NTI's Christian Theology Thread

[socko]

Maybe it's a bad way to think about it. I don't mean what happens during development. I mean only the behavior of making the cocoon. and for dogs, the behavior of taking a bath. Both behaviors involve attention to the whole body. Maybe there is a chemical signal on the body of the larva that makes it cover itself with the cocoon. The dog, on the other hand, would probably be responding to its smell or a sensation when it needs a bath.

 

[swilow]

Maybe there is a chemical signal on the body of the larva that makes it cover itself with the cocoon

I think its hormone release triggered by environmental cues, like temperature. It might not be correct to say it's covering its body, when the whole point of the pupae is complete metamorphosis. The body is the thing that is changing. That seems to be quite different to the behavioural adaptation that you've noticed in dogs. Bathing is behavioural, metamorphosis is biological. They share some attributes though I suppose.

 

[methamaniac]

Itis thought that the various stages of life of metamorphosing insects actual evolved separately/independantly, so the pupa/cocoon sequence evolved separately to the larval and imago stage. I wonder if it could be said that each stage represents an entirely new discrete animal and not the continuum that we perceive

^
Here's the thing, caterpillars can't reproduce(meaning they have no reproduction system) .......
only buterflies. So, which do you suppose came first?
caterpillar or butterfly?

 

[swilow]

^
Here's the thing, caterpillars can't reproduce(meaning they have no reproduction system) .......
only buterflies. So, which do you suppose came first?
caterpillar or butterfly?

Your question demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of what evolution is. Evolution does not posit the sudden emergence of complete and complex lifeforms and life-cycles. It suggests the gradual 'refinement' of pre-existing organisms. So it would be incorrect to say that either the caterpillar or butterfly came first, because it would really have been some sort of intermediary animal. I feel like the idea of evolution that you are arguing against is not the actuality of the theory of evolution.

I know that it seems improbable that such complex life would emerge spontaneously. Its is improbable, but in our universe, there does appear to be a principle of organisation of sorts. From small, limited components can arise incredible and unpredictable complexity, as evidenced by the structure of the universe that we see.

 

[methamaniac]

Your question demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of what evolution is.

The old "I'm not smart enough to understand" argument (*rolls eyes*).
Just because there is no explanation for my example doesn't mean I'm misunderstanding anything. You're assuming process of metamorphosis happened by chance because you believe it had to happen by chance. That is circular in nature my friend.

I fully understand Neo-Darwinism/modern synthesis. It's not a particularly hard concept to grasp. Yes, organisms are complex, but the theory is pretty straightforward.
At the crux, selected random mutations over long periods of time is the mechanism for change.
This means process is truly random and is gradual.
When a caterpillar matures and forms a chrysalis, the caterpillar’s body almost completely dissolves into a yellow mush which then serves as a source for raw materials to reform into a butterfly.
How would destroying almost the entire body and reforming into something that, by morphology alone (I won't get into the real problems right now)would be a very different organism, come about by Darwinian gradualism?
For example, where’s the selection value in a partially decomposed body?
It's obvi an all or nothing event that happens rapidly.

Evolution does not posit the sudden emergence of complete and complex lifeforms and life-cycles.

?No shit..... and I never gave any indication it did.

It suggests the gradual 'refinement' of pre-existing organisms. So it would be incorrect to say that either the caterpillar or butterfly came first, because it would really have been some sort of intermediary animal.

I'm asking chronologically....
(and exactly how do you have an intermediate organism with respect to the caterpillar and butterfly? )
Caterpillars can't reproduce, only butterflies.
How do you explain the evolution of the caterpillar
as we know it today?
Im not trying to throw the old " chicken and egg" question at you (although it is one)
I'm saying seems logical you would have to have the butterfly before the caterpillar, no? But we all know you need a caterpillar to get a butterfly, no?
But like I said, caterpillars can't reproduce.
So in respect to the evolution of the butterfly, how in any conceivable terms can you explain the life stages with slow gradual accumulated mutations (key point) and/ or the rapid change(in and from) the caterpillar -to butterfly.
(Don't forget that pesky chrysalis in calculations)

I feel like the idea of evolution that you are arguing against is not the actuality of the theory of evolution.

?What? Please explain this in more detail.......

know that it seems improbable that such complex life would emerge spontaneously. Its is improbable, but in our universe, there does appear to be a principle of organisation of sorts. From small, limited components can arise incredible and unpredictable complexity, as evidenced by the structure of the universe that we see.

I'm not saying all this is improbable, I'm saying it's impossible according to current evolution paradigm, and there is zero proof otherwise.
(in adddition, it's 100% faith based that life forming spontaneously is possible)
I'm not using a "god of gaps" arguement here,
or an argument from ignorance.
I'm saying there can be no gaps in processs of metamorphosis or you get NO reproduction, thus, no evolution.
The ignorance (willful or unwillful) lies in not seeing this.

 

[Journyman16]

^
Here's the thing, caterpillars can't reproduce(meaning they have no reproduction system) .......
only buterflies. So, which do you suppose came first?
caterpillar or butterfly?

The caterpillar/butterfly sequence IS a fascinating example of something for which we don't really have an explanation. Willow is correct in that they represent different entities because the caterpillar actually breaks down completely inside the cocoon, then reforms as a butterfly - it is not a case of it somehow losing some bits and growing new ones, it basically turns to a protein mush and then a new creature forms.

The closest might be the way some wasps implant into an insect and their babies grow and eat the carcass. Perhaps that's how the butterfly started? Maybe the caterpillar contains a gene sequence from the invader that triggers the cocoon actions?

 

[Journyman16]

Maybe it's a bad way to think about it. I don't mean what happens during development. I mean only the behavior of making the cocoon. and for dogs, the behavior of taking a bath. Both behaviors involve attention to the whole body. Maybe there is a chemical signal on the body of the larva that makes it cover itself with the cocoon. The dog, on the other hand, would probably be responding to its smell or a sensation when it needs a bath.

The most likely thing for dogs, knowing how they live and behave, would be they learned it's a good way to get rid of parasites. :D

 

[sekio]

I'm asking chronologically....
(and exactly how do you have an intermediate organism with respect to the caterpillar and butterfly? )
Caterpillars can't reproduce, only butterflies.
How do you explain the evolution of the caterpillar
as we know it today?

lots of insects have several life stages, pupae, larvae, immature juniors, and mature adults, i don't see why a caterpillar is so unique it is an exception? lots of immature insects cannot reproduce and the change from larvae to what we'd call a developed insect is quite a major structural one. most insects are not born "fully formed" but they do develop quite rapidly.

it makes evolutionary sense to me. caterpillars are slow moving, often full of defensive armaments (or at least hairs), and camouflaged leaf eating machines designed to suck down plant calories. after accumulating enough energy to ensure they survive long enough to find a mate they turn into a form which trades security for mobility which gives the highest chance to meet a potential mate.

I'm saying there can be no gaps in processs of metamorphosis or you get NO reproduction, thus, no evolution.

so what even does that mean. because there's no extant intermediate between the caterpillar and e.g. Lepidoptera spp. evolution is invalidated?

(it's weird to be arguing about entomology in what should be a theology thread.)

 

[methamaniac]

Perhaps that's how the butterfly started? Maybe the caterpillar contains a gene sequence from the invader that triggers the cocoon actions?

Are you saying parasitic wasps transferred genetic information from another species? Not sure I am reading correctly.

lots of insects have several lip it is an exception? lots of immature insects cannot reproduce and the change from larvae to what we'd call a developed insect is quite a major structural one. most insects are not born "fully formed" but they do develop quite rapidly.

it makes evolutionary sense to me. caterpillars are slow moving, often full of defensive armaments (or at least hairs), and camouflaged leaf eating machines designed to suck down plant calories. after accumulating enough energy to ensure they survive long enough to find a mate they turn into a form which trades security for mobility which gives the highest chance to meet a potential mate.

^
No offense (honestly), but this just describes what a caterpillar is/does. Not HOW it could evolve from gradual random mutation. How do you supppose this larvae evolved its morphological features and biological features (i.e brain/central nervous system) only to have completely diffferent features in a butterfly? At one time did you have buttterflies (or butterfly like organism) giving birth to eggs that developed into larvae without legs, and a fully formed brain, then somehow evolved them? How do you explain a brain evolving/developing (and being totally different --Don't forget the old brain was completely 'dissolved' into mostly mush) in the two different stages of one life cycle? Is this not somewhat "unique"?

so what even does that mean. because there's no extant intermediate between the caterpillar and e.g. Lepidoptera spp. evolution is invalidated?

It means what it says, butterfly metamorphosis is an all or nothing process. I don't really see how you have an intermediate stage.

(it's weird to be arguing about entomology in what should be a theology thread.)

Neo-Darwinism is theology ?

 

[Journyman16]

lots of insects have several life stages, pupae, larvae, immature juniors, and mature adults, i don't see why a caterpillar is so unique it is an exception? lots of immature insects cannot reproduce and the change from larvae to what we'd call a developed insect is quite a major structural one. most insects are not born "fully formed" but they do develop quite rapidly.

Theology usually comes down to the Evolutionist/Creationist battles... :D

The butterfly is fairly unique, AFAIK, in that the caterpillar actually dissolves into a soup from which the next stage grows. Most insects with a larval stage that I know of, do not have such a radical transformation - you can see the final result in larval form. The butterfly is completely different in form and function.

And no, Metha... I'm not specifying a parasitic wasp, simply pointing out it uses such a process in a host body to breed the young. Butterfly processes are similar in nature but different in that the young itself is the host plasm for the new entity.

 

[methamaniac]

Theology usually comes down to the Evolutionist/Creationist battles... :D

The butterfly is fairly unique, AFAIK, in that the caterpillar actually dissolves into a soup from which the next stage grows. Most insects with a larval stage that I know of, do not have such a radical transformation - you can see the final result in larval form. The butterfly is completely different in form and function.

Yes, they're unique, and in many ways.
The death of caterpilllar and subsequent resurrection/reincarnation (take ur pick ☺) into a new organism is baffling in respect to current evolution paradigm. How could random mutations lead to the caterpillar dissolving itself into basically a chemical soup and emerging a new insect?

And no, Metha... I'm not specifying a parasitic wasp, simply pointing out it uses such a process in a host body to breed the young. Butterfly processes are similar in nature but different in that the young itself is the host plasm for the new entity.

?srry, Maybe I'm missing something but I still don't see how this correlates to a hypothetical on how the "butterfly started".

 

[Journyman16]

When we look at breeding patterns across all species, it is fairly easy to see sex as an attack/defence strategy. In some cases the invader, what we now call a male, wins and pretty much uses the female as a breeding ground. In others the female almost fights off the attack and in turn, uses the male as an inseminator and sometimes post-coital meal.

There is an entire range of sexual behaviours in between, so it is a small step to seeing the butterfly issue as somewhere along that scale. Just HOW the situation came about where the entire creature dissolves I don't know, but I'm just suggesting it isn't an automatic 'evidence' of Creation. We'd need to know a lot more than we do before we can simply discard natural processes, although I tend to agree with you that the current Evolution Paradigm is no more real than the Biblical Creation one.

 

[swilow]

The old "I'm not smart enough to understand" argument (*rolls eyes*).

Hang on a second dude. I'm in no way saying that. I'm not questioning your capacity to understand, just that you don't understand some aspects of evolution which is evidenced by thinking that either one of your two examples came first. Neither did; their originators (who may have been markedly different) came before them and mutated into them. You keep asking that question and have been for 6 months (though it was chicken/egg originally) and you are getting the same answer then as now. I'm not questioning your intelligence so don't start imagining things now.


Just because there is no explanation for my example doesn't mean I'm misunderstanding anything. You're assuming process of metamorphosis happened by chance because you believe it had to happen by chance. That is circular in nature my friend.

��No shit..... and I never gave any indication it did.

Well, yes, you did but I've explained why above.

I'm asking chronologically....
......
(Don't forget that pesky chrysalis in calculations)

Okay, you are asking me questions I can't answer. I'm a librarian, not a scientist or mathematician. I have no ability to "prove" what you are asking me. You also have no ability to demonstrate that god created all of life so the point is moot.

I wasn't trying to be critical of you in the way you've taken it. I was saying you misunderstand the theory of evolution. You simply must to draw the conclusions you have. IMO.

 

[methamaniac]

just that you don't understand some aspects of evolution which is evidenced by thinking that either one of your two examples came first.

dude, I understand all the aspects.......I just don't agree with them.
I don't think you understood what I meant.
I'll clarify....
I wasn't simply asking/saying which came first as they appear today, but more that one being fully formed is dependent on the other being fully formed.
I was also pointing to the question of how (given what we see today), do you explain (through accumulated gradual mutation) the emergence/ gradual evolution of two different fully formed creatures in the SAME life cycle. (conumdrum of evolution of two completely different brains as i.e.)
How did the caterpilllar's brain evolve independently of the butterfly brain? Caterpilllar's aren't exactly baby butterflies you know.
It doesn't remotely make sense (can/will explain why if needed) that they could have evolved together by slow gradual modification with lots of intermediate forms, which is basically your anwser.
You can push the chicken/egg caterpillar/butterfly (relationship) problem back on imaginary intermediate froms so far, but at some point one of the two with respect must be chosen.

Because I don't agree that there must have been some fictitious/hypothetical missing intermediate forms, doesn't mean I don't understand what evolution posits.
And again, I don't even see how you could have intermediate forms in respect to butterfly evolution.

Neither did; their originators (who may have been markedly different) came before them and mutated into them. You keep asking that question and have been for 6 months (though it was chicken/egg originally) and you are getting the same answer then as now.

The answer of :
" You don't understand evolution" ,
doesn't in any way explain how highly complex parts/functions/features/systems could have came about through gradual accumulated random mutations.
As another example to illustrate point,
if I ask question of :
which came first in evolution of eye ?

Retnia, optic nerve, visual cortex, or complex code that must be translated for the brain to form an image...........

Telling me my question demonstrates my lack of understanding of evolution,
is meaningless.
When you critically think which of these four came first in supposed eye evolution, you should realize why you can only push back the and 'chicken and egg' conundrum so far before once again it will inevitability pop right back up.

Okay, you are asking me questions I can't answer.

Then simply say, "I don't know"......
not, "You don't understand"

I was saying you misunderstand the theory of evolution.

FFS, stop saying this. I understand the theory, ok.
Again, disagreeing is not ignorance.
You repeating this is coming off a bit condescending.

When we look at breeding patterns across all species, it is fairly easy to see sex as an attack/defence strategy. In some cases the invader, what we now call a male, wins and pretty much uses the female as a breeding ground. In others the female almost fights off the attack and in turn, uses the male as an inseminator and sometimes post-coital meal.

There is an entire range of sexual behaviours in between, so it is a small step to seeing the butterfly issue as somewhere along that scale. Just HOW the situation came about where the entire creature dissolves I don't know, but I'm just suggesting it isn't an automatic 'evidence' of Creation. We'd need to know a lot more than we do before we can simply discard natural processes, although I tend to agree with you that the current Evolution Paradigm is no more real than the Biblical Creation one.

☺I believe you are reaching a bit, but I certainly can respect your thought process.

Btw, Kudos for being able to think outside the current evolution paradigm (it's a bit taboo, no?) that's so dogmatically held to by neo-darwinists.
The gene central idea is being turned on its head with new studies in genetics /epigenetics/ physiology. The "genotype determines the phenotype" (selfish gene) doesn't appear to be necessarily the case. DNA itself is stone cold dead. It's just information. There obviously must be an unknown mechanism at work. We can disagree on this mechanism, but at least you see another mechanism is needed.

 

[swilow]

dude, I understand all the aspects.......I just don't agree with them.
I don't think you understood what I meant.

Okay, well, perhaps I am misunderstanding you. I apologise if I have been, but maybe you are not explaining yourself adequately. It seems like you think that evolution produces fully fledged, complex organisms from scratch (at times at least), hence you keep asking 'what comes first'? The answer you have been given for 6 months and more is not that you don't understand evolution but that neither one nor the other came first. That is how evolution is theorised to work.

Because I don't agree that there must have been some fictitious/hypothetical missing intermediate forms, doesn't mean I don't understand what evolution posits.
And again, I don't even see how you could have intermediate forms in respect to butterfly evolution.

Evolution is insistent that there are intermediate forms. Many intermediate animals have been discovered. Evolution has been seen in practise. My dog wasn't the wolf he used to be. You still claim that is not a real thing. Are you choosing to ignore the facts or do you misunderstand them? The latter option is the better one, because the former is troubling.

FFS, stop saying this. I understand the theory, ok.
Again, disagreeing is not ignorance.
You repeating this is coming off a bit condescending.

I don't have a problem with you disagreeing at all. You are trying to appeal to my sense of empathy and make me feel like I am being too pushy. It actually seems like its because I am disagreeing with you that you react this way.

Can you present any evidence that god created the universe? You are demanding I provide evidence for evolution. Why can you not provide evidence for your own srgument rather then trying to take down mine? Note, I'm not saying that evolution is the absolute answer to how life has developed on earth. I have many questions about the origin of life. I just absolutely disagree with you that God created everything in this universe. There is no evidence for this, and heaps against it.

I'm sorry if you think I am being condescending. I assure you that I'm not. I just think that your perspective, that evolution isn't because god created the universe, is a misunderstanding of reality. If saying that to you is insulting, then that, my friend, is 100% your problem.

 

[ThePharmacist4925]

I grew up in a very Christian household, we always went to church on Sunday and both my parents were active in the church community, participating in events and tithing (giving the first 10% you earn to Christ no matter what). My mother would run Sunday school and my father would work as a treasurer for the church or he'd use his carpentry skills to fix odds and ends around the church or even do a gigantic expansion. As we got older we switched churches and I had some friends through church but most through school. I did go k-4 at a Christian school. When I was in 8th grade we moved to Connecticut and got involved with a church that had a well developed youth group and lots of activities for my mother (as she is a homemaker). So I got deeply involved with the youth group and was at church 3 times a week, my faith was strong at that point I guess, but I was and had been deeply depressed for most of my life since as early as 7 years old I periodically would want to die. So I went on mission trips and spread the faith, I suppose. But around 16 I found that pot qwelled my emotional problems and I figured that wasn't a sin, I mean I was a serious sinner, but that I didn't add to my list. Well eventually my parents got on my ass or smoking pot and basically said god wouldn't want that. So my thought was god wouldn't want me to feel relief from suicidal ideation. Eventually my thinking developed to if there is a god, he must be a real asshole for allowing so many people to have mental health issues that essentially ruin their lives. I believe in miracles, doctors declared my mother couldn't have children and were going to do a surgery to make it possible, right before the surgery (according to legend) my aunt started speaking in a voice that was not her own about my mother having a boy. They checked and she was pregnant with my father's son. There was also a car accident when I was eight in which the car that hit my families bounced in a way that defied physics as I understand them. I'm a noob when it comes to physics so that's probably the explanation for that. My ex was terminally ill and her situation was getting ugly fast and suddenly she had a turn-around and is now a teacher, that's a mother-fucking miracle. But my life has been nasty brutish and too long thus far. I'm bounced from medication to medication, from psychiatric hospital to psychiatric hospital, and honestly there were 4 suicides on my father's side of the family so there is no doubt I got those miserable genes. Yeah, we're all fucking smart, but it's not worth the trade for the mental health issues. They are clearly genetic and not entirely/necessarily self or family or childhood experiences inflicted. So what gracious god would allow this, I beg the question. and don't tell me it's Satan's damn fault because everyone seems to claim their god is omnipotent. So god either doesn't exist or is a fucking douchebag. It would make more sense if there wasn't a god as we understood him, but a creator that is using our world as an experiment, then I'd get it, but still consider that creator an asshole. I think religion can be a very good thing for some people, it makes lunatics and extremists out of other people. When people discern a positive way to interpret religion I tend to think that creates better people, perhaps naive, but kind and caring. Our world needs kind and caring people even if they are naive. Extremists of all kinds can go fuck themselves with a metal rake, the business end. Also it is impossible to deny that there is weird shit surrounding Israel, I won't get specific because that isn't the point. Idk, I was raised to believe a loving god would save me if I served him, I attempted to serve this god for most my childhood and adolescence, all I ever got was a head full of desires to die. So now I take a shit ton of medication and it makes me content with being alive for the most part. This gracious god should've been there when I was 7 years old sitting in my room hoping that I would die before I turned 8. Think on that.

 

[sekio]

the emergence/ gradual evolution of two different fully formed creatures in the SAME life cycle. (conumdrum of evolution of two completely different brains as i.e.)
How did the caterpilllar's brain evolve independently of the butterfly brain? Caterpilllar's aren't exactly baby butterflies you know.

Caterpillars ARE baby butterflies, though! Caterpillars and butterflies are not "two different creatures", they're genetically the same animal.

Lots of things in nature can have one set of genes but multiple "forms" of cells that carry it... look at plants. How do you explain the development of seeds???? How do you explain eggs? How do you explain cancer cells that can turn into two different phenotypes? How about nematodes, which have different body morphologies at different life stages? Or parasites that need to move through multiple hosts?

 

[methamaniac]

Okay, well, perhaps I am misunderstanding you. I apologise if I have been, but maybe you are not explaining yourself adequately.

No need for apology, maybe I need to be clearer.☺

It seems like you think that evolution produces fully fledged, complex organisms from scratch (at times at least), hence you keep asking 'what comes first'? The answer you have been given for 6 months and more is not that you don't understand evolution but that neither one nor the other came first. That is how evolution is theorised to work.

?I don't think along the lines of one day a wolf jumped in the water and a few months later gave birth to a baby whale.
Having said that, asking which came first, wolf or whale for example; dosen't demonstrate my lack of understanding of TOE.
( apologies to J-MAN for bringing the " wolf-to-whale thing" back up) ☺
If your walk evolution back in time, it is only natural to ask what things came first chronologically.
To go back to my eye example, there is a chronological order (unless you believe they all came about at the same time) for which parts/systems came first.

Evolution is insistent that there are intermediate forms.

Yes, I am aware of this.

Many intermediate animals have been discovered.

There have been some intermediates postulated, but the fossil record remains eerily quite in respect. (Thus the missing link hoaxes i.e. piltdown man, nebraska man)
I have to disagree with you on this one and agree with the statements of these famous guys.....

Charles Darwin,

"Why is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory."


Stephen J . Gould,

"I fully agree with your comments about the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them … . I will lay it on the line—there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument"

"The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils."

"Paleontologists have paid an exorbitant price for Darwin’s argument. We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life’s history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we never see the very process we profess to study"


Colin Patterson,

"The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution."

And let's not forget the whole "Cambrian explosion"
debacle.

Evolution has been seen in practise.

If you mean adaptation, yes, if you mean macroevolution, no. They are two completely different things.

My dog wasn't the wolf he used to be.

This is not evidence for neo-darwinism.
You are giving an example of variation/
reshufffling of existing traits and/or loss of fuctional info/ the switching off of a gene.
A wolf and a dog are the exact same species, and this in NO way demonstrates an addition of new specified information to the canis genome.
Where is the increase in genetic information in your "evolved" dog? I'll be waiting on your answer......
(Could you be the one that is confused on theory?)?

Are you choosing to ignore the facts or do you misunderstand them? The latter option is the better one, because the former is troubling.

lulz....what "facts"? A dog and wolf are the same species.
You'll have to be more specific/ provide different "facts"

I don't have a problem with you disagreeing at all. You are trying to appeal to my sense of empathy and make me feel like I am being too pushy.

No I'm not. I was simply pointing out that my disagreement with theory doesn't stem from the lack of understanding theory.

It actually seems like its because I am disagreeing with you that you react this way.

No, it was more the " You don't understand evolution" comments.
I'm an adult and can have adult conversations/disagreements without getting all bent out of shape.
I'm not upset with you in anyway.
Got nothing but love for ya brother

Can you present any evidence that god created the universe? You are demanding I provide evidence for evolution.

Lulz....I'm not "demanding" anything from you.
I'm really questioning neo-darwinism not you.
I'm simply asking questions . I can't help they are difficult for you to answer, and challenge your worldview.

Why can you not provide evidence for your own srgument rather then trying to take down mine?

My argument is that neo-darwinism can't explain life as we know it, can be demonstrated false, and is obviously missing a legit mechanism for change.
I am providing evidence (Irregardless of your agreement) for all of these.
⚠Be careful with your strawman, he is flammable.⚠
"Evolution is true because you can't prove God to me", screams fallacy.

Note, I'm not saying that evolution is the absolute answer to how life has developed on earth. I have many questions about the origin of life.

That's great, shows you are open minded.
The spontaneous formation of a highly complex 4-bit code should raise eyebrows.

I'm sorry if you think I am being condescending. I assure you that I'm not.

I don't think that was your goal. I was just lettting you know what it was starting to come off like.

I just think that your perspective, that evolution isn't [true] because god created the universe, is a misunderstanding of reality

That's not my prespective, that's your characterization (mis) of my perspective

If saying that to you is insulting, then that, my friend, is 100% your problem.

Opinionated statements with no basis in fact don't typically insult me.
We're all good friend ☺

Caterpillars ARE baby butterflies, though! Caterpillars and butterflies are not "two different creatures", they're genetically the same animal.

Yes, the egg/larva/pupa/adult would all contain the same DNA.
I said, "not exactly baby buttterflies",
meaning they are not just small versions of butterflies that mature. My point was the two are radicallly different, and a caterpillar is like a whole other insect.
The caterpillar and butterfly have completely different brains/CNS. I noticed you didn't address my question of HOW ( educated guess) the caterpillar evolved its brain independent of the butterfly. When the caterpillar dissolves itself into a chemical soup to form a butterfly, a new brain/CNS is created for the butterfly. The caterpillar's evolution isn't something you can just ignore. How this larval stage got the way it is, is a big conumdrum.

 

[swilow]

^Just to note, I have nothing vested in Darwinism being true or not. I just believe it accurately describes a lot of what we see. But more to the point, I don't believe in the idea of the christian god being the creator. Or any deity being responsible for the universe as we see it, like an overseer.

This current topic is pointless because you have expressed a belief in creationism before. Its that that I disagree with but you aren't willing or able to provide any mechanism for this, or any alternative to darwinism. I'm not really pushing overt support for Darwinism. I find evolution interesting but many other topics are more interesting to me. If this thread moves to some other topic, I'll keep posting .

 

[murphythecat]

How this larval stage got the way it is, is a big conumdrum.

it still doesnt proove anything either.