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

[Gottservant]

No.

Mutation and metamorphosis are not the same thing.

Neither.

So if the whole population of butterflies changed, then you would call it 'Evolution'?

But the Evolution would still not be specific, for some reason? I don't get this?

 

[Shemjaza]

So if the whole population of butterflies changed, then you would call it 'Evolution'?

If a significant portion of the population had changed in a inheritable genetic way, then it would be evolution. This is not about individual transformations over a single life time.

But the Evolution would still not be specific, for some reason? I don't get this?

Evolution is a process observed on a species level, not individuals changing. In fact in an evolution context, the individuals are not changing.

 

[Gene Parmesan]

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.

 

[Brigid48]

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.

And this, folks, is what happens when you get your understanding of 'evolution', from a Pokemon Game.

This is real life, my dude, not Pokemon Red. Caterpie ain't Evolving into Metapod and then to Butterfree.

What you are describing is developmental growth, not much different than you growing up from a fetus to an adult.

 

[keith99]

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!

The lifecycle of a butterfly is adapted to its environemnt. And there is one more stage, the egg. An egg is laid. Typically when there has been enough warming in the spring the eggs harch into caterpillars. They hatch when the plants are just starting, when food is plentyful and easy to eat. Later many plants will be much tougher and spiney. When they ahve eaten enough they spin a cocoon. The buuterly then emerges later what plants are more mature and nectar is available (or in some cases rotting plants). The butterflys mate and lay eggs. Butterflys are much more able to travel long distances than caterpillars. Each stage is important. Eggs and cocoons for waiting when there is not so much food (not unlike animals that hibernate). The catterpillars are eating machines. The butterfly spreads the eggs far and wide. Take away any of the 4 stages and you have an animal less suited to survive and propigate than a butterfly with all 4 stages.

 

[ViaCrucis]

I was born a baby, and then I became an adult over time. But I didn't go back to being a baby. What's that about? Checkmate, scientists.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Gottservant]

The problem here is that the selection pressures that created the caterpillar-butterfly, were too narrow?

Now we have the caterpillar-butterfly, but nothing else - or we are supposed to do it manually?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

The problem here is that the selection pressures that created the caterpillar-butterfly, were too narrow?

Now we have the caterpillar-butterfly, but nothing else - or we are supposed to do it manually?

But a caterpillar metamorphizing into a butterfly isn't evolution. It's not a result for a selection pressure. It's just a part of it's growth cycle. It's a juvenile turning into an adult.

 

[chilehed]

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.

This is meaningless gobbledygook.

 

[Gottservant]

But a caterpillar metamorphizing into a butterfly isn't evolution. It's not a result for a selection pressure. It's just a part of it's growth cycle. It's a juvenile turning into an adult.

So an ape turning into a man is "evolution", but a caterpillar turning into a butterfly is not - even though they affect the whole population?

Give me something here, its sounding more arbitrary as we go along?

 

[Shemjaza]

So an ape turning into a man is "evolution", but a caterpillar turning into a butterfly is not - even though they affect the whole population?

Give me something here, its sounding more arbitrary as we go along?

You are describing two completely different scenarios.

A caterpillar turning into a butterfly is a single animal transforming during its lifetime.

An ape turning into a man is a description of many thousands of tiny changes across many thousands of generations over an entire population.

It's not even a remotely similar circumstance.

 

[Gottservant]

You're not playing ball.

Are you saying that the butterfly had to experiment with caterpillars, before it found the right one?

But apes knew what they were aiming at?

 

[Shemjaza]

You're not playing ball.

Are you saying that the butterfly had to experiment with caterpillars, before it found the right one?

But apes knew what they were aiming at?

No, neither of those things.

Insects frequently start life as a grub, then molt into their adult form. This isn't evolution, it's just a transformation. Now, the specific forms and the ability to do so are evolved traits, but that doesn't mean the process should be described as evolution.

The lineage from basal apes to modern humans was not aimed and didn't even just end up with humans. Millions of years ago there was less diversity of apes and a single population of tail-less monkey-like creatures creatures eventually gave rise to humans, chimps, gorillas, orangutans and others.


I feel like I need to remind you that evolution is not a choice, it is not a possession and it does not apply to individuals.

 

[Gottservant]

wait, so if Evolution happens in a small way, its insect "molting", but if it happens in apes in a big way, then its "grouping" with things that look similar.

you're making this up as you go along?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

So an ape turning into a man is "evolution", but a caterpillar turning into a butterfly is not - even though they affect the whole population?

Give me something here, its sounding more arbitrary as we go along?

No, it's very simple and it's clear that you do not understand very basic biology.

A caterpillar turning into a butterfly is a larval stage turning into an adult stage. It is the caterpillar growing up from a child to an adult. That is metamorphosis.
That is not evolution.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

wait, so if Evolution happens in a small way, its insect "molting", but if it happens in apes in a big way, then its "grouping" with things that look similar.

you're making this up as you go along?

But what you are describing in the OP isn't evolution it's metamorphosis.

 

[Gottservant]

There's another word for it, meaning what?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

There's another word for it, meaning what?

I don't understand what you mean.
Metamorphosis and evolution are two completely separate things.

 

[Gottservant]

I don't understand what you mean.
Metamorphosis and evolution are two completely separate things.

There is the same population for both.

Are you saying metamorphosis can't become Evolution, or that Evolution doesn't want to become metamorphosis? Or something?

 

[Shemjaza]

wait, so if Evolution happens in a small way, its insect "molting", but if it happens in apes in a big way, then its "grouping" with things that look similar.

No, that is not evolution in any way. It's just a change that happens over the life of a single animal.

you're making this up as you go along?

No, I've been very consistent in stating that evolution does not happen to an individual.

Please try to learn this singular point. It would greatly reduce your repeated false statements about evolution.