The butterfly

[Guest HisG]

So the information in the caterpillars DNA to metamorphose into a butterfly was always present?

However, the Information in man took billions of years to evolve to present DNA information.

Is that was you guys propose?

So, my question to evolutionists is what purpose has slow changing evolvement in man served? What were the benefits to man?

The butterfly, beautiful yet lower down the chain of things in terms of life, from day dot had the capacity within itself to change (it's preprogrammed DNA) but humans languished millions of years behind to emerge as the top notch in the tree of life.

Can you please explain this to me.

[Guest HisG]

The Bible creation account tells us that first man was created separate to animals and was made in the image of God, not ape so at creation man was given supremacy over the animal kingdom -

Just trying to work out the Darwinian view of why a mere butterfly would reach full potential over man - regardless of what process that took.

As I'm aware, survival of the fittest etc.

[LatentAuthor]

So the information in the caterpillars DNA to metamorphose into a butterfly was always present?

However, the Information in man took billions of years to evolve to present DNA information.

Is that was you guys propose?

So, my question to evolutionists is what purpose has slow changing evolvement in man served? What were the benefits to man?

The butterfly, beautiful yet lower down the chain of things in terms of life, from day dot had the capacity within itself to change (it's preprogrammed DNA) but humans languished millions of years behind to emerge as the top notch in the tree of life.

Can you please explain this to me.

 

It's a bit hard to know where to start with this - first you need to understand that metamorphosis does not result in any change in DNA, it is simply part of the life cycle of some animals.  All living things progress through a life cycle, with some insects undergoing a "complete" metamorphosis and others undergoing an "incomplete" metamorphosis, while other animals simply grow without undergoing a metamorphosis.  Whether we're talking about a dog growing from a puppy to an adult dog, or a butterfly growing from an egg to an adult, we're simply talking about life cycles.  

 

These life cycles are part of the evolution of all living things - they arose out of a long process of descent with modification.  What the theory of evolution proposes is that the life cycle of a butterfly evolved from early insects which did not progress through a complete metamorphosis through descent with modification.

[LatentAuthor]

Just trying to work out the Darwinian view of why a mere butterfly would reach full potential over man - regardless of what process that took.

 

There is no "full potential" in the ToE.

[other one]

So the information in the caterpillars DNA to metamorphose into a butterfly was always present?

However, the Information in man took billions of years to evolve to present DNA information.

Is that was you guys propose?

So, my question to evolutionists is what purpose has slow changing evolvement in man served? What were the benefits to man?

The butterfly, beautiful yet lower down the chain of things in terms of life, from day dot had the capacity within itself to change (it's preprogrammed DNA) but humans languished millions of years behind to emerge as the top notch in the tree of life.

Can you please explain this to me.

 

Not me, I don't believe in overall evolution.   I do see over time color changes and size differences but a horse will give birth to some kind of a horse and a cow a cow.

 

However we do know that it is the genes that make a difference in the physical bodies of the things on earth.    I would say that when God made the earth and stocked it he just made life in general and flipped a few genes on and made fish......   flipped a few other genes to make different animals and ended upturning on our genes to make Adam.....   took a piece of Adam and flipped a few genes and made Eve.

 

made for a quick easy way to make everything....

 

I do believe that we are in the process of learning how to mess with the way he set things up, and that it has happened before in this world pre flood.

[Guest HisG]

Would you agree that the information in DNA is complex?

Why do you think the caterpillars DNA was complete right from the get go over mans? (According to evolutionists)

Am I then right to say that at one point the butterfly trumped humankind in supremacy in the animal kingdom because if it's complete DNA?

Your thoughts.

This is for latent author

[LatentAuthor]

 

Why do you think the caterpillars DNA was complete right from the get go over mans? (According to evolutionists)

 

I don't know what you mean by this - it certainly doesn't reflect anything in the actual theory so I think you're misunderstanding something.  If you could explain a bit more what you mean I might be able to help clear it up.

 

Am I then right to say that at one point the butterfly trumped humankind in supremacy in the animal kingdom because if it's complete DNA?

 

No.  Get rid of any thoughts about things "trumping" each other, or of "full potentials".  None of it has anything to do with evolution.

[Guest HisG]

What's survival of the fittest?

I didn't coin that term.

Looks like to me, according to that statement, that the butterflies DNA surpassed humans while they were still up in the trees.

Why shouldn't I think that? That's exactly what I think in terms of survival of the fittest. How could I not.

[Guest HisG]

Also, where did the information of the caterpillar DNA derive from?

What was the starting point?

And also what do you think were the benefits to man, going down the evolutionary path?

[LatentAuthor]

 

What's survival of the fittest?

 

It means that individuals with adaptations that help them survive are more likely to survive and reproduce than those who lack such adaptations.

 

Looks like to me, according to that statement, that the butterflies DNA surpassed humans while they were still up in the trees.

 

Many species have adapted to survive, many are very good at it.  There may very well be more butterflies than people. . .so what?

 

Why shouldn't I think that? That's exactly what I think in terms of survival of the fittest. How could I not.

 

Because that's not what it means - it's talking about individual adaptations within a population and describing how nature typically operates.