Dec 132005
 

Mike Gene posted on similarities between fruitfly and human gut. The Nature article is here ” The adult Drosophila posterior midgut is maintained by pluripotent stem cells”

Eric Anderson Says:

    From the cited paper summary:
    The six-legged fruitfly appears to have little in common with humans, but a new finding shows that they are really just tiny, distant cousins. . . . “The fact that fruitflies have the same genetic programming in their intestines as humans, strongly suggests that we were both cut from the same evolutionary cloth more than 500 million years ago,” stated lead author of the December 7, on-line Nature paper, Benjamin Ohlstein.”

Except of course when it doesn’t mean any such thing, like in the case of convergent evolution . . .

Eric made an excellent point. Why not convergence? Answer. Darwinists do not practice the scientific method but rather “methodological naturalism” . The default answer to any new discovery is Darwinian common descent. Is there any evidence here that a detailed pathway that links the gradual evolution of fruitflies and humans to a common ancestor? No, but that is not important, evolution is a fact.

To demonstrate that the great divisions of nature were really bridged by transitional forms in the past, it is not sufficient to find in the fossil record one or two types of organisms of doubtful affinity which might be placed on skeletal grounds in relatively intermediate position between other groups. ” To begin with, ninety-nine per cent of the biology of any organism resides in its soft anatomy, which is inaccessible in a fossil. Supposing, for example, that all marsupials were extinct and the whole group was known only by skeletal remains would anyone guess that their reproductive biology was so utterly different from that of placental mammals and in some ways even more complex? (Michael Denton., “Evolution: A Theory in Crisis”, p177)

Darwinists are abhorrently close-minded and they don’t want to be confused by the facts. Everything is de facto UCA to a Darwinian. Except when it is so blatantly contradictory to the Darwinian myth then they pull out their wild card. This wild card can morph and explain anything they want according to their myth. As in the numerous cases of analogous traits as in marsupial and placental mammals, this does not invalidate Darwinian evolution but validates it. How? We have a wild card called convergent evolution. There is no way to explain the common design through descent so we sprinkle a little bit of magic dust and a little hocus-pocus and suddenly our wild card becomes a fact.

Allan Spradling, co-author, director of the Carnegie department, and a Howard Hughes Medical Investigator commented, “We’re excited because we know from previous experience that studying a process in a model system, such as the fruitfly, can greatly accelerate our understanding of the corresponding human process.”

I appreciate the dedication of scientists like Spralding but Darwinian evolution contributes nothing to the actual research.

Modern biology is engaged in the examination of tissues from living organisms with new methods and instruments. None of the great discoveries in biology and medicine over the past century depended on guidance from Darwinian evolution– -it provided no support.Dr. Philip S. Skell

The truth to the matter is that studies of similarity of cell regulation between fruitfly and human does not depend on Darwinism. The research would work just as well under the assumption of common design. This obeisance to Darwinism and perversion of science is repugnant. My advice to Ohlstein and Spradling, stop claiming kinship with Jeff Goldblum stay with science.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.