Total Posts:183|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Another Conondrum for Common Descent

medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/23/2013 4:42:44 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
http://www.youtube.com...

http://www.youtube.com...

This guy puts forth a very good argument against evolution being able to explain the metamorphosis of butterflies. These are short videos but worth watching.

The original organism, the caterpillar, can't reproduce, only the butterfly stage reproduces. But how do you evolve to the butterfly stage without first having the caterpillar, which can't reproduce?? This seems to be a better example of irreducible complexity than the flagellum.

There are three different stages, and three different body plans that the organism goes through. All those body plans are encoded within the genome of the organism and doesn't require mutations, drift, or millions of years. That alone should be enough to refute CD.

How does evolutionism explain and account for metamorphosis??
Graincruncher
Posts: 2,799
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/23/2013 4:50:37 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
This is just a variation on the chicken and the egg argument, which has been debunked with regard to UCD countless times.
muzebreak
Posts: 2,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/23/2013 5:00:37 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Did you look into this before you posted here, or did you just watch the videos and run here to post? Either way, here you go.

http://www.scientificamerican.com...
"Every kid starts out as a natural-born scientist, and then we beat it out of them. A few trickle through the system with their wonder and enthusiasm for science intact." - Carl Sagan

This is the response of the defenders of Sparta to the Commander of the Roman Army: "If you are a god, you will not hurt those who have never injured you. If you are a man, advance - you will find men equal to yourself. And women.
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/23/2013 5:11:03 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/23/2013 4:50:37 PM, Graincruncher wrote:
This is just a variation on the chicken and the egg argument, which has been debunked with regard to UCD countless times.

I think not.
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/23/2013 5:19:59 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/23/2013 5:00:37 PM, muzebreak wrote:
Did you look into this before you posted here, or did you just watch the videos and run here to post? Either way, here you go.

http://www.scientificamerican.com...

Did you read the article?? In particular...

"People have known since at least the time of ancient Egypt that worms and grubs develop into adult insects, but the evolution of insect metamorphosis remains a genuine biological mystery even today."

It's another case of "We don't have a clue HOW, but we're positive that evolution did it".
Graincruncher
Posts: 2,799
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/23/2013 5:23:26 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/23/2013 5:11:03 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 5/23/2013 4:50:37 PM, Graincruncher wrote:
This is just a variation on the chicken and the egg argument, which has been debunked with regard to UCD countless times.

I think not.

That's not really a refutation, is it? It isn't hard to see how metamorphosis of butterflies is simply an extension of the same principle that underlies a snake shedding its skin, for example. Just because something starts life unable to produce offspring doesn't mean that, after sufficient biological development, it will be able to without problem.

So you may think not, but that doesn't change the the fact that it's the same type of argument and has the same simple refutations.
muzebreak
Posts: 2,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/23/2013 5:35:45 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/23/2013 5:19:59 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 5/23/2013 5:00:37 PM, muzebreak wrote:
Did you look into this before you posted here, or did you just watch the videos and run here to post? Either way, here you go.

http://www.scientificamerican.com...

Did you read the article?? In particular...

"People have known since at least the time of ancient Egypt that worms and grubs develop into adult insects, but the evolution of insect metamorphosis remains a genuine biological mystery even today."

It's another case of "We don't have a clue HOW, but we're positive that evolution did it".

What is meant by that, is that it is unknown how it happened. But it is known how it could have happened. You would know that if you had continued to read just a bit into the next paragraph.

"Metamorphosis is a truly bizarre process, but an explanation of its evolution does not require such unsubstantiated theories (for a critique of Williamson's hypothesis, see this study). By combining evidence from the fossil record with studies on insect anatomy and development, biologists have established a plausible narrative about the origin of insect metamorphosis, which they continue to revise as new information surfaces."
"Every kid starts out as a natural-born scientist, and then we beat it out of them. A few trickle through the system with their wonder and enthusiasm for science intact." - Carl Sagan

This is the response of the defenders of Sparta to the Commander of the Roman Army: "If you are a god, you will not hurt those who have never injured you. If you are a man, advance - you will find men equal to yourself. And women.
AlbinoBunny
Posts: 3,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/23/2013 5:53:29 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/23/2013 4:42:44 PM, medic0506 wrote:
http://www.youtube.com...

http://www.youtube.com...

This guy puts forth a very good argument against evolution being able to explain the metamorphosis of butterflies. These are short videos but worth watching.

The original organism, the caterpillar, can't reproduce, only the butterfly stage reproduces. But how do you evolve to the butterfly stage without first having the caterpillar, which can't reproduce?? This seems to be a better example of irreducible complexity than the flagellum.

There are three different stages, and three different body plans that the organism goes through. All those body plans are encoded within the genome of the organism and doesn't require mutations, drift, or millions of years. That alone should be enough to refute CD.

How does evolutionism explain and account for metamorphosis??

Can't the same be said for most animals. They can't reproduce at birth.
bladerunner060 | bsh1 , 2014! Presidency campaign!

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org... - Running for president.
http://www.debate.org... - Running as his vice president.

May the best man win!
muzebreak
Posts: 2,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/23/2013 5:54:47 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/23/2013 5:53:29 PM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
At 5/23/2013 4:42:44 PM, medic0506 wrote:
http://www.youtube.com...

http://www.youtube.com...

This guy puts forth a very good argument against evolution being able to explain the metamorphosis of butterflies. These are short videos but worth watching.

The original organism, the caterpillar, can't reproduce, only the butterfly stage reproduces. But how do you evolve to the butterfly stage without first having the caterpillar, which can't reproduce?? This seems to be a better example of irreducible complexity than the flagellum.

There are three different stages, and three different body plans that the organism goes through. All those body plans are encoded within the genome of the organism and doesn't require mutations, drift, or millions of years. That alone should be enough to refute CD.

How does evolutionism explain and account for metamorphosis??

Can't the same be said for most animals. They can't reproduce at birth.

That is a really good point. Sexual maturity is, in fact, a thing.
"Every kid starts out as a natural-born scientist, and then we beat it out of them. A few trickle through the system with their wonder and enthusiasm for science intact." - Carl Sagan

This is the response of the defenders of Sparta to the Commander of the Roman Army: "If you are a god, you will not hurt those who have never injured you. If you are a man, advance - you will find men equal to yourself. And women.
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/23/2013 6:01:29 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/23/2013 5:23:26 PM, Graincruncher wrote:
At 5/23/2013 5:11:03 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 5/23/2013 4:50:37 PM, Graincruncher wrote:
This is just a variation on the chicken and the egg argument, which has been debunked with regard to UCD countless times.

I think not.

That's not really a refutation, is it? It isn't hard to see how metamorphosis of butterflies is simply an extension of the same principle that underlies a snake shedding its skin, for example.

huh?????

Just because something starts life unable to produce offspring doesn't mean that, after sufficient biological development, it will be able to without problem.

How does it develop if it can't reproduce??

So you may think not, but that doesn't change the the fact that it's the same type of argument and has the same simple refutations.

You might want to let the scientists know how easy it is then because they seem a bit puzzled.
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/23/2013 6:04:42 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/23/2013 5:35:45 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 5/23/2013 5:19:59 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 5/23/2013 5:00:37 PM, muzebreak wrote:
Did you look into this before you posted here, or did you just watch the videos and run here to post? Either way, here you go.

http://www.scientificamerican.com...

Did you read the article?? In particular...

"People have known since at least the time of ancient Egypt that worms and grubs develop into adult insects, but the evolution of insect metamorphosis remains a genuine biological mystery even today."

It's another case of "We don't have a clue HOW, but we're positive that evolution did it".

What is meant by that, is that it is unknown how it happened. But it is known how it could have happened. You would know that if you had continued to read just a bit into the next paragraph.

"Metamorphosis is a truly bizarre process, but an explanation of its evolution does not require such unsubstantiated theories (for a critique of Williamson's hypothesis, see this study). By combining evidence from the fossil record with studies on insect anatomy and development, biologists have established a plausible narrative about the origin of insect metamorphosis, which they continue to revise as new information surfaces."

A plausible narrative is what we call just-so stories.
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/23/2013 6:08:24 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/23/2013 5:53:29 PM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
At 5/23/2013 4:42:44 PM, medic0506 wrote:
http://www.youtube.com...

http://www.youtube.com...

This guy puts forth a very good argument against evolution being able to explain the metamorphosis of butterflies. These are short videos but worth watching.

The original organism, the caterpillar, can't reproduce, only the butterfly stage reproduces. But how do you evolve to the butterfly stage without first having the caterpillar, which can't reproduce?? This seems to be a better example of irreducible complexity than the flagellum.

There are three different stages, and three different body plans that the organism goes through. All those body plans are encoded within the genome of the organism and doesn't require mutations, drift, or millions of years. That alone should be enough to refute CD.

How does evolutionism explain and account for metamorphosis??

Can't the same be said for most animals. They can't reproduce at birth.

How is that even applicable to explaining metamorphosis??
muzebreak
Posts: 2,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/23/2013 6:11:08 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/23/2013 6:04:42 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 5/23/2013 5:35:45 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 5/23/2013 5:19:59 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 5/23/2013 5:00:37 PM, muzebreak wrote:
Did you look into this before you posted here, or did you just watch the videos and run here to post? Either way, here you go.

http://www.scientificamerican.com...

Did you read the article?? In particular...

"People have known since at least the time of ancient Egypt that worms and grubs develop into adult insects, but the evolution of insect metamorphosis remains a genuine biological mystery even today."

It's another case of "We don't have a clue HOW, but we're positive that evolution did it".

What is meant by that, is that it is unknown how it happened. But it is known how it could have happened. You would know that if you had continued to read just a bit into the next paragraph.

"Metamorphosis is a truly bizarre process, but an explanation of its evolution does not require such unsubstantiated theories (for a critique of Williamson's hypothesis, see this study). By combining evidence from the fossil record with studies on insect anatomy and development, biologists have established a plausible narrative about the origin of insect metamorphosis, which they continue to revise as new information surfaces."

A plausible narrative is what we call just-so stories.

No, no they're not. A just-so story, also know as an ad-hoc fallacy, is an explanation that is unverifiable or unfalsifiable. These explanations are both verifiable, and falsifiable.
"Every kid starts out as a natural-born scientist, and then we beat it out of them. A few trickle through the system with their wonder and enthusiasm for science intact." - Carl Sagan

This is the response of the defenders of Sparta to the Commander of the Roman Army: "If you are a god, you will not hurt those who have never injured you. If you are a man, advance - you will find men equal to yourself. And women.
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/23/2013 6:44:40 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/23/2013 6:11:08 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 5/23/2013 6:04:42 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 5/23/2013 5:35:45 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 5/23/2013 5:19:59 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 5/23/2013 5:00:37 PM, muzebreak wrote:
Did you look into this before you posted here, or did you just watch the videos and run here to post? Either way, here you go.

http://www.scientificamerican.com...

Did you read the article?? In particular...

"People have known since at least the time of ancient Egypt that worms and grubs develop into adult insects, but the evolution of insect metamorphosis remains a genuine biological mystery even today."

It's another case of "We don't have a clue HOW, but we're positive that evolution did it".

What is meant by that, is that it is unknown how it happened. But it is known how it could have happened. You would know that if you had continued to read just a bit into the next paragraph.

"Metamorphosis is a truly bizarre process, but an explanation of its evolution does not require such unsubstantiated theories (for a critique of Williamson's hypothesis, see this study). By combining evidence from the fossil record with studies on insect anatomy and development, biologists have established a plausible narrative about the origin of insect metamorphosis, which they continue to revise as new information surfaces."

A plausible narrative is what we call just-so stories.

No, no they're not. A just-so story, also know as an ad-hoc fallacy, is an explanation that is unverifiable or unfalsifiable. These explanations are both verifiable, and falsifiable.

Any testable hypotheses have thus far failed, so all they have now is ideas about how it "might" have happened. Just so stories.
SarcasticIndeed
Posts: 2,215
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/23/2013 6:47:28 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Is metamorphosis a real thing, or just an arbitrary definition of an insect's life part? Seems more like the latter to me. You could similarly ask how "puberty" evolved, because in puberty a human can reproduce, but in childhood it can't and so on.

I really fail to see the problem here.
<SIGNATURE CENSORED> nac
muzebreak
Posts: 2,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/23/2013 6:53:57 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/23/2013 6:44:40 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 5/23/2013 6:11:08 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 5/23/2013 6:04:42 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 5/23/2013 5:35:45 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 5/23/2013 5:19:59 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 5/23/2013 5:00:37 PM, muzebreak wrote:
Did you look into this before you posted here, or did you just watch the videos and run here to post? Either way, here you go.

http://www.scientificamerican.com...

Did you read the article?? In particular...

"People have known since at least the time of ancient Egypt that worms and grubs develop into adult insects, but the evolution of insect metamorphosis remains a genuine biological mystery even today."

It's another case of "We don't have a clue HOW, but we're positive that evolution did it".

What is meant by that, is that it is unknown how it happened. But it is known how it could have happened. You would know that if you had continued to read just a bit into the next paragraph.

"Metamorphosis is a truly bizarre process, but an explanation of its evolution does not require such unsubstantiated theories (for a critique of Williamson's hypothesis, see this study). By combining evidence from the fossil record with studies on insect anatomy and development, biologists have established a plausible narrative about the origin of insect metamorphosis, which they continue to revise as new information surfaces."

A plausible narrative is what we call just-so stories.

No, no they're not. A just-so story, also know as an ad-hoc fallacy, is an explanation that is unverifiable or unfalsifiable. These explanations are both verifiable, and falsifiable.

Any testable hypotheses have thus far failed, so all they have now is ideas about how it "might" have happened. Just so stories.

That, is a non-sequitur. And I really think you should look up what just so stories means.
"Every kid starts out as a natural-born scientist, and then we beat it out of them. A few trickle through the system with their wonder and enthusiasm for science intact." - Carl Sagan

This is the response of the defenders of Sparta to the Commander of the Roman Army: "If you are a god, you will not hurt those who have never injured you. If you are a man, advance - you will find men equal to yourself. And women.
Dan4reason
Posts: 1,168
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/23/2013 7:35:45 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/23/2013 4:42:44 PM, medic0506 wrote:
http://www.youtube.com...

http://www.youtube.com...

This guy puts forth a very good argument against evolution being able to explain the metamorphosis of butterflies. These are short videos but worth watching.

The original organism, the caterpillar, can't reproduce, only the butterfly stage reproduces. But how do you evolve to the butterfly stage without first having the caterpillar, which can't reproduce?? This seems to be a better example of irreducible complexity than the flagellum.

There are three different stages, and three different body plans that the organism goes through. All those body plans are encoded within the genome of the organism and doesn't require mutations, drift, or millions of years. That alone should be enough to refute CD.

How does evolutionism explain and account for metamorphosis??

I am not a bug genetics expect so I can only give a guess about how it happened. All bugs go through a larval stage where a larva develops into the adult. So likely the ancestors of butterflys started out with normal larval stages but over time, an extended larval stage developed (caterpillar). The cocoon stage may have started when the larva rested somewhere in order to become an adult with a protected shell (cocoon). As the caterpillar (larval) stage became extended, the cocoon stage became extended and also did more of the development work.
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/23/2013 7:54:22 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/23/2013 6:52:12 PM, drafterman wrote:
Troll

http://www.talkorigins.org...

"It is surely possible that similar intermediate stages could have developed over time..."

Wow, that is really convincing science ya got there.
muzebreak
Posts: 2,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/23/2013 8:09:30 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/23/2013 7:54:22 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 5/23/2013 6:52:12 PM, drafterman wrote:
Troll

http://www.talkorigins.org...

"It is surely possible that similar intermediate stages could have developed over time..."

Wow, that is really convincing science ya got there.

You do know that quotation marks are called quotation marks for a reason, right? That being because they are used to quote someone. Not enclose, what you probably believe to be, some kind of paraphrasing, but in actuality is an absurd strawman.
"Every kid starts out as a natural-born scientist, and then we beat it out of them. A few trickle through the system with their wonder and enthusiasm for science intact." - Carl Sagan

This is the response of the defenders of Sparta to the Commander of the Roman Army: "If you are a god, you will not hurt those who have never injured you. If you are a man, advance - you will find men equal to yourself. And women.
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/23/2013 8:37:13 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/23/2013 8:09:30 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 5/23/2013 7:54:22 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 5/23/2013 6:52:12 PM, drafterman wrote:
Troll

http://www.talkorigins.org...

"It is surely possible that similar intermediate stages could have developed over time..."

Wow, that is really convincing science ya got there.

You do know that quotation marks are called quotation marks for a reason, right? That being because they are used to quote someone. Not enclose, what you probably believe to be, some kind of paraphrasing, but in actuality is an absurd strawman.

No need of paraphrasing, I'm reading it exactly as it is written. "Possible" and "could have" do not imply a scientifically supported position.
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/23/2013 8:44:11 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/23/2013 7:54:22 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 5/23/2013 6:52:12 PM, drafterman wrote:
Troll

http://www.talkorigins.org...

"It is surely possible that similar intermediate stages could have developed over time..."

Wow, that is really convincing science ya got there.

Yes. It's possible, ergo it's existence doesn't pose a "Conondrum"
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/23/2013 9:08:55 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/23/2013 8:44:11 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 5/23/2013 7:54:22 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 5/23/2013 6:52:12 PM, drafterman wrote:
Troll

http://www.talkorigins.org...

"It is surely possible that similar intermediate stages could have developed over time..."

Wow, that is really convincing science ya got there.

Yes. It's possible, ergo it's existence doesn't pose a "Conondrum"

It's a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma.

I think showing this happened via evolution will indeed be a conondrum.
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/23/2013 9:30:20 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/23/2013 9:08:55 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 5/23/2013 8:44:11 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 5/23/2013 7:54:22 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 5/23/2013 6:52:12 PM, drafterman wrote:
Troll

http://www.talkorigins.org...

"It is surely possible that similar intermediate stages could have developed over time..."

Wow, that is really convincing science ya got there.

Yes. It's possible, ergo it's existence doesn't pose a "Conondrum"

It's a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma.

I think showing this happened via evolution will indeed be a conondrum.

Only to you. And you don't matter.
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/23/2013 9:39:05 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/23/2013 9:30:20 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 5/23/2013 9:08:55 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 5/23/2013 8:44:11 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 5/23/2013 7:54:22 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 5/23/2013 6:52:12 PM, drafterman wrote:
Troll

http://www.talkorigins.org...

"It is surely possible that similar intermediate stages could have developed over time..."

Wow, that is really convincing science ya got there.

Yes. It's possible, ergo it's existence doesn't pose a "Conondrum"

It's a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma.

I think showing this happened via evolution will indeed be a conondrum.

Only to you. And you don't matter.

I love you too.
v3nesl
Posts: 4,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2013 11:44:10 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/23/2013 5:35:45 PM, muzebreak wrote:
...
biologists have established a plausible narrative about the origin of insect metamorphosis, which they continue to revise as new information surfaces."

Yeah, silly me, I thought science was about testing stuff. I sure know my ideas tend not to turn out the way I expected, and others seem to have similar experience. But what, if you get the proper degree you no longer need to test your ideas? You just have to get enough of your peers to say it's plausible and badda-bing, history goes back and recreates itself!

Really, guys, do some of you not see what a farce this is, how medieval it actually is, this kind of thinking? The golden age of science emerged when people rejected this sort of truth-by-authority.
This space for rent.
Graincruncher
Posts: 2,799
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2013 12:10:55 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/23/2013 6:01:29 PM, medic0506 wrote:

huh?????

Creatures undergo physical changes all the time.

How does it develop if it can't reproduce??

Have you never seen or heard of this thing we have these days, called 'children'?

You might want to let the scientists know how easy it is then because they seem a bit puzzled.

Seem to you, perhaps. To the rest of us, not so much.
v3nesl
Posts: 4,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2013 1:10:48 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/23/2013 4:42:44 PM, medic0506 wrote:
http://www.youtube.com...

http://www.youtube.com...

This guy puts forth a very good argument against evolution being able to explain the metamorphosis of butterflies. These are short videos but worth watching.

The original organism, the caterpillar, can't reproduce, only the butterfly stage reproduces. But how do you evolve to the butterfly stage without first having the caterpillar, which can't reproduce?? This seems to be a better example of irreducible complexity than the flagellum.

Just for the record, I get the conundrum here, and am quite likely the only reader here who allowed himself to grasp the point.

I'm sure they'd say caterpillars used to reproduce then shed that ability somewhere along the line. Hey, if you're just making up untested stories you can change them as needed.

And I'm just wondering if there's a general question to ask of this line of storytelling: If things were working in a simpler form, why would they get more complex? It's the whole "prophetic" aspect of evolution that seems so obviously bogus to me - mutations will in general be detrimental until enough have accumulated to produce some new feature. The caterpillar with half a wing is going to be at a disadvantage to the caterpillar not carrying that baggage, so why would intermediate forms be selected?
This space for rent.
Graincruncher
Posts: 2,799
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2013 1:15:31 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
You guys realise that the two are the same creature but at different stages of its life cycle, right? It isn't one creature turning into another. You might as well point at a human baby and say "well THAT isn't going to be able to procreate, so where the hell do the big hairy versions come from?!". How do things get to this stage? Incrementally.
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2013 1:16:19 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/24/2013 1:10:48 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 5/23/2013 4:42:44 PM, medic0506 wrote:
http://www.youtube.com...

http://www.youtube.com...

This guy puts forth a very good argument against evolution being able to explain the metamorphosis of butterflies. These are short videos but worth watching.

The original organism, the caterpillar, can't reproduce, only the butterfly stage reproduces. But how do you evolve to the butterfly stage without first having the caterpillar, which can't reproduce?? This seems to be a better example of irreducible complexity than the flagellum.

Just for the record, I get the conundrum here, and am quite likely the only reader here who allowed himself to grasp the point.

All hail the king of modesty!

Not agreeing with the point =/= Not understanding the point.

But thanks for calling everyone else but you stupid. You even insulted the OP!