[kenneth (OP)]

Now, I have heard differing facts about the migration patterns, but can someone explain, in detail, the migration pattern of the monarch butterfly.

I have heard that 1 migration cycle transcends many generations, is this true?

[Asyncritus]

I've not heard that, but it wouldn't surprise me.

You've put your finger on the very touchiest part of the evolutionist's anatomy. You may have noticed that they aren't exactly leaping out of the bushes yelling :"You don't know a thing about evolution"!!! Give 'em time. They'll scratch up the courage from somewhere, sometime, somehow!!!

They know it's quite hopeless to even begin accounting for the phenomena of instinct. I've looked in talkorigins to see if I could find something, but guess what? Zilch. Heh heh!

Apart from this tripe: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB401.html

Darwin had a lot to say about it actually, and I LIKE IT!:

Darwin devoted a chapter in theφto instinct. He admitted: "This is by far the most serious special difficulty which my theory has encountered. . . . The problem at first appeared to me insuperable, and actually fatal to my theory." Later he concluded: "I do not pretend that the facts given in this chapter strengthen in any great degree my theory; but none of the cases of difficulty, to the best of my judgment, annihilate it." Elsewhere he admits that "instincts are as important as corporeal structure for the welfare of each species, under its present conditions of life." He concludes, "No complex instinct can possibly be produced through natural selection except by the slow and gradual accumulation of numerous, slight, yet profitable variations. . . .We ought at least to be able to show that gradations of some kind are possible, and this we certainly can do".

Doesn't give up, does he?

But he didn't know that the cliff swallows fly 7,500 miles from Goya in Argentina to Capistrano in the southern California - AND ARRIVE THERE EVERY YEAR ON THE 18TH OF MARCH!!! They also leave on the 23rd of October to fly all the way back!!!

Obviously they have a calendar in their heads somewhere!

Nor did he know that the golden plover flies 2,500 miles across ocean, from Alaska to Hawaii. Then rear their offspring, AND LEAVE THEM THERE - and guess what? The young follow later without a guide!!! Nor did he know that the red knot flies 10,000 miles from the Arctic to the Antarctic and back again every year. Nor did he know that the Arctic tern flies round the world, 25,000 miles every year.

If he had known, maybe he would have shut his mouth and not published that idiotic theory which has created so much unbelief in the Creator of all things.

Heh heh!

[Asyncritus]

But to answer your question directly (from wiki)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danaus_plexippus

"Monarchs are especially noted for their lengthy annual migration. In North America they make massive southward migrations starting in August until the first frost. A northward migration takes place in the spring. (In Australia, they make limited migrations in cooler areas,[3] but the blue tiger butterfly is better known in Australia for its lengthy migration.[4] ) Female monarchs deposit eggs for the next generation during these migrations. By the end of October, the population east of the Rocky Mountains migrates to the sanctuaries of the Mariposa Monarca Biosphere Reserve in the Mexican states of Michoacán and México. The western population overwinters in various sites in central coastal and southern California, United States, notably in Pacific Grove and Santa Cruz.

The length of these journeys exceeds the normal lifespan of most monarchs, which is less than two months for butterflies born in early summer. The last generation of the summer enters into a non-reproductive phase known as diapause and may live seven months or more.[7] During diapause, butterflies fly to one of many overwintering sites. The generation that overwinters generally does not reproduce until it leaves the overwintering site sometime in February and March. It is thought that the overwinter population of those east of the Rockies may reach as far north as Texas and Oklahoma during the spring migration. It is the second, third and fourth generations that return to their northern locations in the United States and Canada in the spring. How the species manages to return to the same overwintering spots over a gap of several generations is still a subject of research; the flight patterns appear to be inherited, based on a combination of circadian rhythm and the position of the sun in the sky.[11]

Monarch butterflies are one of the few insects capable of making transatlantic crossings. They are becoming more common in Bermuda due to increased usage of milkweed as an ornamental plant in flower gardens. Monarch butterflies born in Bermuda remain year round due to the island's mild climate.

A few monarchs turn up in the far southwest of Great Britain in years when the wind conditions are right, and have been sighted as far east as Long Bennington. Monarchs can also be found in New Zealand. On the islands of Hawaii no migrations have been noted."

In all the world, no butterflies migrate like the Monarchs of North America. They travel much farther than all other tropical butterflies, up to three thousand miles. They are the only butterflies to make such a long, two way migration every year. Amazingly, they fly in masses to the same winter roosts, often to the exact same trees.http://www.monarchwatch.org/tagmig/index.htm

"Another unsolved mystery is how Monarchs find the overwintering sites each year. Somehow they know their way, even though the butterflies returning to Mexico or California each fall are the great-great-grandchildren of the butterflies that left the previous spring. No one knows exactly how their homing system works; it is another of the many unanswered questions in the butterfly world." [] []

Heh heh!

[Madidus_Scientia]

Indeed, this is very baffling and amazing. No one can explain exactly how their homing system works. Therefore there must be a creator!

Or maybe this is just another example of a logical fallacy;

Confusing currently unexplained with unexplainable
Because we do not currently have an adequate explanation for a phenomenon does not mean that it is forever unexplainable, or that it therefore defies the laws of nature or requires a paranormal explanation. An example of this is the "God of the Gapsâ" strategy of creationists that whatever we cannot currently explain is unexplainable and was therefore an act of god.

[blakestyger]

Asyncritus

Please, know the difference between migration and being blown off-course. Each year, several birds species usually found in the New World turn up in the UK when they meet adverse winds on their N - S migrations; they did not set out to come here.

[Madidus_Scientia]

Darwin devoted a chapter in theφto instinct. He admitted: "This is by far the most serious special difficulty which my theory has encountered. . . . The problem at first appeared to me insuperable, and actually fatal to my theory." Later he concluded: "I do not pretend that the facts given in this chapter strengthen in any great degree my theory; but none of the cases of difficulty, to the best of my judgment, annihilate it." Elsewhere he admits that "instincts are as important as corporeal structure for the welfare of each species, under its present conditions of life." He concludes, "No complex instinct can possibly be produced through natural selection except by the slow and gradual accumulation of numerous, slight, yet profitable variations. . . .We ought at least to be able to show that gradations of some kind are possible, and this we certainly can do."

Why did you embolden the world annihilate? Were you hoping people would skim read the paragraph and wrongly come off with a confused meaning due to taking the word out of its context? The same goes for the other sentences you have emboldened. Someone with the opposite agenda could just as easily attempt to manipulate his words through selective highlighting:

Darwin devoted a chapter in theφto instinct. He admitted: "This is by far the most serious special difficulty which my theory has encountered. . . . The problem at first appeared to me insuperable, and actually fatal to my theory." Later he concluded: "I do not pretend that the facts given in this chapter strengthen in any great degree my theory; but none of the cases of difficulty, to the best of my judgment, annihilate it." Elsewhere he admits that "instincts are as important as corporeal structure for the welfare of each species, under its present conditions of life." He concludes, "No complex instinct can possibly be produced through natural selection except by the slow and gradual accumulation of numerous, slight, yet profitable variations. . . .We ought at least to be able to show that gradations of some kind are possible, and this we certainly can do".

Darwin is quite modest about his theory throughout The Origin of Species. This doesn't, however, weaken his arguments.

If he had known, maybe he would have shut his mouth and not published that idiotic theory which has created so much unbelief in the Creator of all things.

Wow, you actually sound like you want him burned like a witch for spreading blasphemy.
If the theory was indeed idiotic it may not have neccessarily have stopped it being published, it just wouldn't be remembered. It still stands strongly today because of its scientific merit.

[Asyncritus]

Is this some kind of a joke?
 

Please, know the difference between migration and being blown off-course. Each year, several birds species usually found in the New World turn up in the UK when they meet adverse winds on their N - S migrations; they did not set out to come here.

And how does this help you establish just how they manage to fly 7,500 miles to Capistrano and back EVERY YEAR on the SAME DAY?

[Asyncritus]

Darwin devoted a chapter in theφto instinct. He admitted: "This is by far the most serious special difficulty which my theory has encountered. . . . The problem at first appeared to me insuperable, and actually fatal to my theory." Later he concluded: "I do not pretend that the facts given in this chapter strengthen in any great degree my theory; but none of the cases of difficulty, to the best of my judgment, annihilate it." Elsewhere he admits that "instincts are as important as corporeal structure for the welfare of each species, under its present conditions of life." He concludes, "No complex instinct can possibly be produced through natural selection except by the slow and gradual accumulation of numerous, slight, yet profitable variations. . . .We ought at least to be able to show that gradations of some kind are possible, and this we certainly can do."

Why did you embolden the world annihilate? Were you hoping people would skim read the paragraph and wrongly come off with a confused meaning due to taking the word out of its context? The same goes for the other sentences you have emboldened. Someone with the opposite agenda could just as easily attempt to manipulate his words through selective highlighting:

Darwin devoted a chapter in theφto instinct. He admitted: "This is by far the most serious special difficulty which my theory has encountered. . . . The problem at first appeared to me insuperable, and actually fatal to my theory." Later he concluded: "I do not pretend that the facts given in this chapter strengthen in any great degree my theory; but none of the cases of difficulty, to the best of my judgment, annihilate it." Elsewhere he admits that "instincts are as important as corporeal structure for the welfare of each species, under its present conditions of life." He concludes, "No complex instinct can possibly be produced through natural selection except by the slow and gradual accumulation of numerous, slight, yet profitable variations. . . .We ought at least to be able to show that gradations of some kind are possible, and this we certainly can do".

Darwin is quite modest about his theory throughout The Origin of Species. This doesn't, however, weaken his arguments.

If he had known, maybe he would have shut his mouth and not published that idiotic theory which has created so much unbelief in the Creator of all things.

He does what he alswys did - plead specially, as you are doing now.

He couldn't, you can't and not a single soul can even imagine how this came about.

Therefore, there is a supernormal influence creating this behaviour. Nothing else meets the facts of the case.

Bird migration has been studied for the longest time - and no explanation is forthcoming. But the case is even worse than that, as I shall show in my next post.

[Madidus_Scientia]

He does what he alswys did - plead specially, as you are doing now.

Where exactly does Darwin or myself plead specially?

He couldn't, you can't and not a single soul can even imagine how this came about.

Therefore, there is a supernormal influence creating this behaviour. Nothing else meets the facts of the case.

Why must it be a supernormal influence? Just because we don't understand a phenomenon it doesn't mean its magic.

[Asyncritus]

He does what he alswys did - plead specially, as you are doing now.

Here's a sample from him: "He concludes, "No complex instinct can possibly be produced through natural selection except by the slow and gradual accumulation of numerous, slight, yet profitable variations. . . .We ought at least to be able to show that gradations of some kind are possible, and this we certainly can do".

Perhaps 'special pleading' is too generous. It's downright wrong, and he knew it, as you do too.

Now here are you: "Because we do not currently have an adequate explanation for a phenomenon does not mean that it is forever unexplainable, or that it therefore defies the laws of nature or requires a paranormal explanation."

There is no vestige of an explanation after n years of investigation.

And it isn't 'forever unexplainable'. There's an easy and satisfactory explanation right at hand, here, now, on this forum.

[BenV]

There's an easy and satisfactory explanation right at hand, here, now, on this forum.

Easy, yes, lazy, yes, based on non-science and false assumptions, yes, scientific? no, satisfactory, not at all. 

Don't forget - in reality, god doesn't exist, so this explanation could never be satisfactory.  Creationism is not a explanation housed in reality, it is a philosophy.  I really wish you would appreciate this.  It's like arguing a foul in football based on the rules of bridge.

[Asyncritus]

There's an easy and satisfactory explanation right at hand, here, now, on this forum.

Easy, yes, lazy, yes, based on non-science and false assumptions, yes, scientific? no, satisfactory, not at all. 

Don't forget - in reality, god doesn't exist, so this explanation could never be satisfactory.  Creationism is not a explanation housed in reality, it is a philosophy.  I really wish you would appreciate this.  It's like arguing a foul in football based on the rules of bridge.

Ben, let's assume for the sake of argument that God did create everything.

Would it be unscientific to assume that He did? And to pursue investigations of the matter?

Or would you still view it as a philosophical matter?

In my view it's truth we're after - not labels.

[BenV]

There's an easy and satisfactory explanation right at hand, here, now, on this forum.

Easy, yes, lazy, yes, based on non-science and false assumptions, yes, scientific? no, satisfactory, not at all. 

Don't forget - in reality, god doesn't exist, so this explanation could never be satisfactory.  Creationism is not a explanation housed in reality, it is a philosophy.  I really wish you would appreciate this.  It's like arguing a foul in football based on the rules of bridge.

Ben, let's assume for the sake of argument that God did create everything.

Why? It doesn't make sense to do so.

Would it be unscientific to assume that He did? And to pursue investigations of the matter?

Yes, it would, as it's based on a premise that can never be proven.

Or would you still view it as a philosophical matter?

In my view it's truth we're after - not labels.

And 'truth' can't be based on an unprovable assumption like that.  This isn't a situation of 'labelling' someone's comments - it makes no sense whatsoever to argue from different paradigms.