Recently, a desert fruit fly with excellent likenesses of ants on its wings has hit the news: How did those images get there?
A friend wrote to ask what to say to a theistic evolutionist (Christian Darwinist) who demanded that he tell him why he thinks that neo-Darwinism (natural selection acting on random mutation) could not possibly cause such a feature.
When ID theorist Mike Behe, author of Edge of Evolution, heard of it, he repsponded,
Arguing against “couldn’t possibly” is a sucker’s game. To do so you essentially have to show the thing is not just scientifically ludicrous, but logically impossible. A much better line of argument is to show what Darwinian processes are known to do—breaking genes in humans such as globins and others in response to selective pressure from malaria, for example. Then ask, why should anyone think such a destructive process could build [whatever is under discussion]? That places the burden of evidence back where it should be—on the person proposing the counterintuitive idea. Best wishes.
Best wishes indeed. When it comes to theistic evolution or Christian Darwinism, “theistic” and “Christian” are mere adjectives; “Evolution” and “Darwinism” are the nouns. The pay load.
Meanwhile, from Darwin’s man, Jerry Coyne:
The truth is that we don’t really know why this fly has antlike markings, but we can predict that studying how the fly uses its wings, and knowing more about its ecology, will suggest some testable hypotheses. I’m too harried to think about alternatives now, but I bet some readers, particularly our entomologists and field biologists, can suggest an evolutionary explanation for ant markings.
We see his bet and raise him. Just So Story Time starts at 8:00 pm EST.
9 Replies to “Theistic evolutionist: Can we absolutely prove that the fruit fly with ant decals on its wings could not happen by chance?”
I just don’t get it.
I am a human, homo sapiens, a rational animal. Humans are not Christians by nature or essence. So why isn’t ‘Christian’ an adverb for all Christians?
How does one become a NOUN Christian? If I am not a NOUN Christian does that mean I am not a REAL or TRUE Christian, that I am a Christian in name only?
What’s wrong with being an ADVERB Christian?
Mung, if you behave Christianly surely you need not fear that you fall short of an adverb Christian. 😉 O’Leary for News
News, you’ve got it. The noun establishes the quidity, or the essence, or the “whatness” of an entity. The adjective describes an inessential attribute that may or may not belong to a subject without affecting its essence. The essence of Christian Darwinisn is the non-negotiable ideology of Neo-Darwinism, which always takes logical precedence over the tenets of Christianity, which are unimportant and may be cheerfully negotiated away without a qualm. For Christian Darwinists, Darwinism is the noun that defines and Christianity is the adjective that modifies.
There is no way such an accurate picture of an ant could appear on the wings of a fruit fly by random chance. Why? Because evolution requires small gradual changes that must be selected over many generations. No small part of the picture can ever be selected and retained because it offers no survival advantage to the fly. Future random variations would just destroy any bit of the unrecognizable image simply because there is no survival advantage to keep it. Randomness creates chaos, not order. Besides, how did the fly survive without the ant picture on its wings to begin with?
I am always amazed at the fact that Darwinian evolution can be such a brain-dead (i.e., stupid to the extreme) theory and yet it is still given the benefit of the doubt by people who should know better. I ascribe this absurd state of affairs, not to stupidity per se, but to a lack of honesty. There is a hidden agenda that must be pursued at all costs. We just have no honor as a species. It’s sad, really.
O’Leary, thank you for posting this news. It’s awesome.
This is even cooler than the grasshopper with gears. It’s not April 1st is it? Unbelievable!
Very interesting. The image couldn’t have been there when in egg cause the ant image would be so tiny that when the wings expand over time, the tiny image couldn’t be so perfect. The image would have blurred, so the image is created after the wings expand, which means it might be by some kind of epigenetic process.Of course I am so busy, I don’t have time to contemplate further but I am not saying ID has anything to do with it either. please wait for the next century some one will explain.
The article states:
Yet despite the apparent Darwinian obsessive compulsive disorder to proclaim everything they see to be ‘evolutionary’, the fact of the matter is that nothing within fruit flies, which have been studied extensively, (especially ‘art’ on the wings), lends itself to an ‘evolutionary’ narrative. This point is brought out in the following video and article:
Here are a few more notes showing the extreme poverty of evidence Darwinists actually have towards making any claim whatsoever that anything within fruit flies is ‘evolutionary’:
Yet despite this extreme poverty of evidence, as we saw, Darwinists, compulsively, labeled the enigmatic ants on the flies wings as ‘evolutionary’ art? Why did they do this with no evidence that it can happen by blind material processes? Any other science, such as engineering, would certainly not make such a complete blunder as that!,, As to the disingenuous way Darwinists give credit to evolutionary processes when none is due, the following exposes the deception of attributing credit where it is definitely not due:
At the 7:00 minute mark of this following video, Dr. Behe gives an example of how positive evidence is falsely attributed to evolution by using the word ‘evolution’ as a sort of coda in peer-reviewed literature:
OT: Here Are 20 Animals You Had No Idea Existed. Some Of These Will Haunt My Dreams Forever. – November 12, 2013