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.

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.

OtherOne,

I was worried you were going to say you agreed evolution was the vehicle used to bring man into the picture which would make me seriously scratch my head, as there were no deaths before the Fall of first man, Adam.

Also, evolutionists say we are still evolving which flies in the face of the Creation account which tells us in Genesis that God finished creating - He finished His work. There was completeness/finality, not continuity.

[jerryR34]

The butterfly's transformation is no more amazing than that of our own from fertilization to adulthood.  We start out as an embryo that is remarkably similar to that of a fish. 

 

Be careful not to mix evolution with embryology in your zeal to make a point.

[AWBS]

Your response warranted a giggle here and there, it was cute AWBS, or should I say - Mr Excitement

Yes I do believe ancient man was as smart if not smarter - figured out how the ancient Egyptians built their pyramids? I'd love to know.

About skulls, bones etc, I thought evolutionists were quite good at deciphering a host of information about a lost ancestor merely by one tooth - which am I right, ended up being an animal tooth?

That guy Leonardo - hmm, yup - genius.

Don't forget, we are where we are today on the backs of our ancestors - as in ID ancestors.

 

I'm not sure what is funny about pointing out how much of your post was completely unrelated to caterpillars, but whatever.

 

If you are wondering how the Egyptians built the pyramids, here are a few links:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/03/080328104302.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egyptian_pyramid_construction_techniques#Different_kinds_of_ramps

Since I'm guessing your question centers on how the heavy blocks were moved, the simple answer is mechanical advantage -- levers, ramps, and pulleys, pretty basic stuff.

 

Even though human intelligence may have declined slightly after the Industrial Revolution due to reduced natural selection, the gains of education, nutrition, and specialization have more than made up for said losses.

http://www.apa.org/monitor/2013/03/smarter.aspx

 

Though the fossil record is, in fact, the weakest link of evidence for human evolution, its proof is still pretty apparent. (Even in Wikipedia)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolution#Evidence_from_the_fossil_record

Genetic similarities and embryonic development are far stronger supports for common descent, and I advise you to research them.

 

I have no idea what you mean by this statement. Are you referring to Leonardo da Vinci?

 

And we are indeed building on the backs of our ancestors, and we get smarter and better at building continually.

 

However, NONE of this is topical to the evolution of caterpillars.

 

LatentAuthor,

In your opinion, would you say evolution is efficient?

 

Mathmatically it is more efficient than complete randomness and less efficient than intelligent design.

This is because natural selection selects for effective traits and against noneffective ones, rather than pure luck.

 

Father evolution as in Mother Nature - my bad!

Ok, the canopy of evolution which butterflies fall under - DNA is complex. If every living thing by evolutionists stand point, started, let's say, from a warm soupy pond - at which point do we get slow speed (small changes over time) evolvement and quick speed metamorphism?

The reason why I've had to change the questioning in different ways is because folk aren't getting it.

Do you see there are two different rates of speed regardless of one emerging from a cocoon and one emerging from the womb.

They both have their roots in this swamp do they not? What occurred for the caterpillar to emerge from a soup to have their DNA? Where did the caterpillars DNA info come from? It's not too difficult to understand, the ape folk seemed to have lucked out and I want to know why since apparently they all originated from a common spot.

The question of what benefits of slow changes - evolution - to mankind has not been answered.

And btw, KPh! (I think the DNA of the caterpillar is cool how it can in less than a month be a complete new creature with a different function! )

What you need to understand to make sense of this conversation is that metamorphosis is NOT evolution.

Evolution is a multigenerational process where DNA of offspring is changed by natural selection.

Metamorphosis is a monogenerational process where one creature goes through a cycle of life without changing any DNA or producing offspring whatsoever.

The two are completely different processes and cannot be confused.

 

The reason metamophosis evolved is because creatures with a variation in their life cycle that made them more likely to reproduce survived better, not because metamorphosis is some kind of Insta-Evolution.

 

The reason humans and insects have different life cycles is because different life cycles are preferable for different creatures and environments.

 

You question whether caterpillar DNA could have arisen from primordial Earth whatsoever, which is abiogenesis (and thus not directly evolution). However, it still merits response.

Caterpillar DNA did not DIRECTLY arise from the primordial soup. Instead, over billions of years, proto-cell DNA did, and it evolved into more complex organisms, which eventually moved onto land and became insects, one of which became the caterpillar.

 

You say that "the ape folk seem to have lucked out [in contrast to caterpillars]" although "apparently they all originated from a common spot."

You assume that humans are inherently better than caterpillars. While we are more complex, we are not inherently better. We are simply suited for a different biome and life than they are, and so have different DNA and developments. This isn't some kind of race to become civilization-level creatures; it is natural selection for those organisms which can survive best in their current conditions.

[LatentAuthor]

LatentAuthor,

In your opinion, would you say evolution is efficient?

 

Apparently it is efficient enough.  

[LatentAuthor]

 

Can you tell me how the caterpillar DNA evolved? And from what starting point?

 

Caterpillar DNA evolved in the same way that all DNA evloves: random mutations that were selected for by the environment.  DNA is constantly changing, you for example have somewhere around a hundred mutations in your genome that your parents do not.  Almost all of these changes are neutral - they don't do much of anything.  A very few are harmful, and fewer still are beneficial.  

 

Any harmful mutation is probably going to get weeded out pretty quick because it will increase the chance that an organism will die before reproducing to pass on that harmful mutation.

 

Any beneficial mutation is probably going to be passed on because it will increase the chance that an organism will live and reproduce to pass on that beneficial mutation to its offspring.

 

This is evolution: descent with modification.

[Guest HisG]

AWBS,

No I didn't mean how did the AE assemble the blocks of the pyramids, more like the mathematical side of it, considering a lot of the blocks weren't cut into precise blocks but fitted together with such precision it is impossible to slide a playing card between them.

As far as my comments being as you say, non-topical, well that's how conversations go - regardless of my communication style, that is the ebb and flow of normal conversation - unless you' re non human.

I'm picturing you as the scientist on the Thunderbirds...strange but true.

[Guest HisG]

D9 thank you for putting the time and effort into your reply and info ( you know I don't agree with you but I do appreciate your response.

I have another question or two - if the catterpillar's DNA is essentially the same as it was at the same stage man was still in the trees, then if evolution is the umbrella for all living things, why is the process of caterpillar to butterfly unchanged yet "man" has made a considerable change from that time?

[Guest HisG]

LatentAuthor,

In your opinion, would you say evolution is efficient?

Apparently it is efficient enough.

You don't sound too confident.

Are you somewhat bummed out at the thought of the beginnings of life according to evolution?

[LatentAuthor]

 

 

Are you somewhat bummed out at the thought of the beginnings of life according to evolution?

 

 

Not particularly.  

[LuftWaffle]

4. On to the evolution of this metamorphic trait. In the animal kingdom you have incomplete and complete metamorphosis. Caterpillars undergo complete metamorphosis, and it is believed to be derived from incomplete metamorphosis. Incomplete metamorphosis is seen in insects like crickets and cockroaches, where the young look similar to the adults but without certain adult features like wings. The young are called "nymphs" and go through a series of molts which turn the nymphs into adults. But before the nymphs were nymphs they were "pronymphs", depending on the species this pronymph stage is over before the egg hatches or the insect can remain in the stage for up to several days after hatching from its egg before molting into a true nymph. Pronymphs are soft-bodied, worm-like, and have non-fully developed nervous systems, all similar to caterpillars and other insects that undergo complete metamorphosis. It is thought that larva like caterpillars are virtually in a prolonged state of being a pronymph. The genes and hormones responsible for the incomplete and complete metamorphosis are similar, and you can see hormone similarities if you align the pronymph stage to the larva stage and the nymph stage to the pupa stage. The big evolutionary advantage to complete metamorphosis is that the young and adults require different resources (e.g. caterpillars eat leaves while butterflies eat nectar). This means that the young and old are not competing for the same resources which allows any given place to support more butterflies/caterpillars than it would otherwise, and the more of a species you can have the more likely it is that that species will survive. 

 

Hi D-9,

 

This is really fascinating. Although it seems unbelievable, I guess I can certain envision the evolution of an incomplete metamorphosing animal into a complete metamorphosing animal, especially if, as you say the genes are quite similar.

 

But how does mutation and natural selection explain the step of going from a non-metamorphosing animal to the incomplete metamorphosing animal?

I'm thinking that you'd need to add quite a bit of information to the animal's genome to do this. At the very least you'd need the information to not only specify what changes need to occur, but where they should occur, and also when.

It wouldn't make sense for an insect to develop antennae inside its belly, and it would make sense to have antennae before it has the software to interpret the signals coming from the antennae, etc.

 

Then I'm also wondering if biologists have identified a plausible lineage? Have they found fossilised precursors of metamorphosing animals?

The reason I'm asking this is because I wonder if it's at all possible to identify such precursors as the adult and the juvenile animals would have different characteristics, they're most likely to be classified as different families instead of being seen as a juvenile and adult versions of the same species, not so?