Assumed evolution of insect wings?

Evolution of insect wings?

Does the fossil record provide any examples of supposed evolution of insect wings? If the insect wings have evolved, we are expected to find signs of developing wings within flies, dragonflies, bees and wasps, in the fossil record.

Or are evolution believers so desperate that we can only find perfect and working wing structures in the fossil record?

And do we find within present insect species evidence for loss of biological information? Are there insects who have lost genetic information and lost their wings as a result?

Which one wins, evolution or genetic entropy? 

https://entomologytoday.org/2014/08/12/wingless-fly-has-the-smallest-insect-genome-known-to-science/

Excerpt: "Scientists have sequenced the genome of the Antarctic midge (Belgica antarctica), which contains only 99 million base pairs of nucleotides, making it smaller than other tiny reported genomes, such as that of the body louse (105 million base pairs) or the winged parasite Strepsiptera (108 million base pairs). It is now the smallest insect genome described to date."

http://www.sci-news.com/biology/article00172.html

Excerpt: "The finding reveals that flightless species retain higher genetic differentiation among populations and comprise a higher number of genetically distinct lineages than flight-capable species, indicating high possibility for allopatric speciation."

There is no sign of evolving or developing wings in the fossil record. An idea of 'half-evolved' wings or 'stumped wings' is absurd. What would an insect do with 'half-evolved' wings? Nothing! They would only make moving difficult and consume energy. We can only observe fully functional wing structures in the fossil record and in the wild. That is a great evidence of Creation.

Parasitic organisms result from loss of information

Gene loss typically leads to parasitic organisms

https://www.nature.com/news/2010/100114/full/news.2010.11.html

Excerpt: "Nasonia females inject their eggs inside developing flies, leaving the young wasps to eat their way out. Studying Nasonia could help to improve the agricultural use of other wasps that behave in similar ways. Trichogramma, for example, is used to control pests on tomatoes, corn (maize) and apples.

The Nasonia genomes indicate that the wasps lack the genes required to synthesize certain amino acids, possibly owing to their exclusively carnivorous feeding habits."

https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/286166.php

Excerpt: "Tapeworms show the largest loss of developmental genes of any animal examined to date," claimed geneticist Dr. Pete Olson.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6041341/

Excerpt: "Here we sequence the genome of Cuscuta australis. Our analyses reveal that the genome of C. australis experienced massive gene losses, including important genes involved in leaf and root development, flowering-time control, as well as defense against pathogens and insects."

 

https://www.cell.com/trends/genetics/pdf/S0168-9525(09)00064-X.pdf

Excerpt: "Second, the human parasite Brugia malayi lost otherwise essential genes most probably owing to the mutualistic relationship with a bacterial endosymbiont."

https://mbio.asm.org/content/10/4/e01541-19

Excerpt: "Parasites tend to evolve small and compact genomes, generally endowed with a high mutation rate, compared with those of their free-living relatives."

https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/5/4/eaav1110

Excerpt: "Parasite genomes are often characterized by a reduction in size, loss of genes, and loss of functions as the parasite becomes more dependent on the host. A. ceratii has retained most of the genome functionality of a free-living species, with the exception of the biosynthesis of a few amino acids and, more significantly, isoprenoids, which appears to be related to the loss of plastid organelles."

https://peerj.com/articles/7830.pdf

Excerpt: "The reduction in plastid genome size and gene content in parasitic plants predominantly results from loss of photosynthetic genes."

https://creationfactfile.com/5299/plant-parasite-evolved-by-gene-loss/

Excerpt: "They also compared the C. australis genome with the genomes of similar but non-parasitic plants from the same family, the Convolvulaceae.

The research team found about 11.7% of genes commonly found in photosynthetic plants do not exist in the dodder genome.

Editorial comment: Regressive for sure, and yes gene loss does help to explain how this plant went from being independent to becoming a parasite, but it is not evolution. Gene loss in the opposite of evolution. What has happened here is a degenerative process, which has forced the plant to become completely dependent on another plant to keep it alive for a while, until the parasitized plant is ‘bled dry’ and can no longer sustain itself as well as the totally dependent dodder, then they both die. The dodder plant has not become extinct because it hasn’t lost its ability to form flowers and set seed before it dies.

These findings fit well with Genesis, which tells us that God created plants in separate kinds in a very good world, where there were no dependent parasites that destroyed other plants. However, after man sinned, God cursed the ground and many plants have degenerated since then in varied ways – from shrinking in size, to forming thorns, and some have become parasites as they lost the ability to make and process their own food. Overall, this parasitic plant with its deficient genome is reminder that the real history of the world is from created perfection to degeneration, or to put it more plainly, from good to bad to worse."

Highly predictable toxin resistance debunks evolutionary randomness

Predictable genetic changes point to Design, not evolution

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/02/science/monarch-butterflies-milkweed.html?utm_source=Nature+Briefing&utm_campaign=1356cd3b8d-briefing-dy-20191003&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_c9dfd39373-1356cd3b8d-44274365

Excerpt: "The caterpillar of the monarch butterfly eats only milkweed, a poisonous plant that should kill it. The caterpillars thrive on the plant, even storing its toxins in their bodies as a defense against hungry birds.

For decades, scientists have marveled at this adaptation. On Thursday, a team of researchers announced they had pinpointed the key evolutionary steps that led to it.

Only three genetic mutations were necessary to turn the butterflies from vulnerable to resistant, the researchers reported in the journal Nature. They were able to introduce these mutations into fruit flies, and suddenly they were able to eat milkweed, too.
 

Biologists hailed it as a tour-de-force that harnessed gene-editing technology to unscramble a series of mutations evolving in some species and then test them in yet another."

Similar genetic alterations in 47 taxa

https://www.theguardian.com/science/grrlscientist/2015/sep/16/predictable-evolution-bad-news-for-toads-good-news-for-their-predators

Excerpt: "When Dr Ujvari and Dr Casewell’s team widened their investigation to include all 47 taxa that are resistant to cardiac glycosides (whether it was from a plant or an animal source), they found that resistance was due to two amino acid substitutions at just four positions: 111, 119, 120, or 122. Further, the team found that, of the 11 amino acids within this portion of the sodium-potassium exchange pump subunit, one specific amino acid site (111) must always change for resistance to evolve, whereas the second resistance-conferring change then occurs in one of three other amino acid sites (119, 120, or 122), which vary across species."
 

Other papers confirming these highly predictable changes:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3420205/
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/257753708_Amino_acid_substitutions_of_NaK-ATPase_conferring_decreased_sensitivity_to_cardenolides_in_insects_compared_to_mammals

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/eea.12340

https://www.jstor.org/stable/24032726?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2FBF02028512

https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpls.2018.01424/full

https://ediss.sub.uni-hamburg.de/volltexte/2017/6867/pdf/Dissertation.pdf

https://app.dimensions.ai/details/publication/pub.1008300818

My comment: By using keywords 'cardiac glycosides substitutions at positions 111 and 122' we will soon realize that these predictable changes happen in different types of organisms. Nothing to do with random mutations and selection. Nothing to do with evolution. Organisms are able to tweak their genomes by so called natural genetic engineering. There are several epigenetic mechanisms that make it possible for an organism to modify its own genome. They are typically controlled by the immune system, such as AID mediated deamination. This is ecological adaptation, not evolution. This is Design, not random mutations. Don't get lost.