The Results For Testing Natural Selection On Fruit Flies

During a speech urging the federal government to fully fund the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) then governor, Sarah Palin in October 2008 became critical of spending money for fruit fly research…

She said…

“Where does a lot of that earmark money end up anyway? You’ve heard about some of these pet projects they really don’t make a whole lot of sense and sometimes these dollars go to projects that have little or nothing to do with the public good. Things like fruit fly research in Paris, France. I kid you not.”

Being a conservative and a creationist, she was subjective to all sorts of name calling to “anti-science” rants. However, she was unaware (like most people) that fruit fly research was being used for trying to understand autism. But it’s not the only type of researching going on. A recent study performed an experiment on fruit flies to test the limits of natural selection. It was a major blow to the evolution is an indisputable fact crowd…

The experiment showed only minor changes after 600 generations and what is even more interesting, there was less so-called evolution in these organisms than in similar experiments conducted with microbes, like bacteria and yeast! And success is a lot less likely in the wild than under ideal lab conditions! The paper in Nature is called, “Experimental evolution reveals resistance to change” where it says…

“Experimental evolution systems allow the genomic study of adaptation, and so far this has been done primarily in asexual systems with small genomes, such as bacteria and yeast.  Here we present whole-genome resequencing data from Drosophila melanogaster populations that have experienced over 600 generations of laboratory selection for accelerated development.”

“Flies in these selected populations develop from egg to adult ~20% faster than flies of ancestral control populations, and have evolved a number of other correlated phenotypes.  On the basis of 688,520 intermediate-frequency, high-quality single nucleotide polymorphisms, we identify several dozen genomic regions that show strong allele frequency differentiation between a pooled sample of five replicate populations selected for accelerated development  and pooled controls.”

“On the basis of resequencing data from a single replicate population with accelerated development, as well as single nucleotide polymorphism data from individual flies from each replicate population, we infer little allele frequency differentiation between replicate populations within a selection treatment.”

“Signatures of selection are qualitatively different than what has been observed in asexual species; in our sexual populations, adaptation is not associated with ‘classic’ sweeps whereby newly arising, unconditionally advantageous mutations become fixed.  More parsimonious  explanations include ‘incomplete’ sweep models, in which mutations have not had enough time to fix, and ‘soft’ sweep models, in which selection acts on pre-existing, common genetic variants.”

“We conclude that, at least for life history characters such as development time, unconditionally advantageous alleles rarely arise, are associated with small net fitness gains or cannot fix because selection coefficients change over time.”

In other words, they were looking for a “signature” of beneficial mutations becoming fixed in the population. Despite their success in creating mutations with the fruit flies, their designed bodies resisted change. And not only that but the fruit flies went in the other direction on what secular scientists call, “reverse-evolution.” Instead of new mutations, there were variants of them. The last paragraph describing the fruit fly research displays disappointment and surprise over this…

“Our work provides a new perspective on the genetic basis of adaptation.  Despite decades of sustained selection in relatively small, sexually reproducing laboratory populations, selection did not lead to the fixation of newly arising unconditionally advantageous alleles.  This is notable because in wild populations we expect the strength of natural selection to be less intense and the environment unlikely to remain constant for ~600 generations.”

“Consequently, the probability of fixation in wild populations should be even lower than its likelihood in these experiments.  This suggests that selection does not readily expunge genetic variation in sexual populations, a finding which in turn should motivate efforts to discover why this is seemingly the case.”

Why are the planets moving backwards? We must figure out why this gap is seemingly the case in the theory of Geocentrism. Perhaps Heliocentrism is a better alternative! Nah, geocentrism is an undisputable fact, eventually this observation will be explained thus preserving it…Ok, that’s not about fruit flies and Darwinian evolution, but you get the idea. Natural selection is presumed to be a miracle worker, that can produce the brain, eyes, ears, nose, and mouth in a step by step process using mutations. However, it doesn’t work theoretically nor historically, nor experimentally. It’s a failed ‘theory’ that relies on story telling.

Sarah Palin was wrong about how valuable fruit fly research can be not only for understanding or fighting diseases, but understanding how variation works within it’s own kind, and how it disproves the idea of evolution as an “indisputable fact.”

Fruit Fly Research Verifies Creationism

Remember during the 2008 run for the White House, John McCain’s running mate Sarah Palin’s comments about fruit fly research? Let me refresh some of your memories or fill the ones if you haven’t heard.

Over major concerned for an ever increasing US deficit being produced by the United States government, Sarah Palin was advocating priories for spending (eliminating earmarks) which would promote some cutbacks in government expenses as well as future ones while focus on spending the money where it was most needed. And one example was mentioned by her that can under enormous criticism by the liberal media outlets and others and that of course was about fruit fly research in France.

“She doesn’t understand science, she is a creationist” one atheist blogger wrote about her comment about fruit fly research. I understood where she was coming from, because government needs to get spending under control. But I didn’t totally agree with her about fruit fly research, it has value, and now it appears it has turned up some exciting news as reported in ICR…

“The journal Nature Reviews Genetics reported that the scientists who conducted the study found that fruit fly DNA is organized into “241 modules, with each module consisting of a separate cluster of highly interconnected genes.”

These modules fit exactly within a promising model of genetic organization called “facilitated variation,” and they clearly show that genes are well-organized in expressed clusters. In fact, specific DNA sections seem to be laid out so that they can be mixed and matched between each generation.

This constitutes a mechanism for rapid changes to occur within the created fruit fly kind. The researchers had not expected to find “a much greater degree of genetic variation than had been uncovered by previous studies.”

This observation is another failed prediction by the hypothesis of evolution which states mutations cause very slow changes within the species and many secularists have to confine their beliefs or assumptions within this framework because there is no other in the realm of naturalism. We as Christians believe in God who is a very advanced being in intellect, so we are not surprised to observe a fruit fly which was made by Him, having an enormous scope of precise organization and variation within it’s genes.

Chromosomes in Fruit Flies Have A Safe Guard

Sarah Palin received a lot of flack for criticizing the research of fruit flies in Paris France back in Oct 2008. I’m not quite sure what part of the research partaining to fruit flies she was briefed on. But I can understand why she said it!

Liberals attacked her saying it’s helping with “autism.” It might be, but  how much is it contributing is debatable because other animals are used for the same research. None of them presented a viable explanation to these questions; are fruit flies are more important for the research than other animals? How important are fruit flies compared to other animals (or humans for that matter) in this research?

While this is not really a debate over Sarah Palin’s comment during the Presidental run with McCain, but rather the lastest discovery on fruit fly research which has opened the door for some interesting analysis. It has been discovered that fruit flies have a highly specialized molecular machinery that prevents a genetic disaster.

The machinery doesn’t allow specified parts of chromosomes to touch one another at the wrong times. Yes, not just any part of the chromosome but a targeted area.

“The machines, proteins called condensin II, separate chromosomes by twisting them into supercoils that kink up and therefore can no longer touch.

“Scientists had known of condensin II but did not know how it functioned inside cells. Keeping specific parts of chromosomes from touching can change how the instructions carried in the DNA are read, said research team leader Giovanni Bosco of The University of Arizona in Tucson.” —science daily

The question is, could have fruit flies survived without this mechanism? Since evolution which claims it takes an enormous amount of time in various little steps.  Without question, this highly advanced molecular machinery in fruit flies  has intelligent designer namely; God written all over it!

“Smith said the team’s next step is figuring out how condensin II proteins are recruited to the chromosomes and how the condensin II proteins use the cellular energy packets known as ATP to change shape.”

Why would proteins be recruited to the chromosomes in the first place by an unthinking process by random chance? There is no evidence of naturalism in this discovery.  While this research shows design, there is value in studying fruit flies.

Embryonic Stem-cell Law Goes To the Polls

In Michigan on November 4, voters will be going to the polls not only to elect a new President, but also vote on embryonic stem-cell research…

“Proposal 2 would add a constitutional amendment allowing embryonic stem cell research to the Michigan Constitution. The amendment would also prevent state and local regulation.

The proposal is aimed at overturning a 1978 Michigan law that criminalizes the use of embryos for research and is one of the five most restrictive in the nation. The 20-year-old law has effectively discouraged life-science research in the state.”

This means lawmakers wouldn’t be able to make laws restricting embryonic research, it would give proponents of this particular research a free reign. Concerns have surface over this issue including the business aspect of it…

Obviously the most important aspect of this proposal is not the free reign or possible corporations profiting by the proposal if passed, it’s human life. Generally the argument goes, the embryonic stem cells scientists want to use will be just thrown away so why not use them? These types of stems cells can be collected by other means. Two wrongs, don’t make a right.

“The initiative has “major significance” because presidential candidates John McCain and Barack Obama have both hinted that, if elected, they would loosen federal restrictions on embryonic stem-cell research, says Stephen Rapundalo, executive director of MichBio in Ann Arbor, a non-profit organization trying to drive growth of the life-sciences industry in the state” Nature

Much attention has been focused on Gov. Palin’s position on this type of research in which she opposes, but on the other hand, Sen. McCain is more in favor of allowing this type of stem cell research to expand. I would recommend Michigan voters to vote “no” on this proposal.

In England, it’s been a major issue as well. The House of Commons in that country after a bitter debate approved a law that would allow the use of animal-human hybrids for stem-cell research.

“Researchers are allowed to inject empty cow or rabbit eggs with human DNA and apply a burst of electricity to trigger the regular cell division that forms embryos. They then hope to harvest stem cells, after which the embryos will be destroyed.

“Scientists say the embryos would not be allowed to develop for more than 14 days and are intended to address the shortage of human eggs available for stem-cell research,” the Associated Press reported.” ICR

As highlighted in this blog with documented research, adult stem cells has shown tremendous progress and also shows more promise of treatments than embryonic stem cell research. McCain and Obama are wrong  and should not loosen restrictions on the embryo which is human life.

This Year’s US Election Is Full Of Issues Including Creationism and Evolution

Evolutionary scientists these days are more like activists than ever before. We see some are actively involved in publicly campaigning for a candidate. One of the main reasons is funding. Like so many of them, they depend on grants given or awarded to them by the government.

Medicine Nobelist Harold Varmus, president of Memorial-Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City and an adviser to the Obama campaign, said that Obama’s pledge of “sustained and predictable increases” in funding basic research is a major reason for what Varmus characterized as “widespread support” in the scientific community for the Democratic candidate.

In a teleconference with reporters that included chemistry Nobelist Peter Agre and medicine Nobelist H. Robert Horvitz, Varmus also cited Obama’s pledge to “encourage innovation, improve education, and restore scientific integrity” to federal agencies. He said that Obama’s commitment to science would cost an additional $15 billion a year, to be offset by reducing the number of federal earmarks, ending the war in Iraq, and making government purchasing more efficient. ScienceNow

Blogs which have a special interest in evolution like “University blogs” are often times littered with comments about how they are going to vote for Obama and others should as well because it’s a science issue of not only policy but also personal beliefs. “There is a crisis in scientific literacy in the United States: only 25% of Americans accept our evolution from ape-like ancestors, yet 74% believe in angels.” Jerry Coyne (University of Chicago).

So science to evolutionists is becoming not just an basic or advanced understanding of evolution, but also a personal belief that is not only just a theory, but one of the most important facts over everything else including a personal belief in a religion or Christianity. This is why many creationists consider evolution a religion in itself as many of it’s defenders openly treat it like one.

Many in the evolutionist circles are more scared of Palin than McCain. We see in more blogs and opinionated articles alike which are more interested in the VP candidate’s position, because Sarah Palin even though has never pushed public policy for ID or Creationism in the public schools, she firmly believes in creation. McCain however, is more of a “theist evolutionist” which claims that God used evolution to create the Universe. Even Cindy McCain was thrown into the middle about Palin’s beliefs in creationism when she was being interviewed by CBS.

Then there is the IRS clause of 1954, which doesn’t allow by law, pastors who are filed under the tax exempt status, to preach about politics like endorsing a candidate. This is a violation of free speech and a double standard when it comes to scientists who in some cases, are actively involved in running a Presidential campaign, with a special interest such as receiving income from the government. And one last thing, Pastors do not get public funding from the government concerning incomes.

Sarah Palin: Not A Creationist Activist

Sarah Palin has captivated the attention of the American public at large. One of the segments of American society she has really caught the eye of are militant atheists, who have been accusing her of pushing creationism in the public schools. Their allies the ACLU, and Americans United for Separation of Church and State haven’t been caught up in the fuss.

“Get ready for more fallout over Sarah Palin, who seems to be even crazier than I thought. There was an attempt to rehabilitate her from the accusations of pushing creationism recently, but the counterclaims got the facts all wrong.

They claim that she only said that schools ought to “debate both sides,” but that’s the creationist position  pointing out that she was reciting creationist sslogans does not somehow get her off the hook. And then there’s this litany of eyewitness stories from residents of her home town, who seem to be cheerfully trotting out to stick a knife in her campaign…” PZ Meyers

PZ Meyers happens to a militant atheist who uses the University’s blog to display his viewpoints which are not always accurate. Most of it has an agenda built around liberal ideals. As far as his comments about Palin, let’s see from real people in the field one of which might have clashed and been more affected with pushing creationism in the public schools…

“As far as I know, Gov. Palin has not been aggressive on this front,” Matt Olson, a biology professor at the University of Alaska, Fairbanks, said in an e-mail. “Up to now she has not pushed an agenda to teach creationism in public schools.”

“Palin, a self-described “hard-core conservative,” hasn’t attempted to push her views about social issues into policy as governor.”

“She has basically ignored social issues, period,” Gregg Erickson, an economist and columnist with the Alaska Budget Report told The Associated Press” New York Daily Record

So where is the proof that Sarah Palin was pushing creationism in the public schools in Alaska? Wouldn’t you think the Professors in the University up in Alaska would be the first to be complaining about it? Indeed they would have been.

There is no doubt that she will continue such a policy if elected as VP where she believes that creationism should be taught along side evolution, or having children being able to talk about creationism in the schools, but not doing anything about it in her official status.

After watching her speak, and reading about her, she has other agendas in mind as she wants to promote energy policy, special needs for certain children, and cleaning up Washington to name a few. But sadly trying to get creation or more critical thinking in the public schools isn’t one of them. So Sarah Palin though a creationist at heart, is not a political creation activist.