Did Darwin Plus Wallace Explain Butterfly Patterns?
Selectionism, whether natural or sexual,
reduces science to storytelling
Note: Articles will be sparse and brief this week of July 1-5, 2024.
Research shows Darwin and Wallace both right on butterfly evolution (University of Essex via Phys.org, 1 July 2024). Darwin said male butterflies evolve by sexual selection through female mate choice. Wallace said female colors could also evolve by natural selection. Who was right? Both, say these evolutionists, and both must get a prize.
Darwin thought males had more variation, as females often chose mates based on male appearance. Whereas Wallace thought natural selection across sexes was the biggest factor in difference.
For over a century, scientists have mostly studied males because their differences are more obvious, while females, with more subtle evolutionary changes, had been less studied.
How hard did the evolutionary biologists work to come up with this verdict? They used “machine learning” to look at 16,000 birdwing butterfly photographs from museum samples.
Dr. Cuthill said, “Birdwings have been described as among the most beautiful butterflies in the world. This study gives us new insights into the evolution of their remarkable but endangered diversity.
“In this case study of birdwing butterfly photographs, it is sex that appears to have driven the greatest evolutionary change, including extreme male shapes, colors and patterns. However, within the group of birdwing butterflies, we found contrasting examples where female birdwing butterflies are more diverse in visible phenotype than males, and vice versa.
They bring in Selectionism as the explanation. Then they award prizes to Darwin and Wallace.
“In this case study of birdwing butterfly photographs, it is sex that appears to have driven the greatest evolutionary change, including extreme male shapes, colors and patterns. However, within the group of birdwing butterflies, we found contrasting examples where female birdwing butterflies are more diverse in visible phenotype than males, and vice versa.
“High visible diversity among male butterflies supports the real-world importance of sexual selection from female mate choice on male variation, as originally suggested by Darwin. Cases where female butterflies are more visibly diverse than the males of their species, support an additional, important role for naturally selected female variation in inter-species diversity, as suggested by Wallace.
The U Essex evolutionists didn’t seem to notice that all their samples were members of one family with three genera. This has nothing to do with the origin of species. Even young-earth creationists accept color and pattern changes within genera and families.
So why call this evolution at all? It is simply inter-family variation. No new genus or family evolved. No new organs evolved. The origins of jointed legs, compound eyes, powered flight, and metamorphosis are far more important to explain, to say nothing of natural beauty.
Philosophically, compound explanations add ambiguity. What is the ratio of natural to sexual selection if both processes are used in the explanation? Selection is not a process, anyway. If “selection” explains this, who is the Selector?
Like a quick drug fix, evolutionists get high on the minor things and ignore the major questions. See the Illustra film Metamorphosis for the real wonders of butterflies, and learn why they defeat Darwinian (or Wallacian) explanations.
Incidentally, Wallace could not believe that natural selection explains the human mind. This made Darwin angry.