Can anyone explain how the moth got it's owl eyes?

[Thurston-howell-III]

No, this is not correct. If things were true, we would see reputable scientists on CNN challenging evolution.

But we don't. And the reason is that any reputable scientist knows that your claim is false. The mistake is this: the creationist will tell us a half-truth - that since the laws of thermodynamics tells us that things always tend to disorder, that complex "ordered" structures like human beings could not have evolved.

Well, that is true only for a closed system - one with no source of energy input from the outside.

But the earth is not a closed system. And the external energy source is nothing other than that thing that was eclipsed by the moon yesterday (April 8, 2024).

Still waiting for an example of a code that was created w out intel. You show me and I will believe in evolution.

 

[expos4ever]

absurd theory that cannot be proven and never will be.

How is evolution absurd? It will be interesting to read your answer since it certainly seems like an exceedingly plausible theory. Here's why:

a. random mutations happen - this is a fact

b. those mutations can translate into characteristics that will promote the survival and reproduction of those animals that have the favourable mutation (e.g. more fur in a cold environment).

And that's it.

Does this reasoning prove evolution? Of course not! But it does demonstrate that the theory could be true if some very plausible assumptions turn out to be correct.

So the theory is certainly not absurd.

 

[expos4ever]

Huge amounts of energy are required to create a ""semblant"" of order.

That huge bright yellow thing in the sky - is that not a provider of huge amounts of energy?

 

[Thurston-howell-III]

How is evolution absurd? It will be interesting to read your answer since it certainly seems like an exceedingly plausible theory. Here's why:

a. random mutations happen - this is a fact

b. those mutations can translate into characteristics that will promote the survival and reproduction of those animals that have the favourable mutation (e.g. more fur in a cold environment).

And that's it.

Does this reasoning prove evolution? Of course not! But it does demonstrate that the theory could be true if some very plausible assumptions turn out to be correct.

So the theory is certainly not absurd.

Do you think you are going to get the complexity of life via copying errors?
Look at any list of diseases caused by mutations, you are fighting an uphill battle.
And that is a kind estimate.

 

[expos4ever]

Do you think you are going to get the complexity of life via copying errors?

You are, again, playing games with words. Your choice to use the word "error" to characterize mutations is not a coincidence - I suggest you chose it because it is laden with baggage might trip up the uncritical reader. You are, of course, implying that is absurd to think that "errors" lead to functional complexity.

Well, that is an effective, and almost certainly intentionally misleading way to characterize what is happening. What you call an "error" could legitimately be called "an unexpected change in genetic coding". With this more neutral, less deceptive wording, the ability to generate complexity from mutations is much more plausible.

Look at any list of diseases caused by mutations, you are fighting an uphill battle.

Strawman - no one is suggesting all mutations are good - many, perhaps the significant majority are bad. But the ones that confer a survival benefit - and clearly such mutations are indeed possible - are the ones that will be passed onto the next generation.

 

[Gene2memE]

That Sounds reasonable.

It really doesn't - because it ignores the fact there are rather a lot of energy inputs into the system.

Thermodynamics may actually suggest quite the opposite - that life (and evolution) are inevitable because of the way chemicals naturally organise themselves to dissipate energy.

 

[Astrid]

Can anyone explain what it took for a moth to gain owl eyes on ea wing? Owl are formidable predators recognized by would-be moth enemies.
Just wondering. View attachment 345574

Eye spots are very common in a wide variety of creatures

 

[Astrid]

NS is at the mercy of mutations, which you just admitted are lucky.
Evolution is based on chance luck, do you run your life on luck?
speaking of luck, what are the chances that nucleotides in dna are arranged in such a way, that they form a code?

You're operating on the level of a
4th grade kid laughing at the absurdity of
those big professors calling those squiggles
math!!

Even a kid knows math uses numbers!

 

[partinobodycular]

Do you think you are going to get the complexity of life via copying errors?

That's why we have this amazing thing called sex. In which nature takes a whole bunch of different sets of genes, splices them together, and gets an absolutely mind boggling assortment of permutations. Hence it isn't simply one mutation equals one potential outcome... it's one mutation equals a practically infinite set of outcomes. Some deleterious, most benign, but all of them lurking around in the gene pool just waiting for environmental conditions to call them to the fore.

It's not a matter of a few random mutations here and there, it's the practically infinite number of ways that that mutation gets expressed throughout the gene pool. What you're thinking of as one simple change actually equates to billions of different changes. And when you consider that fact the idea of evolution doesn't sound nearly so absurd.

 

[Hans Blaster]

look up the laws of thermodynamic they disprove without a doubt that evolution is possible, do not believe me, just look up for yourself.

What is this? A creationist greatest hits parade?

Thermodynamics certainly do *NOT* disprove evolution no matter what your doubts are. The surface of the Earth is an open thermodynamics system with an external energy source and an entropy sink. Perfect conditions for self-organization.

What you write is false, systems left to themselves will degrade to their simplest components, Huge amounts of energy are required to create a ""semblant"" of order.

Most of the chemicals release energy in the process of formationl.

for a simple cell to contain all the machinery for its survival plus a code to reproduce itself is not possible by random movements of molecules the degrees of organization if far too complex, scientists have tried and failed, never could create a semblant of autonomous life.

(This isn't evolution anyway, but there is significant work done on demostrating pre-biotic chemistry.)

 

[Hans Blaster]

And the external energy source is nothing other than that thing that was eclipsed by the moon yesterday (April 8, 2024).

Oh that's what drove them all here....

 

[Gene2memE]

It looks like at least one of the genes responsible for different morphs is nearly identical in some species of butterflies and moths.

In this case, the actual genetic element is also very, very small (a transposable element of just 22 kilobases within a wider gene of about 400 kilobases).

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960982216307825

 

[Astrid]

How is evolution absurd? It will be interesting to read your answer since it certainly seems like an exceedingly plausible theory. Here's why:

a. random mutations happen - this is a fact

b. those mutations can translate into characteristics that will promote the survival and reproduction of those animals that have the favourable mutation (e.g. more fur in a cold environment).

And that's it.

Does this reasoning prove evolution? Of course not! But it does demonstrate that the theory could be true if some very plausible assumptions turn out to be correct.

So the theory is certainly not absurd.

The things yecs make up about science
( plus lo and many another thing) definitely are absurd.


Vaguelycamusing that what they're belittling
is themselves,

 

[BCP1928]

Still waiting for an example of a code that was created w out intel. You show me and I will believe in evolution.

There is no "code" as you seem to mean it. You're looking for Telos in the wrong place.

 

[JesusFollowerForever]

How is evolution absurd? It will be interesting to read your answer since it certainly seems like an exceedingly plausible theory. Here's why:

a. random mutations happen - this is a fact

b. those mutations can translate into characteristics that will promote the survival and reproduction of those animals that have the favourable mutation (e.g. more fur in a cold environment).

And that's it.

Does this reasoning prove evolution? Of course not! But it does demonstrate that the theory could be true if some very plausible assumptions turn out to be correct.

So the theory is certainly not absurd.

still not proven today because it cannot.

 

[AV1611VET]

Can anyone explain what it took for a moth to gain owl eyes on each wing?

Tyto Attacus?

 

[expos4ever]

still not proven today because it cannot.

Does it not bother you that you do not have any reasons to support your rejection of evolution? You have already been shown by me and others that the laws of thermodynamics most certainly do not show that evolution is impossible. This is not debatable - a first-year university course teaches you enough to know that the "thermodynamic" objection posited by creationist is either an honest misunderstanding on their part or, worse, a deliberate effort to distort truth.

A word about the use of the word "proven" as in "evolution cannot be proven". Some creationists will say that evolution cannot be proven. Well, in a strict sense this is correct - evolution cannot be proven; it can only be shown to be a good theory with a very high degree of confidence. But absolute proof? No. No scientific theory can be proven in the sense that one can prove that the angles of a triangle sum to 180 degrees.

 

[JesusFollowerForever]

Does it not bother you that you do not have any reasons to support your rejection of evolution? You have already been shown by me and others that the laws of thermodynamics most certainly do not show that evolution is impossible. This is not debatable - a first-year university course teaches you enough to know that the "thermodynamic" objection posited by creationist is either an honest misunderstanding on their part or, worse, a deliberate effort to distort truth.

A word about the use of the word "proven" as in "evolution cannot be proven". Some creationists will say that evolution cannot be proven. Well, in a strict sense this is correct - evolution cannot be proven; it can only be shown to be a good theory with a very high degree of confidence. But absolute proof? No. No scientific theory can be proven in the sense that one can prove that the angles of a triangle sum to 180 degrees.

I have plenty of reasons, show me proofs of evolution, you will not find any. still a theory....

 

[expos4ever]

still not proven today because it cannot.

It should also bother you that you are evading my argument. I would never reply to a post without actually addressing the argument expressed in that post. But you have not dealt at all with my argument for the plausibility of evolution.

 

[expos4ever]

I have plenty of reasons, show me proofs of evolution, you will not find any. still a theory....

You may have reasons, but I am quite sure none of them are good reasons. But, please, prove me wrong - give us one reason why we should not believe evolution. You have already provided one reason that is clearly incorrect- the thermodynamics objection. So what other reasons do you have to offer.

There is plenty of evidence for evolution, but if you are asking for "proof", you show that you do not understand the nature of scientific theories. And it seems to me that you are muddling the distinction between a scientific theory and the word "theory" is used in casual conversation, as in "I have a theory that Joe is cheating on his wife". A scientific theory, by definition, has to be substantively supported by evidence to be labelled as such. Not so with a gossip-y theory about Joe cheating on his wife.