Page 1 of 7 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 67

Thread: Birds, Bees, Butterflies and Flowers

  1. Top | #1
    Veteran Member excreationist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2000
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    1,200
    Archived
    4,886
    Total Posts
    6,086
    Rep Power
    77

    Birds, Bees, Butterflies and Flowers

    Guided evolution makes more sense to me than the naturalistic evolution of birds, bees, butterflies and flowers.... I recently learnt that caterpillars liquify in their cocoon....

    Note that flowers (plants with sexual organs) seem to have coevolved with bees and butterflies... (then later some birds)

    As far as butterfly evolution goes I thought it would make more sense to just turn into something like a bee... rather than go on a tangent to evolve into complex butterflies which might have trouble evolving the ability to fly....

    I guess it just goes to show that naturalists will believe that anything could evolve even if it seems to me to be quite unlikely....

    Also why is it that birds, butterflies and flowers can often be seen by humans as being very beautiful? Is it just by chance? (well I guess some animals and plants are a bit ugly) I thought only food and the opposite sex would involve selection pressures to look attractive....?

    edit:

    I realised that I already created a topic about flowers and bees... though this time I'm a lot more pro-guided evolution....


    This has evolved into:

    Was there an intelligent force guiding evolution in a simulation?


    What if the millions of years of evolution never happened? What if a virtual evolutionary tree was generated by an intelligent force including the coevolution of metamorphosizing butterflies that help with the sexual reproduction of flowering plants?
    Last edited by excreationist; 09-18-2020 at 12:18 PM.

  2. Top | #2
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Location
    Layton, UT
    Posts
    2,522
    Rep Power
    17
    Quote Originally Posted by excreationist View Post
    Guided evolution makes more sense to me than the naturalistic evolution of birds, bees, butterflies and flowers.... I recently learnt that caterpillars liquify in their cocoon....
    No, it doesn't.

    Note that flowers (plants with sexual organs) seem to have coevolved with bees and butterflies... (then later some birds)

    As far as butterfly evolution goes I thought it would make more sense to just turn into something like a bee... rather than go on a tangent to evolve into complex butterflies which might have trouble evolving the ability to fly....
    If you think it would make more sense...in what way? Doesn't that mean that if it were guided it would make more sense, or is your assertion that because it doesn't make sense, it was guided? Pick one....

    I guess it just goes to show that naturalists will believe that anything could evolve even if it seems to me to be quite unlikely....
    Argument from personal incredulity. Go do your homework before telling thousands of scientists they're wrong.

    Was there an intelligent force guiding evolution in a simulation?


    What if the millions of years of evolution never happened? What if a virtual evolutionary tree was generated by an intelligent force including the coevolution of metamorphosizing butterflies that help with the sexual reproduction of flowering plants?
    Let's briefly entertain your (idiotic) assertion: How would you be able to tell the difference with evidence we find? The whole universe could have been created last tuesday with our memories and 'history' in our brains.

  3. Top | #3
    Veteran Member Treedbear's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2016
    Location
    out on a limb
    Posts
    2,551
    Rep Power
    22
    Quote Originally Posted by excreationist View Post
    Guided evolution makes more sense to me than the naturalistic evolution of birds, bees, butterflies and flowers....
    All evolution is guided by the ambient environment. If you mean to say guided by intelligence than I would say that intellect (conscious as well as unconscious thoughts) evolve within the environment of the mind.

    I recently learnt that caterpillars liquify in their cocoon....
    That may be. But all biological organisms begin from a liquified state. Going back to a similar state during metamorphosis might be a modification of that process.

    Note that flowers (plants with sexual organs) seem to have coevolved with bees and butterflies... (then later some birds)
    Everything is coevolving with respect to other things. I think that butterflies were once moths that evolved to be active during the day instead of night in order to avoid being prey to bats.

    As far as butterfly evolution goes I thought it would make more sense to just turn into something like a bee... rather than go on a tangent to evolve into complex butterflies which might have trouble evolving the ability to fly....
    Are bees less complex than bats? Both have their respective advantages for flight as well as other features. Large wings can provide unique abilities such as absorbing radiation from the sun or species differentiation, which might not be as useful to communal bees.

    I guess it just goes to show that naturalists will believe that anything could evolve even if it seems to me to be quite unlikely....
    It isn't less unlikely just because it is so.

    Also why is it that birds, butterflies and flowers can often be seen by humans as being very beautiful? Is it just by chance? (well I guess some animals and plants are a bit ugly) I thought only food and the opposite sex would involve selection pressures to look attractive....?
    My own opinion is that aesthetic as well as moral values are the product of cultural biases as to anything whatsoever that tends to promote human well being. The historical roots are often very deep and sometimes obscure.
    ...

  4. Top | #4
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Columbia, SC
    Posts
    1,319
    Archived
    2,799
    Total Posts
    4,118
    Rep Power
    58
    Quote Originally Posted by excreationist View Post
    Was there an intelligent force guiding evolution in a simulation?
    There is no evidence to suggest this, your personal lack of knowledge, and incredulity notwithstanding. You are trying to inject a teleological cause into a phenomenon that is fully explained by undirected naturalistic process.

    What if the millions of years of evolution never happened? What if a virtual evolutionary tree was generated by an intelligent force including the coevolution of metamorphosizing butterflies that help with the sexual reproduction of flowering plants?
    What if I were the king of a great kingdom, and had a personal harem of 2,000 wives?

  5. Top | #5
    Veteran Member excreationist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2000
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    1,200
    Archived
    4,886
    Total Posts
    6,086
    Rep Power
    77
    I guess it is impossible for me to convince you all of this... maybe you think my arguments are too weak. You have the assumption that all evolution can be explained in terms of naturalism. I believe that to skeptics these things can always be explained by coincidence, etc.

    I guess you don't see anything particularly special in this picture - at least nothing that suggests an intelligent force behind it....


  6. Top | #6
    Veteran Member excreationist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2000
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    1,200
    Archived
    4,886
    Total Posts
    6,086
    Rep Power
    77
    Quote Originally Posted by Worldtraveller View Post
    Let's briefly entertain your (idiotic) assertion: How would you be able to tell the difference with evidence we find? The whole universe could have been created last tuesday with our memories and 'history' in our brains.
    Exactly... yes I have a theory that the millions of years wasn't real. That way a virtual evolutionary tree could be created easily (rather than literally having guided evolution)
    The point of the game is to be "indistinguishable from reality" though there could be some clues of guided evolution

  7. Top | #7
    Veteran Member excreationist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2000
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    1,200
    Archived
    4,886
    Total Posts
    6,086
    Rep Power
    77
    Quote Originally Posted by atrib View Post
    ....You are trying to inject a teleological cause into a phenomenon that is fully explained by undirected naturalistic process.....
    So is there a step by step theory of how plants and insects coevolved into flowering plants, bees and butterflies? I am aware of this type of thing for the evolution of the eye.... though I also think the step by step process did virtually occur in a virtual evolutionary tree.
    BTW I think there would be a lot of theistic scientists that believe in guided evolution.

  8. Top | #8
    Veteran Member Valjean's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Albuquerque, New Mexico, USA
    Posts
    1,333
    Archived
    3,176
    Total Posts
    4,509
    Rep Power
    43
    Quote Originally Posted by excreationist View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by atrib View Post
    ....You are trying to inject a teleological cause into a phenomenon that is fully explained by undirected naturalistic process.....
    So is there a step by step theory of how plants and insects coevolved into flowering plants, bees and butterflies? I am aware of this type of thing for the evolution of the eye.... though I also think the step by step process did virtually occur in a virtual evolutionary tree.
    BTW I think there would be a lot of theistic scientists that believe in guided evolution.
    Yes, there is. How did you not learn this in high school? There are mountains of evidence for this process.
    You're arguing from incredulity, and from ignorance of evolutionary theory. You're proposing a deus ex machina where there is no need, and certainly no evidence, for one.

    Goddidit is an appeal to magic. You're proposing magic as a more reasonable "mechanism" than familiar, easily observed, testable biological mechanisms.

    You're

  9. Top | #9
    Veteran Member Treedbear's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2016
    Location
    out on a limb
    Posts
    2,551
    Rep Power
    22
    Quote Originally Posted by excreationist View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by atrib View Post
    ....You are trying to inject a teleological cause into a phenomenon that is fully explained by undirected naturalistic process.....
    So is there a step by step theory of how plants and insects coevolved into flowering plants, bees and butterflies? I am aware of this type of thing for the evolution of the eye.... though I also think the step by step process did virtually occur in a virtual evolutionary tree.
    BTW I think there would be a lot of theistic scientists that believe in guided evolution.
    You seem to be saying that there must have been a final goal for the things you see around you to exist, and base that assumption on the existence of beauty and interdependent complexity. But I have to ask whether your concept of beauty isn't based on a subjective species oriented perspective based on human interest. And ironically that your preference for intelligent design seems to be based on your/our limited ability to adequately comprehend nature's complexity. The problem is that in a universe where reality is defined by the inter-relatedness of things you are putting your faith in absolutes. There is no absolute standard for beauty. There is no perfect intelligence. These things are not necessary for the concepts of beauty and intelligence to exist. Plato was greatly mistaken.

  10. Top | #10
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    4,857
    Rep Power
    31
    Quote Originally Posted by excreationist View Post
    Guided evolution makes more sense to me than the naturalistic evolution of birds, bees, butterflies and flowers.... I recently learnt that caterpillars liquify in their cocoon....

    Note that flowers (plants with sexual organs) seem to have coevolved with bees and butterflies... (then later some birds)

    As far as butterfly evolution goes I thought it would make more sense to just turn into something like a bee... rather than go on a tangent to evolve into complex butterflies which might have trouble evolving the ability to fly....

    I guess it just goes to show that naturalists will believe that anything could evolve even if it seems to me to be quite unlikely....

    Also why is it that birds, butterflies and flowers can often be seen by humans as being very beautiful? Is it just by chance? (well I guess some animals and plants are a bit ugly) I thought only food and the opposite sex would involve selection pressures to look attractive....?

    edit:

    I realised that I already created a topic about flowers and bees... though this time I'm a lot more pro-guided evolution....


    This has evolved into:

    Was there an intelligent force guiding evolution in a simulation?


    What if the millions of years of evolution never happened? What if a virtual evolutionary tree was generated by an intelligent force including the coevolution of metamorphosizing butterflies that help with the sexual reproduction of flowering plants?
    That's a very exciting idea! If you're correct, you'll become very famous and win the Nobel Prize! But you'll need substantial evidence on your side. I'm worried about that? Secondly, I'm worried about how your theory could ever be falsified. It's easy to falsify evolution. Close to impossible to falsify the creator!

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •