The OP was How does Design Theory deal with this. That’s what I was referring to in terms of context, though I did not make it clear.
As for “poofing” things… I agree. It’s not. As I said above, no one took up the topic so I was role-playing, guessing what one from the design camp might say. Either way, “poofing” is not germane.
Ah, ha!! Hahahaha… I see that the lost art of conversation has been replaced by the new skill of argument-winning. You win.
First the Premise is completely backwards and bogus. The Op says:
When one looks at the above insect, it is easy to understand why the evolutionary process would produce such a phenomenon: The insect’s camouflage allows it to more readily evade predators, and therefore increases its likelihood of successfully reproducing.
This is nonsense and conjecture. There is no mechanism for DNA to alter itself to look like something. I would have no way if it had a picture of Elvis on its back or be able to know if it was going in that direction. And to suggest it survived and so the right direction was favoured is bogus. Before it was this color and shape it obviously survived and many not this colour or shape survived. There is no actual science behind such a claim. its invoking some sort of magic nature pushing DNA one way or another.
IF Humans are the end of the food chain, everything survives, everything all the way up to us. In fact, as we see, Fish, need not evolve, and did not evolve. They are still fish. There is no need to walk out of the water. Frogs also did not need to change, Nor did clams nor did thousands of other things. The Premise is wrong from the start.
–
No need to bring design into the argument. Evolution at its core is wrong… How life came to be is a great quest, but to be clear Evolution had no part in it.
Actually there is a mechanism. It involves two parts. First we have genetics which produces small genetic and morphological changes to every individual in every generation. Then we have natural selection which when averaged across the whole population tends to (in this case) favor those variations with a little more camouflage. Those favored ones reproduce more and their slightly more camouflaged morphology becomes the norm for future generations. Repeat this cycle hundreds of thousands of times and you get highly camouflaged insects.
The process is called evolution has been empirically observed and studied for over 160 years. Your objections are a century and a half too late. 
No-one is saying that DNA literally alters itself. DNA is a molecule, a chemical, and as all chemicals is subject to chemical alterations. Chemical reactions can happen to DNA, and those chemical reactions changes the structure of the DNA molecule. Many of the types of chemical alterations that can happen to the DNA molecule are called mutations.
to look like something.
It is not the DNA that is altered to look like something, it the population of organism that harbors the DNA molecules in it’s member’s cells that is altered over generations, such that the individuals that make up that population come to appear differently.
And to suggest it survived and so the right direction was favoured is bogus.
No, it makes perfect sense. Genetic changes affect what the organism looks like because it’s genes encode the phenotypic attributes of the organism, including it’s appearance. So changes in those genes have the potential to alter the appearance so the organism comes to appear more like something in it’s environment.
Before it was this color and shape it obviously survived
It is not this organism itself that changed, it is ancestral populations that changed over generations. Individuals do not evolve, populations do.
and many not this colour or shape survived.
Yes, but they were less successful at it. Even very tiny differences in the ability to survive and reproduce add up over hundreds and thousands of generations. If individuals who carry mutation A survive better and have more offspring than those who don’t carry mutation A, then those differences will add up generation after generation. A larger and larger fraction of the population will be made up of those who carry mutation A. Eventually the entire population will be made up of carriers of A, and there will be none left who don’t have it.
There is no actual science behind such a claim.
Natural selection is an observed fact. It can even be implemented in artificial selection with selective breeding, as I’m sure most people have heard of.
its invoking some sort of magic nature pushing DNA one way or another.
There’s no reason to think this. Just look at selective breeding, there’s no “magic nature pushing DNA” involved and yet substantial morphological and color change can result from that.
IF Humans are the end of the food chain, everything survives, everything all the way up to us.
Obviously not everything survives. I’m sure you’ve seen those recordings of sea turtles hatching from their eggs and being picked off by predators on their hopeful run towards the ocean. If you’re a particularly slow turtle because you’re born with some sort of genetic defect, it will be more likely that some predator will manage to spot and catch you before you make it to the ocean. If you’re a particularly fast turtle, or better camouflaged, you have a greater chance than other turtles of making it. Not a guarantee, but a greater chance nevertheless.
Also there really is such a thing as competition for limited resources and mates in nature. It would be delusional to suggest otherwise. Some fail to reproduce and so leave no descendants(maybe they don’t find food, so do not survive to reproductive age), others succeed at having a few offspring, while still others are very successful and significantly out-reproduce their kin. Even for humans this is true, some have many more children than others. Some have none. Some die before they reach adulthood. This should all go without saying.
In fact, as we see, Fish, need not evolve, and did not evolve.
We do not, in fact, see that. Evidence shows that fish did actually evolve. I recommend Neil Shubin’s book Your Inner Fish.
They are still fish.
And those species of fish evolved from other species of fish before them, into the species of fish they are today. The fact that they are still “fish” does not mean no evolution took place.
In the same way that you are a mammal, that does not imply that no mammal ever evolves, nor does it mean the species of mammal you belong to did not evolve from other species of mammals that lived in the past. The fact that the species we are today, is still classified as a mammal, does not mean our species did not evolve. We did evolve, from other species of mammals before us.
The same is true for fish that live today. The fact that they are still classified as “fish” does not mean no evolution has taken place.
There is no need to walk out of the water.
There doesn’t have to be a “need” for it to occur anyway. It does not have to be necessary, nor to be needed, for it to be advantageous for individuals in some ancestral species of fish, to be born with mutations that make them very slightly better at living in shallow waters and survive for short periods outside of water. If there were insects living around shallow waters and near the shore, fish able to catch them and eat them would have an advantage over those that could not. They would be able to reach a source of food others could not. They would then be able to feed themselves, and survive, and have offspring that inherited those abilities.
Frogs also did not need to change, Nor did clams nor did thousands of other things. The Premise is wrong from the start.
The premise that things “need” to change is what is wrong. It’s not even clear what that really means.
DNA has a spell check that is programmed to keep DNA exactly like it is. It does not have a Code altering prodigal. If there is changes its because of male and females sharing their DNA and any damage caused by environmental factors.
Evolution has no mechanism within DNA to make the theory of evolution actual science or realistic.
On a Macro level its clear Evolution is debunked in the fossil record. You would expect everything to be some type of intermediate form, but instead we see a glut of fossils exactly like what we have today from fish, clams, apes and Humans. Just in that last point you would expect everything from where Apes split off to the humans to be living today if we and they both are living. There is no excuse for their extinction and its suspect that the millions of changes are not in the fossil record or seen in nature today.
And yet gone they are. I’m sure they’d feel embarrassed to be without excuse, if they were around to hear your opinion.
The whole Idea of Evolution is that there is pressure for change and better things live where poor things do not. Yet, the poor fish, the poor frog, the poor clam the poor ape and the Poor human all survive and the billions of changes in between are not with us or in the fossil record.
One newer thought is that there is just to much information to be congealed to have any directive change, random selection cannot produce meaningful change. A Ted talk shows the size of our DNA and helps us see that change is far more impossible than what was first thought.
this is worthy of watching:
I have no idea what you mean by “meaningful” change. Change isn’t occurring because it’s “meaningful”.
Also, selection isn’t random. It’s biased towards higher fitness, and against lower fitness.
A Ted talk shows the size of our DNA and helps us see that change is far more impossible than what was first thought.
From less to more impossible! Even more impossible than we used to think? Holy moly.
I get that weird tingling sensation that this discussion will go nowhere.
Why would it go anywhere evolution is a hoax. LoL. selection is random here is how precise and directed it is.
Oh, you mean like these.
Big List of Transitional Fossils
Just yesterday I was looking at some living trilobites, living sauropods, living pterosaurs, living dimetrodons. Oh wait…
You’re still about 160 years behind the times. Get thee to a library!
in a few years you will be able to see extinct Elephants and extinct bees etc. they will be like others the end of an era, not a branching out.
How can we see them if they’re extinct? Inquiring minds want to know. 
No, not like that.
This guy is expecting Crocoducks.
dont forget the flying pigs
A blueprint is a bad metaphor for a genome. DNA neither metaphorically nor literally looks like the phenotype of an organism. So to assert “there is no mechanism for DNA to alter itself to look like something” is a red herring - no-one other than creationists would suggest that DNA does that.
Clearly from the DNA and its size, and its exact structure DNA is a blueprint, a code, a Bible of information.
A cell houses DNA and without the cell the book of data could not exist. There is a spell checker which does not alter the DNA but preserves it. A scribe. What might not be known to some is that this spell checker has priorities and so less important things will get less attention than more important things.
The replication of DNA and spell checking is not a vehicle for the modification of species. It is the exact opposite.
I think you need to reregister under a different screen name. Maybe “A_misunderstanding_of_evolution_is_a_hoax”
What size is that, exactly? In what organism? Reference please.
A cell houses DNA and without the cell the book of data could not exist.
Clearly false. DNA does in fact exist and can persist for quite a long time without being inside a cell. Ask anyone who’s ever done any PCR work about contamination issues.
Also, it isn’t actaully clear that a cell is required to make DNA in the first place. That topic is an area of active investigation, and the claim that DNA could not exist without being made inside a cell has not met it’s required burden of proof.
There is a spell checker which does not alter the DNA but preserves it.
Citation needed. Please give a reference from the primary literature that details what you are talking about here, as you could be speaking about several different things and it’s not clear which ones.
Not youtube videos, not blog posts, but scientific articles. Peer reviewed studies based on observation and experiment.
A scribe. What might not be known to some is that this spell checker has priorities and so less important things will get less attention than more important things.
Please provide a citation from the primary literature that details what phenomenon you are referring to. It is not clear what “spell checker” you are talking about, nor what it’s putative “priorities” you are referring to, are supposed to be.
The replication of DNA and spell checking is not a vehicle for the modification of species. It is the exact opposite.
We cannot accept that claim without evidence. You need to give references from the primary literature so we can check whether what you say is true.
Or maybe “Mr. Poe”. 
A claim that DNA could not exist without being made inside a cell has been disproved - not only acellular but abiotic syntheses exist. Synthetic DNA is quite old - feeding synthetic DNA into a cell free protein assembly system was how the genetic code was decoded.
The more open question is the existence of non-cellular, non-technological syntheses, which of course is the one relevant to questions of abiogenesis.