Saturday, August 17, 2013

Resistance To Change In Early Fly Experiments

The Eyes Have It

When Charles Darwin first proposed his theory of evolution it was well understood that evolution does not come easily. Breeders knew that they could induce only limited biological change in a population. These limitations were described in the Law of Compensation, discussed by such luminaries as Johann Goethe, which explained that there were constraints on how much a species could vary. In the 150 years since Darwin this problem for evolution has only become worse. Not only do species resist change, but the change we do observe is brought about not by simple perturbing forces such as random mutations, but by profoundly complex processes that function as adaptation machines. None of this ever raised any doubts for evolutionists, however, because in their view evolution must be true.

Evolutionists have always been nonplussed by the evidence for complex adaptation in biology. In the 20th century evolutionists tried to show that random mutations could bring about evolutionary change. Not only did they spectacularly fail, but in the process they stumbled upon evidence for profound adaptation. Here is how evolutionist Julian Huxley described one example in his 1953 book Evolution in Action:

Finally, we have the curious fact that the harmful effects of mutant genes may automatically be selected back toward normality. For instance, the so called the eyeless mutant of the famous fruit fly, Drosophila, at its first appearance had no or small eyes and was less healthy and in general less capable of survival than normal wild-type of flies. But after a pure eyeless strain had been bred for eight or ten generations, both its health and vigor and it’s eyes were almost normal. Any odd mutant genes already present in small numbers in the strain, which reduced the harmful effects of the eyeless mutation, automatically multiplied at the expense of those which did not. Natural selection, in fact, provided a genetic servo-mechanism to regulate the mutant back toward normality in its effect. [40]

Yes it was a curious fact. And it could have been used to learn more about adaptation. But under evolution it was viewed as just another product of natural selection. It is another example of how evolution is not vulnerable to scientific findings.

3 comments:

  1. Natural selection, in fact, provided a genetic servo-mechanism to regulate the mutant back toward normality in its effect. [40]

    Yes it was a curious fact. And it could have been used to learn more about adaptation.


    HOW, smarty pants?

    ReplyDelete
  2. You have to give CH some credit. He's citing a scientific reference all the way up to the early 1950's. That's decades later than the scientific understanding of most Creationists.

    ReplyDelete
  3. But this is only micro-evolution. You should be wary of wild extrapolations, Cornelius! ;-)

    Lovely greetings from Germany
    Liebe Grüße aus Deutschland

    Lothars Sohn - Lothar's son
    http://lotharlorraine.wordpress.com

    ReplyDelete