Do Hairless Fruit Fly Larvae Spell "Evolution"? | The Institute for Creation Research
Do Hairless Fruit Fly Larvae Spell "Evolution"?

Does it matter whether the larvae of one fruit fly species have hairy backs while those of another are smooth? Well, for scientists who believe both species descended from the same ancestor population, it could perhaps be taken as an example of evolution in action. The genetic causes for these particular differences, however, clearly show that no Darwinian processes were involved.

An international team of biologists has teased out the genetic underpinnings of fruit fly larval hairs. The researchers found that the presence or absence of hairs resulted from "many subtle-effect substitutions in regulatory DNA," not in genes.1 These minor changes were labeled "evolution in action," but the study results actually show just the opposite. The variations in larvae hairs show at least two genetic features that only make sense if they were purposefully designed creations.

Publishing in the journal Nature, the researchers compared larvae of the very common fruit fly Drosophila melanogaster, which has tiny hairs, with a related hairless variety named Drosophila sechellia.1 The researchers reverse-engineered the genetic differences between the two species and measured the incremental, as well as total, effects on larval hair production caused by various DNA base substitutions.2

First, the researchers found that reducing the production of these tiny hairs only required the subtle alteration of a handful of DNA sequences that were not genes but were regulatory DNA called "enhancers." They also found that thousands of DNA bases close to the hair-producing genes were exactly the same between the two species. The differences occurred within a 500-base region that they termed the "focal region."

The researchers referred to these differences as "mutations," but by definition, mutations are supposed to be randomly introduced genetic errors. Random differences should therefore be distributed randomly in the genome, not concentrated in a "focal region" that experiences DNA alteration rates "4.8 times higher" than nearby DNA sequences.1

Why are there so many differences in just one region and so few elsewhere? The authors speculated that the focal region "has evolved under positive selection, or relaxed constraints, or both." It sounds as though they don't really know. In fact, the study authors admitted that "detecting the action of natural selection on specific non-coding genomic regions remains a major challenge for evolutionary genetics."1 Perhaps neither explanation is adequate or accurate.

How could natural selection decide, so to speak, to act on one region of a genome when it can only kill off whole individuals if they prove to be "unfit"? And how does nature act at all, since it has no mind?3

Yes, changes have occurred in fruit fly genomes. But since they're all still fruit flies, and since the changes are non-random and therefore are controlled by intelligent genetic programming, these changes do not equal "evolution."

Clearly, the facts that only subtle DNA changes are needed to produce relevant body alterations, that the DNA changes did not occur in the genes (which would have corrupted vital code), and that the DNA changes occurred in a small and specific region, all add up to spell "Creator."

References

  1. Frankel, N. et al. 2011. Morphological evolution caused by many subtle-effect substitutions in regulatory DNA. Nature. 474 (7353): 598-603.
  2. DNA is an information storage molecule that uses four different chemical bases as "letters" to record coded information.
  3. Guliuzza, R. 2011. Darwin's Sacred Imposter: How Natural Selection Is Given Credit for Design in Nature. Acts & Facts. 40 (7): 12-15. 

Image credit: University of Veterinary Medicine Vienna/Klaus Wassermann

* Mr. Thomas is Science Writer at the Institute for Creation Research.

Article posted on July 22, 2011.

The Latest
NEWS
Perseid Meteor Shower Peaks Next Week
Both amateur and professional stargazers have an opportunity to see a little more of God’s glory revealed in the heavens1 next week. The...

NEWS
Great American Outdoors Act, Signed into Law by President
In a bipartisan legislative achievement to promote better stewardship of American public lands, U.S. Senators and Representatives finalized their bill...

NEWS
Grandmothers, Eat Fish to Protect Your Brains!
This month the American Academy of Neurology published a medical science study showing that senior women can fight air pollution hazards, including brain...

NEWS
Embarrassment Continues over Evolutionary Blunder about “Junk...
Recent research from the Okinawa Institute of Science and Technology Graduate University (OIST) continues to highlight how evolutionary theory influenced...

NEWS
God’s Plan Is Best: Salmon Need Saltwater Acclimation
Once again, results are better when aquaculture imitates the natural life cycle of Atlantic salmon.1,2 In other words, the closer fish farmers...

NEWS
Inside August 2020 Acts & Facts
Have you heard about ICR’s new President and Chief Operating Officer, Dr. Randy Guliuzza? What can we learn from an old prayer? Is creation evidence...

NEWS
After 30 Years, Red Kites Soar in British Skies
Good news is always welcome. So, it’s good to learn of another conservation comeback. This time it’s the red kite happily soaring in Great...

CREATION PODCAST
Meet Dr. G
Hear the history and heart of ICR’s newly appointed President and Chief Operating Officer, Dr. Randy Guliuzza. He has served as ICR’s National...

ACTS & FACTS
'Doing Business' in Good Times and Bad
No doubt many of you, like me, have been earnestly looking for the return of the Lord Jesus Christ. He called all believers to be godly “salt”...

APOLOGETICS
Sentinels Are Needed in Perilous Times
Watch out! Dangers lurk everywhere—these are surely perilous times.1 One of the apologetics-exhorting themes in Jude’s epistle...