Posted on 02/06/2002 5:59:35 AM PST by callisto
SEATTLE, Feb. 6 /U.S. Newswire/ -- A mutant shrimp is being claimed as "a landmark in evolutionary biology" that proves creationists wrong, but it's not. Whatever its implications for creationism, molecular biologist Jonathan Wells, a senior fellow at Discovery Institute in Seattle, Wash., calls the claim "greatly exaggerated," and describes the mutant shrimp as "an evolutionary dead end that tells us little or nothing about how insects might have originated."
A research team headed by William McGinnis at the University of California at San Diego just reported discovering a DNA mutation that produces shrimp without hind legs. Since shrimp normally have lots of legs, and insects have only six, the researchers claim they have discovered the genetic mechanism that caused terrestrial insects to evolve from aquatic ancestors hundreds of millions of years ago. The researchers also claim that this discovery undercuts a primary argument used by creationists against the theory of evolution, because it shows that major mutations do not result in dead animals.
The paper is being released today by the journal Nature.
Wells points out, however, that the mutation reported by McGinnis and his colleagues occurs midway through development, after the embryo is already a shrimp. "The mutation does not transform the embryo into anything like an insect, but only into a disabled shrimp. Whatever produced the first insect would have had to transform the embryo from the very beginning." Wells adds that critics of Darwinism have never claimed that major mutations result in dead animals, but only in animals that are less fit, and thus likely to be eliminated by natural selection. According to Wells, "this report does nothing to refute that criticism."
Wells says he is not surprised that the researchers are making so much of their discovery. "Evidence for the major changes required by evolutionary theory is lacking, so Darwinists often exaggerate the evidence to make the theory seem better supported than it really is."
It does seem to have evolved a bit in its travels.
That suggests a simple experiment: Go to your local fishing and tackle store and buy yourself a couple of dozen bait shrimp, put them down on the floor in your garage (i.e. out of water), and come back in two or three hours and see for yourself how many of them are still alive.
Not a trout man, are you? (Well, I'm mostly a bass type myself.) I thought all you bear-ish types were fishermen.
You've triggered something. In my brilliance, I have thought of a test of Intelligent Design "theory":
Next time you go fishing, toss in the carcass of a creationist and watch to see if the fish flee the area. If they do, then ID must be correct. "We only want terrestrially evolved bait, not something artifically designed!" the fish would be telling us. But if the fish gather to take the bait, then ID is false. This is going to get me that Nobel Prize for sure! [Material for the experiment is readily found as roadkill, as creationists are famous for ignoring reality.]
Jonathan Wells might be about ready if he still has any awareness of his surroundings. Read the main article and then look at the later one in Karl_Lembke's reply 57. JW should be drinking the Kool-Aid about now.
Wells points out, however, that the mutation ... occurs midway through development, after the embryo is already a shrimp. "The mutation does not transform the embryo into anything like an insect, but only into a disabled shrimp. Whatever produced the first insect would have had to transform the embryo from the very beginning."
Huuuhhh??? Lots of traits that are genetically programmed only show up in later development of the organism - like a brain for instance.
Wells adds that critics of Darwinism have never claimed that major mutations result in dead animals, but only in animals that are less fit, and thus likely to be eliminated by natural selection. According to Wells, "this report does nothing to refute that criticism."
The creationists constantly shift the grounds of debate and what is to be demonstrated - and always away from the point that has just been demonstrated to some other point that was not, in the paper at hand an issue. Furthermore this is question begging of the worst kind - the assumption that mutations can only result in animals being less fit - not more fit. But this is patent nonsense. Mutations can produce say, an animal that is more hairy from one that is less hairy as well as as well one that is less hairy rather than more hairy. There is no standard as to whether the animal is less fit, or more fit except to the extent that it must survive in a climate that is warmer or colder than that preferred by its progenitor. The animal that has to survive the artic with the thicker coat will be the happier for it despite the taunts and jeers of the creationists about his unfit deviancy from his god-ordained perfectionist state.
That appears to be the unavoidable conclusion. It would seem the "Discovery Institute" is more interested in "Deception" than "Discovery."
I did not evolve I was created by God. I have all the evidence I need.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.