If "Caterpillar -> Cocoon -> Butterfly" evolves, why does "Butterfly -> Cocoon -> Butterfly" not?

[Gottservant]

Hi there,

So yes, a simple question in some ways: if "Caterpillar -> Cocoon -> Butterfly" evolves, why does "Butterfly -> Cocoon -> Butterfly" not evolve also? What selection pressure is there, for the former, but not for more of the same? If the evolution was guided by a selection pressure, the same selection pressure would force the caterpillar to conform to butterfly-ness. Please describe to me some sense of selection pressure, that produces something in the one moment and destroys it in the next?

Thanks.

 

[adderbolt]

What has been destroyed? Is it not the same creature having undergone metamorphosis (outside of a womb so to speak)?

 

[Gregory Thompson]

Hi there,

So yes, a simple question in some ways: if "Caterpillar -> Cocoon -> Butterfly" evolves, why does "Butterfly -> Cocoon -> Butterfly" not evolve also? What selection pressure is there, for the former, but not for more of the same? If the evolution was guided by a selection pressure, the same selection pressure would force the caterpillar to conform to butterfly-ness. Please describe to me some sense of selection pressure, that produces something in the one moment and destroys it in the next?

Thanks.

Probably the same reason humans do not morph back into children.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Hi there,

So yes, a simple question in some ways: if "Caterpillar -> Cocoon -> Butterfly" evolves, why does "Butterfly -> Cocoon -> Butterfly" not evolve also? What selection pressure is there, for the former, but not for more of the same? If the evolution was guided by a selection pressure, the same selection pressure would force the caterpillar to conform to butterfly-ness. Please describe to me some sense of selection pressure, that produces something in the one moment and destroys it in the next?

Thanks.

I feel like I've said this a thousand times now but please, make an actual attempt to learn about basic biology and science.

 

[adderbolt]

It lacks attribution but there is a wonderful quote that goes something like:

"Think of the caterpillar as a Model T Ford that builds a tent over itself and comes out later as a Jet Airplane.'

 

[Gene Parmesan]

Hi there,

So yes, a simple question in some ways: if "Caterpillar -> Cocoon -> Butterfly" evolves, why does "Butterfly -> Cocoon -> Butterfly" not evolve also? What selection pressure is there, for the former, but not for more of the same? If the evolution was guided by a selection pressure, the same selection pressure would force the caterpillar to conform to butterfly-ness. Please describe to me some sense of selection pressure, that produces something in the one moment and destroys it in the next?

Thanks.

 

[AV1611VET]

So yes, a simple question in some ways: if "Caterpillar -> Cocoon -> Butterfly" evolves,

Technically that's not evolution, per se. It is a change in the stage of this insect.

... why does "Butterfly -> Cocoon -> Butterfly" not evolve also?

Again a technicality: butterflies don't build cocoons, caterpillars do.

 

[Shemjaza]

Technically that's not evolution, per se. It is a change in the stage of this insect.Again a technicality: butterflies don't build cocoons, caterpillars do.

I completely agree.

In this post, AV1611VET is 100% correct about evolution.

(Just felt like i should take this unusual opportunity. )

 

[MIDutch]

Hi there,

So yes, a simple question in some ways: if "Caterpillar -> Cocoon -> Butterfly" evolves, why does "Butterfly -> Cocoon -> Butterfly" not evolve also?

That's metamorphosis, not evolution.

Evolution does not happen to an individual organism. It happens to a population across generations and over time.

You completely misunderstand what evolution is. Your example is a super hero comic book version of "evolution".

Personally, my favorite is the guy who gets bit by a radioactive spider ... and has nothing to do with !Caterpillar Man!

 

[driewerf]

Technically that's not evolution, per se. It is a change in the stage of this insect.Again a technicality: butterflies don't build cocoons, caterpillars do.

 

[Gottservant]

I don't know, I just feel like that is exactly what Evolutionists say happens all the time.

Evolution is not, once done, once one, it is evolve once, Evolution begun again.

What I am suggesting is that with the proper foundation, it is possible to evolve more than "Evolution"?

 

[AV1611VET]

What I am suggesting is that with the proper foundation, it is possible to evolve more than "Evolution"?

According to New Age philosophy, the next evolutionary step for mankind is that we will become Homo noeticus, or Homo noeticus sensoriums.

A heresy.

 

[Shemjaza]

I don't know, I just feel like that is exactly what Evolutionists say happens all the time.

You are mistaken.

Evolution does not happen to individuals, it's statistical changes on a species level.

Evolution is not, once done, once one, it is evolve once, Evolution begun again.

What I am suggesting is that with the proper foundation, it is possible to evolve more than "Evolution"?

That is wrong.

Evolution isn't a possession and evolution isn't a choice.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I don't know, I just feel like that is exactly what Evolutionists say happens all the time.

Evolution is not, once done, once one, it is evolve once, Evolution begun again.

What I am suggesting is that with the proper foundation, it is possible to evolve more than "Evolution"?

And you are completely and utterly wrong.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

According to New Age philosophy, the next evolutionary step for mankind is that we will become Homo noeticus, or Homo noeticus sensoriums.

A heresy.

No, we'd still be Homo Sapiens.

 

[Gottservant]

The point is, variations of metamorphosis happen.

Evolutionists argue it is the rule.

How - what word - justifies seeing it less, not more?

 

[Shemjaza]

The point is, variations of metamorphosis happen.

Metamorphosis is common in nature, but it mostly applies to insects and sea creatures.

Amphibians are the only vertebrates that I can immediately think of who undergo the process. I guess puberty is a similar, but much less significant process.

Evolutionists argue it is the rule.

That is false.

Metamorphosis is a particular adaptation that a number of animals have developed... but it's hardly universal.

How - what word - justifies seeing it less, not more?

Environment.

Animals are adapted to an environment. If they undergo a metamorphosis that changes their environmental needs then they have to have two separate suitable environments to live in accessible while they transform and for this to be an advantage despite the vulnerability of being in an in between stage.

 

[Gottservant]

Metamorphosis is common in nature, but it mostly applies to insects and sea creatures.

So enough mutation and a butterfly would not be a butterfly, but something greater?

Which way does the next Evolution go: toward the caterpillar, or toward the butterfly or toward the cocoon?

Don't play me for a fool, the answer has to be there somewhere!

 

[driewerf]

I don't know,

The most true words you have written on this board so far.

 

[Shemjaza]

So enough mutation and a butterfly would not be a butterfly, but something greater?

No.

Mutation and metamorphosis are not the same thing.

Over many, many generations a branch of butterflies could change enough such that they wouldn't be classified as buterflies anymore. On a very small scale, we don't call dogs wolves even though their ancestors were wolves and they are arguably still the same species.

Which way does the next Evolution go: toward the caterpillar, or toward the butterfly or toward the cocoon?

Neither.

Mutation and metamorphosis are not the same thing.

Evolution is about statistical changes over an entire species... not about individual transformations over the lifetime of a single animal.

Don't play me for a fool, the answer has to be there somewhere!

The only one playing you for a fool is yourself. You are looking in the wrong place for answers.

As long as you base your investigations and thought experiments on mistakes you can't work your way to the truth.