Scientists confirm Nabokov’s theory on evolution of butterflies? Is the butterfly an awesome creation?

Question

.

Scientists confirm Nabokov’s theory on evolution of butterflies

Published: 28 January, 2011, 21:04


Known and loved by many as a brilliant bilingual writer, Vladimir Nabokov has overnight turned into a genius entomologist who was thinking far ahead of his time.

The amazing discovery was made by a team of Harvard butterfly specialists, among them Dr Naomi Pierce, who was preparing the writer’s entomological notes for an exhibition.
As Dr Pierce told The New York Times, she was stunned with Nabokov’s theory of evolution for the Polyommatus blue butterflies composed by the writer in 1945.

Nabokov conjectured that the butterflies had come to the New World from Asia over the course of millions of years in a series of waves.
“It was an amazing, bold hypothesis,” the newspaper quoted Dr Pierce as saying. “And I thought, ‘Oh, my God, we could test this.’ ”





That is why evolution/natural selection is hypotheses only. Never to be a theory or fact.

The researchers did not detect many differences among genes that specify core body and cellular processes. Thus, according to co-author Chris Jiggins of the University of Cambridge, “It seems like evolution might be concentrated in quite small regions of the genome―or hotspots―while the rest of it does not change very much.” In other words, the key to unlocking a storehouse of wide-ranging variation potential is simply the alteration of just one or two out of many thousands of genes.

The idea may be somewhat new to evolutionary thinking, but this concept has been a theme within creation thinking for a long time. The “hotspots” or keys that unlock certain trait varieties appear to be strategically organized for just that purpose. Also, why would “natural selection,” or any other broadly applicable natural principle, only apply to one or two genes while ignoring the vast majority of the organism’s DNA?

In addition to the passion-vine butterflies, rapid and regulated variation has been observed in dog fur texture, dog sizes, and other canine breed-defining features. Similar patterns were found in African cichlid fish, human skull shapes, columbine flower colors, finch beaks, fruit fly development, and snail shell sizes.

 In every case, the variation is referred to as “evolution” in the various scientific studies and media reports, but in no case does it follow evolution’s supposed pattern of mutant selection.

secretsauce · Answer

>"That is why evolution/natural selection is hypotheses only. Never to be a theory or fact."

No ... it describe perfectly how science works.   Someone comes up with a speculation.  It is not scientific until it is *testable*.  In this case someone realizes that it *IS* testable ... so now it is considered a *hypothesis*.   They confirm the hypothesis with *evidence*.   Now it is considered a *theory*.

That's science 101.

>"In other words, the key to unlocking a storehouse of wide-ranging variation potential is simply the alteration of just one or two out of many thousands of genes."

Yup.   Nothing new there.

>"The idea may be somewhat new to evolutionary thinking"

Only if by "new" you mean, since the 1970's and the research that led to the discovery of regulating genes like homeobox genes:  http://www.hhmi.org/genesweshare/b120.html

Where've you been?

>"but this concept has been a theme within creation thinking for a long time."

So you claim (without reference).   But in *TESTABLE* form?   That's *PRECISELY* the point!

Nabokov here had a *speculation* about butterfly evolution.   But until it was formulated in a *TESTABLE* form, it was just that ... a speculation.

If creationists end up saying something that happens to be right, well good for you!   But that does not, in retrospect, make it "scientific", any more than Vladimir Nabokov's speculations were "scientific" before somebody figured a way to *TEST* it.

>"Also, why would “natural selection,” or any other broadly applicable natural principle, only apply to one or two genes while ignoring the vast majority of the organism’s DNA?"

First, nobody (like Jiggins) is saying that natural selection is "ignoring" anything!  Only that some areas of the genome are more tolerant of significant changes, while others are more conserved.  That's not "new."

Second, the conserved regions are not the "vast majority of the organism's DNA" ... only the  *GENETIC* DNA ... the DNA that actually codes for something (or *near* DNA that codes for someting).

Failing to understand the difference between 'DNA' and 'genes' ... is what happens when you learn just *barely* enough Biology to think you know what you're talking about ... but it fails to persuade people who actually *understand* biology ... which is why you paste these hacked up (and copy-pasted) arguments in the Religion & Spirituality section!

First, I recommend looking up 'recombination hotspot'.   You might then learn that some areas of DNA exhibit higher rates of recombination during meiosis *before* they are subjected to natural selection.   So natural selection will of course apply more to those hotspot regions.

And second, even without recombination hotspots, natural selection actually *explains* why some genes are more prone to mutations while others are highly conserved.

>"In every case, the variation is referred to as “evolution” in the various scientific studies and media reports"

Not until that variation *spreads into the population*!    That is the *definition* of evolution!   It's not the variation itself ... it is the nature of how it increases or decreases in frequency in the population.   Whether its spread is caused by natural selection or genetic drift or gene flow between populations can be distinguished by certain patterns ... but in all cases it is still *evolution* if the variation is spreading at all.

Again, it is YOU who are clearly confused between 'variation' and 'evolution' ... and then you project that confusion onto the scientific studies and media reports that you insist on misinterpreting.

If you would spend more time actually *reading* the original, instead of copy-pasting from ICR snippets, which are themselves cobbled together from this piece of finding A, and that piece of finding B ... then you might actually learn something.
---

Anonymous · Answer

"In every case, the variation is referred to as “evolution” in the various scientific studies and media reports, but in no case does it follow evolution’s supposed pattern of mutant selection."

this statement... being the crux of your argument... has your conclusion drawn entirely from ignorance.
your conclusion that there are examples of non "mutant selection" speciation completely ignore sexual, random, kin (etc) selections, gene drift, the founder effect and host of other speciation sources


as always, your ignorance of the evidence is not a lack of evidence

terje_treff · Answer

lol, yeah, this tidbit is supposed to turn evolution on its head...

Seriously... evolution/natural selection has been accepted as a core science long time ago. 

Interesting that you cite publishing date but no actual source.

Freethinking Liberal · Answer

"... but in no case does it follow evolution’s supposed pattern of mutant selection." Are you sure of that? I cannot find any evidence or even suggest that your statement is true.

As for your other points, ask a biologist.

Plug · Answer

http://www.admin.cam.ac.uk/news/dp/2010020405

If you take the trouble to read what Dr. Jiggins actually said you will find that this phenomenon actually confirms evolution not denies it. If you are going to quote mine do it more subtly.

cosmo · Answer

Yep, it's only a theory, so I'm a guess'n that Jesus did it fur sure, then.

? · Answer

Why are you assuming everything has to evolve at the same rate?

? · Answer

Yes butterflies are awesome and make me hot ;-)

Anonymous · Answer

How many atheists actually read that?

Trending News

Scientists confirm Nabokov’s theory on evolution of butterflies? Is the butterfly an awesome creation?

9 Answers