Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Theistic evolutionist: Can we absolutely prove that the fruit fly with ant decals on its wings could not happen by chance?


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.

OT: Here Are 20 Animals You Had No Idea Existed. Some Of These Will Haunt My Dreams Forever. - November 12, 2013 http://www.viralnova.com/unique-animals/ bornagain77
The article states:
Fruit fly with the wings of beauty - July 2012 Excerpt: But a closer examination of the transparent wings of Goniurellia tridens reveals a piece of evolutionary(?) art. Each wing carries a precisely detailed image of an ant-like insect, complete with six legs, two antennae, a head, thorax and tapered abdomen. http://www.thenational.ae/news/uae-news/science/fruit-fly-with-the-wings-of-beauty#ixzz2jhxlLGaH
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:
TEDx Video: Flight of the Fruit Fly - October 8, 2013 Excerpt: "Dickinson is a very intense guy himself, and gives a remarkable discussion of what makes the engineering that goes into fruit fly flight so amazing." (4:50 minute mark of video lists several fascinating high tech 'accessories' of the fruit fly) http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/10/video_flight_of077641.html Look at This Incredible Insect Wing Design - Cornelius Hunter - May 17, 2013 Excerpt: And so using this rational, mathematical, approach to biology the researchers were able to do something that consistently eludes evolutionists—produce a successful prediction: "An optimal cell size of a grid-like structure such as the wing can be predicted using the “critical crack length” of the membrane, which is determined by the material’s fracture toughness and the stress applied. … An “optimal” wing cell should have a diameter of around 1132 µm. Is this the case in locust wings? Our results show that the distribution of the wing cell size in locust wings corresponds very well to this prediction, with the most common wing-cell “class” being between 1000 and 1100 µm." http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2013/05/look-at-this-incredible-insect-wing.html
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':
Experimental Evolution in Fruit Flies (35 years of trying to force fruit flies to evolve in the laboratory fails) - October 2010 Excerpt: "Despite decades of sustained selection in relatively small, sexually reproducing laboratory populations, selection did not lead to the fixation of newly arising unconditionally advantageous alleles.,,, "This research really upends the dominant paradigm about how species evolve," said ecology and evolutionary biology professor Anthony Long, the primary investigator. http://eebweb.arizona.edu/nachman/Suggested%20Papers/Lab%20papers%20fall%202010/Burke_et_al_2010.pdf Response to John Wise - October 2010 Excerpt: A technique called "saturation mutagenesis"1,2 has been used to produce every possible developmental mutation in fruit flies (Drosophila melanogaster),3,4,5 roundworms (Caenorhabditis elegans),6,7 and zebrafish (Danio rerio),8,9,10 and the same technique is now being applied to mice (Mus musculus).11,12 None of the evidence from these and numerous other studies of developmental mutations supports the neo-Darwinian dogma that DNA mutations can lead to new organs or body plans--because none of the observed developmental mutations benefit the organism. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/10/response_to_john_wise038811.html ...Advantageous anatomical mutations are never observed. The four-winged fruit fly is a case in point: The second set of wings lacks flight muscles, so the useless appendages interfere with flying and mating, and the mutant fly cannot survive long outside the laboratory. Similar mutations in other genes also produce various anatomical deformations, but they are harmful, too. In 1963, Harvard evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr wrote that the resulting mutants “are such evident freaks that these monsters can be designated only as ‘hopeless.’ They are so utterly unbalanced that they would not have the slightest chance of escaping elimination through natural selection." - Jonathan Wells http://www.evolutionnews.org/2008/08/inherit_the_spin_the_ncse_answ.html#footnote19 Darwin's Theory - Fruit Flies and Morphology - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hZJTIwRY0bs 'No matter what we do to a fruit fly embryo there are only three possible outcomes, a normal fruit fly, a defective fruit fly, or a dead fruit fly. What we never see is primary speciation much less macro-evolution' – Jonathan Wells
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:
Why Do We Invoke Darwin? - Evolutionary theory contributes little to experimental biology By: Philip S. Skell Excerpt: I found that Darwin's theory had provided no discernible guidance, but was brought in, after the breakthroughs, as an interesting narrative gloss. In the peer-reviewed literature, the word "evolution" often occurs as a sort of coda to academic papers in experimental biology. Is the term integral or superfluous to the substance of these papers? To find out, I substituted for "evolution" some other word – "Buddhism," "Aztec cosmology," or even "creationism." I found that the substitution never touched the paper's core. This did not surprise me. From my conversations with leading researchers it had became clear that modern experimental biology gains its strength from the availability of new instruments and methodologies, not from an immersion in historical biology." Philip S. Skell - (the late) Emeritus Evan Pugh Professor at Pennsylvania State University, and a member of the National Academy of Sciences. http://www.discovery.org/a/2816
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:
Michael Behe - Life Reeks Of Design - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/5066181/
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. selvaRajan
This is even cooler than the grasshopper with gears. It's not April 1st is it? Unbelievable! julianbre
O’Leary, thank you for posting this news. It's awesome. Mapou
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. Mapou
When it comes to theistic evolution or Christian Darwinism, “theistic” and “Christian” are mere adjectives; “Evolution” and “Darwinism” are the nouns. The pay load.
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. StephenB
Mung, if you behave Christianly surely you need not fear that you fall short of an adverb Christian. ;) O'Leary for News News
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? Just asking. Mung

Leave a Reply