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

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

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?

Actually, it's wholly the other way around: mutations are at the mercy of natural selection. That which does not survive does not breed and thus does not pass on its genes and mutations to its offspring.

Evolution is run 'on luck' only in the sense a creature can randomly and unexpectedly die before it has a chance to breed.

We have no idea what the chances are for the nucleotides being arranged as they are in DNA. Could be 1 in 100, could be 1 in 10, could be 1 in 10,000,000. But it's 1 in 1 that they are the way they are.

You're asking a question that the theory of evolution does not have the answer for nor does it need the answer for. The theory of evolution only concerns itself with life after it appeared on earth.

 

[expos4ever]

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 are misrepresenting the fundamental mechanism of evolution. Like many, you characterize evolution as a process driven by chance and luck. This is a mischaracterization, albeit one that is easy to get tripped up over

Luck is only part of the picture; natural selection is not a process driven by luck or chance. Random mutations and natural selection work together to produce evolution.

There are those who deliberately misrepresent the theory of evolution as being all about luck. I will assume that you are not one of them, and are just not fully aware of all the factors involved.

 

[Thurston-howell-III]

Actually, it's wholly the other way around: mutations are at the mercy of natural selection. That which does not survive does not breed and thus does not pass on its genes and mutations to its offspring.

Evolution is run 'on luck' only in the sense a creature can randomly and unexpectedly die before it has a chance to breed.

We have no idea what the chances are for the nucleotides being arranged as they are in DNA. Could be 1 in 100, could be 1 in 10, could be 1 in 10,000,000. But it's 1 in 1 that they are the way they are.

You're asking a question that the theory of evolution does not have the answer for nor does it need the answer for. The theory of evolution only concerns itself with life after it appeared on earth.

W out mutations, NS. Has NOTHING to work on, so who’s got it backwards?
Speaking of the code that is DNA, show me just one code that wasn’t created by intel.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

W out mutations, NS. Has NOTHING to work on, so who’s got it backwards?
Speaking of the code that is DNA, show me just one code that wasn’t created by intel.

Yes, that is true that without mutations, natural selection has nothing to work with. But without natural selection, there is no factor to select mutations. Without natural selection, there is no pressure to select for or against mutations be kept in the gene pool.

And to even answer that question which is nothing but equivocation fallacy, you first need to show that DNA was created. Now, this is a bit cross purposes since I do believe that God created everything, just in a hand's off way, so really, I think you're arguing with the wrong person on this.

 

[Ophiolite]

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?

1. This is a sub-forum for discussing science. It would helpful if you employed, as far as possible, scientific terminology, or at least objective language, rather than subhective:

NS is not "at the mercy of mutations", it acts upon mutations.​

@warden-of-the-Storm did not "admit" mutations were lucky. He agreed they were lucky. "Admit" suggests that up until then he had been attempting to conceal it.​

I would have preferred he had said that mutations were chance events. Luck implies teleology, which is fine if you are a theistic evolutionist, but is not part and parcel of standard evolutionary theory.​

2. I run my life on luck, or as I prefer to say on chance. Chance determines if these skin blemishes will develop into cancer (or if they already have). Chance contributes to how well my immune system will cope with the next viral infection I incur. Chance will impact the succes or failure of a small company I have just started up. (You said "chance luck" ? Was that redundancy? Or a chance mistake?)
3. 100% chance they form a code.

 

[BCP1928]

A true Darwinist believes in chance mutations. (aka LUCK)

A "true Darwinist?" Is that anything like a True Scotsman?

It may be satisfying to argue against a mischaracterization of the theory of evolution in order to disprove it, but in the long run it won't do you any good because all you will have achieved is to knock down a straw man. The actual theory will remain unharmed.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

1. This is a sub-forum for discussing science. It would helpful if you employed, as far as possible, scientific terminology, or at least objective language, rather than subhective:

NS is not "at the mercy of mutations", it acts upon mutations.​

@warden-of-the-Storm did not "admit" mutations were lucky. He agreed they were lucky. "Admit" suggests that up until then he had been attempting to conceal it.​

I would have preferred he had said that mutations were chance events. Luck implies teleology, which is fine if you are a theistic evolutionist, but is not part and parcel of standard evolutionary theory.​

2. I run my life on luck, or as I prefer to say on chance. Chance determines if these skin blemishes will develop into cancer (or if they already have). Chance contributes to how well my immune system will cope with the next viral infection I incur. Chance will impact the succes or failure of a small company I have just started up. (You said "chance luck" ? Was that redundancy? Or a chance mistake?)
3. 100% chance they form a code.

In my defence, for anyone who doesn't understand evolution or just wants to denigrate it, saying luck or chance doesn't mean a damn to them.

 

[Ophiolite]

In my defence, for anyone who doesn't understand evolution or just wants to denigrate it, saying luck or chance doesn't mean a damn to them.

No need to defend your use of "luck". It matches the language used by @Thurston-howell-III and could thereby increase the possibility he (?) would read what you had written with an open mind. (Unlikely, but it would afford a small advantage.)
I'm taking a different tack, wherein I "prefer" the more objective language. If Thurston-Howell-III agrees to tighten up his language use it would demonstrate he is willing to hold a serious discussion. If not, it increases the possibility he is basically trolling.

 

[Thurston-howell-III]

Yes, that is true that without mutations, natural selection has nothing to work with. But without natural selection, there is no factor to select mutations. Without natural selection, there is no pressure to select for or against mutations be kept in the gene pool.

And to even answer that question which is nothing but equivocation fallacy, you first need to show that DNA was created. Now, this is a bit cross purposes since I do believe that God created everything, just in a hand's off way, so really, I think you're arguing with the wrong person on this.

Let’s see if any Darwinist here can show such a code that was formed by “nature”

 

[BCP1928]

Let’s see if any Darwinist here can show such a code that was formed by “nature”

The "Darwinist" might say that all such arrangements of molecules were formed by "nature" as there is a plausible mechanism for it and no contrary evidence at this time.

 

[JesusFollowerForever]

The resemblance to owl eyes provides a survival advantage that gets reinforced over generations.

absurd theory that cannot be proven and never will be.

 

[Shemjaza]

Let’s see if any Darwinist here can show such a code that was formed by “nature”

Organic chemistry and polymerisation are found naturally accross the universe.

The codes found in DNA are simply chemical reactions of their make up.

Random chaos can increase complexity of chemical structures... allowing for the development of the codes in question without any concious design.

 

[Shemjaza]

absurd theory that cannot be proven and never will be.

Demonstrated by patterns of genetics and modelling.

Evolution is just about statistical advantage over large populations and large times.

 

[Thurston-howell-III]

Organic chemistry and polymerisation are found naturally accross the universe.

The codes found in DNA are simply chemical reactions of their make up.

Random chaos can increase complexity of chemical structures... allowing for the development of the codes in question without any concious design.

"The codes found in DNA are simply chemical reactions of their make up."
The nucleotide arrangements that translate to functional proteins speaks volumes to how wrong you are. I suppose the words in a book are just random ink,right? This is your logic.
But do show us a code that gets coded and decoded that is not the product of intel.

 

[JesusFollowerForever]

Demonstrated by patterns of genetics and modelling.

Evolution is just about statistical advantage over large populations and large times.

evolution is still a theory and was never proven nor will it ever be. Adaption could be possible but not in this case, there are in the genetic code made by our creator leeway for compensation to preserve life but I am not saying adaptation caused the design in this Brahmin moth. however adaption requires an external stimuli but really, how can a moth know that looking like an owl will protect it? absurd. I see GOD behind this and the beauty of creation in this design, it actually proves that GOD exists! But many refuse to learn from this, instead thinking erroneously that random mutations are responsible.

 

[JesusFollowerForever]

Organic chemistry and polymerisation are found naturally accross the universe.

The codes found in DNA are simply chemical reactions of their make up.

Random chaos can increase complexity of chemical structures... allowing for the development of the codes in question without any concious design.

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 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. 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.

 

[JesusFollowerForever]

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

God is behind this I have no doubt at all...

 

[expos4ever]

evolution is still a theory...

Let's start by clearing up a common misconception.

Scientific terminology and everyday uses of words don’t always line up. In common use, we view theories as being unproven, synonymous with “a hunch.” But in science, that’s simply not true - in the scientific world, a theory is an explanation that encompasses facts we know about the world.

Take, for example, gravitational theory. Newton described the presence of gravity, explaining that gravity is a universal force that acts upon all objects with mass. Hundreds of years later, we’ve found that Newton’s theory of gravitation still describes everyday phenomena—and Einstein’s theory of relativity accounts for everything else. So evolution is “just a theory” as much as gravity or relativity.

 

[expos4ever]

look up the laws of thermodynamic they disprove without a doubt that evolution is possible,

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).

 

[Thurston-howell-III]

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 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. 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.

That Sounds reasonable.