Re: Mission Impossible

On May 31, 3:15 am, "[M]adman" <ad...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Ernest Major wrote:
In message <6oidnUsTg-XGjL_XnZ2dnUVZ_sSdn...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, rmj
<gle...@xxxxxxx> writes

"[M]adman" <ad...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:BMeUl.4278$Xl4.1527@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
The monarch butterfly, scientific name Danous plexippus, is a large,
orange-and-black butterfly, common to much of North America. It is
famous for its annual migrations to and from wintering grounds in
Mexico and California, see National Geographic, vol. 150, no. 2,
August 1976. The monarch starts life as an egg laid by the adult female
on a
leaf of the common milkweed plant, Asclepias syriaca. It is about
the size of the head of a pin. When the egg hatches 3 to 12 days
later, the tiny yellow-, white-, and black-striped worm-like larva,
or caterpillar, has eight pairs of stubby legs for crawling about,
and mouth parts designed for chewing leaves, which it does,
voraciously. But only the leaves of the milkweed; no other plant
will do. Now the milkweed has a white, sticky sap that is highly
toxic to other animals, but does not affect the caterpillar at all,
except to make his body, in turn, highly toxic to predators like
birds that might like to eat the caterpillar for breakfast. And the
birds, being no bird-brains, know to leave him alone. As the caterpillar
eats and eats, it grows. Soon it gets too large
for its skin, so the skin splits and out crawls the caterpillar
with a new and larger skin with room to grow. For about two weeks
this is what the caterpillar does: eats leaves, grows, sheds its
skin, eats more leaves, grows more, sheds its skin. It will do this
five times. Finally it stops eating, finds a protected spot, hangs
upside-down,
spins a silk attachment, and sheds its skin one more time. But this
time what emerges from the old skin is not a larger caterpillar,
but a compact package with no legs and no eyes, and no visible body
parts, called a pupa, encased in a chrysalis. It is not
multi-colored like the caterpillar, but is bright green with
golden-yellow spots. No further movement is observed, but inside there
is much movement.
The heart still beats, but the rest of the internal organs resemble
green jelly, as the entire mass reshapes itself into a completely
different creature. The green color darkens, turns brown. To an
uninformed observer, the package may appear dead. But gradually the
color modifies as the chrysalis turns clear, and orange and black
areas can be seen, the colors of the adult butterfly.

Finally, after about two weeks, the chrysalis splits open, and an
adult butterfly emerges. It has six long legs, a mouth that is a
long coiled-tube proboscis used for reaching into flowers to drink
nectar, and two pairs of shriveled wings that rapidly expand as
fluid from the body is pumped into their veins. As they expand, the
butterfly slowly fans them back and forth with newly-acquired
flight muscles until they are dry, so that the fully-extended wings
are stiff, ready for flight. Soon the butterfly flits off into the sky,
and may be found in
someone's flower garden, drinking nectar with its uncoiled
proboscis, or flying overhead looking for a mate to start the whole
cycle all over againhttp://www.creationism.org/batman/monarch.htm
=====

Your mission /Jim/, should you decide to accept it, is to explain
HOW the above transformation could POSSIBLY have developed by
accident, by a collection of genetic mistakes, with NO PURPOSE, NO
INTELLIGENCE involved, guided only by survival of the fittest, as
some primitive creature without wings gradually evolved into a
flying butterfly. Which stages of the above process, called complete
metamorphosis,
can you put off for a while because those accidents haven't
occurred yet? If even one enzyme is missing, how does the
egg-to-larva-to-pupa-to-adult transformation happen? It must all be
present and functional, in the right timing and sequence, or the
creature dies. It all works, or none of it works.

But don't give me some "just-so" story; I want
scientifically-feasible explanations that a geneticist wouldn't
laugh at as ridiculous. And don't call it "Nature's miracle",
unless you are willing to acknowledge intelligent, creative design
in the god you call Nature. ...This article will NOT self-destruct in 10
seconds.

You won't get such explanations as, of course, you expect. Instead
the ad hominems are flowing so they need not admit that they cannot
comprehend the the beautiful complexity of nature. The term "natural
selection" (while a leap of imagination for Darwin and some others)
has become a substitute for imagination. No need to muse over how
something could come to exist; just place your faith in the theory
that survival of the fit over billions of years driven by random
mutations can do anything.
M/adman avoided drawing any conclusions from whether an explanation
can be provided down to every gene (where's the family tree
connecting you to Adam?), and hence avoided nailing explicitly
nailing his colours to the mast of nihilism. You seem to have at
least one foot in the tarpit.
You might also note that M/adman explicity rejected musings over how
metamorphosis came to exist from consideration,.

Same old evolutionist trickery. The next number in line is 1278

So. Let's call this one:

"Evolutionist Trickery #1278": "Lack of explaination substituted with ad
hominem."

Can you bozo's answer or refute any of the OP?

No, of course not. The best you can do is ad hominems.

Why is the spectrum of metamorphosis seen in insects, from ametabolous
through hemimetabolous to holometabolous, mirrored so well in the host
of other insect traits? In other words, ametabolous insects are
ancestral in their other traits; hemimetabolous insects are often
intermediate; holometabolous insects exhibit the most derived states.
If you wish to claim common design please explain your rationale and
back it up with evidence from specific taxa.

Chris
When you're done with that, tell us:
....why black-on-white crime is worse than black-on-black crime. and
....how different genetic constitutions resulting in different
structures that do different things in different taxa is evidence of
common design, and
....how is Haile Sellassie and what did you have for lunch when you
visited with him?
(mock mock!)

.