The 7 October, 2004, edition of the International Herald Tribune carried an article titled “Evolution, as told by the louse.” The article dealt with a study, performed by David Reed of the Florida Museum of Natural History, on the DNA sequences of head and body lice. Reed analyzed the DNA differences between the two clusters of lice. In the light of the results he obtained he claimed that these two split apart from an alleged joint ancestor some 1.18 million years ago.
The 7 October, 2004, edition of the International Herald Tribune carried an article titled “Evolution, as told by the louse.” The article dealt with a study, performed by David Reed of the Florida Museum of Natural History, on the DNA sequences of head and body lice. Reed analyzed the DNA differences between the two clusters of lice. In the light of the results he obtained he claimed that these two split apart from an alleged joint ancestor some 1.18 million years ago.
Reed, acting in the light of evolutionist preconceptions, was transmitting a scenario he has brought to life in his own mind and assumed that only a single type of louse was present in the imaginary joint ancestor of human beings and chimps, since it had full body hair. Again in the light of preconceptions, he also assumed that two types of lice evolved as a result of human beings allegedly shedding their body hair during the process of evolution.
As can clearly be seen, this way of thinking is based entirely upon the adoption of evolution as a dogma. Assumptions made on the basis of this are founded on other assumptions that are taken as being true. It is clear that such an approach is an unscientific mode of thinking that reveals a one-sided perspective. Comments made in this light constitute no scientific evidence for the theory of evolution. What we are looking at is not concrete findings that support the theory of evolution, but facts interpreted in a biased manner according to the theory, but that which really constitute no evidence for it at all.
A similar study on lice had been performed previously, and we responded in detail to those claims at the time. If you wish to examine the one-sided aspect of evolutionist assumptions regarding the DNA sequences of lice, you can read our article here.
