Tuesday, March 4, 2008

Study Says Darwin Wrong About Chickens

Short bit on BeliefNet today about evolution:

"Study Says Darwin was Wrong About Chickens" - United Press International, February 29, 2008
A research team in Sweden said Charles Darwin was wrong about the genetic basis for the yellow skin of some chickens...

Darwin believed that all chickens came from a wild species known as the red junglefowl but when the research team looked for a yellow-skin gene in the red junglefowl they found only the genetic variant that codes for white skin. The yellow-skin version of the gene, however, was present in grey junglefowl, the journal Public Library of Science (PLoS) Genetics said Friday in a release.

"Darwin recognized the importance of studying domestic animals as a model of evolution and this insight has proved enormously influential," Larsen said. "The ironic thing is that he believed that dogs were hybrids of several wild ancestors but that chickens only had one, and he was wrong on both counts."

UPDATE: Here is a link to the actual journal article: "Identification of the Yellow Skin Gene Reveals a Hybrid Origin of the Domestic Chicken," PLOS Genetics (February 28, 2008).

After reading this, it made me wonder whether the young-earth claim that all of the various species of animals descended from an ancestral "pair" that came off the ark a few thousand years ago could be genetically tested. Did all of the bear species really come from an original bear "pair"? Or all of the species of wild cats? Some form of that research has probably already been done. The question is are there any creation scientists who are aware of it and have commented on it with this application in mind? I don't know of any, but that doesn't mean it hasn't happened.

Any Christian young people up for the challenge?

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

Good, the more incorrect concepts are proven wrong, the more science advances. Fortunately, no rational person forms their opinion based solely on the words of Charles Darwin, as if he were some kind of prophet. He was just a man, a brilliant man, but still, a fallible man who made mistakes.