Darwin Schmarvin

Recently the NY Times ran a squib in its Science Section about crickets in Hawaii that were being decimated by a parasitic fly whose larva burrow into the cricket and kill it. This fly is attracted to the cricket by its distinctive chirp and lays its eggs to the fatal detriment of the cricket. On the island of Kauai, since 1991, these crickets have been in sharp decline as a consequence. However, more recently the population of these crickets has risen dramatically as they have fortuitously lost their ability to chirp by a genetic mutation that eliminated a protuberance on their forewings that, when rubbed together, produces this clarion call. And this genetic change has all occurred in less than 20 generations according to researchers.

There is a branch of evolutionary science (not based in “intelligent design” or God-directed genetic mutation) called the “eonic effect” which proposes a non-random or environmentally-directed pattern of evolution. This somewhat contradicts Darwin’s basic claim of “natural selection,” a totally random process of genetic mutation which then preserves the more beneficial of these mutations through the better survival and reproduction of various effected species. It seems to me that pure Darwinian evolution could not have produced this cricket’s almost-complete genetic mutation in just 20 generations. The reason for my skepticism derives from the fact that such a random mutation should take many generations to first occur. Then, because both forewing protuberance and non-protuberance crickets would successfully breed (the parasitic fly still to kill the former), many, many more generations would be needed for this mutation to become rife.

I have sensed for a long time that the eonic effect has been at least a partial contributor to biota evolution (including for our own species) … mainly because of the immense diversity of plants and animals that has occurred in the relatively short period (even if tens of millions of years). Clearly, non-agenda-driven statisticians could contribute mightily to our better understanding of the push and pull between these two seeming contributors to evolution.

(You may ask: How then do the female crickets find the non-chirping male ones to mate? The answer is there are still a few chirpers left ... soooo ... all the non-chirping males congregate near the male chirpers and, when the females come acallin', they are usurped by the non-chirpers. I wonder how the Darwinians would explain this one? Survival of the non-fittest? What happens when all the chirpers die off? Perhaps the females will start using escort services?)