Thursday, 20 October 2011

The Slug Mite - What is it FOR Exactly?

The White Slug Mite Riccardoella limacum
As a youngster I often used to look for the large garden snails which are common everywhere in England. I also use to find the larger, creamy white 'Roman' snails, also called the edible snail or escargot. These are fairly common in and around the area of north Oxfordshire where I lived.

One of the things I found fascinating was that some of them would have several tiny white creatures moving over their surfaces and very often going in and out of the hole in their side, the pneumostome, which leads to the air sack under the shell and through which snails breath.

I've since learned they are a group of mites. Mites are a group of arthropods similar to spiders but lacking the abdomen. Very many of them are microscopic - you will almost certainly have one or more living in most of your eyelash follicles. One particularly nasty little thing, Sarcoptes scabiei, sets up home in human skin and causes the intensely itchy rash called scabies.

However, the white snail mites I discovered as a child are what this is about, not the creatures that live in and on your body, in your beds, carpets, etc.

Slug mites around the pneumostome of a tawny garden slug.
These are known as slug mites and are members of the Riccardoella genus, usually R. limacum or R. oudemansi. They live on a whole range of terrestrial molluscs (slugs and snails). They were thought to be commensal, that is, just hitching a ride on their hosts and living off mucus, so doing their host no harm at all. However, recent studies have shown that they are blood feeder; that they are true parasites.

In fact it is now known that they often burrow deep into their host's skin and remain there. Despite this they appear not to do any real harm to their hosts which seem to suffer no ill effects from their activities. Certainly, they have no discernible impact on slug and snail numbers and they do not appear to be predated on by anything other than another mite - Hyoaspis miles. Slugs and snails seem to have adapted to the presence of slug mites to compensate for whatever harm they may have suffered in the past.

The only purpose for slug mites seems to be to produce more slug mites.

So a question for Creationists: what was your assumed intelligent creator's intelligent reason for designing the slug mite?

Luckily for Evolutionists such questions don't arise since there is no assumed purpose, intelligent or otherwise, in evolution theory. Evolution is an intelligently designed explanation for what we can observe in nature.

submit to reddit


  1. God created it from want. You may want to be reincarnated as a slug mite. God may want to see a slug mite's life. You thought the slug mite was interesting enough to want to write this article.
    -Christopher LaMell

  2. Christopher LaMell

    Actually, I thought the slug mite's life was UNinteresting enough to illustrate my point.

  3. I don't know about creationists, since I'm not one. I do however find it interesting that my body is crammed full of commensal microorganisms, and that biologically speaking I'm more a colony than an individual.

  4. Christopher LaMell...

    Reincarnation and God are from different religions...

    1. In christianity, there is a form of reincarnation from what is called the rapture, in which the dead are given life and substance again. Somehow, that seems just as crazy as any other reincarnation belief.

    2. I've no idea what you think reincarnation has to do with the article. Is this just an avoidance tactic so you don't have to think about the question I asked?

  5. Just because we don't know what purpose something serves, doesn't mean it doesn't serve a purpose. Even the manner you lauded Evolution is anti-science, as like I said, just because you don't know something, doesn't mean you stop asking the question.

    1. And you imagine saying we just don't know (therefore it must be my magic invisible friend) IS scientific?

      I can understand you remaining anonymous if you find actually answering direct questions embarrassing but your infantile superstition requires you to pretend you can.

  6. Maybe it doesn't serve a purpose. This neither disproves/proves creation. Complexity doesn't always have purpose but most of the time does. It's a bit of a poor argument to imply the existence of a creator is disproved by not knowing the purpose of this tiny mite. That's like saying the designer of a kitchen knife used by a murderer proves the designer is evil.

  7. Also, not all who believe in a creator believe in some of the nonsense taught by religions. Just because some religious people teach fallacies doesn't disprove the existence of a creator anymore than an atheist lying about evidence disproves evolution. Just poor reasoning.

    1. Can I suggest you read the article before you comment on it in future?

      Nowhere does it claim to either prove or disprove 'creation', nor does it argue or imply 'the existence of a creator is disproved by not knowing the purpose of this tiny mite', but I can understand why you've had to ignore the question and attack a straw man instead.

      Try again, and maybe this time find the courage to address the question actually asked, namely: what was your assumed intelligent creator's intelligent reason for designing the slug mite?

      If there are any words you have trouble with as you read it, let me know.

      Be brave! Truth isn't as frightening as you seem to think!


Obscene, threatening or obnoxious messages, preaching, abuse and spam will be removed, as will anything by known Internet trolls and stalkers or by known sock-puppet accounts.

A claim made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. Remember: your opinion is not an established fact unless corroborated.

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...
Web Analytics