Can evolution explain the transition of a caterpillar to a butterfly?

Thread: Butterflies Are Proof of God

Apparently, that's always been their lifecycle.

You're assuming that caterpillars originally did not use metamorphosis, and remained caterpillars their whole life. This might not be the case.

Many biologists now suspect the opposite is true; originally, moths laid eggs and miniature baby moths hatched out. Eventually, they began to hatch prematurely, as free roaming embryos, which we now refer to as caterpillars. The caterpillar can now gather nutrients that are not available in the egg, before finishing its development.

So, the real question might be, how many mutations were required to cause moths to hatch before they were fully developed. Butterflies most likely evolved from moths.

[link to www.scientificamerican.com (secure)]

You then need to add more mutations to cause the under developed caterpillar to create its own cacoon and go into a metamorphisis.

Your evolutionists made the procedure even more complicated.

Do you honestly believe them?

I disagree. It's not more complicated at all. Whether they began as caterpillars or as moths, metamorphosis still happens regardless. It's simpler for the moth to delay its development and hatch as an embryo, then it is for a caterpillar to evolve the ability to turn into a butterfly. The metamorphosis -in this scenario- is just the embryo returning to an egg-like state in order to finish developing.

Do I honestly believe who about what?

Last Edited by Spur-Man on 02/01/2019 11:06 PM

You are saying you start with an under developed moth that exited the egg prematurely and then suddenly kickstarted the development process by learning to build its own cacoon from materials in his body, and then inside, complete the development???

Yes, that is very simple.

Pay attention, I said it is simpler than a caterpillar evolving the ability to become a butterfly. You said this is more complicated, but it's not.

Do you believe its possible?

Yes.

Marsupials are born as embryos. They travel from the birth canal to the mother's pouch where they finish development. True mammals -unlike marsupials- have a placenta which allows them to further develop inside the womb. If you go back far enough, the ancestors of marsupials likely laid eggs, just like the platypus and echidna.

Another comparable example is the transition from tadpole to frog. The tadpole is a free roaming embryo, better suited to swimming than the fully developed frog.

Last Edited by Spur-Man on 02/01/2019 11:26 PM

But were talking about butterflies not marsupials.

So you believe a underdeveloped moth emproy mutated enough so it could shoot silk out of its ass and then mutated to build a cacoon and the mutated to learn how to jumpstart and resume its development back to fully developed moth.

The two of them are comparable. Here's what a newborn kangaroo looks like: [link to media0.giphy.com (secure)]

It's basically a worm.



I think that's the best explanation available. It's not so far fetched. Maybe the original caterpillar developed without a cocoon, like tadpoles. But the cocoon became a useful strategy.

The caterpillar didn't need to 'learn' how to develop. It happens involuntarily, like a human going through puberty.

Last Edited by Spur-Man on 02/01/2019 11:55 PM

What about a water breathing tadpole into an air breathing frog?

Some tadpoles have both gills and lungs, but they lose the gills once they mature into frogs.

Lungs are homologous to the swim bladder in bony fish, which is used to control buoyancy. Evidence suggests that the first basic lungs belonged to fish that also possessed gills.

There's been a lot of research into this question, but in my opinion, the most likely scenario is that tetrapods evolved from fish which had both lungs and gills. When amphibians evolved, some of them began to lose their gills later in their life cycle.

Last Edited by Spur-Man on 02/02/2019 02:01 AM

The butterfly probably came first, and their 'larvae' adapted a longer and more complex gestation period over time, eventually becoming 'caterpillar'. Adaptation is not evolution though.

Love your work Spur-man!

I disagree. Butterflies do not have the ability to spin silk. For this hypothesis you put forward to work, this embryo now needs to develop organs and chemistry to create silk and have a genetic imprint to create this cocoon at the appropriate time of formation. You're talking quite a genetic change from the last "embryo" that formed directly to a butterfly to the "embryo" that hatches prematurely. A simple mutation is not going to give the ability to create a new organ, the chemicals to create the silk, and just the ability of the organism to live for any amount of time outside its original egg.

Last Edited by Ham&Eggs on 02/02/2019 06:25 AM

they are just teenagers doing their own thing before its too late.

Butterfly larva don't make silk cocoons. Most moth larva do. Many insects produce silk in their larval stage, including ants and bees, so the ability to make silk may have developed before moths truly evolved.
Likewise, metamorphosis itself evolved before moths did, meaning that moths probably always had a larval stage.

"In 1651 English physician William Harvey published a book in which he proposed that caterpillars and other insect larvas were free-living embryos that abandoned nutrient-poor "imperfect eggs" before they matured. "
[link to www.scientificamerican.com (secure)]

'A simple mutation' may not create a new organ, but mutations can accumulate over generations. How do you know mutations can't allow an organism to hatch prematurely?

Last Edited by Spur-Man on 02/02/2019 08:44 AM

What?

Dont give me this bs about catapillars are emboyos some catpillars grow fur and are fuzzy haha you cant abort them good try democrats

Oh my god...

So how do you think butterflies came about?

What about a fully grown adult human devolving into a brain damaged liberal?

How the fuck can THAT be explained???

I dont know but my guess is god made them or alternatively they were genetic engineered by aliens because they are considered an art form.

So you don't believe that butterflies are related to moths and other insects?

Hey dont put words in my mouth obviously they are related. But they could have been altered to do that from a simpler genetic base. Idk

evolution is total bullshit developed by insane nihilistic rapists and murderers

'Maybe' you got it all wrong.

Would you 'maybe' admit that?