Metamorphosis: The Beauty & Design of Butterflies

[Ian Pratt]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AZk6nZGH9Xo#t=14
This is worth watching for the photography etc.
Ian

[NickMorgan]

Hmm. Not so sure about that one!

[Padfield]

Hmm. Not so sure about that one!

I never trust people who are sure about such sublime mysteries, Nick, whichever side of the argument they might fall!

I agree, there is some wonderful photography here.

Guy

[MikeOxon]

Yes, beautiful photography, but lets not 'cop out' and say that because something is mysterious, we cannot develop an understanding of the processes, eventually.

I recall reading somewhere that experiments have been done to show that certain lessons taught to a caterpillar can be 'remembered' by the adult butterfly. The process of metamorphosis is a continuous one, which has to be able to support life at every stage. It is misleading to give the impression that the chrysalis turns into a 'soup' before re-forming - that was debunked a long time ago.

Remember, too, that our own cells are constantly dying and being replaced, usually with similar functions but not always. The changes at puberty are one example. Also, we lose our first set of teeth, for example, and then develop a new set to replace them. Some other animals, like sharks, are constantly replacing teeth. This may not seem as profound as metamorphosis but the information to cause such changes has to be already coded into the DNA.

Don't forget that the timescales over which the development of DNA information takes place are unbelievably vast, and that insects have been around over timescales that make our own development seem almost instantaneous, in comparison.

[Tony Moore]

It's all a bit ''God Squad'' for my taste, and there's much better photography elsewhere.

Tony Curmudgeon.

[Wurzel]

I found this quite enjoyable whilst in mute but the minute they started talking about metamorphosis it became intensely annoying. The line "for evolution to have created this sort of pathway, gradually, it would take a miracle" raised my heckles in particular. No surprise when the woman saying this tripe works for the Biologic Institute - an 'intelligent Design' organisation and then the next bloke is from the Biola University with the tired and disproved argument from design that was wrong when Paley first wrote it..."only reasonable answer is an intelligence that transcends the natural world" Jeez give me strength. This is what we're up against when teaching Sciences We don't understand it so we'll just say God did it - lazy and non-scientific

Have a goodun

Wurzel

[bugboy]

...This is what we're up against when teaching Sciences We don't understand it so we'll just say God did it - lazy and non-scientific

Have a goodun

Wurzel

I can almost see the steam erupting from your ears

Of course, at the risk of going all metaphysical, evolution doesn't preclude the existence of a 'higher being' as such...

[Tony Moore]

Ho-ho-ho! Pandora's Box opens again

Tony M.

[Wurzel]

Sorry if I seemed irate it's just the shear laziness that wrankled with me, if you can't explain something at least try and explore it a little further, it's not a lot to ask really is it . Indeed you are correct though Bugboy; Evolutionary Theory doesn't preclude the existence of a higher being, it just removes the need to use one to explain how organisms have changed over the 3.5 billion years that life has been on this planet

Have a goodun

Wurzel