Speices "Design"

No; moreover, the list of things that can happen is not so big compared to the list of things that can never happen.

Here you are wrong, because I have already described to you that there is already anyhow, if we take into account the presence of a common ancestor. Of course, faith in cottage cheese will not allow you to understand this.
That is, there are some more general signs, but there are less. However, potentially, anything is possible, and in practice, only what really exists is possible.
Because if we also take into account the common ancestor, and in humans, and in snails, and in butterflies, and in beetles, and in fungi?, ...., then ANYTHING can really exist, because EVERYTHING really exists!
Yes, or watch Discovery, a program where they draw possible creatures on some planets - why not.. And there are people sitting there who are smarter than you.
The fact is that all the factors can never be taken into account, and taking into account some small part will only lead to the satisfaction of your creative ego.

You can calculate at least a hundred times high-probability combinations that will never occur. And even more so, if we take into account the cretionist theory, then what probabilities can we talk about if this * * * * is potentially capable of anything?

And finally, the most important thing, if you haven't already understood, is not the patterns in the drawings (since in this case you are investigating the consequences, and the results will be very narrow accordingly). It is necessary to investigate the reason for the appearance of the drawing. For example, if it is a random mutation of a certain gene, then you need to look exactly there, which means that the boundaries of these mutations can be much wider.

first of all. as for me. I reject both creativism and evolutionary teaching. I consider both theories incorrect. therefore, I listen equally to all opinions. all the arguments are interesting to me, but interesting at a distance from the heart.
secondly. taking into account all possible factors will eventually lead to the creation of an existing view. Here I agree.
thirdly. the ambition is not creative, but cognitive. I have already spoken out about knowing the causes - I asked for links to studies of at least histogenesis of spots. although the question of wing organogenesis in general also concerns me.
fourth. you may be surprised, but the creator can't create EVERYTHING.
remember the paradox about the stone that God must create, but is not able to lift it?
fifth. consequence-drawing. and yet the drawing. if we consider aberrations and other melanists, we can conclude that similar mutations occur within the same taxonomic group. definitely. but before we talk about the causes, we need to thoroughly study the consequences.

Pivot, what topic do you write your diploma on?

No; moreover, the list of things that can happen is not so big compared to the list of things that can never happen.

I wonder where you can look at these lists and who is their author?

About the lists, of course, a joke. But, if we continue it, then the author of such "lists" can be anyone, even you, even me. Sit down and write, and when you do, you can take a look. There are no difficulties here.

But more seriously: there are infinitely many impossible events, as well as possible ones, and the most noticeable difference for us is that it is easier to name the first ones at any given moment (in any number). Otherwise, why do we learn the laws if we think anything is abstractly possible? After all, to know an objective law is, strictly speaking, to know what exactly is impossible (i.e., it violates the law). Any law is an indication of what is necessary, therefore, for the same conditions prescribed in it, and cutting off the impossible.

And on a more mundane level of reasoning, each of us can name as many impossible things as we want (i.e., things that will never happen under any circumstances). For example, Yeltsin will never drain a glass, Napoleon will never become a woman, Mayakovsky will never write "War and Peace", and for the defense of the Rayevsky battery, it is impossible to mobilize the Sioux Indians, even if they wanted to. Etc. Colleagues started well, but, as some people do, with a run-up we posted generalizations (forgetting to check them carefully before) and weakened the original correct position.

Manilovschina, however. But beautiful.
I remember how in my childhood I used to fantasize and draw butterflies with the outlines of papilionids and hawkmoth in an album with markers, but with a drawing on the verge of surrealism

"and for the defense of the Rayevsky battery, it is no longer possible to mobilize the Sioux Indians, even if they wanted to." - The British mobilized Nepalese Gurkhas to North Africa in the II MV. So, this also happens

This post was edited by Morozzz - 03.11.2010 11: 21

 
But more seriously: there are infinitely many impossible events, as well as possible ones, and the most noticeable difference for us is that it is easier to name the first ones at any given moment (in any number). Otherwise, why do we learn the laws if we think anything is abstractly possible? After all, to know an objective law is, strictly speaking, to know what exactly is impossible (i.e., it violates the law). Any law is an indication of what is necessary, therefore, for the same conditions prescribed in it, and cutting off the impossible.

And on a more mundane level of reasoning, each of us can name as many impossible things as we want (i.e., things that will never happen under any circumstances). For example, Yeltsin will never drain a glass, Napoleon will never become a woman, Mayakovsky will never write "War and Peace", and for the defense of the Rayevsky battery, it is impossible to mobilize the Sioux Indians, even if they wanted to. Etc. Colleagues started well, but, as some people do, with a run-up we posted generalizations (forgetting to check them carefully before) and weakened the original correct position.

Laws, their recognition and deduction of consequences - this is if we take a special case of laws that take place on Earth, or in our universe.. But we can't say what might be a million light-years away for sure.. there's a lot we can't say yet. I read an article that in another part of the universe, the physical laws may be completely different, and arguments are given why this can be so. Then what laws can we talk about? - Of course, only about private ones that take place in a particular place.. But it is also important to determine the boundaries of these laws and the starting point. That is, if you take the starting point of a particular species of ornithoptera, and what this species can turn into - then: 1) you need to take into account too many factors to determine the boundaries of possible variations in the picture 2) If the mutations are random, then the result is random, isn't it?
The post began with the fact that it would be interesting to come up with something that could exist, and examples were given. But if the question was to identify the laws , then the topic should not have been created in images, and the question should have been put on a completely different question.

if you apply the theory that every moment is copied and replicated in parallel universes, then Yeltsin can still do a lot of things ))

Pivot, what topic do you write your diploma on?

the diploma has been written for a long time, on the topic of light adaptation of mottled moths

yes, perhaps the post did not start quite correctly. I posted the result immediately without relying on any knowledge of the reasons for adding a picture in a particular taxonomic group. But I decided to go this way, relying on my intuition, on my own analysis of the wing patterns of Ornithopteran species.
and yet the result was obtained.
actually, very few people discussed the result here, mainly clinging to my possible sharp statements about the creator and so on, which was not the essence of the post in general.
this post is not a scientific study.
this is just an attempt to draw your attention to the question of wing pattern variability within a taxonomic group.
even if we consider the question of so-called evolution, everyone knows that the narrower the group of species under consideration, the narrower the range of mutations, in other words, a certain taxonomic group has its own set of characteristic mutations, or highly probable mutations.

you can certainly go into philosophy for a long time, about the possible / impossible, but I would like to get closer to the topic.
let's discuss the result, since the post is in the subject of images of insects.
or submit your own attempts to the court.
without regard to the accusations of manilovism or scholasticism, just try to collect your knowledge and observations and give something to the right hemisphere.
I would be extremely interested.