[_ Old Earth _] The Woolly Bear Caterpillar

[Asyncritus]

Pyrrharctia isabella

I was astonished to hear of the caterpillar of this moth on Frozen Planet whose commentator is that famous pro-evolution person, David Attenborough.

If you didn't, then you missed a treat if you hate evolution as much as I do.

Here's the score.

It lives in the arctic.

The caterpillar, after it has hatched out from its egg, stuffs itself with as much food as it can in the short arctic summer.

However, it simply cannot, in the available summer time, accumulate enough reserve energy to pupate. So what happens?

It freezes in the winter months - and that is absolutely literal in every sense of the word.

The heart stops and freezes, the gut freezes, the blood freezes - all solid as a rock.

Then, in spring, it 'comes back to life' (Attenborough's words), and repeats the process - for a total of FOURTEEN years.

In the fourteenth year, it has accumulated enough energy, pupates, and emerges as the adult moth which breeds and then dies.

Now ye evolutionists, account for this incredible phenomenon. How did it arise by small steps?

How did it learn to survive freezing solid? How many mutations and how much natural selection had to take place, to find this amazing physiology? And where did it come from?

Every other animal on the planet, if it freezes solid, dies.

In hibernating animals, everything slows down, nearly to a standstill - but they do not freeze solid. The hearts don't stop. The blood does not solidify. Their guts don't freeze solid.

So unless this was a special creation, and thereby entirely falsifies the theory of evolution by natural selection, then how did it arise?

 

[Asyncritus]

But this raises another problem.

By what 'small evolutionary steps' did the process of insect metamorphosis arise?

How could a helpless pupa, (containing the dissolved caterpillar in the case of the butterflies and moths), which has never even heard about flying, or about mating, or about egg laying, or about pollinating flowers, or about nectar and where it's located, and a dozen other such things - ever hatch out into a adult insect which does all the above?

How did all that evolve?

A special creation is the only acceptable explanation.

And another problem hangs on that one.

Without the insects to pollinate them, insect-pollinated flowering plants could not exist.

So which came first? The plants or the insects?

 

[Barbarian]

Every other animal on the planet, if it freezes solid, dies.

Frogs do it, among others. You've been led down the path again, I'm afraid. Generally, some sort of anti-freeze molecule prevents larger crystals from forming, and so freezing does no harm to the organism.

 

[Barbarian]

Without the insects to pollinate them, insect-pollinated flowering plants could not exist.

The first pollinating plants (and many today) simply broadcast their pollen, and don't need insects at all. The first insects (like Thysanurans) didn't even fly, much less pollinate flowers.

So which came first? The plants or the insects?

Moot point, but plants came before insects.

 

[Asyncritus]

Frogs do it, among others. You've been led down the path again, I'm afraid. Generally, some sort of anti-freeze molecule prevents larger crystals from forming, and so freezing does no harm to the organism.

You keep making these daft claims. Got any references?

And if you have, care to explain how an 'anti-freeze molecule' which presumably prevents freezing, can protect a larva which freezes solid? Heart, blood, gut, the whole lot?

And um, how did an 'anti-freeze molecule' evolve by natural selection and mutations in those animals which didn't have it?

As the temperature drops, ice gradually embraces the woolly bear once again. Its body freezes in an orderly, systematic manner: first the gut, then the blood, then everything else except the cytoplasm inside each cell, which never freezes. The slow transition allows cells to adjust physically and metabolically and encourages formation of smaller, less destructive crystals. Quietly tucked under a thick blanket of ice, the caterpillar shows no signs of breathing or even of a heartbeat

No. don't tell me. Gradually, over a long, looooooooong time.

Got that right?

But you keep evading the real questions with your diverting diversionary tactics. You produce similarities, but fail to account for how the original arose, and how the similar organisms arose too.

For example, you mention frogs surviving freezing. In the tropics and warmer climes, there is no frost. Therefore the frogs there do not freeze, or have to survive freezing.

In the colder climates, they do freeze and survive.

So one came from the other - either A from B, or B from A. Or they were created simultaneously. Which alternative do you prefer to fall upon?

I was happy (but a bit surprised) to hear you say that God knew what He was doing.

If He does all things well, why does evolution (as you see it) become a necessity?

 

[Asyncritus]

The first pollinating plants (and many today) simply broadcast their pollen, and don't need insects at all.

Yes, that's quite true - but I'm talking about the ones that are pollinated by insects.

The first insects (like Thysanurans) didn't even fly, much less pollinate flowers.

And the size of that particular can of worms is gigantic.

How did insects evolve flight?

 

[Barbarian]

You keep making these daft claims. Got any references?

And if you have, care to explain how an 'anti-freeze molecule' which presumably prevents freezing, can protect a larva which freezes solid? Heart, blood, gut, the whole lot?

Prevents the formation of large ice crystals that would otherwise disrupt cells.

And um, how did an 'anti-freeze molecule' evolve by natural selection and mutations in those animals which didn't have it?

Modification of existing molecules. Don't know about wooly bears but there's a good amount of literature on it such things. Arctic frogs use an excess of glucose to do it, but some amphibians use glycerol. Both are modifications of existing structures or metabolic pathways found in other vertebrates.

It's not surprising that such a useful process could have gradually evolved, first to prevent freezing, and then ultimately to prevent damage in the frozen animal.

But you keep evading the real questions with your diverting diversionary tactics. You produce similarities, but fail to account for how the original arose, and how the similar organisms arose too.

These substances already exist in all animal cells, and do retard freezing. It's not surprising that there'd be an advantage in cold-blooded animals gradually improving on it. Each small step would be an advantage.

For example, you mention frogs surviving freezing. In the tropics and warmer climes, there is no frost. Therefore the frogs there do not freeze, or have to survive freezing.

Nope. But they have the basic system, which also serves metabolic functions.

In the colder climates, they do freeze and survive.

The adapted ones do.

So one came from the other - either A from B, or B from A. Or they were created simultaneously. Which alternative do you prefer to fall upon?

The obvious answer is that they have a common ancestor, but neither species is evolved from the other.

I was happy (but a bit surprised) to hear you say that God knew what He was doing.

Evolution is just one of the amazing things He does.

If He does all things well, why does evolution (as you see it) become a necessity?

Engineers are starting to realize that evolution works better than design for complex problems. God just did it in the most elegant way. The more you learn about His creation, the more you see the beauty and effectiveness of it.

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
The first pollinating plants (and many today) simply broadcast their pollen, and don't need insects at all.

Yes, that's quite true - but I'm talking about the ones that are pollinated by insects.

When flying insects appeared, it wouldn't be surprising that it would be a great benefit to plants to have insects land on them and carry off accidental pollen to be taken considerable distances. If the insects were attracted to the plants, it would be even better. So it's not hard to see how that worked.

Barbarian observes:
The first insects (like Thysanurans) didn't even fly, much less pollinate flowers.

How did insects evolve flight?

The evidence is that it came about by the modification of the gill branches of biramous limbs in primitive insects. There are some living examples of the way that happened. Would you like to hear about it?

 

[Asyncritus]

Prevents the formation of large ice crystals that would otherwise disrupt cells.

That's a mechanism, not an account of how it originated.

Modification of existing molecules.

Intelligent modification, of intelligently designed molecules, you'll have to agree. Antifreeze molecules don't just happen, do they? They don't 'just enter' an animal's bloodstream: there is a manufacturing plant within the cells which do this.

And no antifreeze manufacturing factory 'just evolved' without intelligent direction, did it?

Don't know about wooly bears but there's a good amount of literature on it such things. Arctic frogs use an excess of glucose to do it, but some amphibians use glycerol. Both are modifications of existing structures or metabolic pathways found in other vertebrates.

You again beg the question very neatly. Granted all the above, there is an accounting required for how such an arrangement arose in the first place.

That is the question before any evolutionist. I'm not hearing any answers - merely diversion tactics.

It's not surprising that such a useful process could have gradually evolved, first to prevent freezing, and then ultimately to prevent damage in the frozen animal.

Look, B, if an animal went to live in the arctic, then without the mechanisms, it would have perished. That's reasonably obvious, isn't it?

It couldn't have 'gradually evolved' - because without it, extinction would have supervened.

So animal A (without antifreeze) goes to arctic to live - and freezes to death.

But we have woolly bear moths in the arctic, and doing quite well, thank you.Therefore, they were created like that - and I can't see an alternative, but maybe you can.

These substances already exist in all animal cells, and do retard freezing. It's not surprising that there'd be an advantage in cold-blooded animals gradually improving on it. Each small step would be an advantage.

To go from A to the arctic is not a small step, it's a gigantic one which had to happen all at once: or the animal would have perished immediately. If it didn't perish immediately, then it had the mechanism in place.

If it did perish immediately, then they wouldn't be there now, and we wouldn't be having this discussion.

So, special creation, or no?

The obvious answer is that they have a common ancestor, but neither species is evolved from the other.

Heh heh heh!

This fabled 'common ancestor' pops up again and again. Has anybody ever seen it/them? Any fossils for instance? No? I didn't think so.

Evolution is just one of the amazing things He does.

It would be amazing if He did, but as we have been seeing, it is simply a non-starter in far too many instances that I have put forth.

Time you abandoned it, you know.

Engineers are starting to realize that evolution works better than design for complex problems. God just did it in the most elegant way. The more you learn about His creation, the more you see the beauty and effectiveness of it.

We creationists know that. They haven't 'just started to realise' - they've been copying God's designs for years, and I'm sure you know all about it. Think of the bastard wing in birds, and how that was copied.

Think of velcro, and how that was copied from the burrs.

Think of the bats and whales echo-locating systems which the military is trying vainly to copy.

Now if the designs are the results of blind, dummy chance evolutionary experiments, then the people who are and were busy copying them are a bunch of dummies too, for copying such rubbish.

But some of them got Nobel prizes for their inventions, and cartloads of money. Think of Hans Krebs, and Melvin Calvin for instance. Doesn't make sense if it's the product of evolution that they're copying.

But if they are copying the works of a Greater Designer, then the whole thing falls perfectly into place, doesn't it?

 

[Asyncritus]

Barbarian observes:
The first pollinating plants (and many today) simply broadcast their pollen, and don't need insects at all.

Granted.

When flying insects appeared,

Hold it, hold it, hold it.

Let's not slide casually over one of the massive, major problems this theory has to face.

Here's insect A no wings, can't fly ----------X------> Insect B has TWO PAIRS of wings, can fly, can loop the loop, hover, fly backwards etc etc.

Now I'll give you the wings. They evolved somehow (heh heh heh!).

But Insect B hatched out, and lo and behold it's got wings on its back. Now just what the hell is it going to do with them? It doesn't KNOW how to fly.

It hasn't been to flying school, and needs an instinct implant, or it's dead. So where does it get the instinct implant from? The necessary information needed to equip it to fly?

An instinct, as I've been saying all along, is immaterial. It is not subject to mutations etc, and most important of all, it has to appear fully formed, or it is useless - like the wings themselves.

That's the Law of Asynctropy.

it wouldn't be surprising that it would be a great benefit to plants to have insects land on them and carry off accidental pollen to be taken considerable distances. If the insects were attracted to the plants, it would be even better. So it's not hard to see how that worked.

It's not hard to see how it's working now.

But the question before us, is how did it arise?

Bees need nectar. But if flowers don't produce any nectar, then the bees are dead, and because the flowers aren't pollinated, then they're dead too.

So they both had to appear TOGETHER, otherwise extinction would have been their fate. But they are still here and doing very well, thank you.

So, special creation? Or no?

The evidence is that it came about by the modification of the gill branches of biramous limbs in primitive insects. There are some living examples of the way that happened. Would you like to hear about it?

Please, spare me the tripe. It's disgraceful that supposedly intelligent scientists can produce such nonsense with straight faces. They should be fired, the whole lot of them who write that nonsense.

They bring Biology into disrepute.

 

[Barbarian]

Hold it, hold it, hold it.

Let's not slide casually over one of the massive, major problems this theory has to face.

Here's insect A no wings, can't fly ----------X------> Insect B has TWO PAIRS of wings, can fly, can loop the loop, hover, fly backwards etc etc.

Now I'll give you the wings. They evolved somehow (heh heh heh!).

But Insect B hatched out, and lo and behold it's got wings on its back. Now just what the hell is it going to do with them? It doesn't KNOW how to fly.

It hasn't been to flying school, and needs an instinct implant, or it's dead. So where does it get the instinct implant from? The necessary information needed to equip it to fly?

Actually, that's a great question. And the answer is pretty interesting. You see, wings almost certainly evolved from the gill branches of primitive biramous appendages common to most arthropods. You see, each appendage in primitive arthropods has two branches, a leg and a gill.

The gills, which work in liquid, or sometimes in air, are moved in a sort of figure 8 pattern which maximizes the flow of oxygenated water. It's a very common thing in the aquatic larva of insects.

But how did this become a wing? What kind of transitional form would account for that? Sounds impossible, um?

Let's take a look at stoneflies. Most of them don't actually fly, even though they have primitive wings. They use them for skimming on water, by flapping or catching a breeze. None of them are strong flyers, and many are adept at catching the wind and kiting.

The wings in the nymphs are useful gills, BTW. So it's pretty easy to see how flight was adventitious for insects. The instinct was already in place, and a partial wing turns out to be quite useful.

Science 21 October 1994:
Vol. 266 no. 5184 pp. 427-430
Surface-Skimming Stoneflies: A Possible Intermediate Stage in Insect Flight Evolution
James H. Marden and Melissa G. Kramer

Abstract
Insect wings appear to have evolved from gills used by aquatic forms for ventilation and swimming, yet the nature of intermediate stages remains a mystery. Here a form of nonflying aerodynamic locomotion used by aquatic insects is described, called surface skimming, in which thrust is provided by wing flapping while continuous contact with the water removes the need for total aerodynamic weight support. Stoneflies surface skim with wing areas and muscle power output severely reduced, which indicates that surface skimming could have been an effective form of locomotion for ancestral aquatic insects with small protowings and low muscle power output.

Barbarian observes:
it wouldn't be surprising that it would be a great benefit to plants to have insects land on them and carry off accidental pollen to be taken considerable distances. If the insects were attracted to the plants, it would be even better. So it's not hard to see how that worked.
It's not hard to see how it's working now.

But the question before us, is how did it arise?

Natural selection.

Bees need nectar. But if flowers don't produce any nectar, then the bees are dead, and because the flowers aren't pollinated, then they're dead too.

Not quite. Bees also collect pollen. They eat it.

Pollen is the yellowish or greenish powder-like substance that sometimes comes from flowers. It may be quite sticky. It contains the male contribution to the next generation of plants. Honey bees mix the pollen with some nectar to form a mixture called beebread that is a protein-rich food used to feed the larvae. As the worker bees move from flower to flower, they spread pollen to many different plants, including important foods such as vegetables (squash and cucum bers), fruits (apples, watermelon, plums, sweet cherries, citrus), nuts (almonds), plants grown for seed (sunflower), and animal feed crops such as clover.
http://ag.arizona.edu/pubs/insects/ahb/inf4.html

Of course, an insect picking up pollen from plants is going to end up moving pollen from plant to plant, which is advantageous for the plants, even if they loose some pollen which no longer has to be broadcast.

So they both had to appear TOGETHER, otherwise extinction would have been their fate.

Nope.

So, special creation? Or no?

Nope. God was a lot smarter than that.

 

[Barbarian]

That's a mechanism, not an account of how it originated.

Modification of existing molecules.

Intelligent modification, of intelligently designed molecules, you'll have to agree.

An unnecessary addition. God doesn't do it that way. And engineers are beginning to wise up. They are now solving problems with natural selection, which is more efficient than design for very complicated problems. God's a lot smarter than some people think.

Antifreeze molecules don't just happen, do they?

Turns out that some molecules that do other things, happen to have that property. A bit of gradual change can make them even better.

Barbarian observes:
Don't know about wooly bears but there's a good amount of literature on it such things. Arctic frogs use an excess of glucose to do it, but some amphibians use glycerol. Both are modifications of existing structures or metabolic pathways found in other vertebrates.

You again beg the question very neatly. Granted all the above, there is an accounting required for how such an arrangement arose in the first place.

Part of normal glycolysis.

Barbarian observes:
It's not surprising that such a useful process could have gradually evolved, first to prevent freezing, and then ultimately to prevent damage in the frozen animal.

Look, B, if an animal went to live in the arctic, then without the mechanisms, it would have perished. That's reasonably obvious, isn't it?

If you don't think the population might have gradually moved farther and farther north. But that seems to be the way they do it.

It couldn't have 'gradually evolved' - because without it, extinction would have supervened.

Unless, of course, they gradually moved north. Then it would have been good.

Barbarian observes:
These substances already exist in all animal cells, and do retard freezing. It's not surprising that there'd be an advantage in cold-blooded animals gradually improving on it. Each small step would be an advantage.

To go from A to the arctic is not a small step, it's a gigantic one which had to happen all at once:

Unless they moved north gradually.

or the animal would have perished immediately. If it didn't perish immediately, then it had the mechanism in place.

Barbarian observes:
Engineers are starting to realize that evolution works better than design for complex problems. God just did it in the most elegant way. The more you learn about His creation, the more you see the beauty and effectiveness of it.

Think of velcro, and how that was copied from the burrs.

Yep. Evolution is like that.

Now if the designs are the results of blind, dummy chance evolutionary experiments, then the people who are and were busy copying them are a bunch of dummies too, for copying such rubbish.

They work better than design. But, as you know, it's not a chance process. And engineers are pragmatists, so they don't care.