Entomologists have long been involved in the rewarding field of butterfly research. Recent Lepidopteran discoveries have been incredible and have nothing to do with real, vertical evolution.^1–3

Now, artificial intelligence (machine learning or ML) is being utilized to determine visual differences between sexes of birdwing butterflies of Australasia and Southeast Asia.⁴

By using high-tech machine learning Dr. Jennifer Hoyal Cuthill examined more than 16,000 male and female birdwing butterflies, with collaborators from the Natural History Museum and AI research institute Cross Labs, Cross Compass. This is the first time the visual differences between sexes have been explored across the species...⁴

This research was conducted in part because there was a controversy between Victorian naturalists A. W. Wallace and Charles Darwin regarding which gender of the birdwing butterflies had more variation. Wallace maintained natural selection⁵ across sexes was the largest influence in birdwing difference. Darwin thought males had more variation, and because of that, females were attracted to the males based on their appearance.

The Phys.org article quoted Dr. Cuthill as saying,

For the first time we are able to measure the visible extents of evolution to test how much variation is present in different biological groups and among both males and females. Machine learning is giving us new information on the evolutionary processes which generate and maintain biodiversity, including in historically neglected groups.⁴ (emphasis added)

But are these differences within birdwing butterflies due to evolution or simply genetic variation?

Genetic diversity is related to different parts of an organism’s genome. When genomes are compared within created kinds, certain portions are very stable and remain very similar among individuals, while other parts of the genome are extremely variable. Clearly, genetic variability is part of God’s design for plants and animals, but it is employed as an engineered system with limitations. These systems of genetic variability are just beginning to be understood; they involve not only diversity in actual DNA sequence, but also diversity in heritable chemical modifications to the DNA (methylation) and in the proteins that package the DNA (acetylation).⁶

Cuthill et al. describe the birdwing butterfly research in more detail in Communications Biology:

Validation of image embedding distances, learnt by a triplet-trained, deep convolutional neural network, shows ML can be used for automated reconstruction of phenotypic evolution achieving measures of phylogenetic [classification based on supposed evolutionary relatedness] congruence [agreement, compatibility] to genetic species trees within a range sampled among genetic trees themselves. Quantification of sexual disparity difference (male versus female embedding distance), shows sexually and phylogenetically variable inter-species disparity [notable significant difference].⁷

The detailed research regarding the visual differences of the female and male birdwing butterflies is found within that group. Clearly, no real evolution has been documented here or in any of the Lepidoptera.⁸ What exactly is changing? Only “sexually and phylogenetically variable inter-species disparity [emphasis added].”⁷ This is not real evolutionary change.⁹

To conclude, the article’s title, “Research shows Darwin and Wallace both right on butterfly evolution”⁴ gives readers the false impression that minor variation is the same as evolution. In this study and so many others like it, the word evolution should be omitted. A more clear and scientific title would be, “Research shows Darwin and Wallace both right on butterfly variation.”

References

1. Jeffrey Tomkins, “Butterfly Wing Design Repudiates Evolution,” Creation Science Update, February 18, 2021, https://www.icr.org/article/butterfly-wi
   ng-design-repudiates-evolution/.
2. Frank Sherwin, “Butterflies and Cancer Detection,” Creation Science Update, November 30, 2023, https://www.icr.org/article/butterflies-
   detect-cancer.
3. Brian Thomas, “Monarch Butterfly Antenna: A Hi-tech Tiny Toolkit,” Creation Science Update, October 9, 2009, https://www.icr.org/article/4974/.
4. University of Essex, “Research Shows Darwin and Wallace Both Right on Butterfly Evolution,” Phys.org, July 1, 2024, https://phys.org/news/2024-06-darwin-wal
   lace-butterfly-evolution.html#google_vig
   nette.
5. Randy Guliuzza, “Natural Selection Is Not ‘Nature’s Design Process,’” Acts & Facts, April 2010, 10–11.
6. Jeff Tomkins, “Mechanisms of Adaptation in Biology: Genetic Diversity,” Acts & Facts, May 2012, 8.
7. Jennifer Cuthill et al., “Male and Female Contributions to Diversity among Birdwing Butterfly Images,” Communications Biology, 7, no. 774 (2024).
8. Frank Sherwin, “Butterfly Evolution?” Creation Science Update, July 18, 2006, https://www.icr.org/article/butterfly-ev
   olution.
9. Frank Sherwin, “Butterfly Variation,” Creation Science Update, November 3, 2022, https://www.icr.org/article/butterfly-va
   ri.

Stage image: Birdwing butterfly
Stage image credit: Copyright © Charles Patrick Ewing. Used in accordance with federal copyright (fair use doctrine) law. Usage by ICR does not imply endorsement of copyright holder.

* Dr. Sherwin is a science news writer at the Institute for Creation Research. He earned an M.A. in invertebrate zoology from the University of Northern Colorado and received an honorary doctorate of science from Pensacola Christian College.