Ancient ALIEN Creationism - science or new age RELIGION?

Now that we know a mouse can pass down information about a scent it seems trivial to understand how an insect as adept at epigenetic change as the monarch might pass down information needed for its migration patterns. It becomes easy to explain how they even direct morphological changes to specific generations. They can probably use temperature to direct the epigenetic markers that tells each generation how big its wings need to be and by controlling reactions to scent and other stimulus they can probably tell them where to fly.
 
Last edited:
Bigdog said:
And I did look, and just as I suspected, when someone is afraid to post the significant information here, it was a waste of my time.

And as I told you ... That does not illuminate the evolutionary micro steps involved in creating such a dramatic (complete) metamorphosis as we see in many insects.
Click to expand...

It does illuminate it. We can trace it back and see how it evolved from a simple morphological change to more complex ones.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metamorphosis#Evolution

The earliest insect forms showed direct development (ametabolism), and the evolution of metamorphosis in insects is thought to have fuelled their dramatic radiation (1,2). Some early ametabolous "true insects" are still present today, such as bristletails and silverfish. Hemimetabolous insects include cockroaches, grasshoppers, dragonflies, and true bugs. Phylogenetically, all insects in the Pterygota undergo a marked change in form, texture and physical appearance from immature stage to adult. These insects either have hemimetabolous development, and undergo an incomplete or partial metamorphosis, or holometabolous development, which undergo a complete metamorphosis, including a pupal or resting stage between the larval and adult forms.[10]
 
Last edited:
PostmodernProphet said:
not at all....if anything you are.....I asked you how a butterfly evolved, not how it metamorphed.....
Click to expand...

PostmodernProphet said:
So we now understand metamorphosis....not about how it evolved in butterlies.....was it a flying creature that better survived by becoming a caterpillar (but didn't make it all the way to surviving better), so reproduced as a flying creature again?....
Click to expand...


You clearly don't get it. You continue to ask the same stupid question which presumes that is in a state of evolution between its larval and adult states. You are conflating metamorphosis with evolution.

If you want to understand how it evolved the ability to perform metamorphosis then just see #242.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
and I keep telling you where they are......why do you need me to repeat it so often?.....


I bet that's why they call it "macro", huh?.....better get started providing the evidence....
Click to expand...

Like I said if you define "macroevolution" as evolution beyond the level of kingdom and accept everything below it as "microevolution" then I am claiming victory now and forever.
 
Dick from the Internet said:
Like I said if you define "macroevolution" as evolution beyond the level of kingdom and accept everything below it as "microevolution" then I am claiming victory now and forever.
Click to expand...
then you would be fucked......I accept no such thing, but I am trying to set a single set of goal posts for you to strive for......I have, you aren't......as I expected.......you just keep hemming and hawing instead of proving.....
 
Dick from the Internet said:
Now that we know a mouse can pass down information about a scent it seems trivial to understand how an insect as adept at epigenetic change as the monarch might pass down information needed for its migration patterns. It becomes easy to explain how they even direct morphological changes to specific generations. They can probably use temperature to direct the epigenetic markers that tells each generation how big its wings need to be and by controlling reactions to scent and other stimulus they can probably tell them where to fly.
Click to expand...

Yep...."Probably" certainly is another one of those EMPIRICAL SCIENTIFIC TERMS everyone looks for in someone so educated in science....self professed of course. Every time you post you demonstrate just how big a lying ass you actually are. :) If you are truly educated and know to a professional level the subject matter you are addressing...you don't have tell everyone how great you are and how stupid they are.......their own words demonstrate both. Its the ID....it reveals everything whether you want it revealed or not.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
I will agree that would be incredibly stupid, but its your presumption, not mine......I was referring to the transition from a creature that did NOT metamorph into one that did.....
Click to expand...

No you asked about its evolution from larval to adult stages.

PostmodernProphet said:
So we now understand metamorphosis....not about how it evolved in butterlies.....was it a flying creature that better survived by becoming a caterpillar (but didn't make it all the way to surviving better), so reproduced as a flying creature again?....
Click to expand...

A caterpillar is the larval stage of the butterfly or moth, moron.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
then you would be fucked......I accept no such thing, but I am trying to set a single set of goal posts for you to strive for......I have, you aren't......as I expected.......you just keep hemming and hawing instead of proving.....
Click to expand...

No, you are trying to keep yours on rollers, coward. It is you creationists who insist that you accept "microevolution" or "horizontal evolution" but not "macroevolution" or "vertical evolution" It's up to you tell us what that means. Most definitions say macroevolution is change at or above the level of species. The kick has gone through the post several times now from that distance.
 
Dick from the Internet said:
No, you are trying to keep yours on rollers, coward. It is you creationists who insist that you accept "microevolution" or "horizontal evolution" but not "macroevolution" or "vertical evolution" It's up to you tell us what that means. Most definitions say macroevolution is change at or above the level of species. The kick has gone through the post several times now from that distance.
Click to expand...

Fuck "most definitions"...why are you afraid to answer?....oh yeah....because you know you're wrong. ...
 
Dick from the Internet said:
Now that we know a mouse can pass down information about a scent it seems trivial to understand how an insect as adept at epigenetic change as the monarch might pass down information needed for its migration patterns. It becomes easy to explain how they even direct morphological changes to specific generations. They can probably use temperature to direct the epigenetic markers that tells each generation how big its wings need to be and by controlling reactions to scent and other stimulus they can probably tell them where to fly.
Click to expand...

The mouse passes down that a scent should be feared, this is not trivial because there is no known pathway for the fear memory to be transferred to DNA.........Saying the word epigenics does not explain how a thought in an adult mouse travels to it's offspring
 
Dick from the Internet said:
Ralph has claimed it is limited to changes within a species. Others argue that evolution is limited to changes within "kind" but they fail to explain what "kind" is or how we might test for evolution beyond it. PiMPle seems to demand that evolution is limited by kingdom. There are multiple origin theories that might actually support something like that, so if that's where he seriously wants to draw the line I think I will declare victory and wait for more science on that. As long as Mrs. Garrison accepts that he came from a retarded-fish-frog.

No one has ever suggested that the theory of evolution explains abiogenesis (evolution from nothing) but idiot creationists like you Donald. That's a strawman, like PiMPle's idiotic conflation of metamorphosis (which is controlled through EPIGENETIC MECHANISMS) and evolution.
Click to expand...

Dick said this and I quote "No one has ever suggested that the theory of evolution explains abiogenesis (evolution from nothing) but idiot creationists like you Donald. That's a strawman, like PiMPle's idiotic conflation of metamorphosis (which is controlled through EPIGENETIC MECHANISMS) and evolution"

Actually Dick, you are a moron, because that is EXACTLY WHAT DARWIN PROPOSED. Thus you have no clue as to what the theory of evolution actually contains, so you really need to finish kindergarten before you continue to mock yourself. Sorry to be rude, but you are clueless but fun anyway.............

LOL No one has ever suggested that evolution explains abiogenesis..................

Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

DARWIN, It is often said that all the conditions for the first production of a living organism are now present, which could ever have been present.— But if (& oh what a big if) we could conceive in some warm little pond with all sorts of ammonia & phosphoric salts,—light, heat, electricity &c present, that a protein compound was chemically formed, ready to undergo still more complex changes, at the present day such matter wd be instantly devoured, or absorbed, which would not have been the case before living creatures were formed.

Letter to J. D. Hooker, 1 Feb [1871]
 
PostmodernProphet said:
Sorry to hear you are ignorant.....I did not......
Click to expand...

PostmodernProphet said:
So we now understand metamorphosis....not about how it evolved in butterlies.....was it a flying creature that better survived by becoming a caterpillar (but didn't make it all the way to surviving better), so reproduced as a flying creature again?....
Click to expand...

Sorry, shitferbrains, you asked about its evolution from a larval to an adult stage because you are fucking moron that conflates evolution with metamorphosis.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
Fuck "most definitions"...why are you afraid to answer?....oh yeah....because you know you're wrong. ...
Click to expand...

Dumbfuck, ralph was going on about the limits of evolution making claims that you have made before and I asked for someone to define terms or these limits of evolution. You have been trying to change the subject ever since you cowardly piece of shit.
 
TheDonald said:
Actually Dick, you are a moron, because that is EXACTLY WHAT DARWIN PROPOSED. Thus you have no clue as to what the theory of evolution actually contains, so you really need to finish kindergarten before you continue to mock yourself. Sorry to be rude, but you are clueless but fun anyway.............

LOL No one has ever suggested that evolution explains abiogenesis..................

Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

DARWIN, It is often said that all the conditions for the first production of a living organism are now present, which could ever have been present.— But if (& oh what a big if) we could conceive in some warm little pond with all sorts of ammonia & phosphoric salts,—light, heat, electricity &c present, that a protein compound was chemically formed, ready to undergo still more complex changes, at the present day such matter wd be instantly devoured, or absorbed, which would not have been the case before living creatures were formed.

Letter to J. D. Hooker, 1 Feb [1871]
Click to expand...

That's not a part of any work he published, dumbass. He did not set forth his theory of evolution through letters to friends. LOL
 
Dick from the Internet said:
Sorry, shitferbrains, you asked about its evolution from a larval to an adult stage because you are fucking moron that conflates evolution with metamorphosis.
Click to expand...

did you notice that in what you quoted I mentioned that you did not explain how metamorphosis evolved?.....you fucked up, now you're fucking up again.......just give it up before you end up looking even more stupid than you already do.....
 
Dick from the Internet said:
Dumbfuck, ralph was going on about the limits of evolution making claims that you have made before and I asked for someone to define terms or these limits of evolution. You have been trying to change the subject ever since you cowardly piece of shit.
Click to expand...

sigh......its a waste of time trying to have a legitimate conversation with shit like you......you asked me for a goalpost that will not change.....I gave you a goalpost that will not change.......you've been running ever since......fuck yourself and run away, but don't pretend you're a legitimate debater ever again......
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top