Ok bear with me, I'll ramble on about a few topics..
The following is from Creation magazine.
Stick Insect Research Upsets one of Evolutionists long-held beliefs.
Evolution is not meant to run in reverse - at least, this is a basic principle of evolution that is widely accepted. Evolutionists believe that complex genetic instructions, once encoded in a creatures DNA (by natural selection of random mutations), are unlikely to be undone, even less likely to be regained later on. A recent report on stick insects in the prestigious journal "Nature" is forcing evolutionists to rethink this fundamental belief.
Today's stick insects (or phasmids, as scientists call them) show great variations; eg. some have wings and some do not. The conventional idea holds that a winged stick insect ancestor gave rise to different groups of winged stick insects, with many of these later evolving to a wingless condition. From their studies of DNA in 59 stick insect species, the authors of this latest research came to a completley different conclusion: wings were lost in a "primitive" ancestor of stick insects, reappeared at least four times (independently), then were lost yet again on two more occasions!
So these exquisitely complex structures we call wings (not to mention the associated muscles, ligaments and nervous control systems) are now said to have evolved, devolved and "re-evolved" several times. Moreover, these ups and downs in the evolution of insect flight allegedly spanned 300 million years, with periods of winglessness lasting upto 100 million years. No wonder that this "re-evolution" in evolutionary thinking is being described as a "revolution"! Genetic information for wings, no longer serving any selective purpose, should be lost and/or should degenerate through disuse by virtue of mutations.
Aware of this, the authors speculate that the instructions for wings were somehow linked to those for legs, so they could be switched on again later. Shoe-horned by their unquestioning belief in evolution, they fail to question whether these non-functioning genes could really have existed for so long!
Of course, this demonstrates just how 'plastic' evolutionary theory is, as contradictory data are turned into evidence FOR THEORY! As stated in precious articles, a loss of information (wings in this case) is not evolution, which would require NEW information. Switching on existing information (even if this had occured) would not explain where those instructions for making wings came from in the first place.