"Impossible, impossible, impossible."... and then he went along with the evidence.



Interestingly, their error is that they were assuming that evolving wings was hard
, and had therefore only happened once in that family of bugs, but apparently bugs drop or add them easily over millions of years as circumstances warrent.

There are always a few stick-in-the-muds (or should that be sticks-in-the-mud?) that will immediately and categorically deny any new scientific theory based on their own (soon-to-be-outdated) knowledge in that field. But science presses on, collects the data, and if it is justified, the new theory will then be accepted as fact. As has happened in this case.



Specifically, however, I am not sure that the statement that this idea "flies in the face of what insect evolutionary biologists believe" is really a fair characterization by the article's author. He may have been overdramatizing and oversimplifying for a newspaper article. Since it has been proven that there are "trigger" genes which act as on/off switches for gene sequences which can generate the pattern for things as complicated as wings and eyes, it should be no surprise that once the basic sequence is set it can come and go based on mutations in the "trigger" combined with prevailing environmental pressures.



At least it isn't to me. And if I can figure it out, certainly they can, too.

I was going to start off by wondering, from your comment at the end,

whether you were a 'creationist', but on further thought I can't draw

that conclusion. As science, 'evolution' is only a theory ofcourse but

I am hard pressed to understand how 'creationism' (in the biblical

sense) could be understood as such. As the first commentator wrote,

science is built on facts, as observed through experiment,

and a model (theory) is built on top to explain them. One hopes to then

make predictions that are testable. This is an process that is on

going and many theories end up discarded when they fail this process.



There is nothing in the article you comment on to warrant your sniping

as far as I can see. Let alone tar the 'evolutionists' as having

closed minds. I would posit that there are many more 'closed minds' on

the 'creationist' side. Then again, since when did faith depend on

facts?

Alastair:



I agree creationists are closed-minded, but I believe evolutionists are too. I find the two sides to be generally indistinguishable.

Notice how quickle "Impossible, impossible, impossible" become "Holy Shit! How cool!"?



Looks like open minds to me...

I agree with Mike F.



Creationists never change their story, no matter how many times you prove their data is wrong and their reasoning is specious.



Evolutionists may argue with you initially, but they will eventually (in general, always allowing for individual exceptions) adapt their theories to conform with reality when confronted with cold, hard facts.

I don't know much about insect evolution, so

I don't know who responded "Impossible," if

anyone did.



But, first, when a researcher submits a

very surprising result, the initial response is

SUPPOSED to be skepticism.



It has often happened, especially in the

life sciences, that initial results proved

mistaken.

Well, we're in luck because we now have a set of easily verifiable experiments for y'all to do: our genome should have any number of such features that we have in previous iterations bt which are lying dormant in case we need them again, everything from tails to photosynthesis, right?

Actually, humans do have the genes that direct tail formation in mice
, although they are not (fully; there is a vistigal human tail, as you can see in any skeleton) active



Hemoglobin and chlorophyll have very similar central structures, though that could be a coincidence.

Yes, we knew they'd be there and we know from our experience that shiortening and lengthening the tail is a simple matter of breeding, but they should all be there, right? genes for every feature any of our ancestors had, right down to when we crawled from the muck or were ine-celled organisms?

It's ludicrous to equate 'evolutionists' (whoever they might be) with so-called creation scientists. Being agnostic in the creation vs. evolution debate is like being agnostic about gravity. Evolution qua
evolution is a fact, and the neo-Darwinian synthesis is our best explanation for it (indeed, it is without doubt the most stunning feat of science to date). No other theoretical edifice has the multiple interlocking strands of evidence that modern evolutionary theory has.



There's a huge panoply of ideas in modern evolutionary biology that were initially greeted with scepticism but are now accepted. To categorise researchers in evolutionary biologists as closed-minded is to deny the fact that the state of the art is significantly different today than fifty (or ten) years ago. Compare that with creation 'science', which subsists on a diet of backing and filling and blowing steam to defend its risible assertions, and the difference becomes plain to see. Scepticism is the default stance in science, but a new idea that is correct will always
prevail in the end, and become mainstream.

For once, Orrin, you're on the right track though you bought a ticket for the wrong destination.



As a matter of fact, our genome does conserve most of our development history. Ontogency recapitulates phylogeny. To a high degree.



You have also put your finger on what darwinians consider THE QUESTION for current research, which is development. The big picture of development is clear enough; the details are being attacked.



In the 19th century, whalers working off California harpooned a humpback whale with 10-foot-long hind legs. That was not a "breeding experiment."

Orin, where do you get the idea that any "evolutionist" thinks all genes are conserved?



Some certainly are. For example, those for DNA transcription are almost identical in humans, flat worms, e-coli, algae, mushrooms, and redwoods. Others, especially ones that are not fatal if omitted, are not.



I am disappointed that your religious faith apparently prevents you from thinking critically about evolution and reacting so viscerally against the concept.



Don't you find the vast time scales and dramatic "story" line of evolutionary history even more impressive and awe inspiring that some deus ex machina "Shazam! You're an elephant!" creation concept? Is evolution in any sense a threat to religion? If I handed you a time machine and we went and followed evolution like a time lapse camera for the last billion years and irrefutably demonstrated its reality would that threaten your faith at all? Or would it just make it stronger by demonstrating just how amazing our world is?

What Mike Friedman said.

Okay, so in what way do these findings challenge anyhing that y'all believe about evolution?



ANSWER: they don't. You can't even consider implications because they might upset the apple cart.



I don't particularly care whether Darwinism is ultimately found to be true or not, any more than I care if gravity is "true". I'm merely amused that folks clng to the former so tenaciously despite the lack of evidence for it and the myriad contradictions to it.

OK, maybe I'm just stupid, but I don't think that last comment makes any sense at all. Please explain how you think that "these findings" contradict Darwinism. I think they're completely consistent with the principles of Darwinism as modified by an understanding of genetics. Blinkered idiot that I am, I guess.

Orin,



As far as I can tell from the article, there are two surprises here.



The first is that biologists did not realize that the genes for wings would be conserved in species without wings well enough for it to be relatively easy for wings to re-evolve.



The second is that because of the point above biologists assumed that winged stick insects did not evolve from wingless stick insects.



Biologists have now discovered that the second assumption is incorrect which therefore calls into question and possible refutes the first.



Is this supposed to be a big deal?



Also, for someone who does not care about whether evolution is true or not you seem to put a lot of effort into finding articles indicating that "evolutionists" are wrong about just about anything in evolutionary biology and then somehow implying that this calls into question the entire theory of evolution.

Actually, I can think of an evolutionary

scenario that does not require the wings-on,

wings-off, wings-back-on sequence.



In fact, I think mine is much more probable

but is mere speculation because of lack

of evidence.



Mine depends on the degree of resolution

of the genetic studies, which I don't know.



But what if, among all the early winged

stick insects, one branch led to the

wingless species, which have survived.

And all the early winged species but one

(or a few) failed to survive, but that

one (or a few) species, though not

visible in the fossil record, eventually,

much later, radiated into many winged

species.



A 50myr gap would be a problem for

this proposal, but maybe not.

Harry,



Your idea would be the default assumption since it is consistant with existing theory.



Therefore, presumably, the new evidence either rules it out or makes it highly unlikely.