Skip to main content

Famous Frauds in Evolution Part 2: Fruit Flies


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.   





[1] Pearcy, Nancy, Total Truth, Crossway, p.160

Comments

Pugs And Buggs said…
The point of this experiment was really to show that minor mutations can cause major changes in body plans. It wasn't trying to create a new species or even create mutations that helped the flies at all. The textbook you are referencing presumably either explained this poorly or you have misinterpreted it. This is valuable research showing that it would only take a few generations to change an organism radically. Just because this particular mutation was not advantageous or functional doesn't mean that no mutations could be functional. This is like saying "I added a new ingredient to my recipe and it tasted bad, therefore no recipe can ever have ingredients added that taste good together." It's a process of trial and error, some things work and some don't.

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.

Popular posts from this blog

The “Christians Hate Gays” Myth

During these Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) hearings before the Supreme Court I keep hearing how much Christians hate gay people. This was news to me since I am a Christian and I don’t hate gay people. I also go to church with over 1000 other Christians, and if any of them hate gay people, they sure haven’t told me. Before moving to South Carolina I worked at or attended several churches in Texas; prior to that I spent a decade going to church in Florida. Guess what? No one hated gay people. In fact, I don’t know any Christians who hate anybody. The very uniform of a believer is his love, and if a person does not show consistent love, then he is not actually a believer. Are there non-believers who hate gay people and claim to be Christian? Of course. But that doesn’t represent Jesus or His church. Equating  hateful sign-wavers with Christianity is like equating a kindergarten baseball team to the New York Yankees. They may claim to be playing the same

Famous Frauds in Homosexual Science Part 2: Twin Studies

A second piece of shoddy science has been heralded as proving people are born gay. This time, instead of cadavers, living twins were studied. This study compared male identical twins to male fraternal twins; in each set of twins, at least one man was homosexual. 22% of the fraternal twins showed both brothers to be gay, compared to 52% of the identical twins. Since identical twins are closer genetically than fraternal twins, this study claimed that genetics play in to homosexuality, or that people are born gay. But an obvious question that arose from this study is, why did 48% of the identical twins only have one gay brother? If they are so close genetically, then 100% of the identical twins should have two gay brothers. This study does more harm than good to the argument from genetics. There are other factors to be considered. One is that the men doing the study (Richard Pillard and Michael Bailey) could have intentionally picked fraternal twins that the

The Rose of Sharon and Lily of the Valley

If you have spent much time in church you have probably sung some songs with lyrics like these: “He leads me to his banqueting table, his banner over me is love… Jesus is the rock of my salvation, his banner over me is love.” “Sweetest rose of Sharon, come to set us free.” “He’s the lily of the valley, the bright and morning star…” But are those songs biblical? They come out of the writings of the Song of Solomon, but are we to understand those lines as describing Christ? The Song of Solomon is a collection of love poems that were written between two people who were deeply in love and about to be married. While we know that King Solomon is one of the writers, the other’s name has escaped us, and we know her today simply as the Shulamite woman. Some people believe that since this woman is not named then she never existed; some teach that this book is pure allegory, only existing to serve as symbolism. King Solomon, they say, represents