• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

The Lowly Fruit Fly Befuddles the Evolutionists

rhutchin

Member
Joined
Aug 30, 2005
Messages
335
Location
DC Area
Basic Beliefs
Calvinist, YEC
Here's the abstract from a neat article in Nature.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature12962.html

Diversity and dynamics of the Drosophila transcriptome

"Animal transcriptomes are dynamic, with each cell type, tissue and organ system expressing an ensemble of transcript isoforms that give rise to substantial diversity. Here we have identified new genes, transcripts and proteins using poly(A)+ RNA sequencing from Drosophila melanogaster in cultured cell lines, dissected organ systems and under environmental perturbations. We found that a small set of mostly neural-specific genes has the potential to encode thousands of transcripts each through extensive alternative promoter usage and RNA splicing. The magnitudes of splicing changes are larger between tissues than between developmental stages, and most sex-specific splicing is gonad-specific. Gonads express hundreds of previously unknown coding and long non-coding RNAs (lncRNAs), some of which are antisense to protein-coding genes and produce short regulatory RNAs. Furthermore, previously identified pervasive intergenic transcription occurs primarily within newly identified introns. The fly transcriptome is substantially more complex than previously recognized, with this complexity arising from combinatorial usage of promoters, splice sites and polyadenylation sites."

Of the lowly fruit fly, the authors say, "The fly transcriptome is substantially more complex than previously recognized, with this complexity arising from combinatorial usage of promoters, splice sites and polyadenylation sites."

Just making it harder for evolutionists to support their faith.
 
For some reason it doesn't say in the paper that "this is a massive problem for evolution". I can't put my finger on it.
 
For some reason it doesn't say in the paper that "this is a massive problem for evolution". I can't put my finger on it.

You know those evolutionists - although I'm wondering if some of the authors are creationists - they don't like to admit such things. Evolution can't even produce simple things and these guys are highlighting the complexity of the fruit fly. That fruit fly just won't cooperate with the evolutionists.
 
You insist that 'complexity' is a problem for evolutionists, without ever actually showing that complexity is a problem for evolutionists.

Researchers saying 'this is whoo-dang complexical' are not befuddled researchers.

This shouldn't be in a 'Religion Vs. Science' forum. It should be in a 'just preaching' forum.
 
You insist that 'complexity' is a problem for evolutionists, without ever actually showing that complexity is a problem for evolutionists.

Researchers saying 'this is whoo-dang complexical' are not befuddled researchers.

This shouldn't be in a 'Religion Vs. Science' forum. It should be in a 'just preaching' forum.

Are you aware of any evolution research that has demonstrated that biological processes can produce increasingly complex organisms? The creationists look for such things and they have not found any.
 
It just means more questions and puzzles to tackle, precisely what scientists love most. It's a kind of passion faith can never inspire.
 
Are you aware of any evolution research that has demonstrated that biological processes can produce increasingly complex organisms?
Can you produce any evidence that evolution doesn't lead to greater complexity? Creationists have already attacked the idea, with notions about how complex mechanisms like the eye cannot be useful if half-formed. But the logic is flawed and the evidence is against them. There are examples of "half an eye" in nature. Useless things produced haphazardly get used eventually if there's some advantage to them.

The creationists look for such things and they have not found any.
Because they look at science to turn up its examples of complexity in nature so they can stop looking for how that happens and exclaim "this indicates a supernaturally intelligent designer". Their problem seems to be incapacity for dealing with uncertainty and needing a definitive answer that stops questions that threaten their special status in the universe (as the purposely made children of the Creator).


Look at this guy. At about 4:30 this creationist quickly proceeds from '100 years of knowing the basic mechanism of genetics and still fruit fly genetics is not fully explained' to 'imagine this happening with computer programs' to 'something so very complex needs a designer of supernatural intelligence' to 'all the answers are in the Bible' to 'God is an emotional being that killed his son for you'.

The underlying assumption seems to be that the explanation should be complete already, leaving no questions about the details in anyone's minds. Also that the answer should result in a cozy loved-by-a-parent feeling.
 
Last edited:
You insist that 'complexity' is a problem for evolutionists, without ever actually showing that complexity is a problem for evolutionists.

Researchers saying 'this is whoo-dang complexical' are not befuddled researchers.

This shouldn't be in a 'Religion Vs. Science' forum. It should be in a 'just preaching' forum.

Are you aware of any evolution research that has demonstrated that biological processes can produce increasingly complex organisms?
Once more, you're making the positive claim that it cannot.
Back it up, if you can. Otherwise, it's just preaching.
 
The underlying assumption seems to be that the explanation should be complete already, leaving no questions about the details in anyone's minds. Also that the answer should result in a cozy loved-by-a-parent feeling.

Yeah. It's almost like in school, when they move on despite the fact that all the kids don't have a fully formed foundation. It's not that they don't know, or care about the kids that are falling behind, it's just that they can't sacrifice the lives of many children to save those of the smaller group that gets left behind.

And this lack of foundation has an exponential impact on the future learning that the child receives. Every missed idea, which is meant to be joined with others to form larger concepts, results in a gap in the structure of knowledge that the child builds upon.

And I think that certain ideas about how one should live life and understand religion are missed out on by certain individuals. And these individuals hate religion like certain people hate math, because they just don't get it.


It's actually pretty horrible that one has to rush certain kids to the future, teach them the right things because they've made it through the gauntlet, and then selectively pick up the kids that they've left behind.

There is going to be a shitload of resentment among the children who have been abandoned, and a certain amount of those who leave others behind are going to get fed up with the problems they created by leaving the others behind and say "fuck it, leave them behind forever, let's enjoy the riches that we now have, fuck the ones we left behind".

Of course, they do this by their actions, not their words, because they still fear the consequence of saying this stuff to those who have been left behind. But the whole hustle and shark game won't keep the truth of their actions hidden forever, which is why there are so many bitter angry conservatives who WANT to beat the poor into submission, who WANT to use the military to oppress the poor. The poor aren't poor because they are bad, they just lost the lottery of life, and those that won don't ever want to be poor, or live humble lives, because they're rich, biotch!@

 
It just means more questions and puzzles to tackle, precisely what scientists love most. It's a kind of passion faith can never inspire.

I agree. The problem for evolutionists is that the puzzle they must tackle gets more and more complex and more difficult to resolve in a manner that supports evolution.
 
You insist that 'complexity' is a problem for evolutionists, without ever actually showing that complexity is a problem for evolutionists.

The biological processes available to evolutionists are well known - mutation, gene transfer, etc. These processes can be studied in the laboratory. They are not found to take a relatively simple organism (if there is such a thing) and evolve a more complex organism. If they did, even you would have that research committed to memory. Those processes only work with that which already exists. This is why evolutionists cannot address the source of life; they just assume it in all its complexity.
 
Can you produce any evidence that evolution doesn't lead to greater complexity?

The absence of any research results that say otherwise. In the absence of such research, the idea that evolutionary processes lead to greater complexity in living organisms is speculation driven by faith in evolution.
 
You insist that 'complexity' is a problem for evolutionists, without ever actually showing that complexity is a problem for evolutionists.

Researchers saying 'this is whoo-dang complexical' are not befuddled researchers.

This shouldn't be in a 'Religion Vs. Science' forum. It should be in a 'just preaching' forum.

Are you aware of any evolution research that has demonstrated that biological processes can produce increasingly complex organisms? The creationists look for such things and they have not found any.

Oh, so you're here on this thread to make an ARGUMENT FROM IGNORANCE. How novel of you, rhutchin!
 
You insist that 'complexity' is a problem for evolutionists, without ever actually showing that complexity is a problem for evolutionists.

Researchers saying 'this is whoo-dang complexical' are not befuddled researchers.

This shouldn't be in a 'Religion Vs. Science' forum. It should be in a 'just preaching' forum.

Are you aware of any evolution research that has demonstrated that biological processes can produce increasingly complex organisms?
Once more, you're making the positive claim that it cannot.
Back it up, if you can. Otherwise, it's just preaching.

That makes your answer, No. If you or anyone else knew anything, you would have cited it. So, I think I can be adamant at this point: search the literature and you will not find research that supports the idea that evolutionary processes increase complexity in living organisms. Research has to start with a complex organism - fruit fly or a mouse - and then it tries to sort out what happens under changing conditions which it then describes. Most research is observational seeking to work through the complexity living organisms. Where research seeks to induce change to organisms, nothing productive is found other than you end up worse off than before. All one need do to see this is read Science or Nature magazine for any length of time. If otherwise, people would have their citations all lined up. They don't. Thus, your answer comes out, No.

No preaching needed here. The scientific literature is lacking on this much to the dismay of evolutionists.
 
It just means more questions and puzzles to tackle, precisely what scientists love most. It's a kind of passion faith can never inspire.

I agree. The problem for evolutionists is that the puzzle they must tackle gets more and more complex and more difficult to resolve in a manner that supports evolution.

Just not in any way that you can demonstrate.

And you continue to mangle the subject. Once again, evolution is descent with modification from a common ancestor, and is a fact.

How many times do we have to repeat these basic things before they get through to you, rhutchin?
 
You insist that 'complexity' is a problem for evolutionists, without ever actually showing that complexity is a problem for evolutionists.

Researchers saying 'this is whoo-dang complexical' are not befuddled researchers.

This shouldn't be in a 'Religion Vs. Science' forum. It should be in a 'just preaching' forum.

Are you aware of any evolution research that has demonstrated that biological processes can produce increasingly complex organisms? The creationists look for such things and they have not found any.

Oh, so you're here on this thread to make an ARGUMENT FROM IGNORANCE. How novel of you, rhutchin!

Of course, it was the evolutionists who perfected the art of arguing from ignorance.

My arguments regarding the complexity of living organisms is being shown in research. I have cited a couple cases in separate threads and will cite more when I find them. You, of course, are encouraged to bring our attention to studies that support evolution.
 
You insist that 'complexity' is a problem for evolutionists, without ever actually showing that complexity is a problem for evolutionists.

Researchers saying 'this is whoo-dang complexical' are not befuddled researchers.

This shouldn't be in a 'Religion Vs. Science' forum. It should be in a 'just preaching' forum.

Are you aware of any evolution research that has demonstrated that biological processes can produce increasingly complex organisms?
Once more, you're making the positive claim that it cannot.
Back it up, if you can. Otherwise, it's just preaching.

That makes your answer, No. If you or anyone else knew anything, you would have cited it. So, I think I can be adamant at this point: search the literature and you will not find research that supports the idea that evolutionary processes increase complexity in living organisms. Research has to start with a complex organism - fruit fly or a mouse - and then it tries to sort out what happens under changing conditions which it then describes. Most research is observational seeking to work through the complexity living organisms. Where research seeks to induce change to organisms, nothing productive is found other than you end up worse off than before. All one need do to see this is read Science or Nature magazine for any length of time. If otherwise, people would have their citations all lined up. They don't. Thus, your answer comes out, No.

No preaching needed here. The scientific literature is lacking on this much to the dismay of evolutionists.

So what you're saying here is that all you have is just another Argument From Ignorance.


appeal-to-ignorance-god-did-it.jpg
 
evolution is descent with modification from a common ancestor, and is a fact.

How many times do we have to repeat these basic things before they get through to you, rhutchin?

evolution is descent with modification from a common ancestor, and is a fact and is shown in the example of the animals that came off the ark.

As you know, the difficult part is getting life to evolve from a universal common ancestor - and this is the weakness of evolutionary speculations.
 
You insist that 'complexity' is a problem for evolutionists, without ever actually showing that complexity is a problem for evolutionists.

Researchers saying 'this is whoo-dang complexical' are not befuddled researchers.

This shouldn't be in a 'Religion Vs. Science' forum. It should be in a 'just preaching' forum.

Are you aware of any evolution research that has demonstrated that biological processes can produce increasingly complex organisms?
Once more, you're making the positive claim that it cannot.
Back it up, if you can. Otherwise, it's just preaching.

That makes your answer, No. If you or anyone else knew anything, you would have cited it. So, I think I can be adamant at this point: search the literature and you will not find research that supports the idea that evolutionary processes increase complexity in living organisms. Research has to start with a complex organism - fruit fly or a mouse - and then it tries to sort out what happens under changing conditions which it then describes. Most research is observational seeking to work through the complexity living organisms. Where research seeks to induce change to organisms, nothing productive is found other than you end up worse off than before. All one need do to see this is read Science or Nature magazine for any length of time. If otherwise, people would have their citations all lined up. They don't. Thus, your answer comes out, No.

No preaching needed here. The scientific literature is lacking on this much to the dismay of evolutionists.

So what you're saying here is that all you have is just another Argument From Ignorance.


appeal-to-ignorance-god-did-it.jpg

No. I am arguing from complexity. Evolution argues from ignorance.

The issue may be that science can't explain it yet but the "it" that science cannot explain gets more complex each day. The problem of explaining how evolution could take some original living organism and evolve to the life we observe today is getting more difficult and will get even more difficult.
 
Can you produce any evidence that evolution doesn't lead to greater complexity?

The absence of any research results that say otherwise. In the absence of such research, the idea that evolutionary processes lead to greater complexity in living organisms is speculation driven by faith in evolution.
This "speculation" is not as you portray it, just unfounded or faith-based guesses. There are excellent reasons to believe life's complexity comes about by natural means. The quest is to find a falsifiable way to know how that happens, and then see if it gets falsified by the evidence. Naturalistic models based on known natural processes, not contradicted by the evidence we see in the world, are models that work.

Say why not having all the answers just yet, in the face of how extremely complex nature is (or maybe never having them all), supports the notion of God. How does "it's created by a creator" answer anything really, without raising a slew of impossible-to-answer questions? What's not faith-based in the scenario that, where complexity looks "hard to explain just now", the explanation becomes "intelligent supernatural origin"?

Can you name something that is DEMONSTRABLY irreducibly complex? A thing that will not and can never be explained by natural mechanisms and thus necessitates the intervention of something outside of nature?

Do you know that creationists have tried to do that many times and failed? Models for how evolution can increase complexity in life have not been falsified by instances of supernaturally-made designs in nature. Any "can't be explained by naturalistic means" example you might provide does NOT have to be fully demonstrated to have evolved in an extremely specific step-by-step manner by "evolutionists". That the model is the best explanation to fit the evidence is enough because it's better than all other alternatives.

"You naturalists don't have the definite answer to everything" does not help demonstrate that "A supernatural God is the definite answer that you don't have".
 
Back
Top Bottom