Could Evolution convince the centipede to dance? Or the caterpillar to do better than a butterfly?

Gottservant · May 30, 2020

Hi there,

So, what we have here is a simple observation that between cell and mammal, is insectum (insect).

If there is a transition in a cell to a mammal, at some point it seems reasonable to expect that an insect will at least potentially contribute to that transition.

But what do we see? In the insect world? Let's take a look at the centipede and the caterpillar.

The centipede has a hundred legs (hence the name). Would Evolution ever enable the centipede to dance, with those legs?

Or again, the caterpillar, with its cocoon (a completely original development). With the right selection pressure, could the caterpillar ever do better than a butterfly?

Both these things are examples, of transmutation - something that Evolution says could be done by any creature, at any time - surely they would be poster children, of the power of Evolution?

All that is required is one little change, by "mutation" is it not?

What if I routinely shocked these insects, would that change anything? What is special about mutation?

Radagast · May 30, 2020

People have said this before, but organisms don't evolve; populations do.

Gottservant said:
What is special about mutation?

It alters DNA.

Gottservant · May 30, 2020

Radagast said:
People have said this before, but organisms don't evolve; populations do.

So groups of centipedes would have to dance, together?

And groups of caterpillars would have to change what came out of the cocoon, together?

It alters DNA.

And successive shocks, don't?

Shemjaza · May 30, 2020

Gottservant said:
Hi there,

So, what we have here is a simple observation that between cell and mammal, is insectum (insect).

If there is a transition in a cell to a mammal, at some point it seems reasonable to expect that an insect will at least potentially contribute to that transition.

But what do we see? In the insect world? Let's take a look at the centipede and the caterpillar.

The centipede has a hundred legs (hence the name). Would Evolution ever enable the centipede to dance, with those legs?

Or again, the caterpillar, with its cocoon (a completely original development). With the right selection pressure, could the caterpillar ever do better than a butterfly?

Both these things are examples, of transmutation - something that Evolution says could be done by any creature, at any time - surely they would be poster children, of the power of Evolution?

All that is required is one little change, by "mutation" is it not?

What if I routinely shocked these insects, would that change anything? What is special about mutation?

Again. Evolution isn't a choice.

Mammals do not have insects in their ancestry, they are related, but very distant cousins.

Centipedes are also not insects.

The cocoon of the butterfly isn't that unusual a feature. A large number of insects and arthropods have a different juvenile or grub form and then metamorphose to become an adult.

Some species can malt into to a different structure and configuration if the environment changes in particular ways. So the solitary grasshopper becomes the swarming locust.

And all these traits are things that mutation could act on and possibly be selected for.

An example is the axolotl. Most other amphibians like newts and frogs hatch as water breathing tad pole, then metamorphose into an air breathing adult. Axolotls never transition out of the juvenile water based phase, and live and breed in the water... but, they still have the internal mechanisms to metamorphose and with a simple hormone injection they can be triggered to change.

As to your specifics, some insects and spiders communicate with dances and leg movements... so it's perfectly believable for some branch of the centipede family to develop some kind of dance. But their vision isn't great, so I guess it's unlikely.

Aussie Pete · May 30, 2020

Shemjaza said:
Again. Evolution isn't a choice.

Mammals do not have insects in their ancestry, they are related, but very distant cousins.

Centipedes are also not insects.

The cocoon of the butterfly isn't that unusual a feature. A large number of insects and arthropods have a different juvenile or grub form and then metamorphose to become an adult.

Some species can malt into to a different structure and configuration if the environment changes in particular ways. So the solitary grasshopper becomes the swarming locust.

And all these traits are things that mutation could act on and possibly be selected for.

An example is the axolotl. Most other amphibians like newts and frogs hatch as water breathing tad pole, then metamorphose into an air breathing adult. Axolotls never transition out of the juvenile water based phase, and live and breed in the water... but, they still have the internal mechanisms to metamorphose and with a simple hormone injection they can be triggered to change.

As to your specifics, some insects and spiders communicate with dances and leg movements... so it's perfectly believable for some branch of the centipede family to develop some kind of dance. But their vision isn't great, so I guess it's unlikely.

According to the evolutionists who routinely lecture me, evolution is based on a common ancestor. My problem with that is that there is no plausible or demonstrable way that life could have just appeared. So evolution falls at the first hurdle.

VirOptimus · May 30, 2020

Aussie Pete said:
According to the evolutionists who routinely lecture me, evolution is based on a common ancestor. My problem with that is that there is no plausible or demonstrable way that life could have just appeared. So evolution falls at the first hurdle.

How life started, abiogenesis, is wholly separeted from the theory of evolution.

It does not matter how life came to be for the ToE so your ”point” is in fact irrelevant.

Occams Barber · May 30, 2020

Gottservant said:
So, what we have here is a simple observation that between cell and mammal, is insectum (insect).

If there is a transition in a cell to a mammal, at some point it seems reasonable to expect that an insect will at least potentially contribute to that transition.

There are extant records of a bee giving birth to an elephant.

Gottservant said:
But what do we see? In the insect world? Let's take a look at the centipede and the caterpillar.
The centipede has a hundred legs (hence the name). Would Evolution ever enable the centipede to dance, with those legs?

A well known Centipede has been known to perform a Fandango which drove a Spanish audience to tears.

Gottservant said:
Or again, the caterpillar, with its cocoon (a completely original development). With the right selection pressure, could the caterpillar ever do better than a butterfly?

No. Despite improvements in their education and upbringing it appears the caterpillars are stuck with the flighty butterfly transition thing.

Gottservant said:
What if I routinely shocked these insects, would that change anything? What is special about mutation?

Be careful. Electrically shocked insects evolve at a stunningly fast pace. One mistake and you may end up with the Doodle Bug Which Ate New York.

OB

Shemjaza · May 30, 2020

Aussie Pete said:
According to the evolutionists who routinely lecture me, evolution is based on a common ancestor. My problem with that is that there is no plausible or demonstrable way that life could have just appeared. So evolution falls at the first hurdle.

I'm pretty sure I've responded to you presenting this false statement in the past. (I seem to remember the phrase "falls at the first hurdle").

The origin of life is not the first hurdle of the evolution race... to continue your analogy the origin of life is how you got to the stadium. Whether you caught a taxi, bus or rode a bike don't mater to how you run the race.

Whenever Creationists bring up this tired argument it is simple to just respond that it doesn't matter. Let's suppose that abiogenesis is 100% impossible and the first life was created by a supernatural miracle. Evolution is still the best explanation and the only one supported by evidence for the diversity of life and all modern species, including humanity.

Aussie Pete · May 30, 2020

Shemjaza said:
I'm pretty sure I've responded to you presenting this false statement in the past. (I seem to remember the phrase "falls at the first hurdle").

The origin of life is not the first hurdle of the evolution race... to continue your analogy the origin of life is how you got to the stadium. Whether you caught a taxi, bus or rode a bike don't mater to how you run the race.

Whenever Creationists bring up this tired argument it is simple to just respond that it doesn't matter. Let's suppose that abiogenesis is 100% impossible and the first life was created by a supernatural miracle. Evolution is still the best explanation and the only one supported by evidence for the diversity of life and all modern species, including humanity.

It's only the best explanation for those who reject God and His word.

Aussie Pete · May 30, 2020

VirOptimus said:
How life started, abiogenesis, is wholly separeted from the theory of evolution.

It does not matter how life came to be for the ToE so your ”point” is in fact irrelevant.

That's your opinion. Others, including me, differ.

Shemjaza · May 30, 2020

Aussie Pete said:
It's only the best explanation for those who reject God and His word.

Interpretation of the Bible is subjective even among devout Christians... so you need evidence to determine the truths of the physical world.

Evolution is supported by that evidence.

Aussie Pete said:
That's your opinion. Others, including me, differ.

This isn't a matter of opinion. You are simply wrong.

The theory of evolution is a scientific theory that explain the diversity and changes in life... that it. It might not be correct, but that doesn't change what it states and how it is applied.

FrumiousBandersnatch · May 30, 2020

Gottservant said:
Hi there,

So, what we have here is a simple observation that between cell and mammal, is insectum (insect).

If there is a transition in a cell to a mammal, at some point it seems reasonable to expect that an insect will at least potentially contribute to that transition.

But what do we see? In the insect world? Let's take a look at the centipede and the caterpillar.

The centipede has a hundred legs (hence the name). Would Evolution ever enable the centipede to dance, with those legs?

Or again, the caterpillar, with its cocoon (a completely original development). With the right selection pressure, could the caterpillar ever do better than a butterfly?

Both these things are examples, of transmutation - something that Evolution says could be done by any creature, at any time - surely they would be poster children, of the power of Evolution?

All that is required is one little change, by "mutation" is it not?

What if I routinely shocked these insects, would that change anything? What is special about mutation?

Your 'facts' are incorrect. Centipedes don't have 100 legs - they have from 30 to 354 legs, depending on the species, but always an odd number of pairs, so never 100.

The caterpillar's cocoon is not completely original - many insects, including spiders, make cocoons.

But why would a centipede need to dance? In what sense could a caterpillar 'do better than' the butterfly, a different stage of the same life cycle? [rhetorical questions]

Speedwell · May 30, 2020

Gottservant said:
Hi there,

So, what we have here is a simple observation that between cell and mammal, is insectum (insect).

If there is a transition in a cell to a mammal, at some point it seems reasonable to expect that an insect will at least potentially contribute to that transition.

But what do we see? In the insect world? Let's take a look at the centipede and the caterpillar.

The centipede has a hundred legs (hence the name). Would Evolution ever enable the centipede to dance, with those legs?

Or again, the caterpillar, with its cocoon (a completely original development). With the right selection pressure, could the caterpillar ever do better than a butterfly?

Both these things are examples, of transmutation - something that Evolution says could be done by any creature, at any time - surely they would be poster children, of the power of Evolution?

All that is required is one little change, by "mutation" is it not?

What if I routinely shocked these insects, would that change anything? What is special about mutation?

’Twas brillig, and the slithy toves
Did gyre and gimble in the wabe:
All mimsy were the borogoves,
And the mome raths outgrabe.

“Beware the Jabberwock, my son!
The jaws that bite, the claws that catch!
Beware the Jubjub bird, and shun
The frumious Bandersnatch!”

He took his vorpal sword in hand;
Long time the manxome foe he sought—
So rested he by the Tumtum tree
And stood awhile in thought.

And, as in uffish thought he stood,
The Jabberwock, with eyes of flame,
Came whiffling through the tulgey wood,
And burbled as it came!

One, two! One, two! And through and through
The vorpal blade went snicker-snack!
He left it dead, and with its head
He went galumphing back.

“And hast thou slain the Jabberwock?
Come to my arms, my beamish boy!
O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay!”
He chortled in his joy.

’Twas brillig, and the slithy toves
Did gyre and gimble in the wabe:
All mimsy were the borogoves,
And the mome raths outgrabe.

FrumiousBandersnatch · May 30, 2020

Speedwell said:
’Twas brillig, and the slithy toves
Did gyre and gimble in the wabe:
All mimsy were the borogoves,
And the mome raths outgrabe.

“Beware the Jabberwock, my son!
The jaws that bite, the claws that catch!
Beware the Jubjub bird, and shun
The frumious Bandersnatch!”

He took his vorpal sword in hand;
Long time the manxome foe he sought—
So rested he by the Tumtum tree
And stood awhile in thought.

And, as in uffish thought he stood,
The Jabberwock, with eyes of flame,
Came whiffling through the tulgey wood,
And burbled as it came!

One, two! One, two! And through and through
The vorpal blade went snicker-snack!
He left it dead, and with its head
He went galumphing back.

“And hast thou slain the Jabberwock?
Come to my arms, my beamish boy!
O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay!”
He chortled in his joy.

’Twas brillig, and the slithy toves
Did gyre and gimble in the wabe:
All mimsy were the borogoves,
And the mome raths outgrabe.

But... but this wonderful poem (one of my favourites) - although surreal - does make sense, unlike Gottservant's posts.

John Tenniel's Jabberwocky illustration used to terrify me as a child:

Speedwell · May 30, 2020

FrumiousBandersnatch said:
But... but this wonderful poem (one of my favourites) - although surreal - does make sense, unlike Gottservant's posts.

John Tenniel's Jabberwocky illustration used to terrify me as a child:

Gottservant's animal poems are interesting, but he always writes them in non-metrical blank verse so I thought a change of pace would be nice. I'm not as clever as Gottservant, so I had to post the Lewis Carroll instead of writing my own.

FrumiousBandersnatch · May 30, 2020

Speedwell said:
Gottservant's animal poems are interesting, but he always writes them in non-metrical blank verse so I thought a change of pace would be nice. I'm not as clever as Gottservant, so I had to post the Lewis Carroll instead of writing my own.

Hmm... It's doggerel for me:

Evolution tells us how
A single cell became a cow
And all the rich diversity
Of living things that we see now.

Subduction Zone · May 30, 2020

Aussie Pete said:
According to the evolutionists who routinely lecture me, evolution is based on a common ancestor. My problem with that is that there is no plausible or demonstrable way that life could have just appeared. So evolution falls at the first hurdle.

That is not a hurdle for evolution since evolution describes what happens to life after it came into existence.

And you are of course wrong about there being "no plausible or demonstrable way that life could have just appeared" but that is another topic. I will gladly discuss it when you acknowledge the error that you made about a hurdle for evolution.

VirOptimus · May 30, 2020

Aussie Pete said:
That's your opinion. Others, including me, differ.

No, this is not a question for ”opinions”. The ToE explains all the data, all of it. Denying it is tin-foil hat territory.

Subduction Zone · May 30, 2020

VirOptimus said:
No, this is not a question for ”opinions”. The ToE explains all the data, all of it. Denying it is tin-foil hat territory.

I love how YEC's and even OEC's react to Flat Earthers. At least the more intelligent ones. They realize how their wing nuttery is almost the same as that of Flerfers. They understand how that is threat to their beliefs.

Warden_of_the_Storm · May 31, 2020

Gottservant, please, please, PLEASE actually make an attempt to learn about what the theory of evolution and the science behind it actually says.

Could Evolution convince the centipede to dance? Or the caterpillar to do better than a butterfly?

If the odds of a creature being evolved are the same for every creature...

Does a creature good at odds, not evolve?

Or does every creature rue odds, that one good at odds have worst survival?

Or does something better than odds have to evolve, that even being hated is better survival?

God loves your words, may men love them also

comes and goes

God loves your words, may men love them also

Regular Member

Well-Known Member

A nihilist who cares.

Newbie

Regular Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Regular Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Regular Member

A nihilist who cares.

Regular Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads