In response to my last post RabbitDawg writes:
I was reading a column in Slate, and I tripped across the following:
“The behavior of this bacterium, once elucidated, proved to be truly chilling. Unlike previously known E. coli, O157 borrowed a gene from a completely different bacterium (Shigella flexneri) that produces the shiga toxin, which causes dysentery. This Yankee swap of genetic bits across species is what gives scientists nightmares. E. coli demonstrated evolution in action, right under our noses and at Warp 7 speed. Creationists take notice: This is the real deal.”
You’ll find the full article at http://www.slate.com/id/2296326/ Page 2, Paragraph 5.
know you’re not a “Creationist”, and this is not an example of new species creation, but rather, species gene swapping. But I’m sure that you can see where the Darwinianist’s can go with this. I’m not sharp shooting you here, heck, I’m on your side! I’m just fishing for a brief rebuttal, if you will.
Yesterday my car was in the shop. The heater core had failed and coolant was leaking onto my floor boards. Many $$ later I am back on the road and to boot I have a useful analogy to help us address your question.
Suppose that instead of swapping out my heater core with another one just like it, the repair shop had replaced it with, say, a device that uses the car’s coolant system to pop popcorn while you drive. The heater core in my car is an enormously complex, obviously designed part. The popcorn popper is also an enormously complex, obviously designed part. Does the fact that the popcorn popper is now in my car instead of the heater core suggest anything whatsoever as to how either was assembled in the first place? I think the answer is obviously “no.”
Now to your case. The little beastie known as O157 had on enormously complex and specified gene at a certain location in its genome. Then it swapped that gene for another enormously complex and specified gene from Shigella flexneri. Does the fact that the Shigella flexneri gene is now in O157 instead of its original gene suggest anything whatsoever as to how either was assembled in the first place? I think the answer is obviously “no.”
I know the Darwinsts who suggest this gene swap is a slam dunk for evolution in action are not deeply stupid. Nevertheless, I am amazed that they would suggest that a particular event (this gene swap) explains increasing complexity when all the complexity that needs to be explained was there in the first place. Go figure.