35 year evolution experiment *FAIL*

[Cabal]

Where in scripture does it say that God used evolution?

Where in scripture does it literally say that Genesis should be taken literally?

Where in scripture does it talk about the correct usage of bicycles?

 

[shernren]

Where in scripture does it literally say that Genesis should be taken literally?

Where in scripture does it talk about the correct usage of bicycles?

God abhors fixed-gear bicycles:

As for the appearance of the wheels and their construction: their appearance was like the gleaming of beryl. And the four had the same likeness, their appearance and construction being as it were a wheel within a wheel. (Ezek 1:16, ESV)

 

[Assyrian]

Ezek 1:15 Now as I looked at the living creatures, I saw a wheel on the earth beside the living creatures, one for each of the four of them. Heretic! That is a quad not a bicycle.

 

[juvenissun]

What direction is that?

Forward direction.

 

[Mallon]

Forward direction.

What about atavisms?

 

[juvenissun]

What about atavisms?

Is that an evidence of forward evolution?

 

[Mallon]

Is that an evidence of forward evolution?

Do you know what an atavism is?

 

[lucaspa]

Fruit Flies Not Evolving 09/30/2010
Sept 30, 2010 — A long-running experiment trying to get fruit flies to evolve has failed.

Not exactly. You need to look at the details:

"Here we present whole-genome resequencing data from Drosophila melanogaster populations that have experienced over 600 generations of laboratory selection for accelerated development. " What does "accelerated development" mean?

"Flies in these selected populations develop from egg to adult ~20% faster than flies of ancestral control populations, and have evolved a number of other correlated phenotypes. "

The authors are using artificial selection and are focusing on just the rate of development, not the end product of development. The authors admit this in the abstract:
"We conclude that, at least for life history characters such as development time, unconditionally advantageous alleles rarely arise, are associated with small net fitness gains or cannot fix because selection coefficients change over time. "

Development involves hundreds/thousands of genes. What they are proposing is that variants for accelerated development already exist in the population, but are somewhat "countered" by the other genes involved in development. So what happened is that those already-existing alleles were selected for, and this accounts for the loss of heterozygosity (number of alleles) in the population. Those alleles became present in most of the population and there was no need for newly arising alleles.

Because development involves hundreds/thousands of genes, there are several ways (involving different alleles) that accelerated development can happen. Therefore there is no need to "fix" particular alleles, since a combination of say, allele B, D, and E and alleles 1,5, 6 on another set of genes will all yield the same result. This is the "soft" sweep they are talking about in the abstract.

From the paper:
"There are several possible explanations for our failure to observe the signature of a classic sweep in these populations, despite strong selection. Classic sweeps may be occurring, but have had insufficient time to reach fixation. ...
"Alternatively, selection in these lines may generally act on standing variation, and not new mutations. This soft sweep model predicts partial losses of heterozygosity flanking selected sites, provided that selection begins acting when mutations are at low frequencies12, 17, and this is consistent with our observed data. ...
"A third explanation is that the selection coefficients associated with newly arising mutations are not static but in fact decrease over time. This could be the case if initially rare selected alleles increase to frequencies where additional change is hindered, perhaps by linked deleterious alleles or antagonistic pleiotropy. Laboratory evolution experiments typically expose populations to novel environments in which focal traits respond quickly and then plateau at some new value (compare with refs 13, 18). Chevin and Hospital19 recently modelled the trajectory of an initially rare beneficial allele that does not reach fixation because its selective advantage is inversely proportional to the distance to a new phenotypic optimum, and that optimum is reached, because of other loci, before the variant fixes. This model therefore has appeal in the context of experimental evolution, as it assumes populations generally reach a new phenotypic optimum before newly arising beneficial mutations of modest effect have had time to fix."

NONE of this denies evolution happens.

From the website:
"This experiment was begun in 1975. After 35 years and 600 generations, accelerated by artificial selection, the net evolution (in terms of adaptation and improvement in fitness) was negligible if not nil. "

D. melanogaster has a generation time of one week. So that is 52 generations per year or less than 12 years for the experiment.

Nor does the article state that there is no net evolution or fitness. Look at that again:
Flies in these selected populations develop from egg to adult ~20% faster than flies of ancestral control populations,"

That 20% reduction of developmental time is not "negligible". So once again creationists distort the literature. Shock! I am shocked, I tell you!

Now, Monarchist, there are other papers showing new species of D. melanogastor using natural selection:

1. G Kilias, SN Alahiotis, and M Pelecanos. A multifactorial genetic investigation of speciation theory using drosophila melanogaster Evolution 34:730-737, 1980. Got new species of fruit flies in the lab after 5 years on different diets and temperatures. Also confirmation of natural selection in the process. Lots of references to other studies that saw speciation.
2. D Dodd. Reproductive isolation as a consequence of adaptive divergence in Drosophila pseudoobscura. Evolution 43(6): 1308-1311, 1989. JSTOR: An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie Got new species on different diets: starch vs maltose. 52 generations.

All this shows is that rate of development is different than evolution for new physiological features. The results only apply to this model. Something else your creationist source forgot to mention.

Perhaps you should stop trusting them.

 

[lucaspa]

Forward direction.

Which direction is "forward"?

What about loss of organs, such as the loss of legs in snakes and whales and the loss of eyes in some underground dwelling species?

 

[juvenissun]

Do you know what an atavism is?

Roughly, yes. Details, no.
If you don't think I know it, why don't you explain before you asked me?

 

[juvenissun]

Which direction is "forward"?

What about loss of organs, such as the loss of legs in snakes and whales and the loss of eyes in some underground dwelling species?

Forward means not backward, and not repeating.

If anything lost legs, then it will not get it back no matter what. If a species extinct, then it will never appear again no matter what happen. That is forward.

 

[Mallon]

Roughly, yes. Details, no.
If you don't think I know it, why don't you explain before you asked me?

Why should I have to explain basic terminology to someone who thinks that they understand evolutionary biology so well that they can make grand pronouncements about it?

 

[juvenissun]

Why should I have to explain basic terminology to someone who thinks that they understand evolutionary biology so well that they can make grand pronouncements about it?

What is wrong with my pronouncements?
Would atavism bring dinosaurs back? Why is it not possible?

 

[shernren]

What is wrong with my pronouncements?
Would atavism bring dinosaurs back? Why is it not possible?

No, atavisms can't bring dinosaurs back. But Jeff Goldblum could!

 

[pastorkevin73]

Where in scripture does it literally say that Genesis should be taken literally?

Where in scripture does it talk about the correct usage of bicycles?

I asked my question first, so please answer the question. No dodging!!!
BTW, I will answer your question at a later date. I have been working on that very question.

 

[Cabal]

I asked my question first, so please answer the question. No dodging!!!

The answer was in the question - just because the Bible doesn't talk about something doesn't mean that it's not true or existent.

 

[Jig]

Not exactly. You need to look at the details:

Want to know the most important detail? They are still flies.

 

[Mallon]

Want to know the most important detail? They are still flies.

Evolution doesn't predict otherwise.

 

[juvenissun]

Evolution doesn't predict otherwise.

If so, what is the 35 years of effort for?

Evolution predicts !

 

[Mallon]

If so, what is the 35 years of effort for?

To try to breed flies that develop more quickly. Read the OP.