Are Butterflies Two Different Animals in One? The Death And Resurrection Theory

linky

This is one of those wild and far out theories.
I'm not sure how valid it is. But it does bring up some interesting points.

Here's a dangerous, crazy thought from an otherwise sober (and very eminent) biologist, Bernd Heinrich. He's thinking about moths and butterflies, and how they radically change shape as they grow, from little wormy, caterpillar critters to airborne beauties. Why, he wondered, do these flying animals begin their lives as wingless, crawling worms? Baby ducks have wings. Baby bats have wings. Why not baby butterflies?

His answer — and I'm quoting him here — knocked me silly.

"[T]he radical change that occurs," he says, "does indeed arguably involve death followed by reincarnation."

What?

So he says it again: "[T]he adult forms of these insects are actually new organisms."

I'm sorry. Maybe I didn't hear that right ...

"In effect, the animal is a chimera, an amalgam of two, where the first one lives and dies ... and then the other emerges."

Craziness!

reply to post by grey580


I always been fascinated by that, only few living things could do that, instant adaptation kinda of... i dont think they are 2 different organism, they still have their caterpillar parts in them...

Now...

what would be more trippy is, what organism will you get if you clone a butterfly cell? i would assume caterpillar tho.

I wouldn't go as far as saying they're two different creatures. It's part of their DNA "programming". Those insects that have a pupa phase (in a coccoon or as a chrysalis or another form of pupa) seem to do this a lot. They start off like worms with feet (or other short appendages) that go about eating to get larger. Eventually, the older outside form is either shed or otherwise cast off to get to the pupa stage where the creature lies dormant while it forms a new set of legs and wings (in many cases). When the adult form (butterfly/moth/fly/beetle/etc) emerges, it does not resemble the larval (caterpillar/maggot/grub/etc) form, but it is still the same creature with no new DNA changes. It's not like another creature consumed the caterpillar and grew into a butterfly while the caterpillar died. You can verify this by the fact that it is the adult (not the larva) that lays the eggs that then hatch as caterpillars.

It's just neat thinking about these creatures.

Pretty outlandish theory, But my question(s) is...

Why would it only reincarnate to a butterfly? And why only once?

Doesn't reincarnation require a soul? Maybe if someone can photograph the caterpillar's soul dissipating and re-appearing I'll bite into this theory more...or maybe the soul stays intact during the process? Definitely got me thinking.

Well quite oddly it makes sense. I mean look at us...we die and many believe we become these beautiful angels with guess what...wings.

Originally posted by davidchin
I wouldn't go as far as saying they're two different creatures. It's part of their DNA "programming". Those insects that have a pupa phase (in a coccoon or as a chrysalis or another form of pupa) seem to do this a lot. They start off like worms with feet (or other short appendages) that go about eating to get larger. Eventually, the older outside form is either shed or otherwise cast off to get to the pupa stage where the creature lies dormant while it forms a new set of legs and wings (in many cases). When the adult form (butterfly/moth/fly/beetle/etc) emerges, it does not resemble the larval (caterpillar/maggot/grub/etc) form, but it is still the same creature with no new DNA changes. It's not like another creature consumed the caterpillar and grew into a butterfly while the caterpillar died. You can verify this by the fact that it is the adult (not the larva) that lays the eggs that then hatch as caterpillars.

It's just neat thinking about these creatures.

I think he's pointing out that it's a creature with two sets of DNA?
That one dies. And the other is reborn.

Very interesting stuff.

Interesting..my questions are :

Does the heart stop beating during the metamorphosis?

Is the DNA radically different after its a butterfly?

Ive always wondered if a butterfly remembers its life as a caterpillar, if only they could talk...

Imagen if we could create a cocoon, what kind of creature we would turn into.


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

reply to post by PhoenixOD


linky

Sounds gross.
But it seems that it does die and gets reborn.

From the outside it appears as though the pupa, also known as the chrysalis, is resting. In reality the larval tissues completely break down and reorganize rapidly within the pupal skin.

The first thing that happens is that a lot of the caterpillar’s old body dies. It is attacked by the same sort of juices the caterpillar used in its earlier life to digest its food and it would not be far wrong to say the caterpillar digests itself from the inside out. This process is called ‘histolysis'. Not all the tissue is destroyed however some of the insect’s old tissue passes on to its new self.

I am a insect junkie
We currently have 15-20 different butterflies in chrysalis/cocoon right now.

I believe they "changed" their DNA during evolution in order to be able to move further and faster for mating and reproduction.

It is indeed mind-blowing to fathom the metamorphosis.

Most adult butterflies and moths don't even feed or eat and live only a short time after emerging in their final form.

Mosquitoes, dragonflies, beetles, bees and many other insects have similar larval stages, if not all insects.
The butterfly and moth are arguably the most brilliant changes in the animal kingdom.

SOMETHING definitely borderline death does occur during metamorphosis but they remain "alive" during the whole process.

lifecycle.onenessbecomesus.com...
good vids

Originally posted by grey580
I think he's pointing out that it's a creature with two sets of DNA?
That one dies. And the other is reborn.

Very interesting stuff.

If that is the case how is he a biologist? He is wrong, there is only one set of DNA, not two. Incredibly stupid theory that defies logic. If there was two sets how would a butterfly lay eggs with caterpillar DNA? Regardless of the logic fail, it's flat out wrong, there is one set of DNA.

reply to post by OccamsRazor04

Indeed. If Heinrich did say that there is different DNA in the caterpillar and butterfly it would have been time to ignore everything else. But he didn't say that. He said that some of the active genes (within the same DNA) are different and that makes sense.

The reincarnation aspect is sort of odd though and so is the idea that long ago a caterpillar mated with a butterfly (sort of).

This reminds me of an old Sunday school song 'bull frogs and butterflies we've all been born again.' lol

Brings back memories. I always figured it was just their form as a larva and they weren't necessarily a new creature.

A little off topic but for a really freaky fact that surprised me to learn is that a Portuguese man o war is not a single entity but actually a collective of organisms that bond together to form a colony. That's so strange to imagine. I figured it was just one creature.

I'm rambling like a crazy woman but thought I'd share. Lol

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by OccamsRazor04

 

Indeed. If Heinrich did say that there is different DNA in the caterpillar and butterfly it would have been time to ignore everything else. But he didn't say that. He said that some of the active genes (within the same DNA) are different and that makes sense.

The reincarnation aspect is sort of odd though and so is the idea that long ago a caterpillar mated with a butterfly (sort of).

edit on 8/5/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)

My response was somewhat to the poster, as I only skimmed the source. It seems he is suggesting at one point there were two sets of DNA, and still are in some regards. In one stage one set is turned off, and then they switch and the original set turns off. The two sets are just fused as one. If butterflies were a complete anomoly I would give this more credence, as it is there are a host of creatures that do this. I think there are some other serious questions that need to be answered as well. Also why do we not see caterpillars that do not pupate? Too much I see wrong with this theory.