The second famous fraud that we will look at is the
four-winged fruit fly picture that has been featured in many textbooks. This
picture shows two fruit flies side by side; the fly on the left is the normal
two-winged fruit fly, while the fly on the right is a one of a kind four-winged
fly:
The story behind the picture is that the four-winged fly
proves evolution by showing that a fly evolved a second set of wings for
itself. Since evolution teaches that everything will make progress until we
eventually reach perfection (which directly opposes the Thermodynamics’ law of
increasing entropy), scientists tell us that this fly decided to better itself
by evolving the second set of wings.
But what the textbook doesn’t say is how this process was
done. These fruit flies were tested with radiation to see how the next
generation would look (fruit flies are born and have offspring within a matter
of days, making them a favorite to experiment on). What happened when these
flies were tested? Some had no wings. Some had small wings. Some had large
wings. Some had shriveled up wings. One even had legs growing out of its head
in place of antennae[1].
And of course, one had four wings.
Ignoring all the freaky fruit flies, scientists ran with the
one positive test they found. Except that the test wasn’t all that positive.
The textbooks failed to mention that the second set of wings
didn’t actually work; they were the result of a genetic mishap and they had no
working parts. The extra weight actually weighed the fruit fly down, making it
unable to fly. These flies are less
likely to survive, which is the opposite of evolution’s survival of the
fittest.
So what is billed as proof of evolution—something making
progress—is actually the exact opposite—something regressing to a place where
it is unable to fly.
A fly that can’t fly is not even a fly. It is a walk!
And yet this fraudulent proof of evolution continues to be
used, disregarding the fact that even if one fruit fly had a second set of
wings, there still is no new species.
Comments
Additionally, evolution is not intelligent or capable of "reaching perfection." Something that is evolved is just "good enough" to survive, which is why animals have all sorts of impractical, redundant, or actively harmful features. Removing these features is dependent on 1. having mutations that stop them from being present and 2. having those mutations actually become dominant in a population. These two things may never happen. This is what explains leftover structures that don't have a purpose anymore, like the hind leg bones of whales. If there were intelligent design, why would those features be left in?
I know that there's no chance that this convinces you of anything at all, and perhaps that textbook truly does say what you claim it does and the textbook writer is also wrong about evolution. But I'm not trying to refute any of this out of malice or some hidden agenda. I gain literally nothing from you believing in evolution. But it does seem sad to me to refuse to believe in a process that has such potential to be elegant and beautiful, and is so important to our understanding of life on earth. Especially since there's no actual conflict between it and a belief in God.