Science a GoGo's Home Page Forums General Discussion Not-Quite-Science Forum Butterfly

Special design shows evolution flaws.


The Monarch butterfly taste bad to birds. Consequently the birds leave that butterfly alone. It seems that the birds have learned to recognize the markings of the Monarch butterfly and associate it with ?yuk?. On the other hand the Viceroy butterfly taste good to the birds. (personally I can?t confirm this because I have never eaten one) The birds leave the Viceroy alone because it has markings extremely similar to the Monarch butterfly.
In science, these two butterflies are known as mimics. The question is how did the mimics evolve? How did the Viceroy develope the markings of the Monarch? Or did the Monarch develope the markings of the Viceroy? How did evolution know to develope so close (virtually identical) color patterns? What are the odds of two types of butterfly developing the same color pattern on their own?
Another butterfly that shows a rather unique ?adaption? is the Kallima who lives in Asia. The top of his wings are very colorful, but, when he lands and folds his wings he looks just like a dead leaf. How can random chance and/or natural selection derive such a feature? Did evolution know what a dead leaf looked like? Why did the top of his wings not evolve to look like a dead lesf, this would have been an advantage also.
It?s quite obvious that these butterflies could not evolve and are an indication of an intelligent design.
Yes the butterfly is an example of Gods handiwork. If you examine the life cycle of the butterfly you will see that creation with design and purpose is the only reasonable means for the existence of this insect.
The butterfly hatches from an egg that has been stuck to a plant and a larva crawls out and starts to munch out on the leaves. After a while he grows into an adult caterpillar with distingue markings on his body. These markings aid in his camaflage or makes him look undesirable and thus help him survive. The caterpillar at this time has 12 segments to his body and a skin that does not grow which must be shed a few times in this cycle. After a while the mature caterpillar hooks onto a twig and using a liquid from his spinneret attaches to a twig or leaf . The pupas thorax swell and splits his skin. Wave like motions then roll the skin off towards the rear. This exposes the soft front parts of the pupa. The rear of the pupa body is still covered with skin which is called the cremaster . The pupa then slips out of the cremaster and attaches firmly to the silk button without falling. To accomplish this amazing feat the pupa must grasp the old skin between folds in his body. Then the pupa pulls the cremaster out swings it up to catch the silk button and then straightens out his body. The pupa now has a bare body that is quickly formed over with a hard shell. (Just imagine if the pupa missed one of those steps, that would mean no caterpillar. How did this evolve?)
During the metamorphosis the pupa turns into a ?jelly like substance? and the structure then changes into a butterfly.
After a while a winged insect with a head thorax and abdomom crawls out and flys away. The butterfly then lays eggs and the cycle repeats itself.
On the surface the butterfly looks simple enough, but anybody knows that he is quite complex. Some of the stumbling blocks for the evolutionist is how did the caterpillar evolve? By this question I mean what kind of mutations would allow the caterpillar to go through his metamorphosis? How did he learn how to make his cocoon so quick and so precise when a incomplete partially evolved cocoon/process would not work properly. This would then lead rather quickly to his extinction before he even had a chance to become a butterfly. Now, somewhere along the line the DNA coding had to change in order for the caterpillar to turn to into a ?jelly? like substance. Next more DNA changes thru mutation would have to occur in order for the ?jelly? like substance to know how to turn into a body with wings, legs, brain, heart etc.
If the mutation wasn?t complete or fully evolved the butterfly could not exist. How would the ?jelly? like substance know what to change into?
The butterfly has to go through 4 complicated life cycles changing from one style to another. It?s obvious that there is way to much going on here for evolution to work.
The logical conclusion is that the butterfly with all of its odd characteristics was created with purpose and design by an intelligent being.

Huh?

"How did the Viceroy develope the markings of the Monarch? Or did the Monarch develope the markings of the Viceroy?"

Try reading an actual biology text instead of creationist propaganda. This is an easy one and even someone as intellectually lazy as you could learn it.

"How did this evolve?"

I don't know. Have you actually tried to look? You won't look up the basic stuff. I doubt very seriously that you've attempted to look up the details on this.

" The logical conclusion is that the butterfly with all of its odd characteristics was created with purpose and design by an intelligent being."

The logical conclusion is that you haven't done this more advanced homework, if you haven't even done the basic homework and that therefore you're talking out your backside as usual.

The creationist "Encyclopedia of Evolution" is not a scientific reference. It is more accurately entitled, "The Encyclopedia of Creationist Stupidity."

Trilobyte, you're getting ridiculous:

"How did evolution know to develope so close (virtually identical) color patterns? What are the odds of two types of butterfly developing the same color pattern on their own?"

OK. This is your logic. A thermos flask keeps hot things hot and cold things cold. How does it know what to do?

Trilobyte: You wouldn't be embarrassing yourself by asking such silly questions if you'd bother to learn about the subject you choose to debate.

I don't suppose you even know enough to realize you should BE embarrassed.

Post bumped....waiting for some sort of evolutional model to explain the butterfly.

It's a lot easier and more effective to argue against something, if you understand the basic assumptions of what you're arguing against. Have you ever heard (or uttered?) the phrase, 'I see your point.'?

samwik, you have no point.
Will you explain how "evolution" can create a butterfly. One that explains the life cycles? lets start there.

Then again you can employ your religion of evolutionism...you know, based on faith...and call for the MAGIC MUTATIONS.

Trilobyte,

Christians have done this since the advent of the age of science.

Attempted to squeeze God into an ever decreasing number of gaps in scientific knowledge.

And as each one has been explained away by a natural process we have had to retreat with our tails between our legs.

The 'God of the Gaps' has been a disaster for Christianity, and you are still at it.

Evolution cannot be anything but an incredibly complex process. It is no surprise that there are gaps in understanding. But these will be filled in time, and people like Behe will have ever reducing ground to stake their claim. This is already happening as things that were thought to be irreducibly complex have already been explained in natural terms. See:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe.html

Especially:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe/publish.html

What appears to be worse is that you are attempting to shoehorn God into non-existent gaps that are comprised of your own ignorance.

You have had things explained to you, but you are looking for answers simple enough to fit in with your very limited knowledge of the subject - the fact is that they are just too complex to be explained in those simplistic terms - so you have room to keep dodging and weaving.

Subjects such as 'Mutation' cannot be explained in child-like terms.

Also your attempts to define evolution as a religion are bemusing. How much hard evidence can you point to that supports the beliefs of Christianity? The last I understood was that it is a FAITH, purely because there is no incontrovertible scientific evidence to support it.

Evolution, however, is based upon evidence gathered over a century and a half. Just because you don't know it exists, or don't understand it, or simply refuse to believe it because it conflicts with your chosen interpretation of Genesis, does not mean the evidence isn't there.

LACK OF SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE = RELIGION

PREPONDERANCE OF SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE = SCIENCE.

Blacknad.

blacknad,
While I agree with almost all of what you said, and even wrote something very similar in the past couple of hours; I disagree with your definition of religion.
Religion is based on a different kind of knowlege, I think.
So that makes comparing the two very difficult -as we've seen on this forum. As DA said, -two different languages-
to say the least, if not two different realms.
Thanks,
~Samwik

P.S. I find it hard to see science attacked by religion and not feel like attacking back; but I try....
~S

Science and religion are two entirely different aspects of the human experience and trying to merge them inevitably ends up hurting both.

Let me give you one of many possible examples.

Science proves or disproves an idea by using it to make further predictions and seeing if they are correct. For example I take the weight of protons and neutrons and try to predict the weight of an unknown isotope. Then we set out to create that isotope and see if our prediction is accurate.

Try applying that to the realm of religion and it inevitably fails. All religions involve a moral code. So we predict that those people who follow those moral codes most closely are the happiest? the most successful? are the healthiest? raise the best families? pick your criteria. You will fail.

Or perhaps you predict they will go to heaven and go searching for someone lived a good life and died to be interviewed as part of your survey.

Point made!