Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Butterfly evolution is “more plastic” than thought

arroba Email

In short, Darwinism is a crock, but here’s the story:

David Lohman, an epidemiologist with The Graduate Center, CUNY and tThe City College of New York, and his collaborators studied the genome of 45 samples representing 18 butterfly subspecies across Asia to determine their evolutionary history and establish which genes are responsible for the color variation in females. They found that neither the orange nor brown females had a common recent ancestor. Their study appears in the journal Proceedings of the Royal Society B.

“The conventional wisdom is that once something evolves and you lose it, it’s hard to re-evolve it,” said Lohman. “That suggests something is acting like a switch, switching the gene on or off.”

The researchers found two DNA nucleotides on the Elymnias hypermnestra genome that regulate WntA, a gene associated with color patterning in butterfly species.

The WntA gene can be switched on to recreate the phenotypic shift, even where it hasn’t appeared for several generations. Reaching back into genetic history allows a species to create a variant without having to re-evolve the intermediate biochemical pathways.

“Evolution of a phenotype can be more plastic than we thought,” said Shen-Horn Yen, one of Lohman’s collaborators from the Department of Biological Sciences, National Sun Yat-Sen University, Taiwan.

To Lohman, studying Elymnias hypermnestra encapsulates the study of biodiversity in its entirety. There’s a universe of variety in color, form, size, and genetic variability found in a single genus of butterfly.

The paper is open access.

Advanced Science Research Center, GC/CUNY, “Asian butterfly mimics other species to defend against predators” at ScienceDaily

This is the butterfly:

I'm not impressed. What would be impressive (but probably will never actually be encountered) would be instead of how genes can be turned on and off via environmental and other influences, how about a complete step-by-tiny-step account of the Darwinist RM + NS process by which the genetic structures governing the development of the actual glorious colors and patterns of a Monarch butterfly actually came to be. Even more impressive: how about in detail (rather than just-so stories) how such processes created metamorphosis and the intricate transformations it embodies. I think we'll be waiting a long time, in fact forever. No matter to Darwinist evolutionists - faith in their unfalsifiable unscientific religion sustains them. doubter
Everyone should think here of Biston bistulleria, the "Peppered Moth." Yes, indeed, a "switch" that turns a phenotypic trait "on and off." Darwinism gives us instead balanced polymorphisms. If we have a 'switching' of gene types, then balanced polymorphisms aren't needed--nor is Darwinian evolution. PaV
. . . and my all-time favorite, "must have." It's not butterfly evolution is more plastic than thought, it's that the theory of evolution is. This 19th century speculation from the time of wooden ships and slavery can be used to rationalize any discovery but has successfully predicted none of them. It's the greatest pseudo-scientific fraud perpetrated by coercion on the scientific community and the greatest hindrance to scientific progress since Aristotle. We can only hope that Charles Darwin's cold, dead hands can someday be pried off the throat of science. -Q Querius
Darwinian science: ... more than thought.... ... less than thought.... ... earlier than thought ... ... later than thought .... ... younger than thought .... ... older than thought ... and of course, not to forget these scientific terms "perhaps, probably, may have, could be, arose, emerged, came into existence..." and so on.... martin_r

Leave a Reply