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

Welcome back to God evolution creation.

Tell me what I got wrong and tell me how you know it's wrong. Then I'll admit it.

Very good point, OP
I love your logic!

This evolution thing is just not possible!

Evolution theory is based on unfounded assumptions made on that ignorance of what he was looking at. Darwin did his study on the Verde River Arizona to form his evolution theory.

Had Darwin known that the river valley was of recent history instead of millions of years old like he thought he would have never made the assumptions he did.

A thousand evolution theory's makes evolution not.

It's not a good point at all. The evidence suggests that butterflies evolved from moths. Since moths already go through metamorphosis, the first butterflies probably did as well. The ancestor of the moth most likely went through metamorphosis too, as many insects do.

As for how metamorphosis started, some biologists suggest that insect larva began as free roaming embryos.

"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)]

Hey man, I'm just playing along your 'maybe' games.

Maybe you will not believe me.

Maybe.

So, as usual you have no point.

Maybe.

Maybe we will let the powers of evolution decide our faith.

Wtf are you talking about? Are you trying to be funny?

Do you think there's a problem with being honest about our uncertainty? Would you prefer that I lie like religions do'?

Dude you believe... someday moth larva stopped developing in the egg and exited the egg, yet SURVIVED!

Somehow that moth devloped a mutation that allowed it to produce more larva that survive exiting the egg prematurley.

Then over time, these larva developed another mutation that allowed them to build a cacoon!! for no apparent reason!!!
Which means they dont reproduce!

But magically they were able to pass this mutation on to more larva who could develop cacoons, who also developed a mutation that allows them to jumpstart growth into fully developed moths, inside said cacoon!

LoL are you fucking stupid???

Maybe I am, maybe I am not.

There's no problem with your uncertainty, that is for sure.

And yes, there is a problem when you make truth claims and back them up with your epic 'lets be honest about uncertainty' excuses. How you casually choose what can be categorized as uncertain and then accuse others of not doing so is just mindboggling. Or perhaps just the nerve of some 18-21 year old biased Chad student.

Isn't the science you love all about certainty? Repeatability? Predictability? I mean, uncertainty is the exact opposite. Falling back on such arguments just shows you haven't studied the entire subject at all.

Maybe you should stick with ERVs.
Maybe.

No, science isn't all about certainty. To the contrary, nothing is certain is science. As usual, your understanding is completely backwards.

If I say 'maybe' it's obviously not a truth claim. I'm being honest. Only an idiot would think there's something wrong with that.

Do you have a response for ERV's yet? Maybe you have some evidence for the superstitious nonsense you believe? No? I didn't think so.

No. As I said in a previous post, metamorphosis most likely didn't start with the moth. According to evolution theory, the moth shares a common ancestor with other insects such as bees, ants and flies which also go through metamorphosis. This would imply that metamorphosis evolved before the moth appeared, meaning the moth always used metamorphosis.

The idea is that the first insect larva began as free moving embryos. Evidence suggests the earliest insects did not use metamorphosis, they were born as miniature versions of the adult form.

Your idea that evolution would ever suggest a population of caterpillars slowly 'learned' to become butterflies shows you know nothing about evolution theory.

Organisms survive premature birth all the time.



They don't reproduce? What are you talking about?

Mutations accumulate accross generations, and these can lead to large changes over time. But mutations aren't the only mechanism that can change a population.



Do you know what mutations are? For starters, they're hereditary. There's nothing 'magic' about passing them on to subsequent generations. You yourself inherited mutations from your parents.



I guarantee you, the biologists that came up with this idea are much smarter than you are. The truth often sounds stupid to uneducated people.

I see, so science is about the power and knowledge of uncertainty? Will the sun rise tomorrow? Will there be gravity tomorrow? Will the earth spin backwards next week? What about climate? Will it rain frogs next month?

The fact of the matter is, you claim your belief in evolution theory is real or true and you back this up with socalled facts and evidence, but in the end, as always, you just say well 'maybe' it is so. Might as well have written nothing at all. Maybe.

All the evidence is out there, you just prefer the nature did it outcome because it fits your agenda/belief/worldview. You are a naturalist and you simply reap what you sow.

The only thing you have is more faith. And the very faith you have does not hold up to basic logical and rational scrutiny.

Lovely how you just explain away metamorphosis by casually, as always, introducing some unknown missing common ancestor as the explanation.

Why does it have to? Can anyone explain why a God would create the same thing?

If that were true, you could explain why what I said is illogical.

The process of evolution is observable in the present, the evolutionary history of life can only be inferred by the evidence than is observable now. It's not certain, but it's the best we have.



Who said it's missing?

Moths are in the phylum Euarthropoda. The earliest arthropods can be found in rock dating to the Cambrian period, which began 545 million years ago. They included trilobites, horseshoe crabs, and crustaceans. Centipedes, millipedes, and scorpions were among the first arthropods to reach dry land.

Moths are in the class Insecta. The oldest definitive insect fossil is the Devonian Rhyniognatha hirsti, estimated at 396-407 million years old.

Lepidoptera is an order of insects that includes butterflies and moths.

Previously, the earliest known lepidopteran fossils were three wings of Archaeolepis mane, a primitive moth-like species from the Jurassic, about 190 million years ago, found in Dorset, UK, which show scales with parallel grooves under a scanning electron microscope and a characteristic wing venation pattern shared with Trichoptera (caddisflies).[4][5] In 2018, the discovery of exquisite fossilised scales from the Triassic-Jurassic boundary were reported in the journal Science Advances. They were found as rare palynological elements in the sediments of the Triassic-Jurassic boundary from the cored Schandelah-1 well, drilled near Braunschweig in northern Germany. This pushes back the fossil record and origin of glossatan lepidopterans by about 70 million years, supporting molecular estimates of a Norian (c. 212 million years) divergence of glossatan and non-glossatan lepidopterans.

[link to en.wikipedia.org (secure)]

There is not one reason to explain anything to a brainwashed naturalist. You hear and read what you allow yourself to hear and read.

The very fact you follow up with 'but evolution is observable now' is well, laughable and just shows you are not serious at all about the science surrounding evotardism.

Just reverting back to minor changes within a species can lead to huge changes over trillions of years fantasy. We've been down that road before buddy.

So you have evidence, but you won't give it to me because 'I'm a brainwashed naturalist.' lol, right.

Who do you think you're fooling? You don't have shit. That's why Creationism is a laughing stock, and why it's illegal to teach it in science class. It's not science.

You still dont understand how the theory of underdeveloped moth larva developing mutations for metamorphisis is waaaaay more complicated and less likely than a creator.

Mothman is real. I dont care what people say. It can fly as fast as a car and was bread for military purposes. It can carry heavy weight while flying. This shit is scary, it is genetic splicing and TPTB making genetic super soldier that have wings. Mothman even have a metamorphosis stage were it is in a cacoon. Be on the lookout everyone

You don't understand that the truth is often complicated. Saying 'magic did it' is simpler than explaining the actual science behind something, that doesn't make it true.

As for it being more likely, that's just an assertion. What evidence do you have to back that up?

Edit: Once again, as I already explained, metamorphosis didn't begin with the moth. You still don't understand the idea you're arguing against. Read this: [link to www.scientificamerican.com (secure)]

Last Edited by Spur-Man on 02/12/2019 05:09 AM

Underdeveloped larva managing to SURVIVE AND develop mutation for cacoon AND mutation for jumpstarting growth is beyond magical.

But it's not, mutation is an observable, natural phenomena. Premature birth happens all the time. Turning dirt into an adult man is literal magic. As in supernatural transmutation.

Mutation is one mechanism that directs evolution, but there are others. All the evidence suggests butterflies evolved from moths, and moths evolved from earlier insects. There's no evidence that a supernatural entity caused moths to spontaneously appear from dirt.

Fuck that!

The real question is, why the fuck do Asians chicks. Look so young, then Bang! They look 100 years old. One extreme to another...

All the evidence suggests it created itself.

If not, all the evidence suggests that any number of external factors created it, except for a designer.

All the evidence suggests that you sir are well indoctrinated.

Well, maybe.

Funny how you make a sentence that states mutations direct evolution, what the fuck does that even mean.

We have a winner.

If not, all the evidence suggests that any number of external factors created it, except for a designer.


There could be a designer. Evolution is the process where populations change and diversify with time.

All the evidence suggests that you sir are well indoctrinated.

Well, maybe.


And that evidence is?

Funny how you make a sentence that states mutations direct evolution, what the fuck does that even mean.


It's pretty simple. Evolution is change over time. The direction in which things change is determined by mutations, epigenetics, transposable elements, natural selection and the environment.

There could be a designer. Evolution is the process where populations change and diversify with time.



And that evidence is?



It's pretty simple. Evolution is change over time. The direction in which things change is determined by mutations, epigenetics, transposable elements, natural selection and the environment.