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

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Mutations cause destruction and if you’re lucky, they won’t kill you, the trade off is not beneficial, you’re minimizing the harm sickle cell disease has on its victims

And you're outright ignoring that it also has a massive benefit! Sickle cells are aggressive against the malaria significantly more than regular blood cells, thus preventing malaria taking a hold in the body.

Sorry that it's not 100% perfect for effect for your liking.

 

[BCP1928]

So you don’t think it’s lucky that a moth ends up w 2 owl eyes on its wings to scare off predators?

No, they evolved from the beginning as a set, not one at a time.

 

[Ophiolite]

Yeah, that's the weird sticking point. I don't get why he's trying to make choice a thing.

That is straighforwrd. He does not believe in evolution. Evolution does not work if mutations are harmful. Therefore arguments that mutations can be beneficial are obviously flawed. And here is the evidence - sickle cell anemia is deadly - that this is so. Therefore evolution is disproven.

This is a science-subforum, where evidence is important. The argument presented by the member selectively ignores the evidence and thus the argument is not worthy of further attention. I would just leave it - through natural selection - to die on the vine.

 

[Gene2memE]

So you don’t think it’s lucky that a moth ends up w 2 owl eyes on its wings to scare off predators?

No. bilateral symmetry is an inherited trait.

Do you know what Bilateria are? Or what Hox and ParaHox genes do?

If you can answer those questions, you'll have an answer as to why both sides of the Owl Moth's wings have eye spots.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

That is straighforwrd. He does not believe in evolution. Evolution does not work if mutations are harmful. Therefore arguments that mutations can be beneficial are obviously flawed. And here is the evidence - sickle cell anemia is deadly - that this is so. Therefore evolution is disproven.

This is a science-subforum, where evidence is important. The argument presented by the member selectively ignores the evidence and thus the argument is not worthy of further attention. I would just leave it - through natural selection - to die on the vine.

Yeah, I kind of gathered as much, but I just want to hear the response from him before I decide fully.

 

[Astrid]

That is straighforwrd. He does not believe in evolution. Evolution does not work if mutations are harmful. Therefore arguments that mutations can be beneficial are obviously flawed. And here is the evidence - sickle cell anemia is deadly - that this is so. Therefore evolution is disproven.

This is a science-subforum, where evidence is important. The argument presented by the member selectively ignores the evidence and thus the argument is not worthy of further attention. I would just leave it - through natural selection - to die on the vine.

This thread would be better off in the
phys sci section where our friends would
have to provide evidence themselves,
rather than just making things up as they're
doing now. While the time demanding
evidence or proof from science.

A subtopic here concerns something
I cannot understand, at all.

Namely how it is that people feel free to
just say things, particularly in the name of
their God, who by their account is not amused by
falsehoods.

 

[AV1611VET]

So you don’t think it’s lucky that a moth ends up w 2 owl eyes on its wings to scare off predators?

So long as Mother Nature did it over a span of a million years or so, they're cool with it.

But to say God did it, or even suggest it was guided evolution, and you'd better be able to show evidence and/or demonstrate it under laboratory conditions.

 

[AV1611VET]

Namely how it is that people feel free to just say things, particularly in the name of their God, who by their account is not amused by falsehoods.

Welcome to the world of faith, without which it is impossible to please God.

By comparison though, you can say to us:

Welcome to the world of evidence, without which it is impossible to please us empiricists.

 

[The IbanezerScrooge]

But to say God did it, or even suggest it was guided evolution, and you'd better be able to show evidence and/or demonstrate it under laboratory conditions.

Darn tootin', AV! And in a science forum?? Scandalous! It shouldn't shock you that you can't just make things up and get miffed that people don't just believe you. All those years of telling science to "take a hike" have not served you well.

 

[AV1611VET]

Darn tootin', AV! And in a science forum?? Scandalous! It shouldn't shock you that you can't just make things up and get miffed that people don't just believe you. All those years of telling science to "take a hike" have not served you well.

My tagline says it all.

So does yours.

 

[BCP1928]

So long as Mother Nature did it over a span of a million years or so, they're cool with it.

But to say God did it, or even suggest it was guided evolution, and you'd better be able to show evidence and/or demonstrate it under laboratory conditions.

Only if you try to prove it by showing that the theory of evolution is incorrect.

 

[Astrid]

Only if you try to prove it by showing that the theory of evolution is incorrect.

Now, that's asking a bit much of any yec.

 

[AV1611VET]

Only if you try to prove it by showing that the theory of evolution is incorrect.

I believe in evolution ... to a point.

I don't really care for the "theory of" part though.

That makes it sound like science isn't 100% sure.

 

[BCP1928]

I believe in evolution ... to a point.

I don't really care for the "theory of" part though.

That makes it sound like science isn't 100% sure.

Science is never 100% sure. That's a feature, not a bug

 

[AV1611VET]

Now, that's asking a bit much of any yec.

Not really.

 

[AV1611VET]

Science is never 100% sure. That's a feature, not a bug

Yes, I know.

Science is proud of their myopia and waves it around like it's some kind of brownie point.

Yet they talk about eventually learning a "theory of everything" or "knowing the mind of God."

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Yes, I know.

Science is proud of their myopia and waves it around like it's some kind of brownie point.

Yet they talk about eventually learning a "theory of everything" or "knowing the mind of God."

Again, your seeming ability to understand allegory and also failure to understand allegory at the same time is astounding...

And it's always hilarious to see you tout out 'myopia', Mister "The Bible must never be contradicted!"

 

[BCP1928]

Yes, I know.

Science is proud of their myopia and waves it around like it's some kind of brownie point.

Yet they talk about eventually learning a "theory of everything" or "knowing the mind of God."

Some do. So do you, with no more justification.

 

[AV1611VET]

Again, your seeming ability to understand allegory and also failure to understand allegory at the same time is astounding...

I wonder what scientists would do if they were omniscient?

When Jesus showed up, He put the priests out of a job, and most of them hated Him for that.

When He shows up again, he is going to put the scientists out of a job.

And guess what?

 

[AV1611VET]

Some do. So do you, with no more justification.

That's cute.