Hi everyone, How can i explain that the butterfly is not proof of evolution?
Hello, Juan! Very interesting question, but I’m curious to get a little background on it. Namely, who claims that the butterfly is proof of evolution and on what premises do they rest his/her/their argument?
In this YouTube Video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OoJbri9Yem0)(between the beginning and 1:15 minutes) the first speaker presents an argument for evolution regarding butterflies in Hawaii, which eat bananas.
Is this the argument you are referring to?
a great question; and in addition, can we define what we mean in this discussion by the word ‘evolution’?
- Change over time; history of nature; any sequence of events in nature.
- Changes in the frequencies of alleles in the gene pool of a population.
- Limited common descent: the idea that particular groups of organisms have descended from a common ancestor.
- The mechanisms responsible for the change required to produce limited descent with modification, chiefly natural selection acting on random variations or mutations.
- Universal common descent: the idea that all organisms have descended from a single common ancestor.
- “Blind watchmaker” thesis: the idea that all organisms have descended from common ancestors solely through unguided, unintelligent, purposeless, material processes such as natural selection acting on random variations or mutations; that the mechanisms of natural selection, random variation and mutation, and perhaps other similarly naturalistic mechanisms, are completely sufficient to account for the appearance of design in living organisms.
My basic understanding is that Darwin observed micro-evolution (adaptation) short beaked finches etc, and then scaled his theory up to macro-evolution?
in the video shared by @joncarp (youtube transcript)
the creative power of the mutation selection mechanism has to produce all this genetic information; indeed what is the most powerful demonstration, in your opinion, that the Darwinian mechanism of natural selection has this great creative power?
well I would give you you ask me for the most powerful one and I will give you two
the first one that I will give you are the repeated observations of a random mutation and natural selection, as you like to call them, in your own terms producing new species, and I can give you several examples of new species that have emerged within human observation
the best example that I can give you his a butterfly genus of butterfly known as Hedy lipton. Hedy Lifta is a genus of butterfly that feeds on various plants. It’s endemic to the Hawaiian Islands which means it’s only found there and there turn out to be two species of Hettie Lifta, with mouth parts that only allow them only allow them to feed on bananas. now why is that significant it is significant because bananas are not native to the Hawaiian Islands.
they were introduced about a thousand years ago by the Polynesians. We know this from the written records of the Hawaiian kingdom and what that means is that by mutation and natural selection these two species have emerged on the hawaiian islands within the last thousand years and i think that’s a very good case in point and I’ll give you another one if you would indulge me but I figure you only asked for one one another sure go ahead okay (continues)
It seems that the basic argument is
- the Polynesians brought bananas with them (based on their historical records)
- the butterflies were already there on the islands before they arrived (based on what?; the speaker notes these two butterfly species are endemic (today); but I wonder what historical scientific records there are as to the butterfly count, and what type were there when the Polynesians arrived 1000 years ago)
- therefore the butterflies evolved to eat bananas?
seems plausible, as we are talking about micro-evolution; adaptation of existing butterflies to deal with a new environment. but in this example, we’re not explaining how moths turn into butterflies; or what moths evolved from (the only reference I could find for moth evolution was on wikipedia; does anyone know what Darwinian theory states that moths evolved from?)
in relation to the video’s question; " the creative power of the mutation selection mechanism has to produce all this genetic information; indeed what is the most powerful demonstration, in your opinion, that the Darwinian mechanism of natural selection has this great creative power?"; you might find this video interesting that @Joshua_Hansen posted recently;
as a young earth creationist; I currently hold to God creating plants on day 4, and butterflies on day 5;
speciation (changes in environment can cause changes within a species, but not a rise of new species as new DNA information needs to come from somewhere; and the organism needs to be complete to survive and reproduce to the next generation: irreducible complexity). Genetic changes are a result of loss of information; but it’s not possible for new information to arise by blind chance without an author (God as Creator).
(there are a lot of articles on creation.com about butterflies if you hold to a literal 6 day creation;)
hoping someone can post some more scientific resources relating to this discussion?
Hi some atheists at work claim this
No not really I have some atheists coworkers that since the Caterpillar turns in a butterfly that’s evolution right there.
Ok, well regardless of the argument they are making, I think one of the main arguments against the Neo-Darwinian theory of evolution, which says that the process of evolution is an unguided random process, is that life is directed by information such as DNA. The logic is that whenever we see information, like in a computer program, the production of that information can be traced back to a mind, not a material process.
Here is a YouTube video from the Discovery Science YouTube page that discusses this topic.
Also, the Discovery Science YouTube page(https://www.youtube.com/user/DiscoveryScienceNews) has a lot of information and videos on the topic of Intelligent Design.
I hope this helps!