Re: [asa] (fruit flies???) A Message from the RTB Scholar Team

From: Dennis Venema <>
Date: Mon Apr 21 2008 - 15:15:08 EDT

That ³new Drosophila geneticist² would be me. I am not an expert on
Drosophila speciation ­ I am a cell/developmental biologist - although I am
vaguely aware of studies where selection on various media led to partial
reproductive isolation within a small number of generations.

Thanks to Keith for the detailed reply. I just picked up Perspectives on an
Evolving Creation and will commence reading soon (once my marking is done).
My cursory scan of a few chapters indicates this will be a rich resource.

Iım not sure why there is such a fascination with the notion of ³producing
new species² in a lab in a short amount of time when there is such excellent
evidence for speciation in the wild ­ things like ring species, adaptive
radiation (for example, Hawaiian Drosophilids), species exclusively
occupying recently available niches (someone already mentioned the apple
maggot story), culex pipiens molestus is another (species of mosquito that
lives / breeds exclusively in the London Underground). In my view, this
evidence is better than lab evidence (since it canıt be hand-waved away by
antievolutionists as so-called ³artificial selection²).

Of course, the typical response is to merely move the goal posts (do I hear
a ³But itıs still just a mosquito!² somewhere?)

article on culex:


On 4/19/08 3:43 PM, "Dehler, Bernie" <> wrote:

> David said:
> "Several examples of new species being formed in lab and in the wild are
> known, so it's not a tenable position for anyone knowledgeable in the relevant
> aspects of biology"
> What examples can you give to proof of new species made in the lab? My
> understanding is that all these mutants are downward- devo, not upwards in any
> way. Even fruit flies, as far as I know, canıt be changed into something
> better. Extra wings donıt work, and extra legs on a head are no good. If you
> have evidence- Iıd like to know. It would help me.
> We have a new fruit fly researcher that joined this ASA list- canıt remember
> the name. I asked him if there was any positive outcomes from experts on
> fruit flies- no answer (that I saw). I believed evolution happened, but would
> welcome the new evidence to bolster my position.
> ŠBernie
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [] On Behalf
> Of David Campbell
> Sent: Friday, April 18, 2008 9:53 AM
> To: ASA
> Subject: Re: [asa] A Message from the RTB Scholar Team (fwd)
> RTB, along with some other advocates of antievolutionary claims, has
> stated that it's impossible for one species to arise from another
> species without miraculous intervention. Several examples of new
> species being formed in lab and in the wild are known, so it's not a
> tenable position for anyone knowledgeable in the relevant aspects of
> biology, and even some young earthers accept more extensive evolution
> (not to mention folks like Behe). Thus, it's fairly clear that the
> biological aspects are the focus of the present discussion.
> However, in a way Gregory does have a point-much antievolutionary
> material (apparently including Expelled) and paraevolutionary material
> (to coin a term for stuff like Dawkins', Marx's, or Spencer's that
> invokes evolution but does not actually line up with a current
> biological understanding and/or a grasp of the difference between
> science and scientism) automatically assumes that references relating
> to biological evolution involve a bunch of social baggage as well.
> Anyone reading the thread ought not to be confused; anyone whose
> knowledge of evolution is derived from the DI, AIG, Dawkins, etc. will
> be confused.

To unsubscribe, send a message to with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Mon Apr 21 15:16:48 2008

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Apr 21 2008 - 15:16:48 EDT