Contradictions in the stages of butterfly development with the possibility of this happening in a natural evolutionary way

On the contrary, the caterpillar(and in general the larva) is just what is easier to present as proof of Haeckel's teaching. The concept of phylogeny repeating by embryogenesis suggests that the developing embryo, as it were, alternately acquires the appearance of those ancestors who are peculiar to this species(whose embryo). Now, why not assume that the caterpillar is a special life strategy for a given species, when the embryo "hatches" at one stage, lives using an approximate life strategy that corresponds to a given ancestor(for example, a worm), gains mass, and then the interrupted embryogenesis is restored to the final reproductive function shapes, i.e. butterflies.

Only, as far as I know, this whole thing- "embryogenesis repeats phylogenesis" is not supported by many biologists, and I did not know that germ sheets are formed in the pupa after histolysis, I think not, even some systems remain intact there - nervous and partially excretory.

In general, the larval strategy of interrupting "static" embryogenesis in one form or another is very widespread, and vertebrates and even mammals have it, like kangaroo larvae.

We are not alone in the universe, and the butterfly development cycle is an example of this simply based on our knowledge of evolution and embryogenesis.

Panspermic creationism detected! ))

Carefully smoke the matcha-the laying of germ leaves occurs once-in the egg. Imago develops from imaginal discs.

"embryogenesis repeats phylogeny"(C) is a hypothesis.
And it is not comme il faut to pass off hypotheses as facts...

This is no longer a hypothesis.

This is no longer a hypothesis.

So do you think the biogenetic law is justified, or not? I remember at one of the lectures one professor mentioned this law without any criticism, if you read what they write in Biol. In the Encyclopedia (89), then there is also an article about BZ that does not contain his criticism. But the network is full of references like - "BZ is not recognized in its original form by many biologists," but in what form is it recognized?
PS
The contradictions that exist in articles like Wikipedia are somehow not very contradictory.

Of course, it is justified. Of course it exists. Of course, of course, of course. There are too many exceptions in biological objects, and any one of them, taken out of biodiversity, can refute anything. Any regularities should be considered only in a complex and in a mandatory comparison with the same regularities in close, not close, distant forms. The problem of modern biology-in particular. Hypotheses are built on particulars, theories grow out of these hypotheses - and voila! - here is a ready-made law. A striking example is phylogenetic systematics. No, I have nothing against the method, but excuse me-the system? And so - very much in many areas, and not only biology. This is simply called a fetish, a fashion trick. Now molecular taxonomy has become such a fetish. Even 40-50 years ago-everyone was watching (without exception!) genitals, and about 100 - 120 years ago-the color and pattern of wings, elytra, pronotum, etc. Of course, methods grow not from our needs, but from the development of technologies. I am more than sure that after some time, the molecular taxonomy that some researchers now firmly believe in will be called the "primitive" method, and it will be steered... yes, at least determining the direction of spins in the atoms of nucleotide molecules, or let's say their isomerism, or God knows what else that can be studied (with a relatively affordable method that opens up).

The biogenetic law at one time turned science upside down, gave it a powerful kick. And it is still relevant to this day - you just need to make a reservation that at more organized stages of embryo development, some of its "evolutionary steps" may simply fall out. Be reduced. Atrophy. As is generally accepted in evolution - what is not needed, get rid of .

Well, the molecular method in taxonomy seems to be a very good method, because indeed-living organisms are diverse, and even two individuals from the same clutch are different. And in taxonomy, among the tendency to split and merge taxa, fragmentation always prevails - sometimes it seems that taxonomists are ready to give a binomial name to each individual individual. So to find the middle ground when the taxonomy is unambiguous for different researchers and stable(minimum revisions), you need to find a method that is also unambiguous and stable. And molecular taxonomy is appropriate. Here, even from the history of systematics, it is clear that the basic signs are replaced by more conservative ones - the pattern is always more variable than the genitals. And DNA is even more stable.

DNA stability is a matter of method.

Member offline! Bad Den thank you for the advice to teach mat part. I am not an entomologist and I am primarily interested in contradictions. Therefore, I place the mat part in the post. The process of histolysis When histolysis reaches its peak, the internal organs of the pupa turn into a semi-liquid mass, which consists of a cloaca enriched with decay products. Only the nervous and sexual systems and the spinal blood vessel are not destroyed. The nervous system can be supplemented with new cells, ganglia can be concentrated in it, but it never loses its integrity. The process of histogenesis. In parallel with histolysis, histogenesis occurs - the construction of imagal organs. The organs of an adult insect are formed from special rudiments-imago disks. These are small clusters of undifferentiated cells located in certain places of the larva's body. Each imagal disk has its own purpose: there are disks that form wings, limbs, certain areas of the intestine, good eyes, and so on. Discs are laid during embryonic development or in early larvae; during larval development, they grow, but do not differentiate. Only in the larvae of the last stage before bullying do their cells differentiate; in the pupae, they unfold to form adult organs. The fat body plays an important role in metamorphosis. During the larval phase, it accumulates nutrients (fats, proteins, carbohydrates), which are used as a plastic material and an energy source in the construction of adult organs. The development of insects is therefore called indirect development. But the fact is that imaginal disks are still a different program. You all know the evolutionary principle of the development tree. There is a single trunk or root, and then the species diverge and form different species on the development tree. and this is mandatory. This is a common trunk that unites species in the process of phylogenesis, and then the species diverged in development and each goes its own way. All living things have sprung up on earth from a single root. This straight line from the very beginning to the end is called direct development and it allows you to apply the principles of Darwin's theory in the form of variability, inheritance in reproduction and selection. But the application of these principles under the assumption of simultaneous evolution in both directions in a natural way somehow does not fit, since according to Darwin, each trait is worked out separately and in stages. As a result of your remark, the system has become even more complicated, since the preservation of some organs simply immediately rejects the assumption that the parasite and host program can naturally merge. But it is also impossible to assume gradual variability and selection with reproduction necessary for selection in combination with histolysis and histogenesis at the same time. You will still see two types that originated from the same root and diverged in development, whose direct programs were merged into a single common one. And this is again impossible in a natural way and has become even more difficult. The problem is actually serious. Well, indirect development does not fit into a direct evolutionary path of evolution with the gradual acquisition of traits and their development. And if you recognize the validity of Darwin's theory ( and it is the basis of the development and evolution of life), then please find a solution to indirect development. and the degradation system with simplification of traits and loss of the genome is not suitable here. what is embedded in the DNA remains in it forever. Yes, it can change, but it mostly persists. In the human genome, a fifth of the genome still belongs to bacteria (we went through this stage and everything remained in the genome). It does not work if on the basis of Darwin's theory, look for another solution at least for the moment of merging programs.

Member offline! Bad Den thank you for the advice to teach mat part. I am not an entomologist and I am primarily interested in contradictions.

Before you look for contradictions, read at least Shvanvich, so as not to write (or copy-paste) here are some things like this:

Well, actually, biogenetic z-n in the form formulated by Haeckel is no longer recognized. However, the situation is similar with many laws: Newtonian mechanics is just a special case of more general views on the physical world, just as Mendel's 3rd law is fulfilled only under certain conditions.
After Haeckel was Severtsov with the concept of phylembryogenesis (phylogenesis is a genetic series of ontogenies), and biogenetic knowledge on it is a special case characteristic of the evolution of ontogenesis through superstructure at the last stage...

Well, about the hypothesis of et, I och softly formulated...well sooo soft.
*
That's the thing that children smoke all sorts of different things from kindergarten...
At the same time, they are not taught to think elementary. Therefore, a stoned brain is no longer able to understand how simple differs from complex (within the same coordinate system or reference). But the answer to this simple question is the key to understanding embryogenesis.

Vladimir2012, you found some bad matchup, what else is this about bullying

"Only in the larvae of the last stage before bullying do their cells differentiate; in the pupae they unfold to form adult organs."

This from here probably?

Why is the caterpillar immediately a former parasite, a parasite of whom? Well, okay, another theory about the origin of mitochondria and chloroplasts from bacteria that were swallowed and then "took root", but in this perspective???
"Indirect development" does not contradict the principle of developing the biodiversity of living organisms through variability. Generally speaking, no large organism develops by "direct development", since this is determined by the very feature of reproduction of living creatures - with the help of eggs. Just some go through all their "indirect" development hidden, in the womb or inside the egg(as in birds or reptiles, and even then, birds are born all the same not exactly an exact copy of their parents), and some organisms have a larva. And not just insects.

Here, by the way, is the original source of "cloaca": http://komahi.org.ua/nasekomye/process-gistoliza.html . Most of all, the text resembles an illiterate translation from a foreign language.

Now molecular taxonomy has become such a fetish. Even 40-50 years ago-everyone was watching (without exception!) genitals, and 100 - 120 years ago-the color and pattern of wings, elytra, pronotum, etc.

uh-uh... I disagree, primarily because one method doesn't override the other. you should have seen how sometimes the shape of male genitalia fits well into the phylogenetic tree! there is such a tree in front of your eyes, and you plan to supplement this very tree, then apply "heavy" morphometric methods - such as harmonics, etc. and see how the evolution of the shape correlates with molecular aspects - and you can also add a little wings, which, by the way, are far from all so considered... that is , when one method appears, it may well overlap with another, and I think that replacing some aspects with others is not good at all...

Wow, what interesting conversations were held on the forum in the last decade! Not like the current one

Still, even if it's late, I'll put in my five kopecks, thinking of a butterfly caterpillar as an embryo that prematurely left the egg, although convenient, is wrong from an evolutionary point of view. It is known that the first insects with incomplete transformation appeared, in which the larva did not differ much from the imago, and did not have newly developed wings (although in the last instars they already had their rudiments). That is, metamorphosis proceeded gradually, without the slightest hint of a" liquid cloaca"; complete transformation appeared later, probably as a way to divide ecological niches between larvae and adults. And also not immediately so motionless pupa, dissolving inside itself, appeared. Specifically, the metamorphosis of butterflies should be viewed through the prism of the metamorphosis of their caddisfly ancestors. There, the larva is not so embryo-like and the pupa can walk or even swim, paddling with its feet - clearly its histolysis is not going to the state of a "liquid cloaca". In butterflies, there was simply a large morphological differentiation between the larva and imago, which required a more serious restructuring of the anatomy in the pupal phase. Worm-like shape of the caterpillar (to a greater extent than in more primitive orders). Most likely, this is due to an initially hidden way of life: the caterpillars of primitive butterflies, like their caddisfly ancestors, lived (and many still do) either in tubular covers or in passages gnawed out in the substrate. This then grew so much that they stopped being placed, and they had to climb out into the light of day to the surprise of naturalists (only Cossus cossus did not want to). The example of hypermetamorphosis of some beetles also speaks against recapitulation as an explanation for the worm-like nature of insect larvae. They have a fully formed fast-running larva hatching from the egg, which strongly resembles primary wingless insects, and only then "chervenets". At the same time, it also needs to go through a stationary stage, similar to the pupal stage ("metamorphosis in the opposite direction"!). In general, the evolutionary path of insects is long and rich in sharp turns in the pursuit of maximum adaptation to specific environmental conditions. In vertebrates, it seems, everything went straight, there the biogenetic law is better traced.

Molecular science, however, is probably the pinnacle in the methodology of phylogeny, which is the future. It is difficult to imagine where else you can dig further into the structures of nucleic acids and proteins to find out the relationship of organisms (except for building a time machine). Backs - this is already some kind of Goryaev thing. But at the same time, we must be aware that the modern public is essentially in childhood, and therefore makes a lot of mistakes that in a few decades will probably be considered stupid. But the molecular scientists themselves are full of excessive confidence in their abilities and blind faith in the uniqueness of their own conclusions. Therefore, if their conclusions differ dramatically from the data of all other methods (for example, in the case of a recent conclusion of the origin of arthropods directly from roundworms , or when they find a dozen "species" in a completely clear one, or vice versa), they should be pulled back - they are not yet mature