Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

At ScienceDaily: “astonishingly similar biomechanical solutions” for ingesting liquid food have evolved in widely distant animal groups.


It’s not astonishing; it’s convergent evolution and it points to design in nature:

Whether nectar-sucking butterflies or blood-sucking mosquitoes — the ingestion of liquid food has long been known for many insects and other arthropods. A research team from Germany and Switzerland, led by the Leibniz Institute for the Analysis of Biodiversity Change (LIB) and the University of Bonn, now shows that millipedes also use a sucking pump to ingest liquid food. A sucking pump has thus evolved independently in different groups of organisms over several 100 million years. In the process, astonishingly similar biomechanical solutions for ingesting liquid food have evolved in widely distant animal groups. The study results have now been published in the journal Science Advances.

University of Bonn, “February 17, 2022” at ScienceDaily (February 17, 2022)

Millipedes, like insects, are arthropods but that doesn’t, in itself, point to much detailed similarity.

Millipedes in general:

Using high-resolution tomography as well as histological methods and electron microscopy, the researchers discovered a sucking pump in millipedes that is strikingly similar to those of insects. It consists of a chamber that is widened by strong muscles to suck in liquid food. “Together with the protractible mouthparts the sucking pump enables these millipedes to ingest more or less liquid food,” explains Leif Moritz, a doctoral student at the University of Bonn and the LIB.

The research team was thus able to show that the functional tools for a diet with liquid nutrients have evolved several times independently in all major subgroups of arthropods. “The biomechanical-morphological similarities between the groups of organisms indicate the strength of selection as soon as a food source provides even a slight evolutionary advantage,” elaborates Alexander Blanke head of the working group for evolutionary morphology at the University of Bonn.

University of Bonn, “February 17, 2022” at ScienceDaily (February 17, 2022)

Wait. There is a fundamental conceptual error in that last remark by Alexander Blanke (though it may have been something he felt forced to say): The question is not whether a sucking pump would be an advantage but how it could have arisen independently twice by natural selection acting on random mutations within the time available. And no, “natural selection” is not supposed to be a synonym for “hocus pocus.” The situation should be researchable, if not now, at least at some point. The probability of a non-design origin can become calculable once we assign specifics.

The paper is open access.

You may also wish to read: Evolution appears to converge on goals—but in Darwinian terms, is that possible?

You may also wish to read: Evolution appears to converge on goals—but in Darwinian terms, is that possible?
Excellent overview of the absurdity of convergent evolution.
Convergent evolution is evidence that evolution can happen. But the Darwinian model does not seem to be the right one. The life forms appear to be converging on a common goal.
I guess so, or maybe it's evidence that evolution didn't happen?
That said, the problem presented for Darwinism by convergent evolution has hardly penetrated the world of pop science writers, high school teachers, politicians, judges, theologians, and entertainers. Mere evidence could not compete with a position so compelling as Darwin’s.
That's it. Mere evidence is not enough. The compelling story wins out every time. Silver Asiatic
Every time more evidence comes out to disprove Darwin, the same thing happens. It is either denied or written off by an effect no one has witnessed. Darwin is and always was, a fiction writer. Science requires evidence, which Darwin never produced. For hypotheses to become theory requires a witnessed and duplicated event, which has never happened. It is no more theory than time travel and alternate dimensions. Fiction is not based on reality, but altering reality to fit the writer. Science does not alter anything based on belief. BobRyan
"natural selection" IS “hocus pocus” and nothing more. I called it that, and have actually proved it: http://nonlin.org/natural-selection/ Consider the fact that: 1. It was dreamed by a clueless guy. 2. The concept was based on a deeply flawed analogy with breeding that not only is incapable of changing a "species" into another, but it is also a quintessential intelligent activity. 3. There is demonstrably no "fitness" out there so there's nothing to select The five ridiculous claims of “natural selection”: “Design by multiple choice” is ridiculous“ Multiple choice from ALL random answers” is ridiculous“ Designing without trying” is ridiculous“ Self design” is ridiculous“ Design by incremental optimization” is ridiculous. ID proponents that accept "natural selection" are not only promoting bad science but are also committing intellectual suicide. Nonlin.org
I'm genuinely surprised that millipedes are just now being examined closely. They may be 'species-rare' but they're extremely common and visible animals. Mouth parts are not microscopic mechanisms like mitochondria. Could it be that "experts" don't know everything and haven't looked at everything? polistra

Leave a Reply