New research is telling us more about how water striders, those bugs that walk on water, get such long legs. Read more
Comments
Curious the you don't mention that the evolutionist who added his "...gratuitous, scientifically meaningless, interpretation of the findings..." was actually the leader of the team that did the research and was also one of the coauthors of the paper.grannyape92
August 19, 2009
August
08
Aug
19
19
2009
08:20 PM
8
08
20
PM
PDT
Hunter @ (3):
Is it conceivable that this gene that causes (or helps to cause) the formation of the limbs is not the blind cause of the original appearance of the limbs, as the evolutionist so claims?
Where in the article does it claim that this gene is responsible for the "original appearance of the limbs"?
In other words, is it possible that the evolutionary account (which roughly is that there was this bug a long time ago which suffered some mutations which happened to result in a regulatory protein modifying the limb lengths just right so the bug could start to walk on water; it worked pretty well and some more mutations came along and made it work even better; and then some more mutations, and it worked really well) is not true?
Which is an interesting question. Have you ever noticed that many different kinds of insects can support themselves on water? I have. Most ants I have seen manage it quite well, even flies. Ants and flies are not well adapted to living on water but it is a start. All that is necessary is that their body weight not exceed the ability of the surface tension of the water to hold them up.
Certainly it is possible that the current evolutionary explanation as presented in the paper is incorrect. Did you read the paper?
What is more amazing to me is that somehow nature managed to evolve legs that just reach the water.
-DU-utidjian
August 19, 2009
August
08
Aug
19
19
2009
09:31 AM
9
09
31
AM
PDT
Cornelius: I'm glad you commented on the weakness of this newest scientific "discovery." It's been apparent for a while that the Darwinists are trying to shift the "origin of life" debate from terra firma to outer space. The lack of evidence for Darwinism on a 4.5-billion year old planet teeming with life has forced them (ever so quietly) to use barren ice rocks as the source of their theory. There is a precedent for this bait-and-switch. Cosmologists have been so paralyzed by the Anthropic Theory (because it supports theism) that they've enthusiastically developed the Multiverse Theory. The same thing is happening in biology. We need to call them out on it. If you're interested, I've posted some more thoughts on my blog: http://mustardseednovel.blogspot.com/2009/08/in-recent-years-as-evidence-for-fine.htmlTodd White
August 19, 2009
August
08
Aug
19
19
2009
07:32 AM
7
07
32
AM
PDT
MeganC:
Just imagine the possibilities this raises wrt genetic engineering! A man walking on water? Not so much of a miracle after all!
What would the genetic engineers have to change?
Or are you once again just spewing nonsense?Joseph
August 19, 2009
August
08
Aug
19
19
2009
07:10 AM
7
07
10
AM
PDT
Cornelius Hunter (3),
Yes, it's possible that evolutionary account is wrong but discovery of the gene makes it's being wrong less likely. And the element you miss in your account is natural selection: once the ability to walk on water began, different leg lengths would arise in their various offspring (just as humans are of varying leg lengths); but some would walk on water better than others, with better consequences for their ability to capture food and reproduce; and those with legs close to the optimum leg length would thus have better chance of leaving offspring, also with a spread of leg lengths around the optimum. Not so unusualGaz
August 19, 2009
August
08
Aug
19
19
2009
05:54 AM
5
05
54
AM
PDT
Cornelius, you don't actually believe that long legs are the water strider's secret to walking on water, do you? If so, drop a daddy long-legs spider onto still water sometime and explain why he sinks, long legs and all.
The secret to water striders is that their legs are non-wetting and hydrophobic, which enables them to perch on the surface tension of the water. The non-wetting hydrophobicity is caused by legions of tiny hairs (microsetae) on their legs.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerridaedjmullen
August 18, 2009
August
08
Aug
18
18
2009
11:06 PM
11
11
06
PM
PDT
MeganC
"Not so much of a miracle after all!"
Indeed. The virgin birth, talking donkey etc were miracles because we don't know how they work.
Makes one wonder what the attitude towards God would be once some of these things are explained. Oh, wait....IRQ Conflict
August 18, 2009
August
08
Aug
18
18
2009
04:59 PM
4
04
59
PM
PDT
Larry (1):
Sorry, but I don’t get your point.
Perhaps this is an example of what philosophers call incommensurability. Is it conceivable that this gene that causes (or helps to cause) the formation of the limbs is not the blind cause of the original appearance of the limbs, as the evolutionist so claims?
In other words, is it possible that the evolutionary account (which roughly is that there was this bug a long time ago which suffered some mutations which happened to result in a regulatory protein modifying the limb lengths just right so the bug could start to walk on water; it worked pretty well and some more mutations came along and made it work even better; and then some more mutations, and it worked really well) is not true?Cornelius Hunter
August 18, 2009
August
08
Aug
18
18
2009
04:34 PM
4
04
34
PM
PDT
Just imagine the possibilities this raises wrt genetic engineering! A man walking on water? Not so much of a miracle after all!MeganC
August 18, 2009
August
08
Aug
18
18
2009
02:15 PM
2
02
15
PM
PDT
Sorry, but I don't get your point. You quote and boldface for emphasis:
Many have marveled at the ability of water striders to walk on water, and we are excited to have discovered the gene that has affected this evolutionary change.
How cogent. This would be like entering an automobile manufacturing plant, finding the robot that installs the doors, and claiming to have discovered how the doors evolved.
To continue with your analogy, I am not sure I read anyone "claiming to have discovered how the doors evolved." Rather, I read the excitement at discovering the robot (i.e., the gene) that has affected the change.
I can see that we want to know more about this gene and what "robot" installed it. Very interesting and important stuff.
Or have I missed the point completely?Larry Tanner