Darwinism Evolution Intelligent Design

Darwinism is dead and the butterflies did it

Spread the love

Don’t be fooled by that fluttery exterior. Inside is a vicious worm, devouring theories as if they were leaves on a plant. From ScienceDaily:

An international team of researchers analyzed the genomes of 20 butterfly species and discovered a surprisingly high amount of gene flow among them — even between species that are distantly related. The findings, published in the journal Science, challenge conventional views about species and point to hybridization as a key process in the emergence of biological diversity.

Different species of passion vine butterflies (Heliconius) have similar color patterns that serve as warnings to predators. Scientists have previously found that one reason for their similarity is that they actually share parts of their DNA, thanks to hybridization that occurred at some point in their ancestry. The new findings suggest that this process of DNA sharing is far more common than previously thought.

To understand how butterflies pass genes to other species by hybridizing, a process known as introgression, the researchers analyzed new genome assemblies of 20 Heliconius butterfly species.

“DNA sharing had been shown in closely related species, but we wanted to probe deeper into the phylogenetic tree,” said senior author James Mallet, Professor of Organismic and Evolutionary Biology in Residence and Associate of Population Genetics in the Museum of Comparative Zoology. “What we found is really astonishing: introgression even among species that are distantly related. “Species” are simply not what we thought they were, and now we have the data to show it. The evolutionary tree of butterflies is a complete morass of inter-connectedness — every bit of the butterfly genome seems to have a different tree.” Paper. paywall – Nathaniel B. Edelman, Paul B. Frandsen, Michael Miyagi, Bernardo Clavijo, John Davey, Rebecca B. Dikow, Gonzalo García-Accinelli, Steven M. Van Belleghem, Nick Patterson, Daniel E. Neafsey, Richard Challis, Sujai Kumar, Gilson R. P. Moreira, Camilo Salazar, Mathieu Chouteau, Brian A. Counterman, Riccardo Papa, Mark Blaxter, Robert D. Reed, Kanchon K. Dasmahapatra, Marcus Kronforst, Mathieu Joron, Chris D. Jiggins, W. Owen McMillan, Federica Di Palma, Andrew J. Blumberg, John Wakeley, David Jaffe, James Mallet. Genomic architecture and introgression shape a butterfly radiation. Science, 2019; 366 (6465): 594 DOI: 10.1126/science.aaw2090 More.

Darwin’s PR firm could not be reached for comment.

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. Things just didn’t happen the way the Darwin lobby claims.


See also: “Confounding”: Moths And Butterflies Predate Flowering Plants By Millions Of Years

Single Gene Flip, Not Darwinism, Explains Butterfly Mimicry But It’s Not Clear Why The Butterflies Bother

and

Convergent Evolution: Speciation In Butterflies An Unusually Tough Mess

Follow UD News at Twitter!

9 Replies to “Darwinism is dead and the butterflies did it

  1. 1
    Seversky says:

    Darwinism is dying and people are wisely refraining from spelling that out. Things just didn’t happen the way the Darwin lobby claims.

    Need we point out that the poor, much-maligned Darwin knew nothing about genes, let alone horizontal gene transfer. Contemporary evolutionary biology is able to accommodate the process just fine.

    The question for ID theorists is why a designer – who by definition designs to achieve a specific purpose – would employ processes which, by their nature, mutate and drift away in all sorts of unpredictable directions.

  2. 2
    DerekDiMarco says:

    I wonder if there are people who call physics Newtonism. It’s weird.

  3. 3
    PaV says:

    Seversky:

    Need we point out that the poor, much-maligned Darwin knew nothing about genes, let alone horizontal gene transfer.

    Then why pay attention to Darwin?

    This finding evescerates the conventional Darwinian “Principle of Divergence,” which says that “new” species form from a particular lineage and in such a way as to be so better adapted to the same environment as to cause the demise of their ancestral line. This finding says all these butterflies are one, big happy family. None of the ancestral lines have been eliminated.
    Uhoh.

    Years ago, on this blog, I said that genome sequencing would either confirm, or negate, Darwinian theory. This is simply one part of genomic sequencing–now so cheap, more reliable and quickly done, which will prove to be the undo-ing of Darwinism. This will only happen, of course when all the “true believers” of the theory die off and the young can look at things more objectively.

  4. 4
    Seversky says:

    PaV@ 3

    Seversky:

    Need we point out that the poor, much-maligned Darwin knew nothing about genes, let alone horizontal gene transfer.

    Then why pay attention to Darwin?

    It’s the ID/creationists who make such a big fuss about Darwin, not the rest of us.

    This finding evescerates the conventional Darwinian “Principle of Divergence,” which says that “new” species form from a particular lineage and in such a way as to be so better adapted to the same environment as to cause the demise of their ancestral line. This finding says all these butterflies are one, big happy family. None of the ancestral lines have been eliminated.

    From Ernst Mayer on Darwin’s Principle of Divergence

    The basic point of the principle of divergence is simplicity itself: the more the coinhabitants of an area differ from each other in their ecological requirements, the less they will compete with each other; therefore natural selection will tend to favor any variation toward greater divergence. The reason for the principle’s importance to Darwin is that it seemed to shed some light on the greatest of his puzzles — the nature and origin of variation and of speciation.

    Uh-oh indeed.

  5. 5
    DerekDiMarco says:

    “It’s the ID/creationists who make such a big fuss about Darwin, not the rest of us.”

    I had more biology and biochem than I can remember. The last thing I did in biofizz was have some mutant DNA plasmids made so I could get custom SNARE proteins out of some e. coli. And all that time I never heard Darwin Darwin Darwin like I hear from the creationists. It’s downright weird and shows you how distant they are from the scientific community. It would be like if some anti-physics people where always going ‘Newton Newton Newton’! Everybody else would rightfully look at them funny. 🙂

  6. 6
    ET says:

    seversky:

    Contemporary evolutionary biology is able to accommodate the process just fine.

    That is a big lie.

    The question for ID theorists is why a designer – who by definition designs to achieve a specific purpose – would employ processes which, by their nature, mutate and drift away in all sorts of unpredictable directions.

    Strawman. That said, an Intelligent Designer would have provided the design with a way and means to evolve and adapt.

    Evos are so clueless that they don’t understand that what Darwin said still stands today. Modern evolutionary biology STILL says that the processes are blind, mindless and without purpose. THAT is why blind watchmaker opponents still call it Darwinism- because it still is.

    It’s the ID/creationists who make such a big fuss about Darwin, not the rest of us.

    The “rest of you” are clueless and you couldn’t support your position, scientifically, if your lives depended on it.

  7. 7
    ET says:

    Derek:

    I wonder if there are people who call physics Newtonism.

    No one calls biology Darwinism. But yes, many people still refer to Newtonian mechanics when describing orbits.

  8. 8
    asauber says:

    Derek and Sev,

    “t’s the ID/creationists who make such a big fuss about Darwin, not the rest of us.”

    Get your Darwin Day gifts now. Only 98 days remaining.

    “Even this year, it is going to be huge, there are going to be a lot of events. Firstly, there will be an event by Unione Bolognese Naturalist (UBN) in collaboration with, the Department of Biological, Geological and Environmental Sciences (BiGeA) and the University Museum System (SMA) of the University of Bologna and Golinelli Foundation. The agenda would be the impact of Darwin’s theory on sociology, science, medicine, and philosophy.”

    “In Utah, Darwin’s day 2020 will be celebrated as a festival, where people can come with their family, and there will be science displays, cakes, prizes, etc. The Museum of Natural and Cultural History is also organizing the event by discussing dinosaurs and its feathers and their evolution. STEM Education Department (CASE) in collaboration with the Department of Biological Sciences is also organizing an event in which there will be lectures on the evolution theory.”

    https://dayfinders.com/darwin-day/

    Andrew

  9. 9
    asauber says:

    It’s looks to me like Derek and Sev have painted themselves into a corner in which they are now throwing Darwin under the bus.

    Welcome to our side, gents.

    Andrew

Leave a Reply