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

[AV1611VET]

what information is in a snowflake?

Thurston, you're among friends here.

We get heated at times, but things eventually blow over.

Eventually.

 

[Yttrium]

what information is in a snowflake?

Each snowflake contains a geometric pattern. A collection of lines and angles that can be expressed mathematically. Any hexagonal snowflake isn't perfectly symmetrical, but it contains a symmetry, where one section can mostly identify the shape of the other five sections. The snowflake pattern can be used to identify the temperature and humidity around the snowflake as it formed, which is certainly information.

 

[FreeinChrist]

ADVISOR HAT


This thread had a clean up. Some posts were flaming and some had profanity, and others were responding to posts now deleted.

Keep it civil. ​

 

[BCP1928]

what information is in a snowflake?

"Information" is a mathematical way of categorizing and describing patterns and shapes in nature. The information is the shape of the snowflake--just like DNA information is the shape of the molecule.

 

[dlamberth]

what information is in a snowflake?

If your into poetry at all, you'll find a fair amount of interesting information in snowflakes there.

 

[Nithavela]

Don't feel like reading 38 pages of posts. Have you guys hashed out how the moth got it's owl eyes, yet?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Don't feel like reading 38 pages of posts. Have you guys hashed out how the moth got it's owl eyes, yet?

Many of us have. One of us refuses to listen.

 

[Nithavela]

Many of us have. One of us refuses to listen.

That sounds like an acceptable amount of people to bring the discussion to a conclusion to me.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

That sounds like an acceptable amount of people to bring the discussion to a conclusion to me.

Sadly, since none of us are the OP, we can't get the thread closed down without violating some kind of rule in a big way.

 

[Nithavela]

Sadly, since none of us are the OP, we can't get the thread closed down without violating some kind of rule in a big way.

Then I guess you will be doomed to post in this thread until the day you die.

 

[Tropical Wilds]

A plan is irrelevant in this case.
You think a billion monkeys typing a billion letters per second on a billion typewriters is going To produce even just 1 legible page?

The internet has proven the answer to that question is a resounding “no.”

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Then I guess you will be doomed to post in this thread until the day you die.

It might just be a sad and vain case of hopefulness and possible a blatant example of madness, but I do live in hope that OP will actually understand and listen to what people are telling him.

It's a slim chance but still...

 

[driewerf]

The internet has proven the answer to that question is a resounding “no.”

I am not convinced. The thought experiment speaks of monkeys. We have tried only humans so far.

 

[Ophiolite]

Owl eyes on a moth bewildered us all.
It's a clear act of God, said those in his thrall.
Then Darwin appeared, with an answer quite fine,
"T'is natural selection and nothing divine".

"Chance would prohibit", said the staunch YECs.
"Your appeal to the random is like a disease".
"Mutation is random, true, Science agrees,
But Natural Selection is quite the bees knees."

And so it emerges, with no end in sight,
That both sides insist only they're solely right.
But the moth keeps on flying, all through the night,
And the members of CF continue to fight.
And the monkeys keep scrambling with font type and other
And all I can think now is "Really! . . why bother".

 

[FredVB]

Why indeed is there such bother? Those who see God is behind things accept that. Those who say there are mutations have evidence that shows that. But to say God is not there doing anything does not have evidence and saying it will not persuade others, just as any that would say there are not mutations that could express characteristics in future generations just do not accept the evidence there is and will not persuade the others who are in disagreement. But God and mutations are not mutually exclusive.

 

[BCP1928]

Why indeed is there such bother? Those who see God is behind things accept that. Those who say there are mutations have evidence that shows that. But to say God is not there doing anything does not have evidence and saying it will not persuade others, just as any that would say there are not mutations that could express characteristics in future generations just do not accept the evidence there is and will not persuade the others who are in disagreement. But God and mutations are not mutually exclusive.

It's a matter of theology. Traditional Christians understand that God can act causally in ways that transcend and are independent of the sort of causality that science investigates. Consequently, a complete and fully explanatory naturalistic scientific theory for a phenomenon does not rule out the proximate action of divine providence. Thomas Aquinas is instructive on this point, dividing causality into necessary causes and contingent causes (the only kind of causality science can study.) Creationists for some reason have abandoned this metaphysic and seem to require God to act contingently, tinkering with genetic code and targeting mutations, etc. in order to carry out His purposes.

 

[dlamberth]

Why indeed is there such bother? Those who see God is behind things accept that. Those who say there are mutations have evidence that shows that. But to say God is not there doing anything does not have evidence and saying it will not persuade others, just as any that would say there are not mutations that could express characteristics in future generations just do not accept the evidence there is and will not persuade the others who are in disagreement. But God and mutations are not mutually exclusive.

"How God is doing things."
There many different understandings by those who do believe in God.

 

[FredVB]

"How God is doing things."
There many different understandings by those who do believe in God.

Of course, there is that. Rarely do I find an overwhelming agreement. We have freedom for disagreement still, we can accept that.

It's a matter of theology. Traditional Christians understand that God can act causally in ways that transcend and are independent of the sort of causality that science investigates. Consequently, a complete and fully explanatory naturalistic scientific theory for a phenomenon does not rule out the proximate action of divine providence. Thomas Aquinas is instructive on this point, dividing causality into necessary causes and contingent causes (the only kind of causality science can study.) Creationists for some reason have abandoned this metaphysic and seem to require God to act contingently, tinkering with genetic code and targeting mutations, etc. in order to carry out His purposes.

There are laws God the Creator can put in place, which I sense God did, that things run according to those according to plan, while God may freely intervene for some unique result, which can be a recognized miracle. This should not be thought as against creationism, variation still happens with some mutations involved, which could be recognized. With curse after the fall, God left things to go their ways without protections God would otherwise keep in place.

I understand how cladistics are claimed. It has problems inherent to it. If there are ancestors to any clades they cannot be recognized. What would they be? They came from something else, for the clade to be. So no division can be shown according to its identified ancestor, no phylum can be shown according to its identified ancestor, no class can be shown according to its identified ancestor, no order can be shown according to its identified ancestor, no family can be shown according to its identified ancestor, and no genus can be shown according to its identified ancestor, that are each distinct from ancestral predecessors, which there must be for all of them with evolution of all life from common ancestors being the case.

 

[Yttrium]

I understand how cladistics are claimed. It has problems inherent to it. If there are ancestors to any clades they cannot be recognized. What would they be? They came from something else, for the clade to be. So no division can be shown according to its identified ancestor, no phylum can be shown according to its identified ancestor, no class can be shown according to its identified ancestor, no order can be shown according to its identified ancestor, no family can be shown according to its identified ancestor, and no genus can be shown according to its identified ancestor, that are each distinct from ancestral predecessors, which there must be for all of them with evolution of all life from common ancestors being the case.

...

So you're complaining that a clade doesn't work the way it's not meant to work. Clades are just convenient, arbitrary designations. Pick an organism, and all descendants of that organism belong to the same clade. It's not part of the whole phylum/family/genus/etc. system.

 

[FredVB]

So you're complaining that a clade doesn't work the way it's not meant to work. Clades are just convenient, arbitrary designations. Pick an organism, and all descendants of that organism belong to the same clade. It's not part of the whole phylum/family/genus/etc. system.

Of course that us how the clad is supposed to work. I understand that. But then there should be an ancestral species for any clad beyond it. I speak with familiar though often arbitrary levels of classification that make the point, and it applies to any clads you would want to use. For what families, and so on, are the first ancestral species determined? If it can't be determined for all, it should be for some clads to be meaningfully understood.

My point still is that mutations and selection favoring some still would happen and there would be variation and this is not incompatible to understanding as we may that God put laws in place for things to run according to God's plan.