Automaton

That's a very futile pursuit. Of course it could be creation, everything could be creation. To make a tired argument, the entire universe and everything in it could have been made last Thursday by a trickster God, and all our memories and evidence of past experiences have been implanted just to trick us. Creation is an empty hypothesis.

unworthyone

How do you know? You don't know how butterflies evolved, but you do know creation is empty? Isn't that more of an assumption as opposed to proof?

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

Automaton

I just posted why creation is empty, because my story above is just as valid as any creation hypothesis.

unworthyone

Okay so we admit that there is no more evidence to evolution as there is in creation in regards to butterflies?

lpetrich

How a distinct larval form emerged is certainly an interesting question; here's what I think is a reasonable possibility:

The earlier and more primitive insects have immature phases that are much like their full-grown one, and that usually share the same habitats. But these immature phases can suffer selection different from that of the mature phases, because they do not fly or try to reproduce. Thus, immature and mature phases can diverge in features.

One problem with how much of such evolution can happen is that a growing insect has to change from an immature configuration to a mature configuration. However, as they grow, insects molt, and an insect can extend its final molt so that it can do whatever configuration changes are necessary.

And with a sufficiently-extended final molt, the immature and mature phases can look considerably different and be adapted to very different lifestyles -- thus a 4-stage lifecycle.

Valentine Pontifex

You would NOT make reasoning for any other field besides evolutionary biology. How do I know? Simple. By that reasoning you would have to reject atomic theory, the theory of gravity, quantum theory, thermodynamics, and pretty much every theory of any importance in science. Hey we don't understand quite a bit about chemistry, but that does not make alchemy any more valid.
The explanation in terms of atoms and molecules for a great deal of what you see around you everyday is a mystery. I don't see you attacking atomic theory.

The argument you are using is also a "moveable goalpost" arguement. If we had provided you a detailed plausible hypothesis of how the life cycle of lepidoptera evolved, you would then simply picked some other question. If we answered that one, you would then try another. Like all sciences, biology has many mysteries. Indeed if all the mysteries are solved, biologist will have to find another profession.

unworthyone

True. But the point is:
We admit that there is no more evidence to evolution as there is for creation in regards to butterflies.

And btw - this is how evolutionists argue with creationists and vice/versa. It's called debate.

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

Automaton

No, there is no evidence for creation, there can be no positive evidence for it. That's why it is empty. I was referring to my story of creation, by the Trickster God. That story of creation is as valid as any other story of creation. Thus "creation" cannot be a positive hypothesis.

unworthyone

In the single aspect of butterflies, there is no evidence for either creation or evolution. Only questions exist.

Automaton

It's not a case of answering whether evolution did occur on something or not, because as I explained, everything can be pinned down to creation. It is a case of finding the plausable evolutionary scenario that could have created it.