No, but seriously, if “‘species’ are simply not what we thought they were,” as the researchers’ media release reads, all those carefully thought-out explanations of the neo-Darwinian origin of various butterfly traits must compete with “a complete morass of inter-connectedness.” Darwinism is dying and people are wisely refraining from spelling that out.
Just think, it’s becoming increasingly possible to hold a civilized discussion of evolution. Maybe the trolls got sent semi-accidentally to the wrong address?
This is a classic story of devolution, where an organism thrives by losing information, as Michael Behe explains in Darwin Devolves. Devolution is a form of evolution; it just isn’t glitzy.
Now, will those remains bolster textbook Darwinism or help sink it? Or in-between? We shall see.
Researchers: “We’ve thought for a long time that flowering plants must have contributed to the extraordinary number of moth and butterfly species we see today, but we haven’t been able to test that. This study helps us see if prior hypotheses line up, and what we find is that the plant hypothesis does, but the bat hypothesis does not.”
A classic example of Darwinism at work, right?. It did a lot of good for the toad to happen to look one per cent like a venomous snake, so then it evolved to two percent and that did more good so it naturally selected to three percent and… Not really. Whatever happened isn’t a form of Darwinism.
Equisetum, considered a “living fossil” is the only surviving member of a large family of spore-bearing vascular plants found as early as 150 mya. It’s still here. The giant sauropods not so much.
In the aye-aye lemur of Madagascar, it’s an extension of the “hitchhike muscle,” attached to the radial sesamoid.
Why do we keep running into arguments for intelligent design that don’t seem to realize that they ARE arguments for intelligent design?
“Often, researchers construct a phylogeny using a single gene. This can, however, give an inaccurate picture of the relationship between species — and can incorrectly place them.” So the industrious team studied “used up to 4065 genes from each termite species to construct the phylogeny.” Good for them. But it raises the question, why—in the age of Big Gene—doesn’t everyone do that, instead of loudly proclaiming an evolutionary history based on a handful of genes? One is much less inclined to dismiss the evidence of thousands than a handful.
Of course, sexual selection could spark new species. Lots of events could. At least in theory. The problem is, it must persist generation after generation to make and maintain a difference. How often can it work that way unchecked in an ecology where a great many other shaping events are happening at the same time?
“The reconstructions didn’t agree with each other,” he said, despite 1,000 attempts. “That in itself wouldn’t be a huge problem — I didn’t expect them all to agree… “
From the release: “The work, led by Ian Hatton at ICTA-UAB in Barcelona, shows how metabolism, abundance, growth and mortality all follow strikingly consistent relationships with body size from the tiniest bacteria to the blue whale.”
Of course, they don’t come right out and say this but if the stick insects’ amazing camouflages developed after they started to be eaten by predatory mammals and birds, there was not as much time as was thought for the Darwinian claims.
But isn’t that the kind of thing the villain Michael Behe argues in Darwin Devolves?