mtcodex

The case of convergent frogs

• home
• work
• about
• journal
• contact

The case of convergent frogs Thursday evening, 11 August 2005

First, i'm not a scientist, second, you're probably not either, so my opinion is as good as yours

Whilst reading kottke.org I came across an article about a newly discovered example of convergent evolution in some Madagascan and South American frogs.

Now, clearly this is a popular article not detailing the biological mechanisms which allowed this evolutionary development to take place, so i'm going to put some objections at a popular level. Furthermore, due to the special nature of this case, if you agree with the improbability of this happening at all, you can then double that as it supposedly happened twice.

"The ants had to be there with alkaloids for the frogs to evolve to get alkaloids in their skin," Clark told LiveScience.
Then the frogs had to develop a resistance to the alkaloids—instead of spitting out the ants or passing the alkaloids through their systems, the frogs became able to keep their ant dinners down. Then they evolved to make use of the alkaloids themselves.

So a few questions to think about: With no perceptible benefit (evolution is supposedly 'blind') why would the frogs persist in eating the ants?

Having developed resistance, what single freak beneficial (and if it wasn't beneficial how was it preserved) mutation to the frogs' reproductive system could cause the frog to secrete a poisonous defense?... Oh and then it is essential after that one of freak occurence for that frog to live to pass on the gene.

All the time prior to the frogs developing resistance, what was their form of defense, apart from possibly camouflage (which developed after according to the article)?

Only someone clinging to an evolutionary mindset would posit that this happened, and that it happened twice in distinct environments.. so what do I think caused them to be as they are?

As someone who believes in creation I believe that these frogs, are an example of devolution. No, they didn't split from the country to form a new assembly, rather they started with all the genetic capability which was then fashioned as you see them today by the process of natural selection. One should note natural selection does not involve any addition of genetic material to a species. You don't really suppose that one moth turning into another moth is somehow evolution do you?

Once again, secular scientists on a mission to promote 'good science' and dismiss the fables, or even possibility of a super-natural, have interpreted something quite simple - speciation, as evolution.

 

Comments