Fruit flies and evolution

[worship4ever]

I recently watched a program on NOVA about an experiment with fruit flies. What they did was removed the eggs from female fruit flies. The entire idea behind evolution is that that species reproduce. They noted that 1/3 of fruit flies, the person doing the experiment said it was a great experiment for proof of evolution. He said that since the fruit flies weren't given the chance to reproduce nature selection got rid of them. Well to that i say, i hope i have kids. There are millions of people that never have reproduce and nature selection never kills them off has useless. In thinking of this absurb experiment i asked this.

Where did the ape come from? "From the lower mammals"

Where did the lower mammals come from? "From the lizards and the reptiles"

Where did the Lizards and the Reptiles come from? "From the fish"

Where did the fish come from? "From clusters of living cells that had grouped themselves into colonies"

Where did they come from? "Well, they came from one single cell."

And where did that come from?

And here's the real crunch! The evolutionists teach that this one cell just came by accident -- by chance -- from a lucky mixture of gases and molecules and energy in a kind of primordial soup, in other words -- from non-living matter.

The key teaching of evolution, therefore, is that life comes from non-living matter.

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Oracle/9463/evolution.html

 

[ifriit]

I recently watched a program on NOVA about an experiment with fruit flies. What they did was removed the eggs from female fruit flies. The entire idea behind evolution is that that species reproduce. They noted that 1/3 of fruit flies, the person doing the experiment said it was a great experiment for proof of evolution. He said that since the fruit flies weren't given the chance to reproduce nature selection got rid of them. Well to that i say, i hope i have kids. There are millions of people that never have reproduce and nature selection never kills them off has useless. In thinking of this absurb experiment i asked this.

You misunderstand what natural selection is. It is not alleged to be a process by which anything is killed, but rather it describes the fact that some organisms reproduce and some do not; those that do not reproduce do not pass their genes to the next generation, and they have thus been removed from the gene pool.

Where did the ape come from? "From the lower mammals"

Where did the lower mammals come from? "From the lizards and the reptiles"

Where did the Lizards and the Reptiles come from? "From the fish"

Where did the fish come from? "From clusters of living cells that had grouped themselves into colonies"

Where did they come from? "Well, they came from one single cell."

And where did that come from?

Evolutionary theory only deals with organisms. This question is outside of evolutionary theory and cannot be answered by it.

And here's the real crunch! The evolutionists teach that this one cell just came by accident -- by chance -- from a lucky mixture of gases and molecules and energy in a kind of primordial soup, in other words -- from non-living matter.

Then the people you call "evolutionists" are talking about abiogenesis, not evolution.

The key teaching of evolution, therefore, is that life comes from non-living matter.

Incorrect. Abiogenesis is not evolution.

 

[Meatros]

And here's the real crunch! The evolutionists teach that this one cell just came by accident -- by chance -- from a lucky mixture of gases and molecules and energy in a kind of primordial soup, in other words -- from non-living matter.

Where did you get this major misconception from???

Evolution doesn't speculate *at all* about how the first cell/cells came into being. What you are referring to is known as abiogenesis. Your conclusion doesn't effect the validity of evolution *at all*.

We could have documented proof that God stuck the first cells here, and guess what?

The theory of evolution would still remain valid.

 

[Arikay]

Nope sorry. Thats a current set of hypothesis of science, however Abiogenesis (where life came from) Is Not Part of Evolution. No matter how hard you try to make it.

Besides, doesnt the bible teach that as well?

"Gen 2:7** And the LORD God formed man [of] the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul."

 

[Arikay]

The thing is that I would assume Worship shouldnt have these types of missconceptions and I would assume this has all been explained before (although lost in the crash).

 

[lucaspa]

I recently watched a program on NOVA about an experiment with fruit flies. What they did was removed the eggs from female fruit flies. The entire idea behind evolution is that that species reproduce. They noted that 1/3 of fruit flies, the person doing the experiment said it was a great experiment for proof of evolution. He said that since the fruit flies weren't given the chance to reproduce nature selection got rid of them.

You must have summarized the experiment in error, because as you described it, this is not a test of natural selection or descent with modification. What program exactly?

And here's the real crunch! The evolutionists teach that this one cell just came by accident -- by chance -- from a lucky mixture of gases and molecules and energy in a kind of primordial soup, in other words -- from non-living matter.

The key teaching of evolution, therefore, is that life comes from non-living matter.

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Oracle/9463/evolution.html

Another attempt to equate evolution with abiogenesis. The reason you do this, of course, is that you equate evolution with atheism and in abiogenesis you think you have a "gap" to insert God into.

Well, evolution isn't atheism and evolution does not care where the first cell came from. See this from Darwin:

"There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved." C. Darwin, On the Origin of Species, pg 450.

Did you see that? Darwin has the first cell coming directly from the Creator. Biological evolution only starts AFTER you have the first cell.

Now, your assertion that the first cell has to come about by chance is in error. NO scientist says this. Instead, the first cell and first life comes from chemistry. And chemistry isn't chance. See the websites:
http://www.siu.edu/~protocell/
http://www.theharbinger.org/articles/rel_sci/fox.html

 

[worship4ever]

The present theory is that it wasn't DNA that first occured. The "RNA World" model suggests that life originated from a complex pool of RNA molecules that served both as genetic material and catalysts for their replication and metabolism. The "Proteinoid" model suggests that pools of "RANDOMLY" assembled polypeptides (proteinoids) generated a complex metabolism while self-assembling into "microspheres" (similar to micron-sized cells.

http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/aug2000/965332850.Ev.r.html

Did you see that word random in there, i did, plus the odds of that happening by random is so astromonical that you would need eternity on your side, but evolutionist dont, they have a mere 15 billion years.

 

[Meatros]

Did you see that word random in there, i did, plus the odds of that happening by random is so astromonical that you would need eternity on your side, but evolutionist dont, they have a mere 15 billion years.

Are you just being intellectually dishonest, or are you stubbornly sticking to your *special and not accurate* definition of evolution for a reason?

 

[Arikay]

Anyone feel like we are recaping what was lost in the crash, and what I assumed Worship should have read?

The supposed atronomical numbers are faulty.

I cant remember, worship, did you post the math or did someone else? (that was lost in the crash)

 

[Siliconaut]

I remember that the math was based on the faulty assumption that chemical reactions were chance events instead of automatical, calculable processes.

And why on earth doesn't w4e finally get the main point: Evolution != abiogenesis. It's not, no matter how hard you try. Evolution deals with adaptation and selection, whereas abiogenesis is completely separate and explains how life can start.

Strawmen are burning again...

 

[Siliconaut]

Also, I would like to hear a correct description of the OP experiment (fruit flies) and the exact result & interpretation.

I recently watched a program on NOVA about an experiment with fruit flies. What they did was removed the eggs from female fruit flies. The entire idea behind evolution is that that species reproduce. They noted that 1/3 of fruit flies, the person doing the experiment said it was a great experiment for proof of evolution. He said that since the fruit flies weren't given the chance to reproduce nature selection got rid of them.

@w4e: What you have described is illogical, incoherent and definitely not complete, so maybe you can try re-posting it.

 

[lucaspa]

The present theory is that it wasn't DNA that first occured. The "RNA World" model suggests that life originated from a complex pool of RNA molecules that served both as genetic material and catalysts for their replication and metabolism. The "Proteinoid" model suggests that pools of "RANDOMLY" assembled polypeptides (proteinoids) generated a complex metabolism while self-assembling into "microspheres" (similar to micron-sized cells.

http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/aug2000/965332850.Ev.r.html

Did you see that word random in there, i did, plus the odds of that happening by random is so astromonical that you would need eternity on your side, but evolutionist dont, they have a mere 15 billion years.

Yeah, I saw the word "randomly", only it wasn't accurate. It turns out that the assembly isn't random at all, because the amino acids are not interchangeable.

This website http://www.theharbinger.org/articles/rel_sci/fox.html is from the guy who actually DID the experiments, not someone who talks about them. What does he say?

"The expectation of protein chemists, which we shared, is that thermal protein, then called proteinoid, would be randomly disordered. What the experiments and analyses showed is almost the opposite. "

Did you see that? The OPPOSITE of random.

"In Figure 4 we see analyses of products of heating three amino acids together. In the top the three amino acids are glutamic acid, glycine, and tyrosine. These were separated on what is known as an HPLC apparatus. If the products were random, we should observe a low-lying horizontal line. The nearly vertical lines are individual thermal peptides, or thermal proteins. They represent individual peptides. This nonrandom result is highly reproducible."

Did you see the word "nonrandom"? Keep reading the website, Worship. You'll find that not only are the proteins non-random, but they will form themselves into cells. And these cells have all the attributes of life.

And yes, the RNA World is a different hypothesis, but not incompatible with the above. You can get life by BOTH routes. Or a combination of both.

 

[lucaspa]

http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/aug2000/965332850.Ev.r.html

QUOTE]

From the website "Because within the DNA is the commands for the surrounding tissue, for example if it is a specialised cell like a nerve cell the command is to create a nerve cell but how would the material at the beginning know how to do this. "

It turns out that the protocells ARE nerve cells. That is, they have an action potential just like nerve cells. I'm surprised the author missed this since his link on proteinoid microspheres links to an article that has the data on this.

 

[Cantuar]

Where did the ape come from? "From the lower mammals"

Where did the lower mammals come from? "From the lizards and the reptiles"

Where did the Lizards and the Reptiles come from? "From the fish"

Where did the fish come from? "From clusters of living cells that had grouped themselves into colonies"

Where did they come from? "Well, they came from one single cell."

And where did that come from?

Nonliving precursors, which came from the chemicals on the planet, which came from a dust cloud in space, which came from an earlier star gone supernova, which came from energy and matter in the early universe. What's the point of this sort of reductionism? You can claim that any sort of science can be traced back to the simplest physical systems, but you can't actually do anything biologically useful with it.

 

[NewGenerationHippie]

How about no one really knows where the first cell came from and we never will know.

 

[lucaspa]

How about no one really knows where the first cell came from and we never will know.

http://www.siu.edu/~protocell/
http://www.theharbinger.org/articles/rel_sci/fox.html

 

[Siliconaut]

And why does this question pop up every time evolution is being discussed, as though abiogenesis wasn't a completely independent theory...

 

[lucaspa]

And why does this question pop up every time evolution is being discussed, as though abiogenesis wasn't a completely independent theory...

Because everyone who posts this question is assuming that evolution is atheism. Therefore abiogenesis is a "gap" to insert God into.

So when this question pops up you know three things about the poster's ideas:

1. Evolution is believed to be atheism.
2. The poster is using god-of-the-gaps theology.
3. The poster is arguing the theism vs atheism debate, not evolution adn creationism.

 

[Siliconaut]

I would add:
4. Poster doesn't recognize the utter independence of ToE and ToA.
5. Poster doesn't know what he just stepped it.

 

[Melange_Thief]

One day, he won't want to know what he stepped in.