Happy Atheist Forum

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?

Quote from: "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?

Gee golly gosh, I guess it does!

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

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.

Quote from: "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.

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.

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

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.

Quote from: "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?

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:  

Quote from: "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?

Hello, and welcome to HAF, TomThumb.  I'm going to address your post in good faith, even though it's strikingly similar to this (http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090715173559AAmz7am) 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 (http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Monarch_butterfly):

 

Quote...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.   )

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.

Quote from: "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.

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

 

Quote from: "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.

But I wanted to talk about shampoo!

Quote from: "McQ"But I wanted to talk about shampoo!

What's stopping you?

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.

(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg28.imageshack.us%2Fimg28%2F9558%2Fkenyanshampoo.jpg&hash=bf6357e953cc96bdfd39942f8ccc38cac8a36844)

^^^  

Quote from: "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?

The theory of relativity is flawed? how?

Yeah, he couldn't give us anything.  The only thing I can find is on conservipedia which is so bias and flawed it's ridiculous, they only cite themselves on the little BS article they put up and totally don't get that relativity in scientific terms has a different definition than what they say it means.  It still amazes me that people are still so gullible and close-minded.

Quote from: "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?

GREAT we got the statement that the monarch butterfly has been around for 6 million years, meaning that YOU have to accept that the earth is MUCH older then 6.000 years old, which is interesting.
LETS say that this theory of yours is correct, you cant deny ALL the other fossils that points to evolution and then Accept the only one that you find to your advantage, this is called close-minded, when science disproves your worldview you dont listen to facts, but when it sorta goes against evolution you VERY gladly accept it, seems to me as you dont want to learn, i cant even grasp how brainwashed someone has to be to not wanting to learn..  
And ok ill try to explain this also, if it is true.. you see, lets take humans as an example... IF we were to only allow white humans reproduce with white humans, and black humans to reproduce with black humans, THEN we would devide into two different species after some millions of years, BUT, as i suspect that this butterfly species has done, if we mix blacks and whites we get ONE species, a light brown sorta human, which will eliminates different appearance, and still they would look very much the same as we do right now, That is probably what happened... Also dont be so scared of learning mate..

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:  [/quote]
Again!, This just shows how ignorant ( no offence ) most creationists are about evolution... THIS IS THE STUPIDEST THING IVE EVER HEARD LOL!
NO modern animal evolved from another modern animal, Humans were never monkeys, monkeys were never humans..
We have a common ancestor, PLEASE the most basic knowledge of evolution should be obvious for someone with Gods ''holy inspiration'' -.-   However i wouldve done the same mistake if i didnt know anything about evolution, it was a very well thought out argument, but stupid since it was a straw-man, if you study evolution youll find that there are no flaws.. scientists have OVEr and OVer again searched for flaws, but sinc3e they cant find any, and since the evidence are over whelming, it is a fact now adays..

joeactor was kidding, being a caricature of a creationist if you will.  :(

Quote from: "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.

Brain hurts.

Correct me if I'm wrong, because I very probably am.

Doesn't evolution work in the way, while not having a goal, of not doing anything it doesn't need to do.

I.E. why would the Monarch change? What environmental reasons would there be for it to? It will work to, not remove, but...is incapacitate a good word?...things that aren't necessary anymore, like our appendix or our third eyelid.

Female ducks, I believe evolved their coloring to hide while with the nest.  

I guess what I am saying, is that there hasn't been a reason for the monarch to evolve past its current state, to date.

Do I have this idea wrong? If so tell me.

John

Evolution is a dynamic balance between an organism and its environment, which includes its fellow organism of its own species, its competitor species and those species that use resources or create resources. Consider a relatively constant environment. The selection pressures in the stable environment are low and tend to promote a stable population. One example would be the living fossil the Coelacanth (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coelacanth) which has lived in a virtually constant environment for millions of years. Has it evolved? Yes it has. It still has the mutations that are a natural part of existance and the variations brought about by these variations. The thing is this organism is virtually perfectly adapted to its environment which doesn't change so it doesn't either the mutations are virtually all deleterious or neutral so die out or remain dormant.

Quote from: "GAYtheist"Correct me if I'm wrong, because I very probably am.

Doesn't evolution work in the way, while not having a goal, of not doing anything it doesn't need to do.

I.E. why would the Monarch change? What environmental reasons would there be for it to? It will work to, not remove, but...is incapacitate a good word?...things that aren't necessary anymore, like our appendix or our third eyelid.

Female ducks, I believe evolved their coloring to hide while with the nest.  

I guess what I am saying, is that there hasn't been a reason for the monarch to evolve past its current state, to date.

Do I have this idea wrong? If so tell me.

John

You're probably thinking about stabilizing selection (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stabilizing_selection).

Quote from: "Squid"You're probably thinking about stabilizing selection (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stabilizing_selection).

OK. Thanks, I think I'll take this a a "Yes, but no." type deal. :blush:

A life form does not need to evolve as long as it's good enough as it is (has its competitive edge when compared to other species in the same area)

That does not mean, however, that the species we see as largely unevolved, like some insects, some sharks and lizards, not to mention crustations, are indeed the same as they were way back then. The changes could have been rather small, like color, for instance or a better immune system or a higher blood count for living in more mountaionous terrain. There are a lot of things one can alter about oneself without changing one's shape.

As for the sun being a solid mass... Bullshit, but I'll play.

Tell me, if I am making a calculation that views the Sun as a point in space (large enough scale), why should I then NOT see it as a solid mass? There are equasions where mass does matter, but mass density does not, nor does moment of inertia. Does your banned religious mind really need to twist every equasion to accomodate EVERY aspect of an object the equasion revolves around?

What does god have against relativity anyways?  

Quote from: "Asmodean"A life form does not need to evolve as long as it's good enough as it is (has its competitive edge when compared to other species in the same area)

That does not mean, however, that the species we see as largely unevolved, like some insects, some sharks and lizards, not to mention crustations, are indeed the same as they were way back then. The changes could have been rather small, like color, for instance or a better immune system or a higher blood count for living in more mountaionous terrain. There are a lot of things one can alter about oneself without changing one's shape.

As for the sun being a solid mass... Bullshit, but I'll play.

Tell me, if I am making a calculation that views the Sun as a point in space (large enough scale), why should I then NOT see it as a solid mass? There are equasions where mass does matter, but mass density does not, nor does moment of inertia. Does your banned religious mind really need to twist every equasion to accomodate EVERY aspect of an object the equasion revolves around?

What does god have against relativity anyways?  

Well, at least we haven't had to deal with the FlatEarthers who say that the sun and the moon are nothing more than discs.  LMAO

Quote from: "Asmodean"What does god have against relativity anyways?  

Its science. God hates science. Also fags, America, England, jews...you name it.

Quote from: "Caecilian"

Quote from: "Asmodean"What does god have against relativity anyways?  :D