Another nail in the YEC coffin (Body Lice)

I recently came across this article on the internet:Nature - Not FoundIt details recent work on the genetic differences between body lice and head lice. It seems that body lice only came into existence after humans started wearing cloths.This prompted me to think about it in the context of creationism. Adam and Eve didn't wear clothing in the Garden of Eden. They didn't wear any until after eating from the forbidden tree.This means that God didn't create body lice when all the other creatures were created. Since body lice can only live for a week without a host, assuming that they had a good meal before hand, there wouldn't have been enough time for Adam to name all the animals and then consume the forbidden fruit and cloth himself.There is of course that fact that the above article shows a date of approx. 70000 years ago for the first clothing to appear. But it could be argued of course that the dating methods are inaccurate.{Edited topic title - added the "(Body Lice)" part - AM}[This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 08-21-2003]

This subject was actually featured in a CNN article just this Monday. I did not read the article to which you linked, so I'm not certain what, if any, new information may be contained in the CNN version. I just thought I'd include it for additional references.Blessings,::

Thanks for the other link. Looks like Maggie Fox of Reuters beat me to the punch.

A good theory, but I have no doubt that YECs can weasel around it. They can just say that they speciated from other "kinds" of lice (such as those carried by apes) after the flood.

I've no doubt that they may be able to cook up some convoluted explanation, but saying that they speciated from another form of lice would be support for evolution. According to YECs all creatures were created by god in the first 6 days.The current belief is that human pubic lice (crabs) descended from some sort of ape lice (I don't even want to speculate on how ape lice got on humans pubic regions).

quote:

---

I've no doubt that they may be able to cook up some convoluted explanation, but saying that they speciated from another form of lice would be support for evolution. According to YECs all creatures were created by god in the first 6 days.

---

Yes, but they get around that by saying God created every kind of animal in the first 6 days (of course, don't expect to nail them down on a definition of "kind.") They then allow for "microevolution" within kinds. This way, they can explain types of evolution that have certainly been observed--like dog breeds and the like. So this would just be an example of "microevolution" within the louse "kind."(BTW, this is also another way they use to explain how all the animals fit on the ark--using the "kind" as a generic version of each animal (dog kind, dinosaur kind, etc.). The idea is that the animals then rapidly speciated when leaving the ark.)[This message has been edited by bulldog98, 08-22-2003][This message has been edited by bulldog98, 08-22-2003]

I'm not sure if you are aware of what a species is (apologies if you do). In a nutshell a species is a group of related organisms capable of interbreeding. Speciation is the formation of new species. Different species are incapable of interbreeding or are extremely relectant to interbreed. All dogs are capable of interbreeding (although it may be physically difficult for some breeds) and thus are the same species. This is of course a grossly understated explanation and I'm sure the biologists may have some objections.Now although body lice and head lice can interbreed they do so extremely rarely. Morphologically they are identical (body lice being slightly larger) but genetically they are getting more and more diverse. In fact they have been often quoted as an example of speciation in action. Perhaps in the near future they will be completely unable to interbreed.Sorry to belabour the point but I think that this one's going to be hard for the YECs to explain.

Actually Bulldog is right - they'll tell you about "kinds", which is a taxa apparently larger that species. How large and inclusive, they never say.The question we can never get them to answer is "given two individuals how do I tell if they're different kinds or not?"I swear I'd give a dollar to the first creationist to give me an answer to that, except a non-answer like "we just know."But he's right, they'll just argue what you've shown isn't evolution at all, but variation within the lice kind.

or an answer to this.
Whats stopping one "kind" from adapting so much and Becoming another "kind'? they never can answer that one either (they avoid it)

quote:

---

Actually Bulldog is right - they'll tell you about "kinds", which is a taxa apparently larger that species. How large and inclusive, they never say.
The question we can never get them to answer is "given two individuals how do I tell if they're different kinds or not?"

​

I swear I'd give a dollar to the first creationist to give me an answer to that, except a non-answer like "we just know."

---

I wish I had a dime for every time I've asked a creationist to define "kind." It's their all-purpose loophole. Damned annoying, too.

quote:

---

But he's right, they'll just argue what you've shown isn't evolution at all, but variation within the lice kind.

---

Actually it's "she." And yes, I've spent waaaay too much time reading AiG drivel.

Ah, sorry about that. I'd take Rrhain's loophole and be like "well, I meant the gender-neutral 'he'" but I'm largely of the opinion that 'he' is never recieved as gender-neutral, especially by women.Nonetheless a name like "bulldog" doesn't immediately conjure an image of femaleness, so perhaps I can be excused this one time? I'm serious about that, too. One whole dollar (US, via PayPal) to the first creationist who can tell me how to tell the difference between two different kinds.

It's funny how they can call themselves scientists and yet not have any clearly defined terms. Maybe they are using fuzzy logic and just haven't told anyone else.Kind = genus +/- (~4 species)

have you ever noticed how they never reply to topics like this?

Well, Cybereagle gave it a shot over in the "Something I've noticed about these debates" topic... We'll see how well s/he does.

quote:

---

Ah, sorry about that. I'd take Rrhain's loophole and be like "well, I meant the gender-neutral 'he'" but I'm largely of the opinion that 'he' is never recieved as gender-neutral, especially by women.

​

Nonetheless a name like "bulldog" doesn't immediately conjure an image of femaleness, so perhaps I can be excused this one time?

---

Hey, no sweat. Just noted it for future reference.

quote:

---

I'm serious about that, too. One whole dollar (US, via PayPal) to the first creationist who can tell me how to tell the difference between two different kinds.

---

Ooh, I see your dollar and raise you 50 cents!