View attachment 212420
I copied this from Arthur C Clarke quotes in a book. Now that it is already posted, I am going to disagree with what he said. Just because he is a genius don't mean he can't make mistakes. The butterfly could fly just as well without the patterns, that much I agree with, but the butterfly might not be around to try to fly. The patterns on the wings of butterflies help them identify prospective mates that are members of the same species. Each species of butterfly has certain plants or trees they feed on the flowers of. They could not survive and reproduce without being able to identify other members of their species. Some species of butterflies feed on plant nectar which makes them unpalatable to birds or other predators. Those butterflies have specific colors or markings on their wings, and the predators avoid them. Then other butterflies, not of the nasty tasting species, have developed markings similar to them in order to avoid being eaten. Many plants and animals use this defence. They are known as mimics. This is why I disagree with the genius, and there ain't nothing he can do about it, since he died in 2008. Therefore, since he was wrong about the pattern on the wings of butterflies and had used that to support his statement that the Universe had no interest in intelligence or life, that throws a monkey wrench in his whole theory about what the universe has an interest in, and that life and intelligence are accidental by products.
Case closed, Sir Arthur C.