unworthyone

This is one I posted before on another site but never really got a good answer.

How does a larvae come evolved from a reproductive type species, turn to a non-productive one and then only mutate back, while in the same lifetime mind you, to a productive one?

Again I've heard some "ideas" but nothing falsifiable.

Valentine Pontifex

Define your terms. What is a "reproductive type species," "non-productive one," and "productive one?

Automaton

Metamorphosis is not "evolution" at all, it is merely a rapid body change that occurs somewhere in the middle of the insect's lifespan. The species does not change during this process.

So, more importantly, what is your actual objection to this process evolving step-by-step, from a previous form which was a little less capable at metamorphosis, and so on? Furthermore, just because scientists don't have a current answer doesn't mean it is unanswerable. Why not come here claiming the eye could not have evolved step-by-step, as it is at least as (even, irreducibly) complex as the process of metamorphosis? Because you (likely) know that scientists have already mapped out a plasuable origin of the eye from a simple light-sensitive flap of skin. Where did this light sensitive flap of skin come from? Well, we don't have the answer yet, but a gap in the current knowledge does NOT mean God, or any other supernatural agency, must have been involved (unless you show conclusively that the stepwise process would be impossible).

unworthyone

1.A species cannot evolve without reproduction.
ex:The larvae had to be a reproduction organism at one point to get to the butterfly.
2.The larvae in its current state has no reproductive means.
3.The current species mutates into a another one by means of liquifying organs and DNA "instruction".
4.The butterfly is a reproductive species.

How could this happen?

unworthyone

I never said it was God. I am merely asking a question that has no answer. And no evidence as of yet has been shown to me this is an evolutionary process. And no one should truely make a theory about it unless they can test it.

[ April 05, 2002: Message edited by: unworthyone ]</p>

Daggah

Wrong. Again, metamorphosis is not evolution.

unworthyone

Not metamorphosis. The actual evolutionary process that created metamorphosis is what is in question. Sorry.

[ April 05, 2002: Message edited by: unworthyone ]</p>

Automaton

If you read carefully, I said "God, or any other supernatural agency" can never be a sufficient explanation. So, does this mean you are not going to make any positive claims about what you think caused the diversity of life on this planet, and stick to critiquing evolution? Good. That will be productive for both sides of the debate. And, as I stated in my previous post (in a part you might have missed), "just because it has no current answer does not mean it is unanswerable". If you are claiming it is unanswerable, and therefore is impossible to have formed stepwise, then you must demonstrate that it is indeed impossible. we'll be waiting...
I don't know where you're getting your information, but metamorphosis is not an evolutionary process at all! (Unless you're using the generic meaning of "evolution", which is "change". But in a biological context this meaning is never used.) One last time, you are making the specific claim that it is unanswerable, therefore impossible (by physical or logical necessity), and hence you must back up your assertions and show why it would be so.
So are you claiming evolution is unfalsifiable? Then why are you contradicting yourself by trying to falsify it?

unworthyone

So metamorphosis always was around? I was stating the evolutionary process to get to metamorphosis hasn't been backed by evidence. At least to me.

[ April 05, 2002: Message edited by: unworthyone ]</p>

Automaton

So all you are saying is that metamorphosis is a gap in the knowledge. This does not falsify evolution. Just because at current, scientists can't provide the plausable evolutionary histories of every single of the trillions of characteristics that life has, does not mean the theory is wrong. For metamorphosis to be an actual challlenge to evolutionary hypotheses, as you seem to think it is, then you would have to show that it would be impossible for it to form via evolution.