The Spider , butterflies , organs and brains. Page 2 of 2

The female butterfly above. Its hard to think of how we got to use a word like evolve or evolved when we look at a whole structure. Number 5 is the brain behind the eye. Straight away we’d struggle to say that that brain had evolved to fit in that position. Number 15 is the ovary that makes the eggs. Any of all these bits and pieces on their own could be zoomed in on and there would be another number of parts right down to atoms and molecules and electrons. Of course at that level we have no understanding and no words to name any more parts. And that is just the female butterfly. The male butterfly is different.

But which parts of the male and female butterfly were there from the start and which ones weren’t. It just doesn’t make sense. Keeping it simple , if we think in an evolutionary way , we would have to think firstly that the two wings evolved from some other double structure at the same time as each other and that would have to be the same for the legs. Again it’s that word ‘evolved’ with the weight that it carries that is used to explain it. Also the male and female butterfly would have had to have evolved at the same time. No random mutations or natural selections could explain that two distinct body structures that together make babies , evolve at the same time as each other.

The butterfly body parts are on a par with the human body. There is no difference between them. Just different setups and abilities that use or lead to senses like sight and feeling that allow the body to navigate or be navigated. Despite the human and butterfly being different , it feels intuitively that if anything is used to make either happen , it would be the same thing or process or whatever that makes or allows them to happen.
Back on just the body parts though. If the parts and structure of the butterfly have evolved , then if we could see an earlier one going back in time , it would have to be that the earlier parts of the butterfly were formed or structured in a way to be ready to work with the later parts. That doesn’t make sense until we see that their is no evidence of it having evolved in the first place.

And butterflies fancy each other. They don’t just fancy any other butterfly though. They fancy their own species. A red admiral butterfly only fancies a red admiral butterfly. That is , over seventeen thousand species of butterflies on earth today fancy only their own species. That specificity of fancying , simply has no reliance on our conjectures of evolution theory , so why would any whole butterfly body rely on it either.
We also couldn’t doubt at all that the colours and the patterns on the butterfly are superficial in any way. They are obviously more than important. But evolution theory says that natural selection is the way in which all of those colours and patterns are said to have come about. In common sense thinking , an animal would never have had time on it’s side to get just the colours right , never mind the patterns.

Camouflage is also said to have come to be through natural selection.

In the case of this desert lizard , it is said to have evolved the colours and patterns of colours on it’s skin using natural selection to match it’s desert background. It is quite remarkable to see that the lizards skin does match that part of the desert. The problem though , is that it makes no sense to say that something called natural selection brings this about.
It would mean that the lizards that were somehow already lizards , must have tried all sorts of colours and patterns to come up with the later lizards that now have that camouflage. To counter that idea it is presumably said that the earlier lizards that had just some colour resemblances to their desert background survived more than those that didn’t have any of those colours and over time the lizards with the colours and patterns of colours eventually became to be like the lizard in the picture. That is a struggle with thought though , as it is a purely simple human thought about how that camouflage came about.

Isn’t it surely more likely that the lizard got it right straight away , like the butterfly got their colours and patterns on their wings straight away.
The glaringly obvious thought about trying to think about how either the butterfly and lizard got their colours and patterns of colours is that they both have either wings or skin to put them on in the first place.
With thoughts like that , it would follow that from seeing that natural selection doesn’t lead to colours and patterns themselves , it would follow that there is a crux in the matter. That is that the colours and patterns of colours can occur in the first place.. Obviously we have no idea how.
We can say though that the eyes of different animals that see them maybe see them differently , but in a general sort of way of thinking , the colours have to be available first. So imagining that an animal survives over thousands and thousands of years by allowing different patterns of colours to occur to eventually match it’s background is nonsensical.

The lizards skin resemblance to it’s surrounding is startling , and we try to think about how it can possibly be. Obviously we don’t know. But in it , there is something to think about. Take the amount of the chemical Melanin in humans that makes our skin black or white. If i have this right , then the skin is protected more from strong sunlight if the skin has more melanin in it. Following from that , we could say that natural selection meant that people with melanin in hot sunny countries many years ago were more likely to survive to have more children.
But there would though have to be melanin in the first place for any natural selection to do it’s thing. That would lead us to say that the lizards camouflage is like melanin , in that it exists as a whole entity. That would apply to anything and everything else that has ever existed and that would mean that everything is explicit.
And that’s a problem. We just can’t can’t understand the explicitness.

Quite obviously , following normal thought and thinking about explicitness , not a single animal or plant exists on earth exists because of natural selection or random mutations. After any animal or plant occurs , it’s anyone’s guess as to how they carry on.
On all of the whole parts like organs though , it just doesn’t make sense to say that animals and plants evolved and evolved not knowing what they are doing. Somehow animals are supposed to have been shaped by the environment to have hearts and lungs , toe nails and eyebrows , wings and brains , and leaves and roots, and all through the idea of natural selection and random mutations.
Using millions of years of time to explain any of them is useless. The numbers of years is used because the evidence of evolution is almost non existent. Just plausible this fossil and plausible that fossil and plausible this DNA or .. it goes on. That’s why millions of years is chucked in to help a handful of book writers to double down and save face and leave people in a state of confusion rather than accepting that they have simply conjectured for example that the eyes in eight million species of animals today are stuck in a socket connected to a brain because of natural selection.

The confusion has worked though. Nature documentaries will often say that this or that animal evolved some sort of ability or function to survive in a particular environment. For example some animals are said to have evolved to have antifreeze in their blood to survive in cold environments. Antifreeze is a chemical substance that in itself is like the silk in a spider and is a chemical compound. If any animal develops or suddenly had antifreeze in it’s blood , it is more than difficult to say that we know how it occurs , like the melanin that makes our skin back or white.

Image by https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:TonyCastro The humming bird. That beak is said to have been naturally selected to get to the nectar deep inside the flower.

Hard to think that our conjecture of random mutations and natural selection could be involved with the organs above and then having a nice case to keep them in.

You couldn’t get this sort of organization or arrangement wrong in the slightest. The brain fits nicely in a skull and the other organs take up their positions in the rib cage. And the organs don’t slop around. They are all obviously held in place. You’d think that gravity would cause them to just fall to the bottom of rib cage. Then add some flesh to the outside and a seamless waterproof layer of skin. Then for animals like a cat or a beaver or a polar bear add a lovely soft warm coating of fur.

So evolution would have to have an ability to organise and protect. That feels very different to thinking that these setups worked over any other ones tried out along the way using random mutations and natural selection. The animals that failed would be an interesting find , but as it is , there is not one fossil of a failed animal. Many have gone extinct , that’s all.
In their time they were whole , and probably enjoyed every day of life very much like you and me do.

Next chapter. Can we think in space..

Home