365NEWSX
365NEWSX
Subscribe

Welcome

How the Insect Got Its Wings: Solving a Mystery That Has Puzzled Biologists for Over a Century - SciTechDaily

How the Insect Got Its Wings: Solving a Mystery That Has Puzzled Biologists for Over a Century - SciTechDaily

How the Insect Got Its Wings: Solving a Mystery That Has Puzzled Biologists for Over a Century - SciTechDaily
Dec 02, 2020 3 mins, 20 secs

Intriguing and competing theories of insect wing evolution have emerged in recent years, but none were entirely satisfactory.

One of the reasons it took a century to figure this out, Bruce says, is that it wasn’t appreciated until about 2010 that insects are most closely related to crustaceans within the arthropod phylum, as revealed by genetic similarities.

“And if you look in myriapods for where insect wings came from, you won’t find anything,” she says.

“So insect wings came to be thought of as ‘novel’ structures that sprang up in insects and had no corresponding structure in the ancestor — because researchers were looking in the wrong place for the insect ancestor.”.

“People get very excited by the idea that something like insect wings may have been a novel innovation of evolution,” Patel says.

Reference: “Knockout of crustacean leg patterning genes suggests that insect wings and body walls evolved from ancient leg segments” by Heather S.

It’s nice to see the mystery of insect wings ‘solved’, but it’s not a very difficult one as organisms grow legs and fins then back again, depending on the environmental pressures.

I would have suggested that a lobe mutation on the back of certain insects gradually grew into some kind of balancing aid, which in turn mutated into a hopping aid, then finally mutated into wings that could give the insect flight.

THE NATURAL LIMITS TO EVOLUTION.

ONLY LIMITED EVOLUTION (micro-evolution or evolution within biological “kinds”) is genetically possible (such as the varieties of dogs, cats, horses, cows, etc.), but not macro-evolution, or evolution across biological “kinds,” (such as from sea sponge to human).

All real evolution in nature is simply the expression, over time, of already existing genes or variations of already existing genes.

Only limited evolution, variations of already existing genes and traits, is possible.

Nature is mindless and has no ability to design and program entirely new genes for entirely new traits!

Evolutionists believe that, if given millions of years, accidents in the genetic code of species caused by the environment will generate entirely new code making evolution possible from one type of life to another.

WHAT ABOUT NATURAL SELECTION.

Natural selection doesn’t produce biological traits or variations.

It can only “select” from biological variations that are possible and which have survival value.

Survival of the fittest actually would have prevented evolution across biological kinds.

NEW SPECIES BUT NOT NEW DNA: Although it’s been observed that new species have come into existence, they don’t carry any new genes.

They’ve become new species only because they can’t be crossed back with the original parent stock for various biological reasons.

A biological “kind” allows for new species but not new genes.

Nature has no ability to invent new genes for new traits.

Only limited variations and adaptations are possible in nature, and all strictly within a biological “kind” (i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.).

What about genetic and biological similarities between species.

Genetic information, like other forms of information, cannot happen by chance, so it is more logical to believe that genetic and biological similarities between all forms of life are due to a common Designer who designed similar functions for similar purposes.

Only genetic similarities within a natural species proves relationship because it’s only within a natural species that members can interbreed and reproduce?

Physical traits and characteristics are determined and passed on by genes – not by what happens to our body parts.

Most biological variations are from new combinations of already existing genes, not mutations

Even if a good accident occurred, for every good one there would be hundreds of harmful ones with the net result, over time, being harmful, even lethal, to the species

Even if a single mutation is not immediately harmful, the accumulation of mutations over time will be harmful to the species resulting in extinction

At very best, mutations only produce further variations within a natural species

Summarized by 365NEWSX ROBOTS

RECENT NEWS

SUBSCRIBE

Get monthly updates and free resources.

CONNECT WITH US

© Copyright 2024 365NEWSX - All RIGHTS RESERVED