Freethought & Rationalism Archive

pseudobug · 02-18-2002, 08:06 AM

in the continuing drama of "as the Shrimp Turns"

Praise Jeebus and pass the Funyuns

<a href="http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/0215hox_hype.asp" target="_blank">"Hox Hype"</a>

Sadly, there is no stopping this madness at AiG. As my pet fundie likes to say:

Quote:

The truth is the critics of evolution have more data and research on their side, and this is why evolutionists work so hard to silence the oppositions voice with false claims.

Jimmy Higgins · 02-18-2002, 08:35 AM

I found this quote enlightening as to the true impact of the research done.

Quote:

The fact that scientists can significantly alter the body plan does not prove macro-evolution nor does it refute creation.

He does not say that this does not represent evidence for macro-evolution. I don't believe many are saying that macro-evolution has been "proven" through this research. However, it certainly is opening the door to further insight. The fact that he doesn't throw this out all together certainly shows the impact of this study. In fact, he continues to go as to how more proof is needed to prove macro-evolution. He doesn't say that in as many words, but that certainly is what he means. Therefore, he is conceding that this is a victory to evolution scientists, though not the winning of a war, but certainly that of a battle.

Happy Wonderer · 02-18-2002, 09:09 PM

I love it!

Quote:

The scientists were investigating Ubx, a Hox gene which suppresses leg development in flies. Hox genes are master control switches that control the body plan. Specific Hox genes may control where the head forms, where limbs form, or a tail or even wings. These master switches work like circuit breakers and either turn on or turn off an array of other genes. Hox genes can be expressed in abnormal locations and either prevent development of structures or promote their development in very unusual places. For example Pax-6 expression controls the development of eyes. A fly with abnormal expression could form an eye on a leg, the antenna or even abdomen.2

<strong> </strong>

So would a fly with eyes on each leg be the same "kind" as a "normal" fly? How 'bout a fly with two legs, six eyes and no wings. I suppose not, that would just be a "two legged, six-eyed, wingless fly."

I suppose that if we engineer a fly into something that looks very much like a shrimp, they will just have to say that shrimp & flies are the same "kind." Think of that the next time you order a fly, er, shrimp cocktail...

HW

[ February 18, 2002: Message edited by: Happy Wonderer ]</p>

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.