There's a missing link in Evolution

[Naturelles]

I wonder about this everyday, it all started with this:

There's a plant which lives in the rain forest (forgot its name) which is regularly plagued by caterpillars. A certain species of butterfly lays its eggs on the leaves of this plant, and the color of the eggs are yellow.
Now there are varieties of this same species which have gotten yellow spots on their leaves which resemble the yellow eggs that the butterfly lays, and for this variety the butterfly doesn't lay its eggs on the leaf because it thinks the leaf is already occupied.

So you can see, this plant has a survival advantage, but how did this plant develop yellow spots which resemble the eggs so much, that it fools the butterfly? How did the variety originate?

I asked my zoology teacher, and she said its most likely chance mutation, but the probability for a perfect mutation such as this, on the exact gene responsible for coding leaf pigments and have the pigment be manufactured in such a way to resemble the eggs, is very low. And a plant can't see that the butterfly lays eggs, and certainly can't think, and mutate its genes to get yellow spots.

And mutation isn't as simple as it may seem, you need to have the exact set of changes occurring to each of the triplet codons to manufacture the correct proteins.

I'm not a creationist or anything, nor a religious person, but I do think that there is something very key to evolution and the biodiversity of life that's missing from the theory of evolution. Or have I just not yet come across it yet. (My biology level is probably about 1st year University, not studied highly advanced biology yet I think? Going into University next year)

 

[spidergoat]

The initial mutation did not have to look exactly like an egg. A plant having even a vague resemblance to the egg would have a slight advantage, leading to greater representation in the gene pool, leading to refinements of the spots. There is no missing link here, the evolutionary process of mimicry is understood.

 

[Naturelles]

The initial mutation did not have to look exactly like an egg. A plant having even a vague resemblance to the egg would have a slight advantage, leading to greater representation in the gene pool, leading to refinements of the spots. There is no missing link here, the evolutionary process of mimicry is understood.

Even a vague resemblance to an egg needs specific changes on the genes responsible for coding the specific proteins.

Do you have any more information on the evolution of mimicry, which explains it from the superficial level to the molecular level?

 

[earth]

The initial mutation did not have to look exactly like an egg. A plant having even a vague resemblance to the egg would have a slight advantage, leading to greater representation in the gene pool, leading to refinements of the spots. There is no missing link here, the evolutionary process of mimicry is understood.

Many people try to further their creationist viewpoint using science. I'm not talking about you.

For the plant in question it would have been mutation first and then natural selection second. The rule for natural selection is that which is beneficial will be preserved. We can recognize the egg appearance on the leaves of the plant as advantageous or beneficial and contributing to its survival.

 

[Randwolf]

Even a vague resemblance to an egg needs specific changes on the genes responsible for coding the specific proteins.

Do you have any more information on the evolution of mimicry, which explains it from the superficial level to the molecular level?

Superficial (NY Times)::

Molecular:
Mimicry at the molecular level

The new study, which was published on April 12, 2009, in an advanced online edition of the journal Nature Structural & Molecular Biology, draws new parallels between the Rad60 DNA repair factor and SUMO, a small ubiquitin-like modifier, which are both essential for maintaining genome stability during replication.

Ain't Google wonderful?

Don't get me wrong, if you want explanations extending beyond a layman's understanding of mimicry and evolution, don't ask me. I feel like I understand the concept well enough, but couldn't begin to explain it to you on the molecular level...

I'm sure we have some experts in this area here on-site that can do a good job of it, however.

 

[spidergoat]

Even a vague resemblance to an egg needs specific changes on the genes responsible for coding the specific proteins.

Do you have any more information on the evolution of mimicry, which explains it from the superficial level to the molecular level?

We do not need to understand it on the molecular level. Evolution along such lines can happen wherever there is a gradient of survival or reproduction success. Plants often exhibit variations that include spotting or patterns on the leaves, it's very common. The plants in question probably already had the DNA to make the variations, and it was the presence of the caterpillars that formed the selection pressure necessary to refine the spots. This works because the eyesight of the butterflies is not perfect, and even a slight resemblance to their eggs could have the beneficial effect of fewer caterpillers. Once the plant starts down this path, it's resemblance to the eggs should get more and more perfect, up to a theoretical limit where greater perfection does not produce significant benefit.

 

[thinking]

I wonder about this everyday, it all started with this:

There's a plant which lives in the rain forest (forgot its name) which is regularly plagued by caterpillars. A certain species of butterfly lays its eggs on the leaves of this plant, and the color of the eggs are yellow.
Now there are varieties of this same species which have gotten yellow spots on their leaves which resemble the yellow eggs that the butterfly lays, and for this variety the butterfly doesn't lay its eggs on the leaf because it thinks the leaf is already occupied.

So you can see, this plant has a survival advantage, but how did this plant develop yellow spots which resemble the eggs so much, that it fools the butterfly? How did the variety originate?

I asked my zoology teacher, and she said its most likely chance mutation, but the probability for a perfect mutation such as this, on the exact gene responsible for coding leaf pigments and have the pigment be manufactured in such a way to resemble the eggs, is very low. And a plant can't see that the butterfly lays eggs, and certainly can't think, and mutate its genes to get yellow spots.

And mutation isn't as simple as it may seem, you need to have the exact set of changes occurring to each of the triplet codons to manufacture the correct proteins.

I'm not a creationist or anything, nor a religious person, but I do think that there is something very key to evolution and the biodiversity of life that's missing from the theory of evolution. Or have I just not yet come across it yet. (My biology level is probably about 1st year University, not studied highly advanced biology yet I think? Going into University next year)

the awareness of living things , to my mind is underestimated , severely

 

[Hercules Rockefeller]

How did the variety originate? I asked my zoology teacher, and she said its most likely chance mutation, but the probability for a perfect mutation such as this, on the exact gene responsible for coding leaf pigments and have the pigment be manufactured in such a way to resemble the eggs, is very low.

Who says the adaptation was perfectly acquired in one go? It almost certainly wasn’t. New traits are generally acquired through a series of intermediate/transitional states. The transitional species of the plant in question probably had poorly formed yellow-ish coloured patches that gradually formed more discreet egg-shaped patterns over time due to be selected for by decreased predation.

And mutation isn't as simple as it may seem, you need to have the exact set of changes occurring to each of the triplet codons to manufacture the correct proteins.

Plants and animals already have pigment genes. Even subtle changes in coding sequence can alter the colour. Subtle changes in promoters and enhancer elements can alter the temporal and spatial expression of the genes.

but I do think that there is something very key to evolution and the biodiversity of life that's missing from the theory of evolution.

No, not really.

 

[Rav]

One of the reasons that many people find it difficult to accept that the process of natural selection alone is responsible for some of the profoundly impressive adaptations that we see in nature is that they don't properly appreciate the amount of time over which these adaptations sometimes take place. We are talking thousands or even hundreds of thousands of years, and the more generations you have over any given time period the more quickly it can occur. Certainly not typically directly observable given the lifespan of a human being, but inevitable over the long term.

 

[Hercules Rockefeller]

One of the reasons that many people find it difficult to accept that the process of natural selection alone is responsible for some of the profoundly impressive adaptations that we see in nature is that they don't properly appreciate the amount of time over which these adaptations sometimes take place.

Indeed. Well said.

We are talking thousands or even hundreds of thousands of years....

...or even millions of years, or tens of millions of years.