Stand by Your Faith

Wait, here's a better idea! Let's see if we can get about 30 smart@sses on here and sidetrack the discussion instead!

Is this supposed to be another creation vs. evolution thread?

It is just what we need... another evolution thread. There is always something new and interesting brought up, and people are always agreeable until a consensus is reached.

It isn't clear what response you want from your post, but God knows there aren't enough evolution threads.

See?

I assume there's supposed to be a point to this thread?

It would be very ironic if you mean this to be an anti-evolution thread.

The markings is picture is a great example of how evolution works. Each individual has slightly different markings, based on genes inherited from its parents with occasional mutations. The individuals with markings that effectively scare off preditors get eaten less meaning it is more likely they pass the genes for "eye mimicry" to their offspring.

Individuals don't have any children after they are eaten and so the genes without the marking are less successful.

But, what does "Stand by your faith" mean? I assume that this means that you are sure you are right, have closed your mind, and won't change your belief no matter how much evidence there is against it.

In this case, this thread doesn't have any point.

Ok, so a butterfly that looks like an owl is less likely to be eaten by a predator. I think everyone can agree on that.
But, that has nothing in the world to do with how it came to look this way.

You still haven't said if this is supposed to be an anti-evolution thread. I also want to know if "stand by your faith" means you should have a mind closed to evidence.



How do you you know?

Does you faith keep you from seeing the logic behind an evolutionary explaination of mimicry and the large amount of evidence that this explaination is correct?

Are you certain that God designed the butterfly this way? Are you sure that the butterfly was this way on the ark?

Are you sure that God didn't use evolution as His process?

Science has an awful lot of evidence behind its belief in evolution. This type of evolution (changes in coloration) has been seen in experiments and there is virtually no doubt that it happens (except for people with faith).

Incidently, I would like to hear you explaination of how this butterfly came to look this way.

Was it this way on the ark?

You're talking about a lot of different things.
I'm only asking: How did the owl butterfly come to look this way? Any explanation/opinion would do.

I gave you the scientific explanation. I have the feeling you won't accept that one.

What is your explanation?

No you didn't.

...you gave an explanation of why looking this way would be beneficial.

But I will elaborate if you want....

Genetic traits change in both plants and animals any time the trait affects the ability to a individual to survive and reproduce.

For example... you see those big strawberries you buy in the supermarket. They didn't exist 500 years ago. They were developed by farmers who selected the larger berries, the smaller berries in this population weren't allowed to reproduce.

The corn you eat now depends on human beings for cultivation. It wasn't created this way. The corn that met humans needs was cultivated (and thus helped to reproduce), and the species of corn you now eat exists because of that.

Look at the many species of dogs we have today. They didn't exist 2000 years ago (and many of them are much more recent than that). They exist because developing a symbiotic relationship with humans helps ensure their survival. This has not only made them more mellow and easily trained, it has also created "cute" breeds that didn't exist before.

Students in high school now do experiments by selecting traits in fruit flies. It isn't hard to do, you simply only allow the flies with the trait you want to reproduce.

let me recap
All traits like coloring are passed through genes. The genes are passed from the two parents to the child and the genes determine these markings.

If an individual has markings that make it less likely he will get eaten, he is more likely to pass on these genes to any offspring. Thus, the genes with eye markings are selected and adapted.

There. A pretty good summary of the scientific explanation.

Now what is your explanation??

Maybe you can do this all night, I can't.

You gave a whole bunch of examples of "induced" breeding giving desired results. But that all your examples were of induced breeding is irrelevant, because in the end you made the exact conclusion (of how the owl butterfly came to look this way) as you did before. Here is your summary statement:



(Maybe you mean, 'this is how they CONTINUE to look this way'.)

BECAUSE LOOKING THIS WAY IS BENEFICIAL HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH HOW IT CAME TO LOOK THIS WAY.

Let me simplify for you. Let's trace all the owl butterflies back to the very first owl butterfly pair. I think everyone would agree that all owl butterflies in the world today are descended from one initial owl butterfly pair. If their parents weren't owl butterflies, what were they? What did they look like? Care to elaborate?

Maybe tomorrow. The sun is long gone here.

Ok, let me make this real simple for you....

There probably wasn't a "first owl butterfly pair" as I believe that different types of butterfly can mate (I am not sure about this).

There were a population of butterflies who were able to mate. Let's take this up before any butterfly had a striking eye marking.

1) Every butterfly looks a bit different.

2) (I think you understand this already) Each butterfly inherits two sets of genes from its parents. These genes form a unique new butterfly based on the combination of genes.

3) From time to time, by chance, a change will occur to the genes that will create a slightly different trait.

4) This change is genetic, it will be passed down to the offspring. Since there are two parents, it is not certain that a child will have this trait.

5) If this change is beneficial, meaning in this case that it makes the individual less likely to be eaten, then the offspring with this gene will be more likely to survive and reproduce.

6) If the change is a big benefit (like these eyespots), the gene will be more and more common in each generation.

7) There are many minor changes that occur that have no effect (remember that each butterfly is different). These changes are not spread through the population and remain minor differences.

So there is the scientific explanation of how a new trait (like these eyespots) can develop in a species that didn't have them

In real life this doesn't happen all at once. It usually happens in many steps, each one either beneficial, or one of those benign changes I mentioned.

I haven't studied this particular butterfly, but I know how it works in other examples. Here is one way it could have happened.

Starting with a population of butterflies with no spots, after time and much mating, some butterflies (since they each have their own unique markings) develop lucky black spots that by chance, resemble eyes.

Possibly they aren't that good yet, but they are good enough to have an effect.

The individuals who have these spots get eaten less, they have children (more than the other butterflies) and some of them have the same spots. In the next generation the butterflies with spots do better.

Over a few generations a significant part of the population have spots and the change has happened.

But now the process happens over again when one of this new spotted butterfly, by chance gets a ring around the spot. The same process of selection happens again until there is a population of butterflies with spots and rings.

Over hundreds, or thousands of generations, each stage can improve on the eye a little bit. Each time the eye is more realistic, there is a better chance it will "fool" a preditor until you get the quite impressive mimicry you see in this picture.

There. I did my part. Now an even more specific explanation of how new traits can develop in a population of butterflies through evolution.

Now you must live up to your end of the bargain. What is your explanation?

Chiso.

I can explain in detail the processes involved in evolution through natural selection. I doubt you'll listen since you clearly are starting this thread because for some strange (most likely religious) reason you believe that you're somehow disproving evolution. Yet still, you've asked the question so I'll answer.

DNA is a long and complicated molecule which exists in the middle of most of the cells of our body. By interacting with other molecules in our cells it forms various proteins which determine how our body builds itself.

If DNA replicated perfectly, then evolution wouldn't occur. However it doesn't replicate perfectly. Sometimes the DNA gets shuffled around as a natural part of the dividing process, this is fairly rare but happens now and again. During sexual reproduction the DNA of two creatures gets fused in a semi-random process during which mutations can also occur. Also the DNA can be altered through external sources, radiation, viruses or interaction with chemicals known as mutagens.

Thus over time individuals within a species develop slightly different DNA. In most cases these changes may be to junk DNA and thus have no effect in that individual but possibly have an effect at some point in their decendants. In other cases it effects the active DNA in either negative or beneficial ways.

Most negative mutations result in either a stillbirth, infant mortality or a poorly functioning creature that doesn't manage to reproduce thus keeping these changes out of the gene pool.

Those positive mutations are likely to increase the chances of the individual having many children who all have a chance of bearing the trait. Thus over time the trait spreads and you end up with two different groups. One with the trait, one without. Eventually, if the trait is sufficiently advantagous it spreads throughout the species.

In the example given of moths with "eyes" on their back. Any mutant moth with appropriately placed splotches will most likely survive to reproduce. Their children will also do better and over time, all the moths of that species will have these "eyes".

Any questions?

What's interesting about this butterfly or moth, whatever it is is how it works. There are a number of moths and butterflies that have "startle mimicry" patterns on their wings. These moths at rest during the day tend to blend in with the substrate, tree bark, rock, etc., and should a bird spot them and attack, the moth opens the wings at the last moment revealing a brightly colored pattern or what appear to be vertebrate eyes. This momentary shock to the bird gives the moth a split second to take flight. A moth in flight is almost impossible for a bird to catch. The moth lights on another surface, closes its wings and once again blends in with the background.

The moths within a given population with the most effective startle patterns survive to reproduce more frequently.

Check out the two threads in the "Science and Math" forum under the titles, "Weird Animals and Animal Traits" and "More Weird Animals etc." There are some interesting pictures there demonstrating moth mimicry as well as a caterpillar that mimics a viper snake very effectively.

Another interesting butterfly is the Zebra (Heliconius) found commonly in Florida. It lays its eggs only on passionflower plants. These plants over millions of years have developed numerous chemicals in an attempt to disuade the Zebra butterlfy from laying its eggs on the plant, all of which have been breached by the insect through immunity. The plant then exploited a weakness of the butterfly to its advantage; when the caterpillar first hatches it is canibalistic, so the Zebra avoids laying eggs on a plant with eggs already present.The plant then began growing parts that mimiced the Zebra eggs to defer the butterfly from laying its eggs. Passionflower vines also produce extra-floral nevtaries that attract ants with nectar, and the ants attack other insects on the plant. Pictures demonstrating this are also on the above threads.

I think what chiso is asking is based on the assumption that there must have been intermediate stages of adaptation in which the butterfly had only random markings, not resembling an owl at all. Could it be explained how the intervening stages produced an advantage? A similar argument could be applied to giraffes. Is there a fossil record of the ones with medium necks? Would they have more likelihood of survival, or not?