Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

U.C. San Diego Darwinists Exaggerate Research Results to Promote Theory, Says Discovery Institute
US Newswire ^ | 02.06.02 | US Newswire

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."


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Front Page News; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: crevolist
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-73 last
To: Nebullis
Is it telling of a latent tendency toward evolutionary thinking that Wells would call a transgenic fly a disabled shrimp?

It does seem to have evolved a bit in its travels.

61 posted on 02/08/2002 9:19:04 AM PST by VadeRetro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: Karl_Lembke; jennyp; longshadow; PatrickHenry
The next time anybody brings up Icons of Evolution by Jonathan Wells, I just hope this thread is still around.
62 posted on 02/08/2002 1:09:39 PM PST by VadeRetro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro
Consider that in going from being a shrimp to being an insect, you have to first leave the water, or at least learn to breathe while not in it.

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.

DUH.........


63 posted on 02/08/2002 4:03:09 PM PST by medved
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: medved
Idiot! First it turns into an insect, then it leaves the water!
64 posted on 02/08/2002 4:11:49 PM PST by VadeRetro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro
There are a few insects which live ON the water; none to my knowledge that live IN it. Shrimp take oxygen from water; to become an insect, a shrimp would have to learn to take oxygen from the air.
65 posted on 02/08/2002 5:23:55 PM PST by medved
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: medved
It was a joke. Lots of insects spend part of their lives underwater, metamorphose, and fly off. Try mayflies.
66 posted on 02/08/2002 5:25:24 PM PST by VadeRetro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: medved
Mayfly Life Cycle.

Not a trout man, are you? (Well, I'm mostly a bass type myself.) I thought all you bear-ish types were fishermen.

67 posted on 02/08/2002 5:39:05 PM PST by VadeRetro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro
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.]

68 posted on 02/09/2002 3:06:44 AM PST by PatrickHenry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
Next time you go fishing, toss in the carcass of a creationist and watch to see if the fish flee the area.

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.

69 posted on 02/09/2002 10:54:42 AM PST by VadeRetro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: callisto
One marvels at the illogic of the Creationists as illustrated in the responses of the herein quoted Mr. Wells.

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.

70 posted on 02/09/2002 11:16:44 AM PST by AndyJackson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AndyJackson
I am astonished to learn, that according to Dr. Wells biography he holds a Ph.D.in Molecular and Cell Biology from the University of California at Berkeley. Given the poor quality of his critque from his own instutute I would have accused him of being a montebank. In fact he knows better and his deceptions are diliberate efforts to pull the wool over the eyes of a credulous following. For that he is a scoundrel, his other PhD in religious studies notwithstanding.
71 posted on 02/09/2002 11:26:21 AM PST by AndyJackson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: AndyJackson
In fact he knows better and his deceptions are diliberate efforts to pull the wool over the eyes of a credulous following.

That appears to be the unavoidable conclusion. It would seem the "Discovery Institute" is more interested in "Deception" than "Discovery."

72 posted on 02/09/2002 11:58:27 AM PST by longshadow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: callisto;khepera
Therefore, in conclusion there is mounting 'undeniable evidence' to prove that scientists and evolutionists did in fact evolve from insects, which evolved from ??? If you have any doubts, ask to get something carbon dated...

I did not evolve I was created by God. I have all the evidence I need.

73 posted on 02/28/2002 3:37:52 AM PST by wwjdn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-73 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson