Insects Are Not Going Along With Evolutionary ‘Theory’

A widely held belief in evolutionary circles that consists of species which are isolated from the rest become more unique as time goes on. This conception isn’t being verified, 700 new insect species were recently discovered in India. It’s evolutionary time frame was set at over 52 million years old. These fossils were in a spectacular state of preservation, the BBC reports…

“We have complete, three-dimensionally preserved specimens that are 52 million years old,” one researcher says with astonishment, “and you can handle them almost like living ones.”

Not only that, despite being isolated for many years, the insects resembled others of their kind in Asia, Africa, and even South America which falsifies a evolutionary ‘theory’ known as endemism.  The attempt to rescue the theory with contrary observations, the team came up with a story about insects flying over vast distances or drifting on ocean currents.”

New Scientist also writes about the falsifying evidence…

“FIFTY-million-year-old insects preserved in amber are helping to rewrite the story of India’s almighty crash into the Eurasian continent, suggesting that for as long as a few million years before the collision, India was connected to Asia by archipelagos.”

“India spent tens of millions of years as an island before colliding with Asia. Yet the fossil record contains no evidence that unique species evolved on the subcontinent during this time, so India may not have been as isolated as it seemed to be.”

And that’s not all, the Guardian wrote an interest piece on honeybees’ computational abilities. Somehow the size of a brain is considered a gage on how intelligent one can be in evolutionary theory but these honeybees falsify this notion.

“Bees can solve complex mathematical problems which keep computers busy for days, research has shown. The insects learn to fly the shortest route between flowers discovered in random order, effectively solving the “traveling salesman problem” , said scientists at Royal Holloway, University of London.”

“The conundrum involves finding the shortest route that allows a travelling salesman to call at all the locations he has to visit. Computers solve the problem by comparing the length of all possible routes and choosing the one that is shortest. Bees manage to reach the same solution using a brain the size of a grass seed.”

Looks like humans could learn a thing or two from honeybees on how to solve such problems more efficiently. This time researchers didn’t attempt to explain how a brain the size of a grass seed could out do our best computers! So there you have it, another insect not going along with evolutionary ‘theory’.


5 thoughts on “Insects Are Not Going Along With Evolutionary ‘Theory’

  1. Insects not going along with ‘evolutionary theory’ (whatever that is): those nasty buggers !!

    Michael: “A widely held belief in evolutionary circles that consists of species which are isolated from the rest become more unique as time goes on.”

    What are evolutionary circles ? If you claim they hold a believe, they can’t be scientists, as scientists don’t belief. They test.

  2. Michael’s contention, through all of the confused prose, seems to be that the discovery of 50My old insects similar to those in Asia and other parts of the world falsifies the common descent of all living creatures.

    First, Michael employs the term “endemism” without any understanding. This term does not arise from evolution, but from ecology. An endemic species is defined as one that is unique to a particular location, and sys nothing as to its origin. A definition of a condition is not a “theory.” Of course, if Michael would back up his challenge and produce his qualifications to discuss this or any other area of science, then we might ladle him a dollop of credence. Or not.

    The insect fossils are 50MY old. When did the Indian plate collide with Asia? Between 40Mya and 50Mya. So they were separated from each other by little or no water at the time the fossils were formed. Even if there was a water channel at the time, insects can easily be transported, even across hundreds of miles. There were insects on Hawai’i when humans arrived. Today we observe insect migrations over such stretches of water.

    Additionally, insects seem capable of maintaining genetic stability. Along the northern coast of the Mediterranean, here is a group of ants that are not only of the same species, but the same colony. If you think the anthill in your yard is large, try to imagine a single colony of ants that is a thousand miles long, stretching from Portugal through Spain and France to Italy.


    Michael notes: “The attempt to rescue the theory with contrary observations, the team came up with a story about insects flying over vast distances or drifting on ocean currents.”

    Now that sounds familiar. Oh yes! It’s the claim that creationists make as to how animals from the Ark traveled across vast stretches of ocean to arrive in Australia and the Americas after the Flood.

    Of course, the creationist version has a few extra embellishments. For example, how the marsupials all got together and decided as a group to migrate only to Australia, while the mammals simultaneously chose to entirely ignore the whole continent. (Presumably because they were bigoted against kangaroos.) And how flightless turkeys all decided to abandon Europe and swim to America. Even their fossils apparently fled Europe and Asia.

  3. We get a bonus in this post. Michael has discovered something else beside India that he can’t understand. Well, this time he had help, because the Guardian is talking through its chapeau in the article he links to..

    The mistake is that bees have solved the traveling-salesman problem. The reason we know this is that the TS-problem has been shown mathematically to be NP-complete, and thus is not solvable.[1]

    Of course, even though the TS problem is not soluble, we do make reasonable stabs at it, to determine UPS-truck routes and similar matters. We do it heuristically, or, if we’re really serious, we employ an optimization method known as dynamic programming.[2] But these methods require, as Michael puts it, big brains or computers.

    Bees, however, have a couple of advantages. First, the number of food sources (“nodes”) they follow in a circuit is much smaller than a delivery route for an UPS truck. Since the TS solution difficulty grows exponentially with the number of nodes, the bees’ problem is vastly smaller to begin with.

    Second, the TS problem envisions a single salesman operating alone. Bees, on the other hand, travel in coveys from the same beginning location. This speeds up the solution through parallelism. But it also introduces another factor that is absent in the TS situation. The bees not only know where the food sources are, they know the locations of many of their fellows who are engaged in the same task.[3]

    The lesson to be learned here is one that I have pointed out in other posts. There are two basic types of “computers.” [4] The computer architecture known as “von Neumann architecture” has a single executive, which runs a coded program over the entire system. These are the computers that humans design, all the way from Charles Babbage’s Analytical Engine to IBM’s Blue Gene.

    The other variety—also invented by von Neumann—is called “non-von Neumann architecture.” This type has a large number of primitive executives, each running very limited instructions, but interconnected so as to influence each other. These are the computers that typify living organisms.

    Although Alan Turing proved that either type can solve any problem accessible to the other, each has its advantages in certain kinds of problem. For example, a non-vN computer would have a hard time adding two digits together, which is like falling off the proverbial logarithm for a vN architecture. On the other hand, a VN computer may struggle for days with an optimization task that a non-vN computer could polish off before breakfast.

    If Michael were not impervious to science, he might now begin to understand that bees, being non-vN computers, might deal with finding efficient pollen routes much more easily than Michael’s whizbang new laptop could. Even though the individual bee is propelled by a brain perhaps even smaller than his.[5]

    Oh, and non-vN architectures have another significant advantage over the human-designed VN. Although both can evolve, the non-vN type can do so much more readily than the human-designed vN. Of course, evolved non-VN machines are in general more complex than human-designed vN machines having similar capabilities.


    [1] We shall leave Michael to look up (a) why the problem faced by the bees differs from the TS problem; and (b) what real scientists mean when they say the TS problem is “insoluble.” Apparently the Guardian, or whoever they interviewed, failed to do this. As extra credit, we could ask Michael to explain why any specific TS problem has a solution, even though it is not soluble. How about it, Michael?

    [2] Ask anyone who owns an MBA.

    [3] If you’d like to see this effect in action (and have a lot of patience) watch a bunch of ants foraging. Thousands depart the ‘hill. One or two find the trove. very quickly. Others follow their pheromone trail to establish a winding highway—rush hour in antville. Then something amazing happens. The wandering highway begins to shorten. Eventually it becomes a straight line. And all from “natural” forces, with no intelligence required.

    [4] The word is in quotes because I wish to use the broad definition of Turing and von Neumann, and not merely evoke an image of a PC or a mainframe digital processor.

    [5] For more amazing facts on the capabilities of non-von Neumann organisms, see E.O. Wilson’s recent book, The Superorganism: The Beauty, Elegance, and Strangeness of Insect Societies. Wilson, of course, is the world’s leading kahuna on this subject.

  4. Michael: “Did you read the BBC that I linked to, it answers your question.”

    Yeap, but there is nothing on “evolutionary circles” on that page.

    So again: What are evolutionary circles ? If you claim they hold a believe, they can’t be scientists, as scientists don’t belief. They test.

    You really do not answer questions, do you.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s