious position of agreeing with S.D. In this instance he's right and Vaccine is in error. Then again, I have long suspected YEC types and anti-God types are far closer to each other in methods of thinking (or not thinking) than either suspect; while each are terribly wrong in their conclusions.

Life goes on.

One minor correction. Most atheists, and that would include me are not "anti-God". We simply state the obvious, that it is almost certain that your version of "God" does not exist and the existence of almost any god has no valid evidence that supports it. Show us some valid evidence and we too will support your beliefs.

But thank you otherwise. By the way, the fact that life is the product of evolution does not mean that the Christian God does not exist. It only means that a literal reading of the Bible is wrong.

 

[Archie the Preacher]

One minor correction.

- inarticulate groan -

Most atheists, and that would include me are not "anti-God".

Right. You simply and without taking sides, deny God exists. Known in logical circles as "A distinction without a difference".

Show us some valid evidence and we too will support your beliefs.

And, just like the YEC faction, any evidence shown is NOT valid. No matter what.

But thank you otherwise.

You are welcome. Odd as that sounds for both of us.

By the way, the fact that life is the product of evolution does not mean that the Christian God does not exist.

What?!?! SD, that's the most open minded statement I recall you making! That suggests your mind isn't totally locked shut. Which is more promising than some of the YEC faction.

It only means that a literal reading of the Bible is wrong.

And we agree on that as well. Probably for different reasons, but it's pretty good, considering.

I've tried to tell the YEC community the problem is not 'literal' reading, the problem is determining what is 'literally said' with attention to the actual meaning of words in the Hebrew text.

And even with the 'shots' I took, thank you.

 

[Speedwell]

...a literal reading of the Bible is wrong.

But according to creationists, that is the same as being "anti God."

 

[Archie the Preacher]

But according to creationists, that is the same as being "anti God."

Not being YEC, I've had any number of YEC proponents tell me I do not believe the Bible. No matter what I say or explain, if I don't believe EXACTLY what they believe or understand, I reject the Bible. Some hint very strongly - but not overtly as the rules here forbid it - I'm not 'really' a Christian.

 

[Subduction Zone]

- inarticulate groan - Right. You simply and without taking sides, deny God exists. Known in logical circles as "A distinction without a difference".And, just like the YEC faction, any evidence shown is NOT valid. No matter what.

You are making a rather hackneyed mistake. It is not denial to believe in a concept that is not supported. You are the one that claims a god exists, that puts the burden of proof upon you. I am neutral on the issue. But I will not believe in pixies without evidence and the same goes for a god. The reason that you have no evidence is that all claims by theists could have just as easily occurred without a god. Or at best the answer is unknown. Of course god as a cure all to unanswered questions is never a win for your side.

You are welcome. Odd as that sounds for both of us.What?!?! SD, that's the most open minded statement I recall you making! That suggests your mind isn't totally locked shut. Which is more promising than some of the YEC faction.And we agree on that as well. Probably for different reasons, but it's pretty good, considering.

You simply have the wrong impression of me. I have always been open to an honest discussion. Sadly none ever seems to come from the creationist side.

I've tried to tell the YEC community the problem is not 'literal' reading, the problem is determining what is 'literally said' with attention to the actual meaning of words in the Hebrew text.

That is not a too unreasonable approach. But then how do you explain the Adam and Eve story since there never were only two people in the world? And on a related note what is your interpretation of the Noah's Ark story?

And even with the 'shots' I took, thank you.

You are welcome. Who know? Perhaps we can have a discussion.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Not being YEC, I've had any number of YEC proponents tell me I do not believe the Bible. No matter what I say or explain, if I don't believe EXACTLY what they believe or understand, I reject the Bible. Some hint very strongly - but not overtly as the rules here forbid it - I'm not 'really' a Christian.

Ah yes, that good old "No True Scotsman Fallacy".

 

[Subduction Zone]

But according to creationists, that is the same as being "anti God."

Yes, they make the mistake of thinking that their version of "God" is the only version. I suppose that according to them about half of all Christianity if "anti-God" or more.

 

[sfs]

I suppose that according to them about half of all Christianity if "anti-God" or more.

An old joke:

A man arrives at the gates of heaven. St. Peter asks, "Religion?"
The man says, "Methodist."
St. Peter looks down his list and says, "Go to Room 24, but be very quiet as you pass Room 8."
Another man arrives at the gates of heaven. "Religion?"
"Lutheran."
"Go to Room 18, but be very quiet as you pass Room 8."
A third man arrives at the gates. "Religion?"
"Presbyterian."
"Go to Room 11, but be very quiet as you pass Room 8."
The man says, "I can understand there being different rooms for different denominations, but why must I be quiet when I pass Room 8?"
St. Peter tells him, "Well, the Baptists are in Room 8, and they think they're the only ones here."

 

[bhsmte]

Classic alright. Just not the type of classic the OP was referring to.

 

[Archie the Preacher]

You are making a rather hackneyed mistake.

You seem to forget I have prior experience with you.

You simply have the wrong impression of me. I have always been open to an honest discussion.

You seem to forget I have prior experience with you. So much that I now avoid even paying attention to you. You avoid and or deny anything not agreeing with your assumption, then refuse to admit you have assumptions.

Sadly none ever seems to come from the creationist side.

Not being a YEC 'creationist', I remain mute.

But then how do you explain the Adam and Eve story since there never were only two people in the world? And on a related note what is your interpretation of the Noah's Ark story?

Here we go again. No matter what I explain, you ignore it, replace everything with your own straw men and then pretend you are honest. Thanks but no thanks.

You are welcome. Who know? Perhaps we can have a discussion.

Not with your past standard operating procedure. But it is a nice thought.

 

[Vaccine]

I'm going to go out on a limb and guess quote-mining.

Your guess would be wrong.
Peer reviewed articles are very carefully worded. When they say "decisively refuted", they mean it.

 

[Vaccine]

From an article that the OP did not understand. The article was about how one gene was thought to be the gene that allowed fruit flies to eat fruit high in alcohol. They found out that that was wrong. Even without that one gene they could digest alcohol just fine.

This in no way will overturn the theory of evolution. It will only confirm or negate certain evolutionary pathways.

If you're suggesting "We found that the accepted wisdom about the molecular causes of the flies' evolution is simply wrong." is just a minor adjustment, you're wrong. This challenges the accepted wisdom about adaptation, a fundamental principle of Darwin's theory. They plan on testing more cases and I wouldn't count on it getting better.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

If you're suggesting "We found that the accepted wisdom about the molecular causes of the flies' evolution is simply wrong." is just a minor adjustment, you're wrong. This challenges the accepted wisdom about adaptation, a fundamental principle of Darwin's theory. They plan on testing more cases and I wouldn't count on it getting better.

But only regarding the fruit fly.
Maybe if you're going to quote something, quote it in full:
'"This strategy of engineering 'ancestralized animals' could be applied to many evolutionary questions," Thornton said. "For the first test case, we chose a classic example of adaptation-how fruit flies evolved the ability to survive the high alcohol concentrations found in rotting fruit. We found that the accepted wisdom about the molecular causes of the flies' evolution is simply wrong."'
They were only talking about the fruit fly, not evolution as a whole.

 

[Vaccine]

In other words, in actual words, the article does not 'refute' any theory or theories, it merely shows one particular aspect or suspected means of change does not work as suspected and an alternate is more likely.

I find myself in the curious position of agreeing with S.D. In this instance he's right and Vaccine is in error. Then again, I have long suspected YEC types and anti-God types are far closer to each other in methods of thinking (or not thinking) than either suspect; while each are terribly wrong in their conclusions.

Life goes on.

Nowhere did I conclude this refutes the theory of evolution. Species evolve and adapt over time, duh. Their results refute the "accepted wisdom" about molecular adaptation. They said "The Adh story was accepted because the ecology, physiology, and the statistical signature of selection all pointed in the same direction. But three lines of circumstantial evidence don't make an airtight case,"
So all the people who think natural selection acting on random mutations is an "airtight case" to explain everything are simply wrong.

 

[Vaccine]

Classic alright. Just not the type of classic the OP was referring to.

I quoted the jist of the article and added one sentence of my own. How could you possibly know what "type" I meant?

So there isn't any more confusion, I wasn't making an argument, simply pointing out random mutations and natural selection aren't the creative force behind genes people think they are.

 

[Vaccine]

But only regarding the fruit fly.
Maybe if you're going to quote something, quote it in full:
'"This strategy of engineering 'ancestralized animals' could be applied to many evolutionary questions," Thornton said. "For the first test case, we chose a classic example of adaptation-how fruit flies evolved the ability to survive the high alcohol concentrations found in rotting fruit. We found that the accepted wisdom about the molecular causes of the flies' evolution is simply wrong."'
They were only talking about the fruit fly, not evolution as a whole.

Nowhere did I say evolution as a whole. Evolution is phenomenon observable in nature, it isn't going to be refuted. What was refuted was the accepted wisdom on molecular adaptation. Why do you say it only applies to the fruit fly then proceed to quote them saying "could be applied to many evolutionary questions"?