Real Science Friday- Caterpillar Kills Atheism

[SUTG]

Excuse me if this argument has already been made before, I don't get much time to read these days, or sift through all the material on TOL, but a classic argument that I've read against ToE found in books such as, "Darwins Black Box", which I have read btw, as well as other critical books of evolution, is the bacterial flagellum. How could it evolve in a step-wise process? Its a fairly complex thing, and would not be useful unless it was all there, and is one of the key ways bacteria transport themselves around right? I'm no biology major, and biology is something that I would like to get a chance to study more in detail hopeully soon. Right now I'm focusing on learning physics/chemistry/electronics, which is a handful.

Have you read the whole book Darwin's Black Box?

If so, you should be aware that Behe states:

-The Earth is billion of years old.
- Evolution had produced new organisms.
- All organisms share a common ancestor.
- Humans evolved from apes.

Oh, and his Irreducible Complexity arguments states that there was no way for the flaggellum to have possibly evolved by Darwinian process. All that has to be done to refute a statement like this is to show that there is indeed a way that flaggellum could have possibly evolved by Darwinian process. This has been done, so the argument is obsolete.

 

[nicholsmom]

I personally don't know, but I have now read that insects evolved metamorphosis before wings, and benefitied from the young having different nutritianal needs to the old. I have now read three theories on a website I subscribe too and some vauge hypothesis on some I don't.

And I now know this in answer to the OP

Insects have been metamorphosising long before wings, this has evolved over 450 million years, it has in tiny steps managed to evolve to the purpae form to protect the exposed embryo through the rest of it's growth, this involves either simply wrapping leaves around itself for protection to cocoons and chysylis.

Leaving the egg early and having full access to abundant food improved survival over insects that didn't, predation wasn't as advanced back then when this was happening so simply protecting yourself from the elements was good enough, now the ones that look more like thier surorundings survive better when chrysalised or even actually using your surroundings. and guess what. Now 90% of insects are shown to live embryonically as grubs ect, the catapillar/butterfly is the pinnacle of this evolution, it supports it not destroys it.

When a butterfly emerges it has the same heart and brain as when it chrysalyses so it doesn't simple deconstruct itself it grows and in growing changes, much like a human embryo or a dolphin.

I want to know if you agree with aharvey on this:

The story you are asking for here is exceedingly straightforward: Butterflies didn't develop the ability to metamorphose, they inherited it, with some relatively slight modifications, from their ancestors.

If you agree that evolution is not about development, but about inheritance, then your argument about pupae evolving a protection mechanism (chrysalis, etc) cannot be taken seriously. Before the pupae evolved this mechanism, they will have died out before being able to successfully pass on an alteration (however minor) genetically, having never reached maturity. The reason I claim that the only way a species can get through this type of development (metamorphosis of any kind) would be in one giant leap, because any other answer ends in the death of the species before procreation can occur. The prolonging of this stage that you call "embryonic" would not be stable enough in any fraction of the increment to produce a mature, reproducible adult stage. That's where the problem comes into play - not with the wings, but rather with reaching maturity at all without the process being complete.

And I said "yes they do" and gave examples, one of which was chemistry and one of which was crystals. Then you replied with your confused post saying that "crystalline particles are not "raw unorganized elements" and so on...

Well, can you give me an example of something that is a "raw, unorganized element"? Are you expecting someone to give you a description, in detail, of how subatomic particles, over the ages, organized themselves into modern humans? I would be glad to do that, if that simple request is all that you are asking. Why didn't you just say so?

I think you should re-read my post. I stated exactly why I objected to your examples so that you could know what is meant by "raw, unorganized elements" becoming something organized spontaneously. The trouble is that you'd rather just point and giggle than address the issue. That sand is sifted by density ought not to be a surprise, nor should it make you say "look a miracle!" It is only following the well-observed laws of motion. That crystals form from shaped molecules is likewise just a matter of following the rules. How are these things unorganized?

Now if you come up with a sandstorm that forms into a clown that tiptoes across a tightrope, then you'd have something.

The reason that Darwin was able to believe in such theories was that he did not have the benefit of viewing molecular structure. Things sure do look like order from randomness until you can really get a look up close. Then it is obvious that these things are really only obeying the laws like everything else in our universe. If obeying the laws of nature only gets you to increased randomness, then how will you ever get to any level of complexity?

 

[PlastikBuddha]

How very unresponsive!

We don't know how gravity works, but we can sure give a reasonable guess as to what happened given a starting point and a final result. Why can't evolution do the same?

Because it relies on RANDOM mutations! Really, Stipe, that should be pretty obvious.

Bad science, perhaps.

Real science. Not the kind that starts with the "answer" and works backwards, like creationism.

I don't have an argument with that, but it also wasn't the question. Or anything even closely related to the question.

I can't see how.

OK. Explain how a caterpillar's ancestor developed the ability to dissolve itself in order to turn into a butterfly while retaining the ability to reproduce more effective offspring...

I already did. All of the steps from egg to adult are observable in modern insects. All that is needed is a change in the timing (controlled by hormones) to delay certain steps so that for instance, a caterpillar hatches and increases its own energy supply before making the final transformation. It has nothing to with the ability to reproduce since this happens BEFORE adulthood. :duh:

I'm comfortable with not understanding how things work at times. I'm not comfortable with ideas that we must rely on our imaginations to find answers for.

Then you're not comfortable with science at all. It all comes down to using the imagination.

I'll agree that the TOE ain't all that reassuring :chuckle:

That's not what it's there for. If you want reassurance get a security blanket. If you want to understand how life came to be what is today then get ToE. Ask for it by name.

 

[fourcheeze]

Ah, but the Earth is part of an isolated system, the universe.. No evidence that an infinite amount of energy is being pumped into the universe. Everything runs out of energy over time, and falls to pieces.

Have you seen that big hot thing in the sky pumping energy into our system?

Question, do you beilieve the universe has been here forever?

Depends on what you mean by "forever".

 

[Lighthouse]

:mock:random mutations.

 

[fourcheeze]

If you agree that evolution is not about development, but about inheritance, then your argument about pupae evolving a protection mechanism (chrysalis, etc) cannot be taken seriously. Before the pupae evolved this mechanism, they will have died out before being able to successfully pass on an alteration (however minor) genetically, having never reached maturity.

I will first confess that I'm not at all well read on the whole pupae thing. However assuming that at some point a species existed which had a similar larval stage to a butterfly, but was much less complex than the butterfly, then it seems consistent within the ToE that this could have been an ancestor to the butterfly.

The prolonging of this stage that you call "embryonic" would not be stable enough in any fraction of the increment to produce a mature, reproducible adult stage. That's where the problem comes into play - not with the wings, but rather with reaching maturity at all without the process being complete.

Again I'm speaking out of complete ignorance to this exact area, but I can work out at least two logical progressions that would be consistent with evolutionary theory. One would be that the early stage originally had the ability to reproduce and that this was lost because of the secondary phase taking over before maturity was ever reached.

Alternatively there are many animals that produce wings to reproduce. Over time development of the essentials can be move later and later until you have almost a different creature.

 

[Toast]

Have you read the whole book Darwin's Black Box?

If so, you should be aware that Behe states:

-The Earth is billion of years old.
- Evolution had produced new organisms.
- All organisms share a common ancestor.
- Humans evolved from apes.

Oh, and his Irreducible Complexity arguments states that there was no way for the flaggellum to have possibly evolved by Darwinian process. All that has to be done to refute a statement like this is to show that there is indeed a way that flaggellum could have possibly evolved by Darwinian process. This has been done, so the argument is obsolete.

Yea, i've read the entire book, and I understand his POV, however, I'm focusing on that which I believe to be true and a valid argument.. As for it being disproven, I somehow doubt that..

 

[Toast]

Have you seen that big hot thing in the sky pumping energy into our system?



Depends on what you mean by "forever".

Yea, its the sun, which will run out of energy one day. Forever means forever..

Simply put, the universe couldnt be here forever and be in an ordered state.

 

[PlastikBuddha]

Yea, its the sun, which will run out of energy one day. Forever means forever..

Simply put, the universe couldnt be here forever and be in an ordered state.

Who believes the universe has been here forever?

 

[fourcheeze]

Yea, its the sun, which will run out of energy one day. Forever means forever..

The point is that it hasn't run out yet, which is why things around here can go into a more ordered state at its expense.

Simply put, the universe couldnt be here forever and be in an ordered state.

Again it still depends what you mean by forever. If you believe that the beginning of the universe defines what we know as time, then it could have been around "forever".

Generally though the problem you are alluding to: "where did all that energy come from in the first place and why hasn't it all run out" is solved by the total sum of the energy of the universe being zero.

In any case, don't confuse ToE with atheism. It's quite feasible to many of us that the whole thing was set off by God (or other supreme being) but didn't take the course set out by Genesis.

 

[Stripe]

Because it relies on RANDOM mutations! Really, Stipe, that should be pretty obvious.

I know the theory. The question is, "How?" Telling me it is random is wholly unresponsive.

Real science. Not the kind that starts with the "answer" and works backwards, like creationism.

This statement directly contradicts your comment about imagination.

Then you're not comfortable with science at all. It all comes down to using the imagination.

I already did. All of the steps from egg to adult are observable in modern insects.

Which is only proof that all those examples exist today and that they can be lined up to "show" such development.

All that is needed is a change in the timing (controlled by hormones) to delay certain steps so that for instance, a caterpillar hatches and increases its own energy supply before making the final transformation. It has nothing to with the ability to reproduce since this happens BEFORE adulthood.

The ability to reproduce is located in a butterfly. According to evolutionary theory that ability had to once reside in the ancestral, and imaginary, caterpillar-only version.

 

[aharvey]

Not sure which kind of flagellum, read Darwins Black Box..

I think you're missing the point here (I'm not the first to make it in response to Behe's unfortunate example, incidentally). There are many different types of bacterial flagella, they share variable numbers of components, and the shared components may or may not differ in their details, and yet all these different types of flagella somehow manage to be functional. Thus, Behe's claim that a bacterial flagella can only function if it has one specific and complete set of components is demonstrably incorrect. Furthermore, if I'm not mistaken he admitted in the Dover trial that natural selection could lead from one of these flagellar types to another.

To answer your last question, negative, I grew up going to public schools and I attended biology class there. We were taught evolution, and I believed evolution.

Yes, I'm sadly familiar with the level of detailed coverage public schools devote to evolutionary theory. So in fact your answer would be in the positive: the only book or books you've read concerning evolutionary theory have been criticisms of it.

 

[aharvey]

If you agree that evolution is not about development, but about inheritance, then your argument about pupae evolving a protection mechanism (chrysalis, etc) cannot be taken seriously. Before the pupae evolved this mechanism, they will have died out before being able to successfully pass on an alteration (however minor) genetically, having never reached maturity. The reason I claim that the only way a species can get through this type of development (metamorphosis of any kind) would be in one giant leap, because any other answer ends in the death of the species before procreation can occur. The prolonging of this stage that you call "embryonic" would not be stable enough in any fraction of the increment to produce a mature, reproducible adult stage. That's where the problem comes into play - not with the wings, but rather with reaching maturity at all without the process being complete.

It sounds like you have the likely evolutionary progression in this example backwards. You don't start with a caterpillar and ask how it can evolve the ability to profoundly metamorphose (there are no caterpillars that lay eggs, but there are winged insects that do not undergo profound metamorphoses). You start with a winged adult and you ask how it can evolve a larval stage that is different from the adult, and then how can it evolve a larval stage that is ultimately so different that it requires a metamorphosis, then how can it evolve a metamorphosis that is as dramatic as that of a butterfly.

The ability to reproduce is located in a butterfly. According to evolutionary theory that ability had to once reside in the ancestral, and imaginary, caterpillar-only version.

See above, stipe. Once again, you've got evolutionary theory wrong. There was never a caterpillar-only version, except in your fevered imagination. There was a winged, non-metamorphosing version.

 

[nicholsmom]

I will first confess that I'm not at all well read on the whole pupae thing. However assuming that at some point a species existed which had a similar larval stage to a butterfly, but was much less complex than the butterfly, then it seems consistent within the ToE that this could have been an ancestor to the butterfly.

Ok, but how did that ancestor get to the point of metamorphosis? I'm not overly concerned that this be an issue about butterflies, but about the possibility of inheritance of metamorphosis.

Again I'm speaking out of complete ignorance to this exact area, but I can work out at least two logical progressions that would be consistent with evolutionary theory. One would be that the early stage originally had the ability to reproduce and that this was lost because of the secondary phase taking over before maturity was ever reached.

Yes, I agree with the idea that an earlier relative could be able to reproduce without metamorphosis. The question is how can it have gone from that to the requirement of metamorphosis without a big leap? How could it get there in generational minor alterations to the genome? Since evolutionary change comes about by way of inheritance of "random mutations" of the genome, how could the non-metamorphosing insect ancestor pass on a random mutation that would get the next generation to even a half-way point in the pupate stage? What would that look like? The pupate stage has no intermediate "steps" or stages at which to stop for a "breather" to mate at that point in the process. It must get all the way through the process & emerge on the other side whole & ready to procreate.

I don't mind saying that this process is a "leap" in the otherwise slow process of evolution, but it seems that the evolutionists don't want to say that - or haven't yet said it. If they would say, "yes, it represents a leap, which is something for which we cannot account," then fine, they are admitting that they are also just guessing based on really nothing in this particular instance. If they are willing to admit that their guesses - on just this one issue - are no more based in scientific observation than those of creationists, then we can agree.

Alternatively there are many animals that produce wings to reproduce. Over time development of the essentials can be move later and later until you have almost a different creature.

Again, you have not shown a viable, slow, incremental processes for getting through the pupate stage of insect life. If evolutionary advances are made by minute random mutations that are inherited a piece at a time, then what would each stopping point look like? An oozy mass is all I can see, and no one has suggested anything like an inheritable alteration that is not a great leap.

 

[Stripe]

See above, stipe. Once again, you've got evolutionary theory wrong. There was never a caterpillar-only version, except in your fevered imagination. There was a winged, non-metamorphosing version.

OK, that makes a little less nonsense :chuckle:

 

[aharvey]

OK, that makes a little less nonsense :chuckle:

Great, so could you tell nicholsmom? I don't think she's reading my posts!

Oh, and what about post 155? Pigs flying and all that.

 

[Stripe]

Great, so could you tell nicholsmom? I don't think she's reading my posts!

Nicholsmom! Aharvey has an answer for one of the side questions we had. Stick to the point of the OP.

Oh, and what about post 155? Pigs flying and all that.

Not sure. Did someone steal it?

 

[nicholsmom]

It sounds like you have the likely evolutionary progression in this example backwards. You don't start with a caterpillar and ask how it can evolve the ability to profoundly metamorphose (there are no caterpillars that lay eggs, but there are winged insects that do not undergo profound metamorphoses). You start with a winged adult and you ask how it can evolve a larval stage that is different from the adult, and then how can it evolve a larval stage that is ultimately so different that it requires a metamorphosis, then how can it evolve a metamorphosis that is as dramatic as that of a butterfly.

This idea is much more appealing. Can you give me any info on these non-metamorphosing insects? Are there any living now that we know of (I realize that we know very few of the extant species of insects in the world)? Are there any in the fossil record? Do you have some websites I can look at? I have 2 daughters who are in the 4H entomology project & I'm sure they'd have fun with a poster on this sort of thing. I mean, butterflies & moths seem to predominate the bug boxes in addition to lots of beetles & dragonflies. If there were something this special about one of the species, that would be quite an ed-box coup for them.

 

[PlastikBuddha]

I know the theory. The question is, "How?" Telling me it is random is wholly unresponsive.

The how of mutations? That's known and understood. The how of mutations being expressed? That's known and understood. Which expressed mutations will prove to be beneficial (or at least non-harmful) and thus be passed along to the next generation and which mutations are most likely to occur in any given generation are questions we just don't have the kind of computing abilities to answer. I think even the attempt would make the human genome project look like Pong.

This statement directly contradicts your comment about imagination.

Only if you assume that people don't have any kind of critical thinking abilites to help them distinguish between an imagined experimental results and predictions and actual ones. Science is based ultimately on observation, otherwise it's just philosophy or pure math.

Which is only proof that all those examples exist today and that they can be lined up to "show" such development.

Or to provide a plausible explaination for how metamorphasis evolved.

The ability to reproduce is located in a butterfly. According to evolutionary theory that ability had to once reside in the ancestral, and imaginary, caterpillar-only version.

And? Obviously the caterpillar-like form would be predate the winged one by a long time (the larval stages of many different insects are similar) so the ability to reproduce would be standard issue - as it is in all organisms. I don't see the problem.

 

[fourcheeze]

An oozy mass is all I can see, and no one has suggested anything like an inheritable alteration that is not a great leap.

I think you're assuming that the Oozy mass came first, when it may have come after the ability to metamorphose.