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

[Job 33:6]

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

Carl Sagan does a good job explaining this with reference to heike crabs:

 

[Thurston-howell-III]

The principle body plans have been established at least since the Paleozoic era. No new ones are likely to appear..

why not? Don't you think fruitflies should grow smarter brains and better/ longer life spans? And what about the poor bacterium, always being single celled and never being able to have a glass of wine? Why just 200k yrs ago, the ape like creature became fully human, right?
The moth needed owl eyes for protection, BINGO, he got em!

 

[Job 33:6]

I wonder how many "ABSOLUTELY LUCKY" mutations it took to get the job done.
How come you don't empty your bank account to play the lottery since you believe in luck so much?

The irony here is that people win the lottery every year. Despite it being extraordinarily improbable.

 

[BCP1928]

why not? Don't you think fruitflies should grow smarter brains and better/ longer life spans? And what about the poor bacterium, always being single celled and never being able to have a glass of wine?

What is the selective advantage for fruitflies with more intelligence or greater lifespans? Do you have any evidence that the bacterium is not satisfied with its existence?

Why just 200k yrs ago, the ape like creature became fully human, right?

I'm not sure what you mean by "fully human." We became what we are, but I see no reason to believe that "fully human" was some kind of a target that evolution was supposed to be aiming for.

The moth needed owl eyes for protection, BINGO, he got em!

Not exactly "bingo." it took a while, but in the end many different species developed eyespots.

 

[Ophiolite]

The irony here is that people win the lottery every year. Despite it being extraordinarily improbable.

And some people have won major prizes (>$1,000,000) more than once. Other people experience the reverse effect, for example having the main and reserve chute both failing. The chances are most people don't understand probability.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Did you not just read my mention about areas w malaria is unheard of? What good is a "beneficial" sickle cell is such an area. Do you wish it upon your family in any case?
You're also quite in an unobtainable fettle as far as any mutations creating new body plans, never been observed, witnesses or proven.

What you have shown, repeatedly, is that you have no idea what you're arguing against, no intent to actually learn about what you're arguing against and thus prove that you did not start this thread with good faith intentions.

Thus, I declare you a troll and am departing this thread. Buh-bye.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Carl Sagan does a good job explaining this with reference to heike crabs:

After this particular episode there was no way this elementary school student was going to fall for anything like creationism.

 

[Thurston-howell-III]

The irony here is that people win the lottery every year. Despite it being extraordinarily improbable.

The irony here is that people win the lottery every year. Despite it being extraordinarily improbable.

Thing is someone will win the lottery, however the chances of a single protein forming by chance is basically nil

 

[The IbanezerScrooge]

Thing is someone will win the lottery, however the chances of a single protein forming by chance is basically nil

Calculating the odds of something happening after it has happened is meaningless. The probability that something will happen that has, in fact, happened is necessarily 1.

Proteins exist, therefore the chances are obviously not "basically nil."

 

[Ophiolite]

Thing is someone will win the lottery, however the chances of a single protein forming by chance is basically nil

I shall be happy to address this point once you have got around to responding to my post #239 where I offer you a correction of your misunderstanding of the nature of mutations, especially in relation to sickle cell.

 

[Astrid]

You my athiest friend, are DEFINITELY at a stand still as far as dreaming for mutations(copying errors) to create a living creature such as any mammal. All your mutations do is give you disease or mutants. LOL

Whatever else you are, or claim to be, you for sure
are deported to Ig City.

 

[Thurston-howell-III]

Whatever else you are, or claim to be, you for sure
are deported to Ig City.

Hmmm,, not only was that a non answer, but your reply is puzzling. I suspect you are a bona fide athiest?

 

[Thurston-howell-III]

I shall be happy to address this point once you have got around to responding to my post #239 where I offer you a correction of your misunderstanding of the nature of mutations, especially in relation to sickle cell.

what exactly do you presume I misunderstand?

 

[BCP1928]

what exactly do you presume I misunderstand?

Do you understand that, assuming you're an average sort of bloke, that you have about 30 mutations that your parents didn't have. Did any of them make you ugly?

 

[Ophiolite]

what exactly do you presume I misunderstand?

I don't presume anything. I infer from your inability to express an understanding of how sickle cell confers benefits on a population that you have been unable to grasp the simple principles involved. I laid these out yet again in my last post and remain dumbfounded that you do not perceive the simple logic.

You assert that mutations are always bad and yet here is an instance - one of many - where a mutation that in circumstances where malaria is prevalent confers survival value on those possessing it that outweigh the risks. This is not a matter that is in dispute. The data not only support this statement, they prove it to be true. This, perhaps because of my inadequate attempts to explain this to you, remains beyond your understanding. The good news is that gnorance of specific facts is a condition that is easily remedied, but only if one looks at those facts. Please do so now.

 

[AV1611VET]

Whatever else you are, or claim to be, you for sure are deported to Ig City.

And yet another Christian internet poster gets shanghaied!

 

[The IbanezerScrooge]

Hmmm,, not only was that a non answer, but your reply is puzzling. I suspect you are a bona fide athiest?

Why do you insist on making this about atheist vs. Christian when, statistically speaking, most of those who accept Evolution as the best scientific explanation of the diversity of life on this planet are, in fact, religious people? Several of the people you've been going back and forth on this thread with are, in fact, Christians and only 3 of us actually say we're atheists.

 

[Astrid]

Why do you insist on making this about atheist vs. Christian when, statistically speaking, most of those who accept Evolution as the best scientific explanation of the diversity of life on this planet are, in fact, religious people? Several of the people you've been going back and forth on this thread with are, in fact, Christians and only 3 of us actually say we're atheists.

Generally it's to say " God is on my side,
I cannot be wrong".

 

[AV1611VET]

Generally it's to say "God is on my side, I cannot be wrong".

Romans 8:31 What shall we then say to these things? If God be for us, who can be against us?

 

[The IbanezerScrooge]

Romans 8:31 What shall we then say to these things? If God be for us, who can be against us?

Surely you can see that what @Estrid posted and the verse you responded with do not say the same thing, right?

Also, the implication or your verse is demonstrably false. Literally ANYONE can be against people who claim they have "god" on their side.