Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Darwinists actually get lambasted for something? In a journal?

arroba Email

From Creation Evolution Headlines here:

More Upsets for Darwin

Posted on January 17, 2012

For every hyped-up demonstration of evolution in action the media announces with gusto, there are setbacks that often do not get the splashy headlines.  Here are three recent examples.

Treehopper evolution wasn’t:   Recently a “spectacular” announcement that some bugs called treehoppers had evolved a new functional appendage has been found false.  “Evidence for a spectacular evolutionary novelty was recently reported,” wrote nine scientists in PLoS ONE,1 claiming that the treehopper bugs evolved their odd-looking “helmet” as new thoracic appendages.  Those evolutionists, publishing in Nature,2 were not at all modest in their pronouncement: “Here we show that the treehopper (Membracidae) ‘helmet’ is actually an appendage, a wing serial homologue on the first thoracic segment. This innovation in the insect body plan is an unprecedented situation in 250 Myr of insect evolution.”

Wrong, the  new team reports.  It’s not a novelty, but a common and widely-distributed feature among hemiptera (true bugs) – just an invagination of tissue, not a distinct limb.  The new paper not only corrects the error but criticizes the evolutionists who proposed the wrong idea, telling them basically they should have consulted the insect experts (entomologists) before hopping to a Darwin-tree conclusion. More.

Why do these researchers get the title SCIENTISTS.? What was the standard of investigation here? Was the scientific method employed? Could this be a common theme? Are there such things as scientists or just people thinking about stuff and this therefore relative to their own abilities and not a neutral methodology.? Should this magazine who caught them get credit or even they couldn't miss this error? Makes me hopping interested! Robert Byers
Great commentary at the end of the article! tjguy
Might as well baraminology, Nick. Don't need darwinism for that... Joe
Nick, The important thing is that Darwinists were wrong about something. If Darwinists are wrong about something, then ID. (Never mind that other Darwinists were right). champignon
So the feature was just a standard modification of a preexisting feature, and not a radical new feature, and this upsets Darwin how? And the entomologist critics -- think there is any chance they were "Darwinists", or (better word) evolutionary biologists? NickMatzke_UD

Leave a Reply