Convergent evolution Darwinism Evolution

Spiders evolving disguises separately, in parallel, are another problem for Darwinism

Spread the love

Spiders evolving disguises separately, in parallel, are another problem for Darwinism

Not that one can directly admit it. From Catherine Offord at The Scientist:

The Hawaiian stick spider has evolved the same three color morphs on multiple different islands in parallel, according to research led by biologists at the University of California, Berkeley. The team’s findings, published today (March 8) in Current Biology, provide a rare example of evolution producing the same outcome multiple times and could throw light on the factors constraining evolutionary change.

“The possibility that whole communities of these spiders have evolved convergently is certainly exciting,” Ambika Kamath, a behavioral ecologist at the University of California at Santa Barbara who didn’t take part in the study, tells The Atlantic. She adds that the study provides insight into the “deterministic processes that shape the diversity of life.”

“They arrive on an island, and boom! You get independent evolution to the same set of forms,” Gillespie says in the statement. “Most radiations just don’t do this,” she adds—although her team has previously reported a similar pattern of convergent evolution in another group of spiders in Hawaii, the spiny-legged Tetragnatha. “Now we’re thinking about why it’s only in these kinds of organisms that you get this sort of rapid and repeated evolution.” More.

First, evolution producing the same outcome multiple times is not rare; it is common.

Second, Kamath comes close to admitting that this is not a convenient finding for Darwinism: “The study provides insight into the ‘deterministic processes that shape the diversity of life’.”

But these processes are not supposed to be deterministic; they are supposed to be random. That is, natural selection acting on random mutation produces evolution (Darwinism).

On the other hand, Darwinism, as the faith position of biology, is no longer constrained by the need for consistency.

See also: Secrets of 520 million-year-old brain debated, raise conundrums

and

Evolution appears to converge on goals—but in Darwinian terms, is that possible?

8 Replies to “Spiders evolving disguises separately, in parallel, are another problem for Darwinism

  1. 1
    mahuna says:

    As with the uniform plant and animal life among the Hawaiian Islands, the standard assumption is Rafting: as each new Hawaii becomes suitable for sustained life, the “upstream” islands, each of which was created volcanically by the same hot spot, send colonists southeast.

    So I’d assume that each of 3 species INDEPENDENTLY colonized each new island. Ya sit on a leaf and hope the seasonal winds and ocean currents take you someplace interesting.

  2. 2
    Latemarch says:

    Mahuna@1

    From the article:

    Yet when the researchers sequenced the arachnids’ DNA, they discovered that each morph showed more in common with different color morphs from the same island than with the same color morph from different islands. The phylogenetic tree created using the data suggests that the same color patterns must have evolved multiple times as the stick spiders spread to new habitats.

    So much for rafting“;^)

  3. 3
    critical rationalist says:

    But these processes are not supposed to be deterministic; they are supposed to be random. That is, natural selection acting on random mutation produces evolution (Darwinism).

    In Darwinism, mutations are random to any particular problem to solve. This is in contrast to being merely random in the sense you’re implying. But you knew this already.

    Is there some particular reason you’ve decided to criticize the least strong complete version of evolutionary theory? I’m asking because it makes you look like you’re really not interested in have a genuine discussion.

    Oh I see! Perhaps I’m being far too charitable, and you’re not really interested after all?

  4. 4
    lpadron says:

    What does “random to any particular problem to solve” mean?

  5. 5
  6. 6
    LocalMinimum says:

    CR @ 3:

    Is there some particular reason you’ve decided to criticize the least strong complete version of evolutionary theory?

    If I were to take “stronger” mathematically, it would mean that it’s more specific, i.e. less wiggle room. Seeing as evolutionists live in the wiggle room, it would seem the discussion would be far more inviting for them when provided such spacious accommodation.

    Thus, I’m expecting I don’t precisely know what you mean by this word.

    Out of curiosity, can you provide a stronger complete version of evolutionary theory to apply here? The strongest you can manage, even? Minus a priori non-sequiturs, items which necessarily reduce to/emerge from RM+NS, and vacuous filler terms that you can’t describe algorithmically?

  7. 7
    Allan Keith says:

    Peer@5, ID proponents keep complaining when others suggest that ID is closely linked to creationism. You don’t help this image by linking to three documents on Creation.com.

  8. 8
    LocalMinimum says:

    Peer @ 5:

    Baraminologic genetics. Nice links, thanks!

Leave a Reply