"Slanted" Eyes in Orientals

If all mutation involves a loss of information, then how can you explain that some insects evolve wings, then lose wings and then evolve wings again? Loss and recovery of wings in stick insects {Nature, 421, 264 - 267 (16 January 2003); doi:10.1038/nature01313 -- click here for synopsis}Which one has less information than the other?Mutation is just a change in information.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

In other words you don't have a clue how the insect can lose wings and then re-evolve wings solely through loss of information, so you try to cover with some baffle-barf about it being something else. You were the one that said mutation is only loss of information.This makes your 'it's not evolution, it's natural selection' argument totally irrelevant, and your point is still refuted by the evidence.You could be honest and just admit that you don't have a clue how loss of information can have this result.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

The point is that the concept that {mutations are only loss of information} is wrong, for you cannot explain loss and recovery of any facet by an "only loss" mechanism.You either gain something that represses the wing information (which is lost when the wings re-evolve) or you gain the information to make wings (after some critical part is lost when the wings are lost).Think of it like this:
A = sum genetic wing information at time 0 (species with wings)
B = sum genetic wing information at time 1 (species without wings)
C = sum genetic wing information at time 2 (species with wings)
n > 0 = genetic wing information loss between A and B
m > 0 = genetic wing information loss between B and CB = A - n
C = B - m
C = ANo matter how you add it up it is just not possible. This is not just hypothesis, not opinion, but a proven fact.enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

No it is not a matter of having some with wings and some without and selection changing the balance from one to the other (aka peppered moth coloration). The example given isSpecies A with wings becomes species B without wings by mutation(s)
Species B without wings becomes species C with wings by mutation(s)wings -- no wings -- wingsTo stop wings from being 'expressed' some part of the genetic sequence needs to be "lost" by mutation and for wings to once again be 'expressed' that sequence needs to be replaced by mutation ... no it doesn't need to be the whole wing sequence ... but no matter how you cut itA does not equal B
B does not equal C
C does equal Aso if A = B + n
and if B = C + m
and A = C
then n = -m
(or m = -n, same thing)and one or the other is necessarily an "addition" of information if the other is a "loss".From an evolutionary standpoint a mutation is just a change and it is not a matter of "addition" or "loss" for there is no up or down no good or bad, just different.

We're not talking about longer or shorter legs but the presence and absence of legs.This is not a one-time event, but several similar occurrences in different times and places:
Chart of species relations (click)Nor is it a matter of {recessive \ dormant} gene switching for that would mean some wingless individuals within the winged species and some winged individuals within the wingless species as regular occurances (like the light and dark peppered moths both exist at the same time) and not different species.Yes the nature article says: "These results suggest that wing developmental pathways are conserved in wingless phasmids, and that 're-evolution' of wings has had an unrecognized role in insect diversification" indicating that parts of the wing mechanism are possibly preserved, but it also says Further, if the same-old wings were being expressed again then they would have to be the same as before in size, shape and vein patterns: yet these are different between the different species that have regained their wings.Something turned the wings "off" and something else turned it "on" -- both are changes to the genetic structure of the insect = mutation, so if one is a loss of information then the other must be an addition. No, the trait is changed by the mutation, and natural selection just eliminates those versions not able to survive to reproduce -- it cannot "choose" between traits that are not there or ones where survival is not an issue, the trait has to exist for the selection process to work.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

You need something to turn it on and off, a switch, that changes -- that is a mutation ... in both cases.OR is the next scenario one where no information is ever lost?

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

If you (or anyone else) are interested I just ran across another source that talks about sexual selection and several sub-categories (good genes, good taste, good parents) that has me rethinking some of my position on this: Department of Psychology | The University of New Mexico I'm less than half way through the (long) article at this point.I believe it also gets into brain development in humans as a result of sexual selection.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}