problems with macroevolution

[lostaquarium]

Your last sentence is wrong. An animal in which two chromosomes have fused can mate successfully with members of the same species with unfused genes. This kind of fusion happens rather frequently (look up Robertsonian translocation). Exactly what happens when they mate depends on the chromosomes involved and the species. The worst, and most common, case is that there will be a substantial reduction in fertility, which will be enough to keep the fused chromosome from spreading in the population (i.e., natural selection will prevent its spread). Note that even in this case, such a mating will produce normal offspring, some with and some without the fused chromosome. (You can be normal with a fused chromosome provided you have exactly one copy of the two chromosomes that make up the fused chromosome.) In other cases, there may be little or no loss of fertility, and the fused chromosome can spread in the population, either decreasing or increasing randomly in frequency. In still other cases, the fused chromosome can provide a selective advantage, and therefore increase in frequency, or can increase in frequency because of something called meiotic drive.

These are not just speculations. There are species in which chromosome number varies, sometimes by a lot, within members of the species, and scientists have studied what happens when different sets of chromosomes are combined. European shrews, for example, form a wild collection of races with different chromosome counts, and wild mice have several known Robertsonian fusions propagating successfully. In neither case does there seem to be any difficulty with mating between individuals with different chromosome counts.

Thanks, that was very helpful! That question's been bothering me for ages. You answered it exactly

I should also point out that scientists are not (by and large) extremely stupid. If there were really such an obvious and trivial problem with evolution, the theory would have been rejected long ago.

I know And I know that the theory of evolution is consistent with scientific observation. I just think the theory of creation is also consistent. So we can't really make that choice based on science alone. What do you think?

 

[pgp_protector]

Thanks, that was very helpful! That question's been bothering me for ages. You answered it exactly


I know And I know that the theory of evolution is consistent with scientific observation. I just think the theory of creation is also consistent. So we can't really make that choice based on science alone. What do you think?

second part, is also consistent with what?

 

[Sanguis]

I know And I know that the theory of evolution is consistent with scientific observation. I just think the theory of creation is also consistent. So we can't really make that choice based on science alone. What do you think?

The Biblical 6-day creation is very inconsistent with observation.

 

[laconicstudent]

I know And I know that the theory of evolution is consistent with scientific observation.

Agreed.

I just think the theory of creation is also consistent. So we can't really make that choice based on science alone. What do you think?

I think your first sentence is only true if you ignore the fossil record, geology, archaeology, astrophysics, radiometric dating, astronomy, the size of the Great Barrier Reef, the chalk cliffs of Dover, tree rings, atavisms and the scientific method.

 

[sfs]

It's still the usual standard question which is asked on the assumption that individuals evolve.

"How can chromosome number evolve?" is a legitimate scientific question, with legitimate scientific answers. Those answers involve details of real biology and genetics, not "populations evolve, not individuals". That phrase is a useful reply to questions which assume incorrectly that differences between species happen saltationally. In this case, however, the change really is abrupt and does occur in a single step.

 

[sfs]

Thanks, that was very helpful! That question's been bothering me for ages. You answered it exactly

You're welcome.

I know And I know that the theory of evolution is consistent with scientific observation. I just think the theory of creation is also consistent. So we can't really make that choice based on science alone. What do you think?

I think two things. The first is that your second statement, about the theory of creation, is without actual content. That is, I don't think there is a theory of creation, at least not a single one. "God created the world and everything in it" is a theological statement, not a scientific theory; as a theological statement, it is perfectly consistent with evolution. "God created the world 6000 years ago, and he created all life forms pretty much like they are now" is a theory of creation (or at least a sketch of one), and it's one that is not consistent with scientific observation. The question is whether you can come up with a specific theory of creation that does not involve large-scale evolution and that is consistent with scientific observation. It's possible, but it requires some effort and considerable fine-tuning.

Which raises my second point. Evolution is not just consistent with scientific observation; it routinely predicts scientific observations before they are made, and guides scientists into fruitful observations to look for. No theory of creation does this. All such theories can do is, after the fact, say, "I guess that's how God created things." Predictive ability, however, is the hallmark of a successful scientific theory, and so evolution is vastly superior to any model of creation as science. Personally, I think evolution has such success as a predictive model because it's pretty much true, that is, it's a pretty good model of what has actually happened in the history of life. I have yet to run into a creationist who has offered any other reason why evolution should be so successful.

 

[lostaquarium]

I think your first sentence is only true if you ignore the fossil record, geology, archaeology, astrophysics, radiometric dating, astronomy, the size of the Great Barrier Reef, the chalk cliffs of Dover, tree rings, atavisms and the scientific method.

Not really. Since the Bible doesn't mention the details, we could say God just made it that way. It's not a cop-out (well, it might seem so) because the rest of the Bible makes it clear that God likes to do things his own way. He has his own purpose and plan, and we as humans aren't privy to it, and we likely wouldn't understand it anyway.

Does this sound crazy to you? It makes perfect sense to me but I want to know what you think.

You're welcome.

I think two things. The first is that your second statement, about the theory of creation, is without actual content. That is, I don't think there is a theory of creation, at least not a single one. "God created the world and everything in it" is a theological statement, not a scientific theory; as a theological statement, it is perfectly consistent with evolution. "God created the world 6000 years ago, and he created all life forms pretty much like they are now" is a theory of creation (or at least a sketch of one), and it's one that is not consistent with scientific observation. The question is whether you can come up with a specific theory of creation that does not involve large-scale evolution and that is consistent with scientific observation. It's possible, but it requires some effort and considerable fine-tuning.

Which raises my second point. Evolution is not just consistent with scientific observation; it routinely predicts scientific observations before they are made, and guides scientists into fruitful observations to look for. No theory of creation does this. All such theories can do is, after the fact, say, "I guess that's how God created things." Predictive ability, however, is the hallmark of a successful scientific theory, and so evolution is vastly superior to any model of creation as science. Personally, I think evolution has such success as a predictive model because it's pretty much true, that is, it's a pretty good model of what has actually happened in the history of life. I have yet to run into a creationist who has offered any other reason why evolution should be so successful.

You're right, I wasn't using "theory" in the sense you mean. I was using it to mean "one possible explanation for things". And even creationists who have elaborate theories about how the world could have been made, none of us know for sure, as we only know from the Bible that "he made it". So, really, he could have made it in a way that science hasn't even discovered yet.

Or he might have made it with a system similar to evolution but more guided, and condensed into 6 days.

Or he might have "invented" evolution (i.e. set into motion the laws of natural selection) and made all the species that way.

We don't know. But is the concept "God created the world" inconsistent with our observation? No, I personally don't think so

 

[Wiccan_Child]

You're right, I wasn't using "theory" in the sense you mean. I was using it to mean "one possible explanation for things". And even creationists who have elaborate theories about how the world could have been made, none of us know for sure, as we only know from the Bible that "he made it". So, really, he could have made it in a way that science hasn't even discovered yet.

Or he might have made it with a system similar to evolution but more guided, and condensed into 6 days.

Or he might have "invented" evolution (i.e. set into motion the laws of natural selection) and made all the species that way.

We don't know. But is the concept "God created the world" inconsistent with our observation? No, I personally don't think so

In it's most general form? No. The claim that "God made the world" is so vague that it can fit pretty much anything. But the claim that "God made the world according to a literal interpretation of Genesis" is not true, since it's much more specific, and much more testable.

 

[Lepanto]

Humans evolved from PREVIOUS apes. We are still apes.


That’s because they are one category. If you can walk 20 feet you can walk 20 miles.

Metherion,

Do you think we are apes, of course not! Do you wear clothes ?
Do you detest dirtiness and stinking smells ? Do you have free will, sense of dignity, self-awareness
and musical ability ? Apes do not but we do.

You are wrong when you said "if you can walk 20 ft, you can walk 20 miles". There are huge differences - just as you can make a new variation (new style) of coffee today doesn't mean you can change a cup of coffee into noodles some day !!

Macroevolution is not a fact, but a joke. How can animals evolve a little bit every thousand or million years ? They need the whole body system to survive, especially birds, imagine a bird having its wings HALF evolved. Isn't that dangerous ?
Hippopotamus, honey bee, fireflies and the woodpecker - they all need the whole body at once.

Microevolution is fact doesn't mean Macroevolution is fact, but evolutionists tried cunningly to make people think they are the same thing, just as Phillip E Johnson said in his book "Darwin on trial".

Macroevolution is not consistent with observations -- Human behaviours and human body are the best example.

 

[Cabal]

Metherion,

Do you think we are apes, of course not! Do you wear clothes ?
Do you detest dirtiness and stinking smells ? Do you have free will, sense of dignity, self-awareness
and musical ability ? Apes do not but we do.

Those have nothing to do with the definition of ape.

You are wrong when you said "if you can walk 20 ft, you can walk 20 miles". There are huge differences

Nope. Just put one foot in front of the other.

- just as you can make a new variation (new style) of coffee today doesn't mean you can change a cup of coffee into noodles some day !!

This is not how evolution works.

Macroe

volution is not a fact, but a joke. How can animals evolve a little bit every thousand or million years ? They need the whole body system to survive, especially birds, imagine a bird having its wings HALF evolved. Isn't that dangerous ?

Ditto.

Hippopotamus, honey bee, fireflies and the woodpecker - they all need the whole body at once.

Descent with modification. Existing body parts may not have been used for the same function as their forbears.

Microe

volution is fact doesn't mean Macroevolution is fact, but evolutionists tried cunningly to make people think they are the same thing, just as Phillip E Johnson said in his book "Darwin on trial".

Right, an AIDS denier. Great source you have there.

Macro

evolution is not consistent with observations -- Human behaviours and human body are the best example.

Er....how?

You mean like the fact we're laden with the remnants of viral infections and broken genetics in the exact same places in our genome as other apes? Because that pretty much confirms common descent.

 

[Cabal]

"How can chromosome number evolve?" is a legitimate scientific question, with legitimate scientific answers. Those answers involve details of real biology and genetics, not "populations evolve, not individuals". That phrase is a useful reply to questions which assume incorrectly that differences between species happen saltationally. In this case, however, the change really is abrupt and does occur in a single step.

Fair enough - apologies to all for oversimplifying

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Metherion,

Do you think we are apes, of course not! Do you wear clothes ?
Do you detest dirtiness and stinking smells ? Do you have free will, sense of dignity, self-awareness
and musical ability ? Apes do not but we do.

Detesting dirtiness and 'stinking smells' is a cultural trait, not a human one. What we consider foul-smelling can pass unnoticed in another cultural. Try to widen your worldview.

You are wrong when you said "if you can walk 20 ft, you can walk 20 miles". There are huge differences - just as you can make a new variation (new style) of coffee today doesn't mean you can change a cup of coffee into noodles some day !!

Evolution doesn't say coffee will become noodles (or giraffes become walruses, etc). It says that a population of giraffes will, over time, split into distinct sub-groups, none of which can breed with each other.

Macroevolution is not a fact, but a joke. How can animals evolve a little bit every thousand or million years ?

Cumulative genetic mutation.

They need the whole body system to survive, especially birds, imagine a bird having its wings HALF evolved. Isn't that dangerous ?

Nope: wings did not originally evolve for flight, but for warmth and sexual dimorphism. They had the side-effect of providing boyancy and the ability to glide. Since this secdonary ability was far more useful than the primary one, evolution focussed on improving the ability to fly.

Hippopotamus, honey bee, fireflies and the woodpecker - they all need the whole body at once.

Sure, but their ancestors didn't. Their ancestors were much simpler (compare a worm to a hippo and you'll see what I mean).

Microevolution is fact doesn't mean Macroevolution is fact, but evolutionists tried cunningly to make people think they are the same thing, just as Phillip E Johnson said in his book "Darwin on trial".

Macroevolution is not consistent with observations -- Human behaviours and human body are the best example.

The human body is rife with examples of common ancestry. The mere fact that we can call ourselves 'mammals' is a testament to it.

 

[Hespera]

Metherion,

Do you think we are apes, of course not! Do you wear clothes ?
Do you detest dirtiness and stinking smells ? Do you have free will, sense of dignity, self-awareness
and musical ability ? Apes do not but we do.

You are wrong when you said "if you can walk 20 ft, you can walk 20 miles". There are huge differences - just as you can make a new variation (new style) of coffee today doesn't mean you can change a cup of coffee into noodles some day !!

Macroevolution is not a fact, but a joke. How can animals evolve a little bit every thousand or million years ? They need the whole body system to survive, especially birds, imagine a bird having its wings HALF evolved. Isn't that dangerous ?
Hippopotamus, honey bee, fireflies and the woodpecker - they all need the whole body at once.

Microevolution is fact doesn't mean Macroevolution is fact, but evolutionists tried cunningly to make people think they are the same thing, just as Phillip E Johnson said in his book "Darwin on trial".

Macroevolution is not consistent with observations -- Human behaviours and human body are the best example.

I hope you will have a quiet conversation with yourself about whether you are doing your self a disservice, making up your mind on the basis of such shallow thinking and lack of information.

Please note that your bible has Adam and Eve going about with no clothes, and they didnt think of it till they you know, ate the fruit. Your idea would have it that they were apes up till that point, and then became something better.

The examples you use (like the coffee turning into noodles) are just so silly that you do yourself a disservice using them.

(do you actually think that the many thousands of scientists around the world who understand the ToE are so dimwitted and self-deluded as to jsut go along with an idea as hairbrained as that)

You are actually incapable of making a meaningful argument against evolution becuase you have no idea what you are talking about. Its very easy to see, same as if i tried to get in the press box and present that I knew all about football. Id make a fool of myself in no time.

Your ideas come from creo websites. You dont understand any of it, you are just quoting nonsense. Those people are not your friends, they are using you.

Nobody has ever come up with fact one, data point one that would falsify the ToE.

The only way a person can convince himself otherwise is to keep to the shallows as you did with the 'apes dont wear c lothes" bit, and stick to simple absurdities like the coffee / noodle bit.

 

[Sanguis]

Macroevolution is not a fact, but a joke. How can animals evolve a little bit every thousand or million years ? They need the whole body system to survive, especially birds, imagine a bird having its wings HALF evolved. Isn't that dangerous ?
Hippopotamus, honey bee, fireflies and the woodpecker - they all need the whole body at once.

It's quite clear you don't actually understand how evolution or natural selection works. Might I recommend doing some impartial research on it and learning what it actually is, before jumping to conclusions based off of creationist propaganda sites, trying to sell their agenda, such as answers in genesis or the way of the master. Sites like that only have two goals in mind: power and wealth.

Microevolution is fact doesn't mean Macroevolution is fact, but evolutionists tried cunningly to make people think they are the same thing, just as Phillip E Johnson said in his book "Darwin on trial".

The only difference is timescale, though. All the small changes that occur through microevolution amount to the larger changes, over time, that make up macroevolution.

Think of it this way; there are two cars, car A and car B. Both are travelling at a constant speed of 30mph. Car A has been traveling for 3 hours, whereas car B has been traveling for 6.

Car A will travel 90 miles, whereas car B will travel 180 miles. Trying to make macroevolution out as something different from microevolution is like trying to call the distance car A traveled microdistance, and the distance car B travelled macrodistance. The only difference between the two is timescale.

Macroevolution is not consistent with observations -- Human behaviours and human body are the best example.

Yes, it is consistent with observation. It was a conclusion based entirely on observation.

I highly recommend researching some of the following (Impartially, from reputable sources that know what they're talking about, not creationist propaganda sites.):

Atavism.
Human chromosome #2 fusion.
MtDNA
The human ancestral fossil record.
ERV markers in both human and chimp genomes.

That's not even the tip of the iceberg, but they're good palces to start.

Also, I recommend watching the Walking With Cavemen series by Impossible Pictures.

 

[metherion]

Metherion,

Do you think we are apes, of course not!

Okay, please tell me WHICH on this list of characteristics we do not have: gill-less, organic, RNA-DNA protein based, metabolic, nucleic, bilaterally symmetric, diploid, endothermic, with a digestive system, sperm cells have tails, have a body cavity with a tubular gut, have a spinal cord, have a lymbic system with an enlarged cerebral cortex, have a (relative to other animals) reduced olfactory region, jawed skull, speciallized teeth including canines and premolars, forward facing fully enclosed optical orbits, vertical hind leg dominant tetrapoidal skeleton, has a clavicle and wrist + ankle bones, has lungs, tear ducts, bodywide hair follicles, milk-producing mammaries, opposable thumbs, hard nails on all 5 digits of all four extremities, embryo development inside ammniotic fluid, a placental birth, and a highly social lifestyle.

Congrats if you answered, “we have all of those.” You are... an ape.

Do you wear clothes ?
Do you detest dirtiness and stinking smells ? Do you have free will, sense of dignity, self-awareness
and musical ability ? Apes do not but we do.

OTHER apes do not. And not so on all of them, other apes do have self-awareness and ability to make decisions on their own. I’m pretty sure you can find ANY animal that dislikes some smells.

You are wrong when you said "if you can walk 20 ft, you can walk 20 miles". There are huge differences

Then what are they?

just as you can make a new variation (new style) of coffee today doesn't mean you can change a cup of coffee into noodles some day !!

But that’s not what anyone is saying happened.

Macroevolution is not a fact, but a joke. How can animals evolve a little bit every thousand or million years ? They need the whole body system to survive, especially birds, imagine a bird having its wings HALF evolved. Isn't that dangerous ?
Hippopotamus, honey bee, fireflies and the woodpecker - they all need the whole body at once.

Again, it doesn’t work like that.

Microevolution is fact doesn't mean Macroevolution is fact, but evolutionists tried cunningly to make people think they are the same thing, just as Phillip E Johnson said in his book "Darwin on trial".

Then provide exactly why. And things like ‘coffee isn’t noodles’ or ‘cats don’t give birth to dogs’ don’t work because nobody says evolution works that way.

Macroevolution is not consistent with observations -- Human behaviours and human body are the best example.

No, actually, it is most consistent with observations. Once you learn what it actually IS, then you would agree.

Metherion

 

[Michael]

And in Darwin's day, that would have been a problem. But we live 150 years after Darwin, and we know a great deal more about it. It's not so much a problem for evolution as it is one of the greatest sources of evidence.

That is true. Don't get me wrong here, I personally am a strong believer in evolutionary theory, I was simply noting some of the "issues" that are commonly cited by it's critics.

Says who? Before the Cambrian explosion, fossilisation was far rarer, since soft-bodied organisms are much harder to fossilise.

Well, yes, the soft body aspect makes fossilization less likely, but it does happen, and we are in fact finding more fossils all the time as you noted earlier.

Indeed they do: instead of focussing on the overwhelming evidence that has been accumulated for evolution, they instead focus on the few remaining holes. The thing with Creationists, is that every time we find a fossil, they proclaim that there are two more holes! One either side of the new fossil.

I hear you.

 

[USincognito]

{snip}(You can be normal with a fused chromosome provided you have exactly one copy of the two chromosomes that make up the fused chromosome.)

Dr. S, I just want to clarify on this. As long as all the chromosomes are complete and undamaged during the fusion, it shouldn't effect development, fertility or survivability to reproductive age?

 

[Lepanto]

I hope you will have a quiet conversation with yourself about whether you are doing your self a disservice, making up your mind on the basis of such shallow thinking and lack of information.

Hespera, lei hou ma? Nihao, hen gao xing zai zheli nenggou renshi ni ! Wo ai Xianggang.
You offered just statements, just big and intimidating words, but no reasoning or evidences because you have none, except perhaps evolutionary THEORIES straight from your textbooks. That's what they are --- Theories.

My example is not silly at all, your equating microevolution with macroevolution is really silly and shallow.
Also, you believe ToE simply because you believe scientists can't be wrong. It is not true that all scientists are honest, haven't you heard of frauds created by evolutionists ?

Regardless of macroevolution is real or not, it still has a huge problem in explaining the ORIGIN of life.
Who is silly, who is wrong or who is sober, time will tell.

Now please read this extract from "Micro and Macro-Evolution Explained".

There are three critical flaws in the theory of evolution through gradual change: Dysfunctional change, the DNA code barrier, and natural selection removes DNA information but does not add new information.

1. Dysfunctional change or otherwise noted as irreducibly complex. When a trait is critical for the survival of the species, it must be fully functional or the species will die off and any ‘evolutionary progress’ would be lost. For example, a bat could not evolve from a rodent because it is completely dependent on its wings for survival. A half-evolved wing could not be used for walking because of its awkward length and shape and would not be functional for flying. The idea of a half-evolved bat is completely illogical. It would be easily tracked down by predators and it would be helpless to get food and survive on its own. This need for completeness can be clearly observed from the most primitive single celled animal to the most complex mammal. To contradict this idea would clearly contradict Darwin’s principle of natural selection. Many scientists are making a shift because gradual change produces dysfunction in-between species. The new emerging proposal is the quantum jump. Jay Gould proposed the idea that every living cell could possibly be encoded with the ability to change into any other living thing. He believes that an external stimulus causes this jump.
This is a bigger stretch than gradual evolution. Based on his idea, simple pond microbes would have the same DNA encoding as humans and science has proven that this is not the case. Primitive life forms have far less genetic material than more complex animals such as a mammal. Gould’s leap of faith also does not account for varieties of different species. If environment is the trigger and we all have the same DNA, the jump should be to the same creature. Plus we can plainly observe that this reaction does not occur today. Moving from a warm weather climate to a cold weather climate doesn’t trigger a different type of offspring.

2. The DNA code barrier. A fact of genetics is that trait changes have a ceiling. This perhaps is the biggest obstacle to gradual change through micro-evolution. Each rung of DNA is made up of four chemicals called nucleotides, designated by the symbols: A (adenine), G (guanine), C (cytosine), and T (thymine). These rungs of DNA are combined to provide a blueprint of the traits that organism will have. If you took all the DNA in the human body and put it in written format, it would fill up one million volumes the size of a 500 page encyclopedia. With all this genetic data, if two people could have as many children as there are atoms in the universe, no two children would be identical. Though there are a limitless combinations of traits that we possess, there is a limit to how far each trait can change. There is a limit to the number of combinations of these chemicals; therefore there are a limited number of trait variations. No new genetic material can be added. Trait changes result in re-arranging the genetic code that is already present. Mixing the available genetic code will produce variations in the trait but will not change into a completely different feature. For example, your parents genes are combined to produce your various traits. People have several different colors of hair, eyes, and skin, but without a mutation, these traits will remain within its boundaries. There are mutations that can occur and mutations almost always cause diseases or defects. However, even under mutation, skin will still be skin and eyes will still be eyes. Because of the code barrier, there are a limited number of variations in eye color. Different genes can create distinct variations but there is a limit. There can be rapid changes but inevitably, there is a return to the norm.
Charles Colson made mention of a few good examples of this principle. Darwin used breeding of the rock pigeon as a basis for his theory that gradual changes in species will evolve into new species. All pigeons are descendents of the rock pigeon. This pigeon is the same pigeon that can be found in most city parks. Through selective breeding, Darwin was able to produce many drastic variations of pigeons. He observed very rapid changes in traits that he could alter by this selective breeding and concluded that if he could make these changes within a few generations of pigeons, in time a new species of bird would develop. There are several flaws with this theory. 1. His intervention was the trigger for these various breeds. It did not occur naturally. 2. When left alone, his pigeons returned back to the ancestral rock pigeon within a few generations. If his theory were valid, they should have continued their ascent. 3. Darwin never lived to see that there was a natural barrier that slowed changes after a few generations and eventually reached a stopping point.
Change can be rapid when leaving the ‘norm’, but slows and eventually stops as the ‘ceiling’ is reached. There is a limit to the number of combinations a specific trait can have. Another good example of this comes from the book, ‘How Now Shall We Live’. 150 years ago, sugar cane farmers committed to increasing the sugar content in their sugar beets. At the time the project began, sugar content was at 6%. Through selective cross-pollination, within a few generations of beets the sugar content soared to 13%. Over the next 75 years these growers were able to inch the sugar content up to 17%. Now, 75 years after they were able to achieve the 17% barrier, the sugar beet remains at 17%. This is a clear example of the DNA code barrier that limits the variation of a specific trait. This example shows the same principle that Darwin unknowingly discovered. Rapid change, then slow change followed by no change.

(article by E Snipes , published in Exchanged Life Outreach website)

 

[Doveaman]

Yes, it is consistent with observation. It was a conclusion based entirely on observation.

When and where did you ever observe a man evolve from an ape?

 

[Sanguis]

When and where did you ever observe a man evolve from an ape?

Firstly, we're still classified as apes, in the same way that sharks are still fish, and poodles are still dogs.

Also, evolution's been observed in other species. Take nylonase producing flavobacterium for example.

Or, there's a thread here somewhere that goes into detail about a new species of bird.

An animal species divides off and a new species is formed when the genetic mutations are so large, that it can no longer breed with others in that species that have branched off in their own species.

We've seen bacteria evolve, arthropods evolve into new species, plants evolve into new species, we've seen a lot. We specifically send fruit flies into space because they go through generations so quickly, that they evolve fast enough to be able to see how things adapt to certain conditions in space.

Remember, the individual doesn't evolve, but groups evolve. Asking for an instance of a man evolving into an ape is a strawman.