The Butterfly cast doubt on Evo-ism.

CrowCross

CrowCross

Well-known member
This post ran on another thread to demonstrate God has His hand in creation
Some weak minded evo's only answer is "they don't know" or, "the experts know"..yet still can't explain the evolution of the butterfly.

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.

Check out a small portion of what happens...

The soon to be butterfly hatches from an egg that has been stuck to a plant and slowly becomes a larva which crawls out and starts to munch out on the leaves. After a while the larva following a genetic process grows into an adult caterpillar with distingue markings on his body amongst other characteristics that were coded for. These markings aid in the caterpillars camouflage 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. The mature caterpillar then hooks onto a twig and using a liquid from his spinneret attaches to a twig or leaf. The pupa’s 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 structures changes into a butterfly.

After a while a winged insect with a head thorax and abdomen crawls out and flies 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.

Now, for me this proccess is overwhelming evidence of Gods hand in the process...but then again I suppose you have the right to...how did you put it...accept the conclusions of those who are experts in the field.

As I said...this can't happen naturally in your required undirected fashion.
 
In a later post in the same thread I followed it up with the following:
"it essentially says that It's all too complicated to be natural."...that is the main point. In fact each of the stages is too complicated to have occurrred by a process that contains chance.

But you seem to want to go deeper...OK,

DNA, that is the code which...causes atoms to form molecules within a living "body"...cell.

The DNA codes for the molecules to group and form amino acids.

The amino acids join together and form proteins according to the direction of the DNA.

The proteins are instructed by DNA how to precisely fold, group together with other folded proteins and create organelle.

Atoms-----> molecules-----> amino acids-----> proteins-----> organelle

This process happens within a cell numerous times. In some cases the organelle form an assembly line coded for by the DNA. This multiple stage series process must all work in harmony with the previous and next stage for the desired outcome to happen. For a butterfly to emerge.

Many times the product of one assembly line is joined precisely with the product of another assembly line to achieve a purpose in the creation of the butterfly via its metamorphosis

One mistake in the DNA's programming of the molecule....

One mistake in the DNA's programming of the amino acids....

One mistake in the DNA's programming of the protein ....

One mistake in the DNA's programming of the protein fold....

One mistake in the DNA's programming of the organelle....

One mistake in the DNA's programming of the organelle assembly line....

One mistake in the DNA's programming of the joining of the assembly line product....

....and the end result is a failure. No butterfly.

How does evolution account for the information within the DNA code to gradually evolve through a process of natural selection and random chance and form extremely complex systems contained within a cell?

Do you understand just how complicated life is yet?
 
CrowCross said:
As I said...this can't happen naturally in your required undirected fashion.
Click to expand...
You need to start earlier in the evolution of insects. Start with a silverfish, a simple insect, with a much simpler life cycle. Then you add other parts, one by one.

You also need to include the number of generations and the population size in your probability calculations. You did do those probability calculations, didn't you? Oh... Don't call us; we'll call you.
 
rossum said:
You need to start earlier in the evolution of insects. Start with a silverfish, a simple insect, with a much simpler life cycle. Then you add other parts, one by one.

You also need to include the number of generations and the population size in your probability calculations. You did do those probability calculations, didn't you? Oh... Don't call us; we'll call you.
Click to expand...
Nice theory...but you are still relying on the coloring book version.
 
CrowCross said:
Atoms-----> molecules-----> amino acids-----> proteins-----> organelle
Click to expand...
Atoms → molecules is chemistry and happens all the time through natural processes. Water molecules form naturally for example.

molecules → amino acids is chemistry and happens through natural processes. See the Miller-Urey experiment, and the many variants of that experiment performed since the 1950s.

amino acids → proteins is again chemistry, albeit somewhat more complex chemistry.

proteins → organelle is more a matter of assembling the existing parts, with some help from chemistry.

All you have to do now is to show us your calculations of the probability of each of these processes.
 
rossum said:
Atoms → molecules is chemistry and happens all the time through natural processes. Water molecules form naturally for example.

molecules → amino acids is chemistry and happens through natural processes. See the Miller-Urey experiment, and the many variants of that experiment performed since the 1950s.

amino acids → proteins is again chemistry, albeit somewhat more complex chemistry.

proteins → organelle is more a matter of assembling the existing parts, with some help from chemistry.

All you have to do now is to show us your calculations of the probability of each of these processes.
Click to expand...
Oh, that's too simple...and you know it.

Organelle are derived from the DNA code. Same with the stages of the butterfly. It's more than your simplistic view of chemistry.
 
CrowCross said:
Oh, that's too simple...and you know it.

Organelle are derived from the DNA code. Same with the stages of the butterfly. It's more than your simplistic view of chemistry.
Click to expand...
And where are your supporting probability calculations? Without those calculations all you have is personal opinion, which will get you nowhere in science.
 
CrowCross said:
This post ran on another thread to demonstrate God has His hand in creation
Some weak minded evo's only answer is "they don't know" or, "the experts know"..yet still can't explain the evolution of the butterfly.

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.

Check out a small portion of what happens...

The soon to be butterfly hatches from an egg that has been stuck to a plant and slowly becomes a larva which crawls out and starts to munch out on the leaves. After a while the larva following a genetic process grows into an adult caterpillar with distingue markings on his body amongst other characteristics that were coded for. These markings aid in the caterpillars camouflage 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. The mature caterpillar then hooks onto a twig and using a liquid from his spinneret attaches to a twig or leaf. The pupa’s 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 structures changes into a butterfly.

After a while a winged insect with a head thorax and abdomen crawls out and flies 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.

Now, for me this proccess is overwhelming evidence of Gods hand in the process...but then again I suppose you have the right to...how did you put it...accept the conclusions of those who are experts in the field.

As I said...this can't happen naturally in your required undirected fashion.
Click to expand...
When my wife was teaching science in a gifted magnet school, she 'served" her butterflies milk weed for their school lunch.
 
rossum said:
I have already done them. See The Evolution of Boojumase.

Now, where are your calculations?
Click to expand...
The link finally worked. From the link we read...

The Evolution of Boojmase
=========================

Creationists often talk about the impossible odds of evolution
producing a working protein. When they, rarely, show their
calculatins, they always have the same error in them. Evolutin is a
process including both random mutation and natural selection. The
creationist's models invarialy omit the natural selection part, and
only include the random mutation bit, what they often describe as a
"tornado in a junkyard", following Hoyle. That model is incorrect.
Using a correct model gives very different results.

The problem is much more than making a protein...the issue "evolves" when one understands that these proteins need to group together...folding in a precise manner...as to create an organelle that actually performs a function allowing the cell to survive.
As you know the DNA codes in this fashion.....Atoms-----> molecules-----> amino acids-----> proteins-----> organelle.

You then continue by presenting the coloring book model:

The model implied in the naive calculation is not the model used by
evolution. Under evolution small changes arise randomly, and may be
beneficial or deleterious. Once arisen they are selected very
non-randomly with the deleterious changes disappearing and the
beneficial changes spreading through the population. This has the
effect of spreading out the development of the protein so that instead
of one very large and unlikely jump there are a lot of smaller jumps
which are individually more likely. It also allows for the ratcheting
effect of natural selection, whereby any deleterious mutations tend to
disappear from the population and any beneficial mutations tend to
spread through the population and still be around when the next
mutation comes along.

You then use 8 "assumptions" of made up facts to plug into your model.
This isn't science.

What happens next is you then assume (once again) a mutation rate.

First I will look at the spread of beneficial mutations. On average
each Mome Rath will reproduce exactly one Mome Rath that survives to
maturity and reproduces - this keeps the population stable. A Mome
Rath with a single mutation for a better boojumase will reproduce 1.01
Mome Raths (1% better than average), while one with a mutation for a
worse boojumase will only reproduce 0.99 Mome Raths (1% worse than
average). Better and worse will be relative, since the population
will stay at 10 million Mome Raths as the improved boojumase evolves.

Your model has already failed.
Then again you posted this back in 2011 showing your naivety....which by now you think you would have real numbers and implications.
 
CrowCross said:
The link finally worked. From the link we read...

The Evolution of Boojmase
=========================

Creationists often talk about the impossible odds of evolution
producing a working protein. When they, rarely, show their
calculatins, they always have the same error in them. Evolutin is a
process including both random mutation and natural selection. The
creationist's models invarialy omit the natural selection part, and
only include the random mutation bit, what they often describe as a
"tornado in a junkyard", following Hoyle. That model is incorrect.
Using a correct model gives very different results.

The problem is much more than making a protein...the issue "evolves" when one understands that these proteins need to group together...folding in a precise manner...as to create an organelle that actually performs a function allowing the cell to survive.
As you know the DNA codes in this fashion.....Atoms-----> molecules-----> amino acids-----> proteins-----> organelle.

You then continue by presenting the coloring book model:

The model implied in the naive calculation is not the model used by
evolution. Under evolution small changes arise randomly, and may be
beneficial or deleterious. Once arisen they are selected very
non-randomly with the deleterious changes disappearing and the
beneficial changes spreading through the population. This has the
effect of spreading out the development of the protein so that instead
of one very large and unlikely jump there are a lot of smaller jumps
which are individually more likely. It also allows for the ratcheting
effect of natural selection, whereby any deleterious mutations tend to
disappear from the population and any beneficial mutations tend to
spread through the population and still be around when the next
mutation comes along.

You then use 8 "assumptions" of made up facts to plug into your model.
This isn't science.

What happens next is you then assume (once again) a mutation rate.

First I will look at the spread of beneficial mutations. On average
each Mome Rath will reproduce exactly one Mome Rath that survives to
maturity and reproduces - this keeps the population stable. A Mome
Rath with a single mutation for a better boojumase will reproduce 1.01
Mome Raths (1% better than average), while one with a mutation for a
worse boojumase will only reproduce 0.99 Mome Raths (1% worse than
average). Better and worse will be relative, since the population
will stay at 10 million Mome Raths as the improved boojumase evolves.

Your model has already failed.
Then again you posted this back in 2011 showing your naivety....which by now you think you would have real numbers and implications.
Click to expand...
I repeat my question: where are your calculations?
 
rossum said:
I repeat my question: where are your calculations?
Click to expand...
Do you have the numbers for me to use? Real numbers and not "assumptions" puled from thin air?

i ask for your referenced numbers because I would rather use your numbers (peer reviewed) than argue for the next decade over the veracity of the numbers I have chosen to use.
 
CrowCross said:
Do you have the numbers for me to use? Real numbers and not "assumptions" puled from thin air?

i ask for your referenced numbers because I would rather use your numbers (peer reviewed) than argue for the next decade over the veracity of the numbers I have chosen to use.
Click to expand...
I still don't see your calculations.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top