Continuing on with the 14 reasons to rethink evolution I wanted to give extra background information to point number 4, the point titled fruit fly experiments. Science we’re often told moves where the evidence takes it, if something doesn’t work or isn’t matching up to the real world data scientists reject it, this is the beauty of science certain people will tell you. But what happens when a scientific theory or fancy becomes too big to fail, or is that impossible? Well as we’ve recently seen “from the telescope to the microscope” certain theories are becoming less and less believable, from ideas like an eternal universe to the notion of useless organs in the human body, the more data we gather and the more we know the less our universe looks like a random mess of mindless forces which only lead into cosmic oblivion. Then there’s the theory of macroevolution evolution, another science fancy that’s taking hit after hit when its put against the wealth of data we do have. Its now a theory that despite failing in so many of its predictions continues to be promoted by its passionate followers, people who seem to treat the view more precious than the evidence itself. When will the beauty of science kick in and reject this bogus theory as the unevidenced, unfalsifiable assertion we all know it to be?
― T. C. M
No Fruit Fly Evolution Even after 600 Generations by Brian Thomas
Many Americans believe that the big-picture story of evolution, as biology professors routinely expound it, is false.1 Basically, they haven’t bought into the concept that all life descended from one common ancestor that miraculously sprang into being millions of years ago. And that makes sense, considering there are no real examples of that kind of evolution.
If evolutionary biologists could document such evolution in action, they could vindicate their worldview and cite real research to support their surreal claims. In 1980, this search for proof led researchers to painstakingly and purposefully mutate each core gene involved in fruit fly development. The now classic work, for which the authors won the Nobel Prize in 1995, was published in Nature.2 The experiments proved that the mutation of any of these core developmental genes―mutations that would be essential for the fruit fly to evolve into any other creature―merely resulted in dead or deformed fruit flies. This therefore showed that fruit flies could not evolve.
Similarly, Michigan State University evolutionary biologists Richard Lenski and his colleagues searched for signs of evolution in bacteria for 20 years, tracking 40,000 generations.3 In the end, the species that they started with was hobbled by accumulated mutations, and the only changes that had occurred were degenerative. University of Bristol emeritus professor of bacteriology Alan Linton summarized the situation:
But where is the experimental evidence? None exists in the literature claiming that one species has been shown to evolve into another. Bacteria, the simplest form of independent life, are ideal for this kind of study, with generation times of 20 to 30 minutes, and populations achieved after 18 hours. But throughout 150 years of the science of bacteriology, there is no evidence that one species of bacteria has changed into another, in spite of the fact that populations have been exposed to potent chemical and physical mutagens and that, uniquely, bacteria possess extrachromosomal, transmissible plasmids. Since there is no evidence for species changes between the simplest forms of unicellular life, it is not surprising that there is no evidence for evolution from prokaryotic to eukaryotic cells, let alone throughout the whole array of higher multicellular organisms.4
In a recent study, also published in Nature, University of California Irvine researcher Molly Burke led research into the genetic changes that occurred over the course of 600 fruit fly generations. The UCI lab had been breeding fruit flies since 1991, separating fast growers with short life spans from slow growers with longer life spans.5
The UCI scientists compared the DNA sequences affecting fruit fly growth and longevity between the two groups. After the equivalent of 12,000 years of human evolution, the fruit flies showed surprisingly few differences.
One requirement for Darwin’s theory is that the mutational changes that supposedly fuel evolution somehow have to be “fixed” into the population. Otherwise, the DNA changes quickly drift right back out of the population. The researchers found no evidence that mutational changes relevant to longevity had been fixed into the fruit fly populations.
The study’s authors wrote, “In our sexual populations, adaptation is not associated with ‘classic’ sweeps whereby newly arising, unconditionally advantageous mutations become fixed.”5
They suggested that perhaps there has not been enough time for the relevant mutations to have become fixed. They also suggested an alternative—that natural selection could be acting on already existing variations. But this is not evolution, and it is actually what creation studies have been demonstrating for many years.6
Evolution was not observed in fruit fly genetic manipulations in 1980, nor has it been observed in decades-long multigenerational studies of bacteria and fruit flies. The experiments only showed that these creatures have practical limits to the amount of genetic change they can tolerate. When those limits are breached, the creatures don’t evolve—they just die.
Although the experimental results from these studies were given titles with an evolutionary “spin,” the actual experiments demonstrate undoubtedly that bacteria and fruit flies were created, not evolved.
Read more here.