Fly Genome Puzzles Evolutionary Scientists

[truthquest]

Fly Genome Puzzles Evolutionary Scientists

Listen Psalm 119:73 Your hands have made me and fashioned me; give me understanding, that I may learn Your commandments. Genes carry the biological information to make specific living things. Evolution says that simpler living things evolved first and more complex life evolved later. This would lead us to believe that more complex living things would have developed more genes. The creation approach suggests that each creature was designed with the genetic material necessary for its survival in its intended environment. As a result, the genetic complexity of living things would be related to the way it lives, not to its place in a supposed evolutionary hierarchy.

Evolutionary scientists today are puzzled with the publication of the completed genome of the common fruit fly. The fruit fly has a nervous system, complex body plan and even an immune system and is the first animal to have its genome mapped. The puzzle arises with the discovery that the fruit fly has between 13,000 and 14,000 genes. The lowly roundworm, said by evolution to be among the first land creatures, should be genetically simple, yet it has over 18,000 genes. The genetic differences between the worm and the fly speak of design. The sightless worm relies on smell to make its living, so it has about 1,000 genes involved in its olfactory system. The sighted fly relies much less on smell and has less than 100 genes for detecting scents.

This simply illustrates that truly scientific findings will never contradict the Bible by supporting evolution.

http://www.creationmoments.com/radio/transcripts/fly-genome-puzzles-evolutionary-scientists

 

[Streetsweeper]

Actually I don't see any contradiction of the Bible by evolution anyway.

The issue of the number of fruit fly genes really raises multiple questions about the statements made above:

1. Is complexity directly correllated with the number of available genes?
2. Can evolution result in a smaller genome?
3. Can animals (worms) carry a significant number of redundant, or inactive, genes which don't contribute to a worm being a worm?
4. Can complexity result from genes acting in concert?​

I'm no genetic expert. These are just the things which came to my mind. I'm sure someone with real knowledge in genetic science would think of many more questions.

 

[Martin W.]

A person can spend their lives in Berkley university studying the slight changes in the genetics of the primrose plant and make a publication proving the theory of evolution. That is what they (some scientists ) do. It is their life and their life work. They are so focused on evolution they grab every indication.


We cannot fault them for their observations , nor can we involve them in a religious argument. Religious arguments are beyond their focus.


I will not spend one thousand hours debating the genetic changes of a primrose plant in Berkley. I will spend one minute looking them straight in the eye and asking them if that genetic change will ever become a butterfly. They will answer no.

 

[Streetsweeper]

I will spend one minute looking them straight in the eye and asking them if that genetic change will ever become a butterfly. They will answer no.

That's a rather significant and narrowly focussed assumption.

We could equally well ask the Lord if it is part of His plan that a primrose plant should not evolve to become a butterfly.

 

[Paul]

That's a rather significant and narrowly focussed assumption.

We could equally well ask the Lord if it is part of His plan that a primrose plant should not evolve to become a butterfly.

Think He's all ready said something about kind after kind.