|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: How did butterflies evolve? - 2/2/2010 6:38:34 PM
|
|
|
ManimalX
Posts: 2620
Joined: 10/25/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: RSchorne
quote:
ORIGINAL: ManimalX
The answer is obviously, "God created this amazing creature that starts as a caterpillar and then changes into a butterfly," while the evolutionist is going to have to write up a few pages of bad fiction.
I wonder if you would have thought twice about writing this post if the OP was "How did Human Botflies evolve"?
"God created this amazing creature that starts as a maggot eating live human flesh and then changes into a human botfly".
Why wouldn't that count as "an amazing creature"? It does in my opinion!
And besides, my particular stance is that God's curse on creation at the Fall resulted in all kinds of creatures doing all kinds of weird things they didn't do before the Fall. However, it isn't a sore point for me, and many of my Creationist friends here have differing views.
_____________________________
"The fool says in his heart, 'There is no God.'" - Psalms 14:1
"We destroy arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God, and take every thought captive to obey Christ" - 2 Cor 10:5
|
|
|
|
|
RE: How did butterflies evolve? - 2/2/2010 10:58:41 PM
|
|
|
GodandGuns
Posts: 1507
Joined: 10/1/2008
From: The Sound of Madness
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: DanJames
quote:
ORIGINAL: RSchorne
The "why do moths still exist" question?
Like the "If humans evolved from apes, then why are there still apes" question?
The OP
why are you not discussing it instead of trying to argue the rest down.
simple.i dont believe in evolution. show me in the bible where i came from monkeys, fish, some floating dna strand way back and i will believe in it. until then, the Bible is what i believe in
_____________________________
FOR THOSE WHO HAVE FOUGHT FOR IT, FREEDOM HAS A TASTE THE PROTECTED WILL NEVER KNOW.
The Medic, the unsung hero on every battlefield. It is impossible to imagine the mental/emotional trauma inside a Medic, and there is no triage for that.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: How did butterflies evolve? - 2/3/2010 2:25:00 AM
|
|
|
parkerbrother
Posts: 398
Joined: 6/7/2009
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: demolay
First off, I don't see why anyone wouldn't think moths evolved from butterflies. Evolution is directionless, right?
Um, because moths were around a hundred or so million years before butterflies?
quote:
But secondly, either way it doesn't address the genesis of metamorphoses. How in the world would such a process evolve from a creature that didn't metamorph?
Lot's of insects metamorphosis. House flies start of as maggots. Many flying insects start as nymphs. Look at the life cycle of the cicada. Almost every insect has a larval stage that is very different from the adult stage.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: How did butterflies evolve? - 2/3/2010 6:28:09 PM
|
|
|
Dante_Alighieri
Posts: 304
Joined: 1/21/2010
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: demolay
Question for the evo believers out here.
As amazing as the ontology is for ANY creature to transform from an egg to a creature with head, arms/legs, organs, etc., I'm wondering what sort of evolutionary theory explains creatures that engage in metamorphoses mid-life, like butterflies.
I mean, can you even make up a narrative for this? Did some creature "evolve" into metamorphoses from a creature that did not? What kind of "transitional" attempts were involved, like half-baked metamorphoses, or botched attempts, before the critter finally got it right?
Would a butterfly begin as a flying creature that eventually "evolved" to have a caterpillar stage, or did a worm-like creature evolve into having a butterfly stage of life?
And did this start, as the standard evolutionary narrative for all flying creatures, with worms "jumping" off tree branches to see how far they could get? Would this apply "evolutionary pressure" to metamorph?
And, what really blows my whistle, is how ALL examples of metamorphoses today completely dissolves all previous phylogenetic features, and develops completely new ones. Does evolution think this started less dramatically?
Just asking.
Developmental endocrinology explains metamorphosis in insects. The process itself was an evolution of developmental biology (within insects who undergo metamorphosis).
It's thought that a change in hormone functions during embryonic development led to the larval stage which led to intermittent transitions to the various stages we see now. Larval stages for insects evolved as secondary features, that is, the common ancestor of species that undergo metamorphosis more often resembled the adult (butterfly) form. The major reason for the development of metamorphosis in the first place is thought to be a means to eliminate the competition between juveniles and adults for food.
quote:
But the amazing story was exactly what I'd hoped some evolutionist here would propose.
False dichotomies do in fact fall within the category of logical fallacy. 
quote:
Who or what decides if the breeding is a success?
If an organism is better suited to survive in its environment, then it is a success.
quote:
It was stated on a previous post that the genetic mutation doesnt happen in just one organism, but in a group within the species. How does that happen? Even if it is over millions of years, how does it not just originate in one organism then spread throughout the species? In other words, how does this "random" mutation know to happen across the species to make the evolutionary change?
Mutations spread through breeding. Mutations that are bad will not last very long (as a seriously detrimental mutation will likely kill off the individual before they can breed and pass on the mutation). Mutations that are good for the individual will generally allow it to live longer and breed more, passing the beneficial gene on to the rest of the species. Mutations don't "know" to pass about the species, they get passed when individuals survive and breed.
quote:
There has never been an observation of one population of creatures accumulating all sorts of beneficial mutations that result in a more "upwardly complex" creature of a different kind.
Evolution doesn't state that new species will be more complex.
Dante
_____________________________
Nel mezzo del cammin di nostra vita mi ritrovai per una selva oscura ché la via diritta era smarrita.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: How did butterflies evolve? - 2/5/2010 11:48:48 AM
|
|
|
RSchorne
Posts: 157
Joined: 1/9/2010
Status: offline
|
Very nicely put.
And you did it with only one wink and no lol's or haha's.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: How did butterflies evolve? - 2/5/2010 6:29:15 PM
|
|
|
demolay
Posts: 296
Joined: 10/31/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
Developmental endocrinology explains metamorphosis in insects. The process itself was an evolution of developmental biology (within insects who undergo metamorphosis).
It's thought that a change in hormone functions during embryonic development led to the larval stage which led to intermittent transitions to the various stages we see now. Larval stages for insects evolved as secondary features, that is, the common ancestor of species that undergo metamorphosis more often resembled the adult (butterfly) form. The major reason for the development of metamorphosis in the first place is thought to be a means to eliminate the competition between juveniles and adults for food.
Thanks for an on-topic reply!
So are you saying that the same genes that code for the six long, spindly legs of a butterfly also code for the I-havent-counted-how-many short stubby legs of a caterpillar? That the same genetic info, plus a little extra or less hormone, accounts for all the structural differences?
I'm seriously wanting to know the evolution story here. It would seem like some entirely different info would be need for, say wings and nector-sipping noses verses leaf-crunching mandibles. Or for similar function things, like legs, that have vastly different designs between the stages.
Since these two stages have different food sources, different environments, and different defensive mechanisms, do you think evolution works on these two "lifes" independantly? In other words, do you think the caterpillar stage could evolve in response to selective pressure on its life stage independently of any adult evolution?
And what did you mean by "more often resembled the adult (butterfly) form"? Are you saying metamorphoses, as a mechanism, evolved multiple times?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: How did butterflies evolve? - 2/5/2010 11:20:51 PM
|
|
|
kikos
Posts: 67
Joined: 12/11/2007
Status: offline
|
As usual, the Darwinist supporters are making some majorly false assumptions about genetics.
quote:
What on earth make you think life evolves because there is a need to do so? Evolution is undirected. If a random genetic mutation increases breeding success, the mutation is carried forward to the next generations. If a mutation decreases breeding success, there are fewer future generations and the mutation is lost.
This statement isn't really supported by genetics. First, mutations happen at the level of the nucleotide-just above the atomic level-the vast majority of which have a near-neutral effect on the phenotype. This means zero selectability for that mutation. Then there's the fact that mutations are always recessive which further decreases the possibility of any mutation being passed on. Add to this the fact that the vast majority of mutations are deleterious in nature, to the point that so-called beneficial mutations have never actually been observed, only assumed. Finally, population geneticists have known for a long time that there is only a minor correlation between genotypic superiority and reproductive success. Natural selection is based entirely on probability. An individual with a 'superior' genome only has a higher probability of breeding, not a guarantee. Many inferior individuals are also successful at breeding.
quote:
Mutations spread through breeding. Mutations that are bad will not last very long (as a seriously detrimental mutation will likely kill off the individual before they can breed and pass on the mutation). Mutations that are good for the individual will generally allow it to live longer and breed more, passing the beneficial gene on to the rest of the species. Mutations don't "know" to pass about the species, they get passed when individuals survive and breed.
Again, the vast majority of mutations are bad but with a near-neutral effect on the phenotype and therefore not selectable either way. Seriously detrimental mutations are extremely rare and have little if any effect on forward evolution. Beneficial mutations are also extremely rare, to the point that they are really just assumed to exist.
quote:
Evolution doesn't state that new species will be more complex.
I love this one. I nominate this jewel for 'cop-out phrase of the century'. (Not against you Dante, as this is what current NDE theorists are saying).
Evolution theory may not state that species have to become more complex, but that is exactly what happened. Therefore, this increase in complexity must be explained by evolutionists if we are to believe their theories on origins.
I'm only just beginning to study genetics, but really one only needs the basics to see that NDE isn't very well supported by facts. Not genetically anyway. This could be the topic for a whole new thread but there are two things in particular that Darwinists try very hard to ignore. First the genome is not some 'pool of genes' that NS can pick and choose from at will. All genes in all organisms are inherited in large linkage blocks. This means that the precious few beneficial mutations that might occur are going to be inherited alongside many more bad mutations in that block. Then there are decidedly non-heritable factors like environment, crossing-over, epistasis, pleiotropy, incomplete penetrance, dominance effects etc. that interfere with the ability of NS to 'see' a mutation as good or bad. These non-heritable factors in fact have more effect on the genotype than heritable factors.
The other thing that baffles me is how anyone could possibly believe that a random mutation in an organism can result in a specified improvement that just happens to correlate with that organisms environment. And not just once but billions of times over!. This is astounding to me, that otherwise intelligent people buy this insanity.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: How did butterflies evolve? - 2/6/2010 8:48:01 AM
|
|
|
drmark
Posts: 5589
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
The other thing that baffles me is how anyone could possibly believe that a random mutation in an organism can result in a specified improvement that just happens to correlate with that organisms environment. And not just once but billions of times over!. This is astounding to me, that otherwise intelligent people buy this insanity. Isn't it shocking how the faith-based religion of uniformitarian naturalism brainwashes its adherents... 
_____________________________
Jeremiah 31:31-34. The time is NOW, fellow saints!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: How did butterflies evolve? - 2/6/2010 11:42:50 AM
|
|
|
demolay
Posts: 296
Joined: 10/31/2008
Status: offline
|
That's what gets me about the 2 stages of life for a butterfly. Each is so well adapted for its purpose. The caterpillar has camouflage that matches its intended food source, or spikes or hairy extrusions to make it less edible by birds. Mandibles perfect for cutting leaves for food, and a body that can cling tenaciously to a stem or branch.
The butterfly can fly to take advantage of flowers over a wide area, to find a mate, a mouth that's perfect for sipping nectar.
It just seems to me, as miraculous as it would be for random chance to produce such perfect designs for one body plan, butterflies taunt the evolutionist by doing it twice. The adult can't "evolve" to adapt to its adult needs decoupled from the needs of the caterpillar, and vice-versa. I think that if the evolution of a fish is improbable, the evolution of a butterfly is improbable squared.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: How did butterflies evolve? - 2/6/2010 1:34:47 PM
|
|
|
parkerbrother
Posts: 398
Joined: 6/7/2009
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: demolay
That's what gets me about the 2 stages of life for a butterfly. Each is so well adapted for its purpose. The caterpillar has camouflage that matches its intended food source, or spikes or hairy extrusions to make it less edible by birds. Mandibles perfect for cutting leaves for food, and a body that can cling tenaciously to a stem or branch.
The butterfly can fly to take advantage of flowers over a wide area, to find a mate, a mouth that's perfect for sipping nectar.
It just seems to me, as miraculous as it would be for random chance to produce such perfect designs for one body plan, butterflies taunt the evolutionist by doing it twice. The adult can't "evolve" to adapt to its adult needs decoupled from the needs of the caterpillar, and vice-versa. I think that if the evolution of a fish is improbable, the evolution of a butterfly is improbable squared.
What are you talking about? Most insects do this. What can you say about a butterfly that you can't say about a house fly, which is evolutionarily far more successful then a butterfly. A maggot is the perfect design for consuming decomposing flesh, and the adult fly is ideal for propagating the species. Same is true for most insect species which metamorphosis between larval, sometimes nymph, and adult stages.
The only thing that makes butterflies unique is their prettiness. It it wasn't for that you would not even be aware of their existence. Not nearly as impressive a feat as say a silk worm, or cicadas that spend 17 years underground as nymphs then emerge by the trillions on the same day. There are thousands of insects that are evolutionarily more impressive then the butterfly and go through much more interesting metamorphoses.
< Message edited by parkerbrother -- 2/6/2010 1:44:27 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: How did butterflies evolve? - 2/6/2010 1:35:52 PM
|
|
|
Dante_Alighieri
Posts: 304
Joined: 1/21/2010
Status: offline
|
quote:
So are you saying that the same genes that code for the six long, spindly legs of a butterfly also code for the I-havent-counted-how-many short stubby legs of a caterpillar? That the same genetic info, plus a little extra or less hormone, accounts for all the structural differences?
Well I couldn't tell you exactly what genes account specifically for a butterfly's legs versus a caterpillar's legs. However, I would presume that the genes responsible for a butterfly's developmental cycle are what are responsible for the difference.
quote:
do you think evolution works on these two "lifes" independantly? In other words, do you think the caterpillar stage could evolve in response to selective pressure on its life stage independently of any adult evolution?
That's exactly what I'm saying. The "caterpillar" or larval stage evolved as a developmental stage because the developmental stage which eats different types of food than the adult stage results in less competition between juveniles and adults for food, which allows the species able to have more viable offspring (which is ergo better for the species as a whole).
quote:
And what did you mean by "more often resembled the adult (butterfly) form"? Are you saying metamorphoses, as a mechanism, evolved multiple times?
No, I'm saying that before metamorphosis evolved, infant insects just resembled miniature versions of their adult forms. Metamorphosis evolved within the developmental cycle of of the life of insects.
quote:
Again, the vast majority of mutations are bad but with a near-neutral effect on the phenotype and therefore not selectable either way. Seriously detrimental mutations are extremely rare and have little if any effect on forward evolution. Beneficial mutations are also extremely rare, to the point that they are really just assumed to exist.
The majority of mutations are neutral, not bad. And it's also false to state that beneficial mutations are "extremely rare" or that they are just "assumed to exist."
We have an extensive list of known beneficial mutations that have occurred, even in humans.
quote:
First the genome is not some 'pool of genes' that NS can pick and choose from at will. All genes in all organisms are inherited in large linkage blocks. This means that the precious few beneficial mutations that might occur are going to be inherited alongside many more bad mutations in that block.
Wrong. Decidedly bad mutations that are intrinsically so bad as to cause serious harm to the population are most often weeded out early. Any mutations that are just completely detrimental are unlikely to be passed on as an individual carrying such a detrimental mutation usually will not survive long enough to breed thoroughly.
quote:
The other thing that baffles me is how anyone could possibly believe that a random mutation in an organism can result in a specified improvement that just happens to correlate with that organisms environment.
Random mutations occur all the time. It's baffling that you can't see how environments select mutations that allow populations to survive and breed more effectively.
quote:
Isn't it shocking how the faith-based religion of uniformitarian naturalism brainwashes its adherents...
Another intelligent contribution to the conversation. Lol
quote:
That's what gets me about the 2 stages of life for a butterfly. Each is so well adapted for its purpose.
Yep.
Butterflies have been around 130 million years at least. They've had a long time to adapt to their environments.
quote:
It just seems to me, as miraculous as it would be for random chance to produce such perfect designs for one body plan, butterflies taunt the evolutionist by doing it twice. The adult can't "evolve" to adapt to its adult needs decoupled from the needs of the caterpillar, and vice-versa. I think that if the evolution of a fish is improbable, the evolution of a butterfly is improbable squared.
Natural selection isn't random chance. While mutations are random, natural selection is not just a toss of the dice.
Also, while I understand the tendency to become incredulous when thinking about how species could become so (seemingly) well adapted to their environment, please remember that arguments from incredulity are still logical fallacies.
Dante
_____________________________
Nel mezzo del cammin di nostra vita mi ritrovai per una selva oscura ché la via diritta era smarrita.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: How did butterflies evolve? - 2/6/2010 2:59:50 PM
|
|
|
kikos
Posts: 67
Joined: 12/11/2007
Status: offline
|
ORIGINAL: Dante_Alighieri
quote:
The majority of mutations are neutral, not bad. And it's also false to state that beneficial mutations are "extremely rare" or that they are just "assumed to exist."
This is an example of another misleading falsehood perpetrated by evolutionists who can't handle the actual facts. The idea that most mutations are neutral is based on the premise of 'junk DNA'....even though they may have dropped that particular phrase. This despite the fact that the genomes that are currently being mapped are showing that more and more of the genomes are in fact functional. Actually ID predicts that the whole genome will be found to be functional. Taking this into consideration, the more functional the genome is (in other words, every nucleotide affects the whole genome to some extent) the less 'neutral' any mutation is going to be. If a mutation is not neutral, it must be deleterious or beneficial. As it is, we know that the vast majority of mutations are on the deleterious side of neutral, but still so near neutral that they are impossible for NS to detect. Even if a nucleotide is found to have no function whatsoever, we should still consider it to be deleterious in nature because at the least it takes up space, uses energy and slows replication.
quote:
We have an extensive list of known beneficial mutations that have occurred, even in humans
Indeed. Some mutations do have somewhat beneficial effects. Unfortunately what is observed is that ALL mutations result in the net loss of information from the genome. If you look closer you will find that in every case of a so-called beneficial mutation there is a resultant loss of cellular function somewhere else. Also in many cases the 'beneficial' mutations are lost when the organisms are returned to a more natural environment. In either case, no net forward evoluton occurs.
quote:
Wrong. Decidedly bad mutations that are intrinsically so bad as to cause serious harm to the population are most often weeded out early. Any mutations that are just completely detrimental are unlikely to be passed on as an individual carrying such a detrimental mutation usually will not survive long enough to breed thoroughly.
Wrong? Really? So you know more about genetics than my genetics professor who has a PhD in the subject? Or Dr. Sanford, who is a professor at Cornell and has been doing plant genetics research for 20+ years and has I-don't-know-how-many inventions and patents involving genetic research? Gosh I'm impressed!
quote:
Random mutations occur all the time. It's baffling that you can't see how environments select mutations that allow populations to survive and breed more effectively.
Environments do not select mutations! Why is this so hard to figure out? Environments select entire genomes which (depending on the species) could consist of anywhere from hundreds to billions of individual nucleotides. Even then, NS cannot select a genotype...NS only 'sees' the phenotype which often does not reflect the genotype because of random genetic factors.
I don't want to detract from the OP with all this. As genetics relates to butterfly evolution it just lays waste to the idea that random mutations could ever result in brand new specified functions in a species.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: How did butterflies evolve? - 2/6/2010 8:04:54 PM
|
|
|
shakezula
Posts: 683
Joined: 3/9/2009
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: demolay
That's what gets me about the 2 stages of life for a butterfly.
there are 3 stages of life for a butterfly.
and butterflies make a great case for evolution. for those who say that creatures can't sprout wings and new eyes, the butterfly proves them wrong.
_____________________________
watch out for the oo moo and the blehblehbleh
|
|
|
|
|
RE: How did butterflies evolve? - 2/6/2010 8:07:12 PM
|
|
|
shakezula
Posts: 683
Joined: 3/9/2009
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: parkerbrother
The only thing that makes butterflies unique is their prettiness.
it's more than that. the structure of their adult mouths, the texture of their wings, and the way their wings rest on their backs are all unique to butterflies.
_____________________________
watch out for the oo moo and the blehblehbleh
|
|
|
|
|
RE: How did butterflies evolve? - 2/7/2010 3:03:28 AM
|
|
|
parkerbrother
Posts: 398
Joined: 6/7/2009
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: shakezula
quote:
ORIGINAL: parkerbrother
The only thing that makes butterflies unique is their prettiness.
it's more than that. the structure of their adult mouths, the texture of their wings, and the way their wings rest on their backs are all unique to butterflies.
A million other insects have attributes just as unique in their own way. You just don't notice them because they are not large and colorful.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: How did butterflies evolve? - 2/7/2010 2:17:27 PM
|
|
|
Dante_Alighieri
Posts: 304
Joined: 1/21/2010
Status: offline
|
quote:
Oh wait. Let me guess. Modern butterflies are examples of "transition" from one creature to another... they just haven't "evolved" long enough to completely be free of the less useful caterpillar phase.
What? No. That's completely contrary to what evolution states.
quote:
Unless of course you want to argue that something like a butterfly "evolved" as a metamorphosing creature. If you do, the answers you must provide are just as challenging.
It did. And I already did explain how.
quote:
it is so obvious that butterflies defy "evolution".
Don't know about that. What I do know is that it is so obvious you know nothing about evolution.
Dante
_____________________________
Nel mezzo del cammin di nostra vita mi ritrovai per una selva oscura ché la via diritta era smarrita.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: How did butterflies evolve? - 2/7/2010 4:17:04 PM
|
|
|
demolay
Posts: 296
Joined: 10/31/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: parkerbrother
What are you talking about? Most insects do this. What can you say about a butterfly that you can't say about a house fly, which is evolutionarily far more successful then a butterfly. A maggot is the perfect design for consuming decomposing flesh, and the adult fly is ideal for propagating the species. Same is true for most insect species which metamorphosis between larval, sometimes nymph, and adult stages.
The only thing that makes butterflies unique is their prettiness. It it wasn't for that you would not even be aware of their existence. Not nearly as impressive a feat as say a silk worm, or cicadas that spend 17 years underground as nymphs then emerge by the trillions on the same day. There are thousands of insects that are evolutionarily more impressive then the butterfly and go through much more interesting metamorphoses.
Yes, I'm certainly pointing to what I think is the "best" example of metamorphoses, and perhaps it is because they're beautiful. But any example would certainly be valid for the same questions.
What's the story on the peculiar feature of mid-life body reconfiguration? How did it start? How could a creature that did not metamorph mid-life "evolve" to do so?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: How did butterflies evolve? - 2/7/2010 4:24:26 PM
|
|
|
demolay
Posts: 296
Joined: 10/31/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: shakezula
there are 3 stages of life for a butterfly.
Thanks! Point noted.
quote:
and butterflies make a great case for evolution. for those who say that creatures can't sprout wings and new eyes, the butterfly proves them wrong.
So how would those genes for wings and new eyes "evolve" before they were ever expressed? Exactly how did they "sprout" as a newly evolve feature?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: How did butterflies evolve? - 2/8/2010 12:59:55 AM
|
|
|
parkerbrother
Posts: 398
Joined: 6/7/2009
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: demolay
quote:
ORIGINAL: shakezula
there are 3 stages of life for a butterfly.
Thanks! Point noted.
quote:
and butterflies make a great case for evolution. for those who say that creatures can't sprout wings and new eyes, the butterfly proves them wrong.
So how would those genes for wings and new eyes "evolve" before they were ever expressed? Exactly how did they "sprout" as a newly evolve feature?
What do you mean "before they were expressed"? The genes for the adult eyes and wings don't change with metamorphosis. The chromosomes are the same during the entire life of the insect. A mutation that effects the adults eyes of an individual gets passed to offspring just like any mutation. In the case of butterflies, mutations that help them become nectar drinkers, useless before flowering plants, improved their chance of survival verses other moths when flowering plants emerged.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: How did butterflies evolve? - 2/8/2010 1:27:45 PM
|
|
|
DanJames
Posts: 698
Joined: 12/13/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: shakezula
and butterflies make a great case for evolution. for those who say that creatures can't sprout wings and new eyes, the butterfly proves them wrong.
Could you explain this statement a little further?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: How did butterflies evolve? - 2/8/2010 5:30:54 PM
|
|
|
demolay
Posts: 296
Joined: 10/31/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: parkerbrother
What do you mean "before they were expressed"? The genes for the adult eyes and wings don't change with metamorphosis. The chromosomes are the same during the entire life of the insect. A mutation that effects the adults eyes of an individual gets passed to offspring just like any mutation. In the case of butterflies, mutations that help them become nectar drinkers, useless before flowering plants, improved their chance of survival verses other moths when flowering plants emerged.
Silly me, I assumed shakezula's comment was relevant to the OP; the genesis of metamorphoses. As such, I took his comment to say one or the other life-stage features simply "sprouted" where it previously didn't exist. In fact, it sounded like a herald of the amazing power of evolution to create new features.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: How did butterflies evolve? - 2/8/2010 6:19:55 PM
|
|
|
Dante_Alighieri
Posts: 304
Joined: 1/21/2010
Status: offline
|
quote:
How did it start? How could a creature that did not metamorph mid-life "evolve" to do so?
I already explained this in my first post.
quote:
As such, I took his comment to say one or the other life-stage features simply "sprouted" where it previously didn't exist. In fact, it sounded like a herald of the amazing power of evolution to create new features.
New complex features (such as eyes) do not just sprout out of no where. They evolve gradually from earlier forms.
Dante
_____________________________
Nel mezzo del cammin di nostra vita mi ritrovai per una selva oscura ché la via diritta era smarrita.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: How did butterflies evolve? - 2/8/2010 7:40:30 PM
|
|
|
DanJames
Posts: 698
Joined: 12/13/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Dante_Alighieri
quote:
As such, I took his comment to say one or the other life-stage features simply "sprouted" where it previously didn't exist. In fact, it sounded like a herald of the amazing power of evolution to create new features.
New complex features (such as eyes) do not just sprout out of no where. They evolve gradually from earlier forms.
Dante
To an extent, features can evolve gradually into different kinds of forms, and we have mechanisms which have been defined to allow this kind of adaptation. If you want to say that a new and novel structure can be formed gradually from earlier forms, you're going to have to pose a mechanism for that.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: How did butterflies evolve? - 2/8/2010 7:59:40 PM
|
|
|
drmark
Posts: 5589
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
If you want to say that a new and novel structure can be formed gradually from earlier forms, you're going to have to pose a mechanism for that. Hmm, I thought that was RM + NS over zillions of years...
_____________________________
Jeremiah 31:31-34. The time is NOW, fellow saints!
|
|
|
|
 New Messages |
 No New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/ New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/o New Messages |
 Locked w/ New Messages |
 Locked w/o New Messages |
|
 Post New Thread
Reply to Message
Post New Poll
Submit Vote
Delete My Own Post
Delete My Own Thread
Rate Posts |
|
|
Forum Tools
Printable Version
