In another case of misguided scientific reporting, MSNBC reports that 'scientists force evolution in the lab.' Holy mother of pearl!, I thought. This is astounding! Finally proof that macroevolution--the emergence of a new species over time--has been achieved in a controlled environment. I read on with interest, but the first paragraph didn't look promising. "Scientists have forced a little evolution in the laboratory..."
To make a long story short, there was nothing of the sort. The scientists weren't even trying to 'force evolution in the lab.' What they were trying to do was understand the effect of hormonal differences in species. As always, the reporter sheepishly admits that "none of this looks to be going anywhere in the sense of survival of the fittest. The black and green caterpillars will all grow up basically the same." Gee, you think?
There was no evolution in the lab in the Darwinian macroevolution sense. This article was clearly aimed at the gullible.
To make a long story short, there was nothing of the sort. The scientists weren't even trying to 'force evolution in the lab.' What they were trying to do was understand the effect of hormonal differences in species. As always, the reporter sheepishly admits that "none of this looks to be going anywhere in the sense of survival of the fittest. The black and green caterpillars will all grow up basically the same." Gee, you think?
There was no evolution in the lab in the Darwinian macroevolution sense. This article was clearly aimed at the gullible.
1 comment:
"Scientists have forced a little evolution in the laboratory"... Aren't all organisms that evolve into other organisms forced to do so in the first place? I think 'forced' is the wrong term to use. Oh well... Semantics.
Post a Comment