My friend, caterpillars turning to butterflies are not micro-evolution, that is normal development associated with butterflies.
How about a tadpole turning into a frog, is that micro-evolution also? Or an egg into a chick? Heck, we can go hogwild, how about a female ovary egg into a human. The egg is one species Macro-evolving into a human (another species). Is this how you really look at it? My friend, let's get serious. I had hoped not to respond on this subject but this is just plain funny. Jojo ----- Original Message ----- From: [email protected] To: [email protected] Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2014 10:07 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Punctuated equilibrium On 28/08/2014 6:22 PM, Jojo Iznart wrote: On 28/08/2014 11:14 AM, jwinter wrote: If the necessary information is present from the beginning, then it only needs to be triggered and it will express itself. This is my suspicion of how the process might work. This process my friend, is called micro-evolution or variation or adaptation. The genetic information required to trigger a change is already encoded in the DNA. This mechanism can create large changes in a short time. It does not rely on mutations. This mechanism does not result in a new kind (~species). It does not result in Macro-evolution. If a species of caterpillars which reproduced as caterpillars, one day laid a batch of eggs out of which hatched butterflies which then reproduced as butterflies (which was my example), there is no way that anyone in their right mind would call that micro-evolution! Given that this profound level of transformation occurs millions of times every day within a single generation of many diverse species, it is not a great stretch to imagine that this level of transformation could also have occurred between generations in the process of speciation. My point is that the information for a completely new life form can lie latent in an existing lifeform to suddenly appear fully formed when the trigger occurs - which trigger may in fact need a genuine mutation. But no precursors or slow mutation and adaptation need be required. Such a process would embarrass the evolutionists because they can find no fossil record of transitional forms. It would also embarrasses the honest creationists because all the dating and genetics would point to the first species (caterpillars) giving rise to the second (butterflies). If such a mechanism existed and acted, it would be the perfect producer of the effect known as "punctuated equilibrium" - and as I understand it, is what the fossil evidence largely points to.
