If evolution is true...

[TomThumb]

Why haven't monarch butterflies changed?

The fossil record dates monarch butterflies back at least 6 million years, but they are no different than the monarch butterflies of today. Did evolution miss them? Does this prove evolution is flawed theory, like the theory of relativity?

[i_am_i]

Why haven't monarch butterflies changed?

The fossil record dates monarch butterflies back at least 6 million years, but they are no different than the monarch butterflies of today. Did evolution miss them? Does this prove evolution is flawed theory, like the theory of relativity?

Gee golly gosh, I guess it does!

[KDbeads]

First off, where's the proof they haven't changed?  I can't find that....

[TomThumb]

Please note that the Theory of Relativity is based on the assumption the Sun is a solid mass, something which we now know is not true.

[i_am_i]

Please note that the Theory of Relativity is based on the assumption the Sun is a solid mass, something which we now know is not true.

That's a new one to me. Let's have a look at your proof that the Theory of Relativity is based on the assumption that the Sun is a solid mass.

[KDbeads]

What does that have to do with this thread and evolution.... you still haven't given me PROOF of this butterfly thing.

[pinkocommie]

It has to be difficult trying to interact with a group of people who don't believe the same thing as you, but if you want to be a constructive member of this board you're going to have to put forth your points a little more coherently.  Take it one subject at a time.  Right now it seems like you're just spitting out assertions that either make little sense on their own or are difficult to understand the relevance of in the context of the thread.

If you don't want to be a constructive member, you'll be banned pretty quickly so I guess I don't understand the allure of trolling this forum.

[joeactor]

Why haven't monarch butterflies changed?
The fossil record dates monarch butterflies back at least 6 million years, but they are no different than the monarch butterflies of today. Did evolution miss them? Does this prove evolution is flawed theory, like the theory of relativity?

Yeah!

And what about sharks, hmmmm????

... And if we evolved from monkeys, then why are there still monkeys?!?!?!

... and if the Grande Mochachino Double-Decaf Half-Off Latte evolved from Dry Roast, then WHERE IS JUAN VALDEZ?!?!?

Take THAT, Logic Peoples!

(I'm being facitious - ie. Full of Feces...)

 :pop:  

[Recusant]

Why haven't monarch butterflies changed?

The fossil record dates monarch butterflies back at least 6 million years, but they are no different than the monarch butterflies of today. Did evolution miss them? Does this prove evolution is flawed theory, like the theory of relativity?

Hello, and welcome to HAF, TomThumb.  I'm going to address your post in good faith, even though it's strikingly similar to this entry from Yahoo.

 Monarch butterflies are an ancient species, compared to homo sapiens, for instance. But 6 million years is not all that long when you consider that arthropods have been around for approximately 570 million years. There are insect species that are much older.  There have been "modern" cockroaches around since the early Cretaceous (approximately 140 million years).

 Are all the rest of the flora and fauna in the world the same as they were 6 million years ago?  Assuming you know a little about biology, you would have to agree that they are not. If these changes are not the result of the process of evolution, how would you explain them? Denying the validity of the science behind the theory of evolution is a favorite pastime of some fundamentalist Christians.  The fact that you've chosen to take this path so very soon after joining HAF leads me to suspect that you yourself may tend to the fundamentalist position.  Old Earth Creationist subspecies, evidently.
So I guess that the changes that have occurred in the past few million years, let alone the (at least) 3.8 billion years of the history of life on this planet must be down to YHVH revising his creation.  As far as I understand it, YHVH's creation was perfect, and flaws were caused by sin.  Sin came into the world as a result of the Fall of Man.  But we have no fossil record of any modern humans existing before about 200,000 years ago.  How could a perfect creation need revising before sin even existed?

Back to the monarch butterfly:  Actually, from what I've read, monarch butterflies are not a monolithic species.  According to this article:

 

...as a species, the southern monarch is only comparatively recently evolved. In all likelihood, its ancestors separated from the monarch's population some two million years ago, at the end of the Pliocene, when sea levels were higher and the entire Amazonas lowland was a vast expanse of brackish swamp that offered hardly any butterfly habitat.

So your assertion that monarchs have remained unchanged for 6 million years seems to be not entirely accurate.

I suggest you start another thread to address your concerns with the theory of relativity, so as to avoid this one getting too convoluted.

(I like joeactor's reply much better than my own, I must admit.   )

[Squid]

Gosh, it must be so taxing to look on creationist websites and find silly arguments in an attempt to sound scientific - in the end it only makes you look stupid.

[karadan]

Please note that the Theory of Relativity is based on the assumption the Sun is a solid mass, something which we now know is not true.

Please let the door hit your arse on the way out.

 

[Tank]

Please note that the Theory of Relativity is based on the assumption the Sun is a solid mass, something which we now know is not true.

[McQ]

But I wanted to talk about shampoo!

[Ned]

But I wanted to talk about shampoo!

What's stopping you?

[i_am_i]

I'm quite disappointed about Tom Thumb being banned. I wanted to see him explain how relativity is based on the notion that the sun is a solid mass. I was really looking forward to that.