Re-evolution, is this random?

Researchers have discovered that on a number of occasions in the past 300 million years, stick insects have lost their wings, then re-evolved them. Entomologists have described the revelation as "revolutionary".from...
News articles and features | New Scientist

quote:

---

Originally posted by judge:
Researchers have discovered that on a number of occasions in the past 300 million years, stick insects have lost their wings, then re-evolved them. Entomologists have described the revelation as "revolutionary".

---

Well it is very unlikely that the genes needed to produce the wings were lost completely and then reformed by pure chance.But there are is more than one possibility that fits in with the idea of random mutations as it actually appears in evolutionary theory.One is that the crucial changes were regulatory and did not involve a great change in genetic terms.Another is that much the genetic information was not lost - rather it was put away for future use and eventually came out again. See _Darwin in The Genome_ by Lynn Helena Caporale for information on soem of the recent findings in how mutations are produced. It does get a bit technical in places, but it is well worth a look.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by judge:
Researchers have discovered that on a number of occasions in the past 300 million years, stick insects have lost their wings, then re-evolved them. Entomologists have described the revelation as "revolutionary".--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Well it is very unlikely that the genes needed to produce the wings were lost completely and then reformed by pure chance.But there are is more than one possibility that fits in with the idea of random mutations as it actually appears in evolutionary theory.One is that the crucial changes were regulatory and did not involve a great change in genetic terms.Another is that much the genetic information was not lost - rather it was put away for future use and eventually came out again. See _Darwin in The Genome_ by Lynn Helena Caporale for information on soem of the recent findings in how mutations are produced. It does get a bit technical in places, but it is well worth a look.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------PB: This Is of corse NOT evolution. It is GUToB. Evolutionary theory cannot explain huge genetic programs for wing development that are millions of years in the genome without selective constraint. So, better get used to GUToB. It is also explanatory in this particular case.
For the implications of Dr Caporale' book, go tohttp://EvC Forum: Dr Page's best example of common descent easily --and better-- explained by the GUToB -->EvC Forum: Dr Page's best example of common descent easily --and better-- explained by the GUToBAnd find out how NRM brings down common descent.Best wishes,
Peter

quote:

---

Originally posted by judge:
Researchers have discovered that on a number of occasions in the past 300 million years, stick insects have lost their wings, then re-evolved them. Entomologists have described the revelation as "revolutionary".

​

from...
News articles and features | New Scientist

---

So where does Dollo's Law come into play concerning this "re-evolved" creature? Out the window? Is it even applicable?

[QUOTE]Originally posted by outblaze:So where does Dollo's Law come into play concerning this "re-evolved" creature? Out the window? Is it even applicable?[/B][/QUOTE]It seems to me that this shows that there are situations where Dollo's Law does not apply. Dollo's law has to be thought of in terms of the mutations that would be needed and it is not always the case that the mutations required to restore a complex adaption would themselves be major changes at the genetic level. See my reply and the New Scientist article :
"

dear Paul,Dollo's law --the repetition of the same inventions, for instance organs -- is the logical consequence of a multipurpose genome. I am not suprised that the similar structures develops over and over again in unrelated biomorfs. The GUToB doesn't have to introduce non-science like convergent evolution.Best wishes,
Peter

Presumably you mean the failure of Dollo's Law. I agree. The fact that it has held up so well is strogn evidence against your "GUToB"The idea that the insects involved are unrelated is however not supported by any evidence at all (the cuyrrent paper is based on a reconstruction of their phyologeny !)And having just insisted that the "GUToB" mandates a good deal more converghent evolution than is actually observed you then insist that the "GUoTB" does not need to propose convergent evolution. (a VERY strange thing to do since you are the only one to even SUGGEST convergent evolution in this case !)I will agree, however, that the non-science proposed by the "GUToB" is certainly different from convergent evolution.

There is another topic covering this same thing. As the other topic was started first, I will keep it, as being the active one (It could as well gone either way). The other topic is "Dolo's Law", at http://EvC Forum: Dollo's Law -->EvC Forum: Dollo's LawI will put a link to this topic, at that other topic.I suggest that content of this topic, be moved to the other, such that this one can be later deleted (for housekeeping purposes).This topic is now closed.Adminnemooseus------------------
{mnmoose@lakenet.com}[This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 01-17-2003]