Metamorphosis

nacker
Posts: 117
Joined: 2006-06-06
User is offlineOffline
Metamorphosis

Out of curiosity... what is the standard evolutionary rebuttle for metamorphosis??

quote----
Most insects (87%) undergo complete metamorphosis; that is, a larva (such as a caterpillar) builds a cocoon or chrysalis around itself. Its body inside then disintegrates into a thick, pulp-like liquid. Days, weeks, or months later, the adult insect emerges?one that is dramatically different (as shown in Table 1), amazingly capable, and often beautiful, such as a butterfly. Food, habitat, and behavior of the larva also differ drastically from those of the adult.
Evolution claims that:
Mutations slightly alter an organism?s genetic material which later generations inherit. On rare occasions the alterations are beneficial, enabling those offspring to reproduce more of themselves and the improved genetic material. [Supposedly] after many generations, dramatic changes, even new organs, accumulate.
If this were true, each organism must be able to reproduce and must be superior, in some sense, to its ancestors. How then could metamorphosis evolve in many stages? a What mutations could improve a larva? Certainly none that destroyed its nerves, muscles, eyes, brain, and most other organs, as occurs within a cocoon. So even if a larva improved, it later ends up as ?mush.? From an evolutionary standpoint, liquefying complex organs is a giant step backwards.? As Michael Pitman wryly noted,
Maggots will more or less dissolve themselves when developing into a fly. Was the process pre-programmed from the first ?production run?? Or was the ancestral fly a dissolved maggot? b
The millions of changes inside the thick liquid never produce something survivable or advantageous in the outside world until the adult completely forms. How did the genetic material for both larva and adult develop? Which came first, larva or adult? What mutations could transform a crawling larva into a flying monarch butterfly that can accurately navigate 3,000 miles using a brain the size of a pin head? c Indeed, why should a larva evolve in the first place, because it cannot reproduce? d
Charles Darwin wrote,
"If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down." e
Based on metamorphosis alone, evolution ?breaks down.?
Obviously, the vast information that directs every stage of a larva?s and an adult?s development, including metamorphosis, must reside in its genetic material at the beginning.? This fits only creation.
---end quote

Call it God. Or come up with another theory extrapolating the logical defintions of nothing and the infinite.


Yellow_Number_Five
atheistRRS Core MemberScientist
Yellow_Number_Five's picture
Posts: 1390
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
Metamorphosis

Why should we rebutt this this? You've made no lucid point, you simply cut and paste from hack creationist sites.

I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world. - Richard Dawkins

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


LeftofLarry
RRS local affiliateScientist
LeftofLarry's picture
Posts: 1199
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline

HealingBlight
HealingBlight's picture
Posts: 256
Joined: 2006-04-13
User is offlineOffline
Metamorphosis

(Larry, that appaears to be a subscriber article)
Though I do like the link given at the end of the first link: http://www.cincinnatiskeptics.org/blurbs/butterfly-metamorphosis.html
for saying:

Quote:
This problem shows the difference between creationists and scientists. When creationists see something complex and seemingly impossible to explain, they ascribe it to a divine miracle, saying it's impossible to find a natural explanation. When scientists see something like this, they don't immediately give up as creationists do. They see it as a problem to be solved and set about working on it. It may take many years, and scientists admit when a puzzle has not yet been solved. Creationists quote such admissions out of context, to try to imply that evolutionary scientists doubt whether evolution occurred!

Imagine all man was as happy enough to stick god into the answer box as creationists are, we would never get anywhere.

A few years ago we would probably have a few more unanswered questions than we do to today, we probably still have unanswered questions, don?t take such as disproval of evolution and to an even further extent, that such is somehow victory by creationism, its funny how creation seems to thrive on ignorance and the unknown, because once we have answers, things suddenly become uncomfortable for the creationist dogma.

-----------------------
I'll get back to you when I think of something worthwhile to say.


LeftofLarry
RRS local affiliateScientist
LeftofLarry's picture
Posts: 1199
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
Metamorphosis

HealingBlight wrote:

(Larry, that appaears to be a subscriber article)
Though I do like the link given at the end of the first link: http://www.cincinnatiskeptics.org/blurbs/butterfly-metamorphosis.html
for saying:

Quote:
This problem shows the difference between creationists and scientists. When creationists see something complex and seemingly impossible to explain, they ascribe it to a divine miracle, saying it's impossible to find a natural explanation. When scientists see something like this, they don't immediately give up as creationists do. They see it as a problem to be solved and set about working on it. It may take many years, and scientists admit when a puzzle has not yet been solved. Creationists quote such admissions out of context, to try to imply that evolutionary scientists doubt whether evolution occurred!

Imagine all man was as happy enough to stick god into the answer box as creationists are, we would never get anywhere.

I keep forgetting I have subscriber access to just about any scientific journal....

ok...well I'll write the abstaract of the study here.
Nature 401, 447 - 452 (30 September 1999);

The origins of insect metamorphosis

JAMES W. TRUMAN AND LYNN M. RIDDIFORD

Department of Zoology, University of Washington, Box 351800, Seattle, Washington 98195-1800, USA

Correspondence should be addressed to J.W.T. (e-mail: ).

Insect metamorphosis is a fascinating and highly successful biological adaptation, but there is much uncertainty as to how it evolved. Ancestral insect species did not undergo metamorphosis and there are still some existing species that lack metamorphosis or undergo only partial metamorphosis. Based on endocrine studies and morphological comparisons of the development of insect species with and without metamorphosis, a novel hypothesis for the evolution of metamorphosis is proposed. Changes in the endocrinology of development are central to this hypothesis. The three stages of the ancestral insect species?pronymph, nymph and adult?are proposed to be equivalent to the larva, pupa and adult stages of insects with complete metamorphosis. This proposal has general implications for insect developmental biology.

Also, I would like to send you and anyone else interested in evolution to this link, which is where I got the powerpoint of the pocket mouse in the other forum, the troll posted.

http://www.hhmi.org/biointeractive/evolution/lectures.html

the last lecture is called Butterfly to Humans..I think you will find some very interesting research being performed...and he talks a little about metamorphosis in butterflies..as it applies to the application of a toolkit gene.

Comparing a pupa with an embryo, you can clearly see developmental stages. Ontogeny recapitulates Phylogeny; an embryo at early stages represents other vertebrates...(a snake, a bird a fish and a human embryo look very much alike in the begining stages of embryo development and you cannot tell them apart)...metamorphosis is NOT contrary to evolution, on the contrary..it is supportive of adaptation which is an evolutinary principle..

Every thing that happens is controlled by genes, genes control bodily fucntion, growth, metabolism etc...since genes are selected for and passed down...the mechanism doesn't matter...it is the selection for those genes to be passed down...that matters.. what may seem to be de-evolution is IN FACT EVOLUTION because the gene is being passed on that is selected for. Metamorphosis is a process guided by genes..to say it is irreducible or deconstructive is just plain false...on the contrary..it is a higly evolved mechanism...If you look at the fossil record, the more primitive classification of insects do not undergo metamorphosis, then you have those that under go partial metamorphosis, and then you have the ones that undergo full metamorphosis come much later in the fossil record. This is an indication of evolution, the gene(s) responsible are obvioulsy being selected for. Much like the tongue of a chameleon or its' zagodactylous toes... A chameleon's toes have fused together..this gives the "appearance" of evolutionary deconstruction or de-evolution, however, this is quite the opposite, the chameleon has adapted through selective pressures for living in trees that zygodactylous feet actually work better for it.

Places like Answers in Genesis will take things like this twist them around, to say...SEE? How can we go from 5 fingers to 2 it's not evolution.....it has to be creation..bullshit...it is complicated and again, the xtians and theists leave out many variables and simplify and deconstruct science. It is the theists that deconsrtruct and de-evolve..not nature.

From the caterpillar....notice the spots on the caterpillar...at the bottom..these spots indicate "eye" spots used by the butterfly to evade predation..because they have been successful they have been selected for. But notice how as the caterpilllar ( on the left) develops, those same spots appear on the wings... now.. on the top pic, the monarch spots are not considered eyespots (there is a specific gene) that codes for the eyespots....that is why you don't see it in the monarch at the top..

here is an animation....

http://www.hhmi.org/biointeractive/animations/wingmorph/wingmorph.wmv

again taken from the lecture.

This slide explains how things can easily be mis-interpreted, even deliberately, because theists fail to follow through..with all of the science, once they see how something cannot make sense, they loose vision (or purposely deceive) and revert to "SEE? IT MUST BE CREATION" what they don't realize is that

Sheep follow the blind....only the independent thinkers will move forth and find cures for disease, and shift the scientific paradigms..free thinkers..not ones bound by ideology.

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server which houses Celebrity Atheists.


nacker
Posts: 117
Joined: 2006-06-06
User is offlineOffline
Metamorphosis

That sounds very tantalizing but I'm not convinced that this isn't a good argument against evolution... maybe not the end all... but good.

First I want to say that this:

Imagine all man was as happy enough to stick god into the answer box as creationists are, we would never get anywhere.

Is a pretty good point... advances in medicine and science that have pushed man kind further is attributed to Man's inherent curiosity and desire to learn and grow... My air - conditioned, healthy, computer typing, java - sippin' self is very appreciative to true science. But I don't think it is rational to generalize. And I think that statement should work both ways... that if the scientific community took a little break from formulating theory after theory after theory to fill in the holes in their accepted system, and study the possibilities that maybe these holes could lead us to study other possibilities, all man - kind would benefit. Maybe all of ... creation. or reality or whatever the term I'm supposed to use is. And as for generalizing creationists as jumping to conclusions and scientists as always coldly using their brains... let's not forget the pig tooth that we built our missing link, "Nebraska Man" on. We are all tempted to "buff up" the beliefs that make our lifesyles possible.

As to the Butterfly.

Please send me some examples from the fossil record that show a clear step by step evolution from non-metamorph. to the full stage. And all hassling aside, while your at it fill in from the fossil record our missing link... or better said, missing chain. We find a large amount human remains. We find a large amount of dino remains. Why can't we find all the missing chains from ape to man, or between all the evolved cases? Why the millions of years of gap between our specimens.

Call it God. Or come up with another theory extrapolating the logical defintions of nothing and the infinite.


StopEvangelists
Posts: 51
Joined: 2006-04-14
User is offlineOffline
Metamorphosis

nacker wrote:
Why can't we find all the missing chains from ape to man, or between all the evolved cases? Why the millions of years of gap between our specimens.

I give you credit for posting on this forum, but please ask intellegent questions. Evolution predicts that apes and humans have a common ancestor, not that humans evolved from apes. There are fossils of said ancestors, and a wide variety of progressive hominid fossils.

Your second allegation defeats your own premise - evolution predicts that transitions are incredibly slow - over millions of years...

To borrow from another thread - how do you explain vestigial tails on humans? Or the leftover femur bone in dolphins? I strongly suggest that you watch the lectures on evolution at hhmi.org - i can't believe that all of these scientists are dumb and/or making this all up just to get Christianity.

"Religion is like a badly written contract - most people don't read most (much less all) of it, believe what the other party says, and execute with the best of intentions and naivety."

- Me


LeftofLarry
RRS local affiliateScientist
LeftofLarry's picture
Posts: 1199
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
Metamorphosis

nacker wrote:
That sounds very tantalizing but I'm not convinced that this isn't a good argument against evolution... maybe not the end all... but good.

You are not convinced because your mind is engulfed in ideological slavery.

nacker wrote:

First I want to say that this:

Imagine all man was as happy enough to stick god into the answer box as creationists are, we would never get anywhere.

OK??.....

nacker wrote:

Is a pretty good point... advances in medicine and science that have pushed man kind further is attributed to Man's inherent curiosity and desire to learn and grow... My air - conditioned, healthy, computer typing, java - sippin' self is very appreciative to true science.

So science is believable only when it is convenient for you and doesn't get in the way of your ideologies. Interesting, however, not surprising.

nacker wrote:

But I don't think it is rational to generalize. And I think that statement should work both ways... that if the scientific community took a little break from formulating theory after theory after theory to fill in the holes in their accepted system, and study the possibilities that maybe these holes could lead us to study other possibilities, all man - kind would benefit.

You are describing exactly what science does. The holes in the theories are exactly what drives science forward....accepted systems are accepted because they have been proven, over and over and over and over and over over and over and over and over and over TO WORK!

You are asking science to stop being science and become pseudo-or supernatural science..If scientists did that you can forget about any advancements in medicine. As a matter of fact, theists should actually stop using medicines all togethe rand rely on prayer alone. I am willing to bet atheists would probably out last the theists then.

nacker wrote:

Maybe all of ... creation. or reality or whatever the term I'm supposed to use is. And as for generalizing creationists as jumping to conclusions and scientists as always coldly using their brains... let's not forget the pig tooth that we built our missing link, "Nebraska Man" on. We are all tempted to "buff up" the beliefs that make our lifesyles possible.

The nebraska man is another one of those....creationist..HA WE GOTCHA! propaganda bullshit old as oil stories....get over that. first off secondly
I will link you to this beautiful rebuttal about the lies of the creationsists about the nebraska man so that I don't have to get into it...ad hominem...my friend
http://members.cox.net/ardipithecus/evol/lies/lie020.html

nacker wrote:

As to the Butterfly.

Please send me some examples from the fossil record that show a clear step by step evolution from non-metamorph. to the full stage. And all hassling aside, while your at it fill in from the fossil record our missing link... or better said, missing chain. We find a large amount human remains. We find a large amount of dino remains. Why can't we find all the missing chains from ape to man, or between all the evolved cases? Why the millions of years of gap between our specimens.

The fossil record does not convineintly have a table of contents, and an index. It is established as the discoveries are made.
Secondly this statement you just made obviously shows your ignorance on the subject of evolution, which to me is not a surprise considering all of your information has come from Creation Science.com and answers in genesis..... Men did not evolve from Apes...secondly,
I will guide you to Yellow's post about the MISSING LINK...
maybe it will wak you up a bit about the truth of human evolution
http://www.rationalresponders.com/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&t=400

Also, to get better informed, go to this site...
http://www.becominghuman.org/

and THEN tell me there is no Missing link.

Also, do you forget about the Missing link between tetrapods and fish?
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/04/0405_060405_fish.html

Unless you understand the way science works...you will never understand the way it all fits together...and unless you break your mental chains, you will never be able to understand science..especially evolutionary science.

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server which houses Celebrity Atheists.


HealingBlight
HealingBlight's picture
Posts: 256
Joined: 2006-04-13
User is offlineOffline
Metamorphosis

LeftofLarry wrote:
nacker wrote:

Imagine all man was as happy enough to stick god into the answer box as creationists are, we would never get anywhere.

OK??.....

I think he was quoting me there. Sticking out tongue

And secondly, I just kinda had an Idea, maybe you, yellow and others well versed in scientific thinking should work together to create a bunch of soundfiles that outline the basic layout and such of what exactly is science, the scientific method, scientific thinking and other aspects, maybe a weekly/bi-weekly podcast.
I know we have zach working on evolution, and I find it quite enjoyable and informative, which is what makes this seem like such a good idea, there appears to be an area lacking when it comes to explanation of science.
You know it would be helpful it have something in sound so that people may be guided a nice resource when it comes to tackling such re-occurring problems they seem to have with understanding the fundamentals. This appears to be the biggest exploit of the ID camp and everything should be done to help remedy it.

-----------------------
I'll get back to you when I think of something worthwhile to say.


Yellow_Number_Five
atheistRRS Core MemberScientist
Yellow_Number_Five's picture
Posts: 1390
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
Metamorphosis

nacker wrote:
And as for generalizing creationists as jumping to conclusions and scientists as always coldly using their brains... let's not forget the pig tooth that we built our missing link, "Nebraska Man" on.

And who pointed out that error, creationists or evolutionists? What does that tell you?

Quote:
We are all tempted to "buff up" the beliefs that make our lifesyles possible.

No, I "buff" nothing up. My beliefs are based on solid evidence from several scientific fields.

Quote:
As to the Butterfly.

Please send me some examples from the fossil record that show a clear step by step evolution from non-metamorph. to the full stage. And all hassling aside, while your at it fill in from the fossil record our missing link... or better said, missing chain. We find a large amount human remains. We find a large amount of dino remains. Why can't we find all the missing chains from ape to man, or between all the evolved cases? Why the millions of years of gap between our specimens.

You know very well no such record exists. We're lucky to have fossils AT ALL, and even if there weren't a single fossil on earth the genetic, biochemical and morphological evidence for evolution would still be overwhelming.

Soft bodied orgainisms with no bones, shells or teeth rarely fossilize, and much of the record of insects we have in the form of fossilic remains comes in the form of organisms encased in amber - a rare event to be sure.

If you seriously want to discuss the links amoung hominids, we can. Perhaps YOU can start by commenting on the endogenous retrogene evidence I presented.

I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world. - Richard Dawkins

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


LeftofLarry
RRS local affiliateScientist
LeftofLarry's picture
Posts: 1199
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
Metamorphosis

HealingBlight wrote:
LeftofLarry wrote:
nacker wrote:

Imagine all man was as happy enough to stick god into the answer box as creationists are, we would never get anywhere.

OK??.....

I think he was quoting me there. Sticking out tongue

And secondly, I just kinda had an Idea, maybe you, yellow and others well versed in scientific thinking should work together to create a bunch of soundfiles that outline the basic layout and such of what exactly is science, the scientific method, scientific thinking and other aspects, maybe a weekly/bi-weekly podcast.
I know we have zach working on evolution, and I find it quite enjoyable and informative, which is what makes this seem like such a good idea, there appears to be an area lacking when it comes to explanation of science.
You know it would be helpful it have something in sound so that people may be guided a nice resource when it comes to tackling such re-occurring problems they seem to have with understanding the fundamentals. This appears to be the biggest exploit of the ID camp and everything should be done to help remedy it.

Well that actually sounds like a good idea. I think the RRS show should commit one whole show (with Richard Dawkins perhaps) on Science, what it is, dispelling creationist myths about science etc...

There is overwhelming evidence on evolution, the creationists, however refuse to see the truth. THe fossil record is littered with intermediates etc..however, the creationists still use the same old story because they REFUSE to see the evidence. It is amazing to me that in the 21st century, there is this level of ignorance, I blame the church and the church alone, the cultural and ideological ties that people have to the church, it has turned into a political machine that has been extremely effective at brainwashing. Even with surmounting evidence, an irrational theist will not see the truth. I agree that a weekly/bi weekly podcast or something along those lines is a good idea, and I'm all up for it, however, I still do think that no matter what truth/evidence/definitions of science etc.. you throw out there, a theist will shut his mind and ears automatically and not listen. All they will do is find some little strawman argument against it, or find some ad hominem attacks. Plain and simple, and when they get called on that, they just revert to ridiculous arguments such as probability and statistics, even though THOSE are refutable...as well...they just don't understand because they have been sooo..fuckin' brainwashed...it is indeed sad and scary. Because these people VOTE and they put leaders that wnat to revert us back to the dark ages..with war-prophecies, hate, prejudice, and fear.

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server which houses Celebrity Atheists.


HealingBlight
HealingBlight's picture
Posts: 256
Joined: 2006-04-13
User is offlineOffline
Metamorphosis

Heay, one less creationist means one less vote for IDs supporters, and maybe one vote aginst them even.

And heay, if you could find someone who could talk about logic too, because thats another area that appears to be lacking, and realm of logic seems to go hand in hand with scientific thinking.

-----------------------
I'll get back to you when I think of something worthwhile to say.


Yellow_Number_Five
atheistRRS Core MemberScientist
Yellow_Number_Five's picture
Posts: 1390
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
Metamorphosis

Well, when/if we have Dr. Dawkins on the show you can rest assured I'm going to make the most of it. I was pondering questions I wanted to ask him ten years ago, before I was ever engrained in the creationist/evoltiontion debate, before I was an outspoken atheist. He's actually a big reason I'm doing what I'm doing now. Reading "The Selfish Gene" in high school literally changed my life.

I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world. - Richard Dawkins

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


LeftofLarry
RRS local affiliateScientist
LeftofLarry's picture
Posts: 1199
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
Metamorphosis

Yellow_Number_Five wrote:
Well, when/if we have Dr. Dawkins on the show you can rest assured I'm going to make the most of it. I was pondering questions I wanted to ask him ten years ago, before I was ever engrained in the creationist/evoltiontion debate, before I was an outspoken atheist. He's actually a big reason I'm doing what I'm doing now. Reading "The Selfish Gene" in high school literally changed my life.

Has anyone contacted or at least try to contact Dr. Dawkins yet? I am positive that he would be willing to be interviewed for something like this.

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server which houses Celebrity Atheists.


Yellow_Number_Five
atheistRRS Core MemberScientist
Yellow_Number_Five's picture
Posts: 1390
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
Metamorphosis

I've shot a few emails, but have yet to get a response, I suppose I should go for another round now that we've a bit more clout.

I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world. - Richard Dawkins

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


LeftofLarry
RRS local affiliateScientist
LeftofLarry's picture
Posts: 1199
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
Metamorphosis

Yellow_Number_Five wrote:
I've shot a few emails, but have yet to get a response, I suppose I should go for another round now that we've a bit more clout.

where did you send the emails? You may have to go through his secretary. I would love to listen to Dr. Dawkins.

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server which houses Celebrity Atheists.


Yellow_Number_Five
atheistRRS Core MemberScientist
Yellow_Number_Five's picture
Posts: 1390
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
Metamorphosis

You know what, you're right, I've been hitting publicist pages and what not, he probably never even saw what I wrote.

Reggie should have his contact info, as well as Massimo Pigliucci's info (I want to talk to him even more than Dawkins). I'll either contact Reggie or get Sapient to get his attention for me.

Thanks for pulling my head out of my ass Laughing out loud

I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world. - Richard Dawkins

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


LeftofLarry
RRS local affiliateScientist
LeftofLarry's picture
Posts: 1199
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
Metamorphosis

Yellow_Number_Five wrote:
You know what, you're right, I've been hitting publicist pages and what not, he probably never even saw what I wrote.

Reggie should have his contact info, as well as Massimo Pigliucci's info (I want to talk to him even more than Dawkins). I'll either contact Reggie or get Sapient to get his attention for me.

Thanks for pulling my head out of my ass :D

\

As they say...Seek and Ye Shall Find!! :twisted:

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server which houses Celebrity Atheists.