Quizzes & Puzzles0 min ago
Can Evolution Explain ...........
40 Answers
The Chrysalis?
What environmental pressures could ever have brought about the the process of catterpillar, chrysalis, to butterfly?
What possible use / strengths woulfd the intermediate stage have?
Still there is a God!
What environmental pressures could ever have brought about the the process of catterpillar, chrysalis, to butterfly?
What possible use / strengths woulfd the intermediate stage have?
Still there is a God!
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Theland1. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Ah, the so-called 'argument from incredulity' ('I don't understand, therefore it's impossible')
There are two explanations.
The first is that having distinctly different niches occupied during larval and adult phases increases the likelihood of larval survival (by having a different food source to the adults, it's far more likely the larva will survive) and adult reproduction (by maximising the chances the adult will be able to survive to reproduce).
The second is that the larvae are actually precocious embryos, and the metamorphosis seen is actually not especiallly more remarkable than is seen in other creatures.
Additionally, if you think the metamorphosis itself is too complicated to have evolved, there's a wealth of evidence from other creatures that show precisely the sorts of necessary intermediates that would be required.
Still trying to find major flaws in the theory of evolution that have never even occured to professional biologists, eh, Theland?
There are two explanations.
The first is that having distinctly different niches occupied during larval and adult phases increases the likelihood of larval survival (by having a different food source to the adults, it's far more likely the larva will survive) and adult reproduction (by maximising the chances the adult will be able to survive to reproduce).
The second is that the larvae are actually precocious embryos, and the metamorphosis seen is actually not especiallly more remarkable than is seen in other creatures.
Additionally, if you think the metamorphosis itself is too complicated to have evolved, there's a wealth of evidence from other creatures that show precisely the sorts of necessary intermediates that would be required.
Still trying to find major flaws in the theory of evolution that have never even occured to professional biologists, eh, Theland?
Excellent answer, Waldo.
How arrogant the 'argument from incredulity' is, isn't it? What it says, in effect, is "I can't understand it, therefore no-one else can."
Never mind, let's sit back now and let Theland explain how his God designed and made the chrysalis. I have a feeling that he'll find it rather harder than explaining it by evolution.
How arrogant the 'argument from incredulity' is, isn't it? What it says, in effect, is "I can't understand it, therefore no-one else can."
Never mind, let's sit back now and let Theland explain how his God designed and made the chrysalis. I have a feeling that he'll find it rather harder than explaining it by evolution.
I am no scientist, which may become apparent as you read this. But perhaps you could consider the slow development of the chrysalis itself over a very long period of time. Whilst we do have butterfly fossils, because of their very structure, it is virtually impossible to find fossils of pupa. But that is not to say they are not out there somewhere.
One school of thought is that insects which now require complete metamorphism (egg, larva, pupa, adult) started out as existing and reproducing through incomplete metamorphism (egg, nymph, adult) such as cockroaches. Consider that at some point some of these insect eggs began hatching before they were fully formed. Others, like cockroaches continued as they were, having no competitive pressures to change, but for other insects a nymph stage aided their survival and it was added to their life cycle. Eventually at some point a nymph formed a cocoon around itself before maturing to the adult stage, which enabled it to survive a winter or a changing environment and emerge full grown, evolving stringer and stronger through this life cycle process.
I would say it is a bit like premature babies nowadays. Through the use of incubators and advancement in medicine generally, their chances of survival to adulthood in the 21st C are far greater than would ever have been thought possible before. Thus premature babies are perhaps facing the survival challenges that nature has dealt them.
One school of thought is that insects which now require complete metamorphism (egg, larva, pupa, adult) started out as existing and reproducing through incomplete metamorphism (egg, nymph, adult) such as cockroaches. Consider that at some point some of these insect eggs began hatching before they were fully formed. Others, like cockroaches continued as they were, having no competitive pressures to change, but for other insects a nymph stage aided their survival and it was added to their life cycle. Eventually at some point a nymph formed a cocoon around itself before maturing to the adult stage, which enabled it to survive a winter or a changing environment and emerge full grown, evolving stringer and stronger through this life cycle process.
I would say it is a bit like premature babies nowadays. Through the use of incubators and advancement in medicine generally, their chances of survival to adulthood in the 21st C are far greater than would ever have been thought possible before. Thus premature babies are perhaps facing the survival challenges that nature has dealt them.
In all honesty what did you expect? People to say "darn that's a good one, evolution made everything else but god made the butterflies, therefore god exists. Well done that man".
If you want us to belive in god you'll have to come up with something better than butterflies. I know it's difficult but that's the point. The onus is on you to prove god exists otherwise I'm afraid god doesn't exist. A bit like fairies really.
If you want us to belive in god you'll have to come up with something better than butterflies. I know it's difficult but that's the point. The onus is on you to prove god exists otherwise I'm afraid god doesn't exist. A bit like fairies really.
Another popular chapter in "The Creationists book of clever questions that are comprehensively debunked but which we ask anyway ".
The point presumably being, 'Since evolution is about the way that successful adaptations are selected for via greater reproductive success, and homosexuals don't reproduce, homosexuality is incompatible with evolution?'
We don't definitively know what causes homosexuality, so we can't say for sure.
We would have to know definitively whether homosexuality is a heritable trait to know whether is can be affected by evolution. If it isn't, it can't be and your question is irrelevant.
Homosexuality may simply be a gene that is normally responsible for F-M heterosexuality that has been turned on in males, or M-F heterosexuality that has been turned on in females.
The point presumably being, 'Since evolution is about the way that successful adaptations are selected for via greater reproductive success, and homosexuals don't reproduce, homosexuality is incompatible with evolution?'
We don't definitively know what causes homosexuality, so we can't say for sure.
We would have to know definitively whether homosexuality is a heritable trait to know whether is can be affected by evolution. If it isn't, it can't be and your question is irrelevant.
Homosexuality may simply be a gene that is normally responsible for F-M heterosexuality that has been turned on in males, or M-F heterosexuality that has been turned on in females.
If it is heritable, then it would have to negatively affect reproduction rates to be incompatible. As you, of course, know, evolution is not about individuals but populations. Homosexuals may contribute to the upbringing of their sibling's children, thus positively affectiving reproduction rates in the population. In any case, many predominantly homosexual animals, including humans, still reproduce.
Additionally, even if one wished to characterise homosexual behaviour as evolutionarily maladaptive, there are many examples of maladaptive traits that have evolved on the back of useful ones; for example the same gene which gives many resistance to cholera and thus is selected for, is also responsible for cystic fibrosis.
Further, if homosexuality is not a heritable trait but a socially determined one, then it may simply be too recent to have been selected for by evolution, (particularly if you consider the fact that in humans we regularly choose to bypass evolutionary pressures through medicine and technology - we are no longer entirely subject to it).
Many animals exihibit homosexual behaviour for reinforcing social bonds, and far from possessing no societal benefits are significant factors in social cohesion.
In short, the question has already been extensively considered, and has many possible answers, however, until we know what causes homosexuality for sure, we cannot say for definite how it fits in with evolution. Whichever way it turns out, there's nothing to suggest any incompatibility with evolution.
Additionally, even if one wished to characterise homosexual behaviour as evolutionarily maladaptive, there are many examples of maladaptive traits that have evolved on the back of useful ones; for example the same gene which gives many resistance to cholera and thus is selected for, is also responsible for cystic fibrosis.
Further, if homosexuality is not a heritable trait but a socially determined one, then it may simply be too recent to have been selected for by evolution, (particularly if you consider the fact that in humans we regularly choose to bypass evolutionary pressures through medicine and technology - we are no longer entirely subject to it).
Many animals exihibit homosexual behaviour for reinforcing social bonds, and far from possessing no societal benefits are significant factors in social cohesion.
In short, the question has already been extensively considered, and has many possible answers, however, until we know what causes homosexuality for sure, we cannot say for definite how it fits in with evolution. Whichever way it turns out, there's nothing to suggest any incompatibility with evolution.
Homosexuality is not an isolated species - it is common in many species of animals. There still remains no real/true explanation of why homosexuality occurs.
However, to assume that people who are homosexual cannot breed or produce offspring (that are or are not homosexual themselves) is rather juvenile.
However, to assume that people who are homosexual cannot breed or produce offspring (that are or are not homosexual themselves) is rather juvenile.
I'm not trying to convey anything, it's just a question, nay sayers constantly harp on about religion and homosexuality but they, until now (thankyou Waldo), never attempt to say with any certainty why homosexuality exists.
It serves no evolutionary purpose but glancing through it (I'm off to work in a mo) it appears that you're saying socialisation has an effect on evolution so it's nature and nurture pre birth?
For what purpose?
Seriously I'm not about to go on an anti gay rant (far from it) I'm genuinely interested in the evolutionary take on homosexuality.
For the record I believe the challenge for gay people is the same as for straight people which is to find someone who they love and who loves them and so doubling the amount of love in this world.
Naomi to answer your question, I call it free will, perhaps you'd be so kind as to answer my initial question.
It serves no evolutionary purpose but glancing through it (I'm off to work in a mo) it appears that you're saying socialisation has an effect on evolution so it's nature and nurture pre birth?
For what purpose?
Seriously I'm not about to go on an anti gay rant (far from it) I'm genuinely interested in the evolutionary take on homosexuality.
For the record I believe the challenge for gay people is the same as for straight people which is to find someone who they love and who loves them and so doubling the amount of love in this world.
Naomi to answer your question, I call it free will, perhaps you'd be so kind as to answer my initial question.
[homosexuality] serves no evolutionary purpose
It depends on the cause of homosexuality. Since we don't know, we can't say whether it does or not.
but glancing through it (I'm off to work in a mo) it appears that you're saying socialisation has an effect on evolution so it's nature and nurture pre birth?
No; we don't know what it is (but how can you have pre-birth nuturing?)
For what purpose?
That would depend on homosexuality being a heritable trait, but if it were, there are a number of possibles, as detailed before.
Remember, any parent gives 50% of its DNA to its child. The parent's sibling also shares 50% of the DNA of that child and therefore it is to the sibling's advantage to ensure the survival of the child even though it's not biologically its own.
Maybe having x% homosexual indivuals in a population means that although the total number of live births per population is lower, their input into the upbringing and protection of the offspring of siblings means that a greater number reach reproductive age and thus is selected for.
It depends on the cause of homosexuality. Since we don't know, we can't say whether it does or not.
but glancing through it (I'm off to work in a mo) it appears that you're saying socialisation has an effect on evolution so it's nature and nurture pre birth?
No; we don't know what it is (but how can you have pre-birth nuturing?)
For what purpose?
That would depend on homosexuality being a heritable trait, but if it were, there are a number of possibles, as detailed before.
Remember, any parent gives 50% of its DNA to its child. The parent's sibling also shares 50% of the DNA of that child and therefore it is to the sibling's advantage to ensure the survival of the child even though it's not biologically its own.
Maybe having x% homosexual indivuals in a population means that although the total number of live births per population is lower, their input into the upbringing and protection of the offspring of siblings means that a greater number reach reproductive age and thus is selected for.
One cannot say it too often - but apparently one has to say it often enough - that evolution has no purpose, no aim, no plan, no final objective. So to say that something 'serves no evolutionary purpose' is meaningless.
Mutations are random, with those that tolerate the prevailing conditions surviving through natural selection. There is nothing in homosexuality per se to make a homosexual creature less able to catch prey or less able to avoid predators. And since they can reproduce, some of them will have done so, possible a minority.
Mutations are random, with those that tolerate the prevailing conditions surviving through natural selection. There is nothing in homosexuality per se to make a homosexual creature less able to catch prey or less able to avoid predators. And since they can reproduce, some of them will have done so, possible a minority.
Chakka, you're right, of course.
However, I took it to mean 'why is homosexuality selected for by natural selection?' - given Everton's admission that he's not actually read what I said properly and thus presumably hasn't seen all the possible benefits that it might have (assuming it's a heritable trait), it seemed to me that that was the question he was trying to ask.
However, I took it to mean 'why is homosexuality selected for by natural selection?' - given Everton's admission that he's not actually read what I said properly and thus presumably hasn't seen all the possible benefits that it might have (assuming it's a heritable trait), it seemed to me that that was the question he was trying to ask.
An observation: It is an unfortunate fact that we use expressions such as 'selected' because this does give a possibly misleading impression that there is some motive force behind evolution (which plays into the hands of the ID brigade and their nonsense ideas), whereas what the shorthand is actually saying is simply, 'those who have x trait survive to reproduce in their environment better than those that do not, and thus are more prevalent'.
