• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

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

Warden_of_the_Storm

Well-Known Member
Oct 16, 2015
15,174
7,494
31
Wales
✟427,141.00
Country
United Kingdom
Gender
Male
Faith
Deist
Marital Status
Single
Apparently you’re having trouble w comprehension, you haven’t realized that having malaria resistance comes w the cost of having sickle cell anemia.
Pick your poison chump.

Except that it doesn't. Having sickle cells DOES raise the risk of having sickle cell anaemia, but not everyone who has sickle cells has sickle cell anaemia. They perfectly have sickle cells AND also the resistance to malaria said cells provide.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Ophiolite
Upvote 0

Ophiolite

Recalcitrant Procrastinating Ape
Nov 12, 2008
9,238
10,136
✟284,594.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
Apparently you’re having trouble w comprehension, you haven’t realized that having malaria resistance comes w the cost of having sickle cell anemia.
Pick your poison chump.
As @Warden_of_the_Storm has pointed out having the sickle cell condition can lead to sickle cell anemia, which is a serious life threatening disease. However, the majority of those with sickle cell do not develop sickle cell anemia. The wikipedia article on the disease notes that "As of 2015, about 4.4 million people have sickle cell disease, while an additional 43 million have sickle cell trait." So only 9% of those with the sickle cell trait suffer from the disease. However, all of them are protected, to a considerable extent from malaria.

The risk-reward calculation works out in favour of taking the risk of contracting sickle cell anemia, in order to avoid the risk of malaria. Who carries out that calculation? Natural Selection.

As the wikipedia article also notes "In the United States, with no endemic malaria, the prevalence of sickle cell anaemia among people of African ancestry is lower (about 0.25%) than among people in West Africa (about 4.0%) and is falling. Without endemic malaria, the sickle cell mutation is purely disadvantageous and tends to decline in the affected population by natural selection, and now artificially through prenatal genetic screening."

There are plenty of links in the article to allow you to look deeper into the matter, but the bottom line is that the character, origin and consequences of sickle cell and sickle cell anemia are well understood and serve as an excellent example of how natural selection works in practice.
 
Upvote 0

Warden_of_the_Storm

Well-Known Member
Oct 16, 2015
15,174
7,494
31
Wales
✟427,141.00
Country
United Kingdom
Gender
Male
Faith
Deist
Marital Status
Single
As @Warden_of_the_Storm has pointed out having the sickle cell condition can lead to sickle cell anemia, which is a serious life threatening disease. However, the majority of those with sickle cell do not develop sickle cell anemia. The wikipedia article on the disease notes that "As of 2015, about 4.4 million people have sickle cell disease, while an additional 43 million have sickle cell trait." So only 9% of those with the sickle cell trait suffer from the disease. However, all of them are protected, to a considerable extent from malaria.

The risk-reward calculation works out in favour of taking the risk of contracting sickle cell anemia, in order to avoid the risk of malaria. Who carries out that calculation? Natural Selection.

As the wikipedia article also notes "In the United States, with no endemic malaria, the prevalence of sickle cell anaemia among people of African ancestry is lower (about 0.25%) than among people in West Africa (about 4.0%) and is falling. Without endemic malaria, the sickle cell mutation is purely disadvantageous and tends to decline in the affected population by natural selection, and now artificially through prenatal genetic screening."

There are plenty of links in the article to allow you to look deeper into the matter, but the bottom line is that the character, origin and consequences of sickle cell and sickle cell anemia are well understood and serve as an excellent example of how natural selection works in practice.

I've also checked: having the sickle cell does not mean you run the risk of having sickle cell anaemia, but it does run the risk of your kids having it.
 
Upvote 0

Ophiolite

Recalcitrant Procrastinating Ape
Nov 12, 2008
9,238
10,136
✟284,594.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
I've also checked: having the sickle cell does not mean you run the risk of having sickle cell anaemia, but it does run the risk of your kids having it.
Yes, the article I linked to goes into detail on the chance of that and the factors controlling it. It's just an example of the billions of cost-benefit analyses that nature carries out on living things everyday.

As Thomas Huxley is alleged to have said "How obvious. Why didn't I think of that?" While the story may be apocryphal, the sentiment reflects the simplicity of the concept and raises another question, "Why can some people just not see it?"
 
Upvote 0

The IbanezerScrooge

I can't believe what I'm hearing...
Sep 1, 2015
3,458
5,853
51
Florida
✟310,373.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Democrat
You’re right, atheists do.
I'm still eager for you to answer my question, Thurston:

How does Creation explain the eye spots? Be specific about how they came to be and when that happened, please.

I found AV's answer dissatisfying and ultimately he agrees that it was evolution, but then AV's view of what creation actually entails is unique among other creationists here, so I'd like to hear your answer.

As a conciliatory prompt, I'll note that @Gene2memE provided the science of the specific DNA sequence that is responsible for this trait and the phylogeny of the trait in post #52.
 
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Site Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,855,790
52,555
Guam
✟5,135,623.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
How does Creation explain the eye spots? Be specific about how they came to be and when that happened, please.

I found AV's answer dissatisfying and ultimately he agrees that it was evolution,

Microevolution is my second choice.

My first choice is that God created them in 4004 BC with those spots on their wings.

My second choice is that God created them in 4004 BC without spots, but with spots encoded into their DNA.

Where did different colored eyes come from?

God created Adam and Eve with different colors encoded into their DNA.

So if Adam had brown eyes, Noah, for example, could have had green.
 
Upvote 0

Ophiolite

Recalcitrant Procrastinating Ape
Nov 12, 2008
9,238
10,136
✟284,594.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
Microevolution is my second choice.

My first choice is that God created them in 4004 BC with those spots on their wings.

My second choice is that God created them in 4004 BC without spots, but with spots encoded into their DNA.

Where did different colored eyes come from?

God created Adam and Eve with different colors encoded into their DNA.

So if Adam had brown eyes, Noah, for example, could have had green.
There is evidence for how these spots arose through evolution. Your alternatives lack such evidence.
 
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Site Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,855,790
52,555
Guam
✟5,135,623.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
There is evidence for how these spots arose through evolution.

Okay.

Your alternatives lack such evidence.

You don't understand what I'm saying, do you?

Is it me injecting God into the equation that's confusing you?

1713194952995.jpeg


Here, I'll take God out of the equation, so maybe you'll understand.

The spots on the wings of the Brahmaea wallichii came from the DNA of its ancestors.

How's that?
 
Upvote 0

The IbanezerScrooge

I can't believe what I'm hearing...
Sep 1, 2015
3,458
5,853
51
Florida
✟310,373.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Democrat
Microevolution is my second choice.
right. So, evolution.
My first choice is that God created them in 4004 BC with those spots on their wings.
Why would God create the moth with the eye spots to ward off predators if there were no predators at the time and, presumably, no intention for there to be?
My second choice is that God created them in 4004 BC without spots, but with spots encoded into their DNA.
Same as above. Why would God need to do that for this moth if there was no intention that such a thing would be needed?
Where did different colored eyes come from?

God created Adam and Eve with different colors encoded into their DNA.

So if Adam had brown eyes, Noah, for example, could have had green.
You lack evidence for any of these other options and they don't actually explain anything. It would be akin to us answering the OP with "evolution" and stopping there. There is evidence of where these DNA sequences came from and we know how DNA changes with each generation and in general. i.e. we have evidence (DNA changes, inheritance, natural selection, etc.) You're just guessing based on what you believe a bronze age text written by people who could not have possibly witnessed the accounts they describe says about "creation" might suggest.
 
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Site Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,855,790
52,555
Guam
✟5,135,623.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
right. So, evolution.

Fine with me.

I have no qualms in attributing it to microevolution whatsoever.

Why would God create the moth with the eye spots to ward off predators if there were no predators at the time and, presumably, no intention for there to be?

Very good question.

Why indeed?

Perhaps God knew the future?

Same as above. Why would God need to do that for this moth if there was no intention that such a thing would be needed?

You do realize that Jesus' crucifixion was planned even before the world was created, do you not?

1 Peter 1:18 Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers;
19 But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot:
20
Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you,

You lack evidence for any of these other options and they don't actually explain anything.

Again, if God didn't created these moths with the spots already on them, He made sure they had them afterwards.

It would be akin to us answering the OP with "evolution" and stopping there.

Best answer: "God did it."

That's all you need.

There is evidence of where these DNA sequences came from and we know how DNA changes with each generation and in general. i.e. we have evidence (DNA changes, inheritance, natural selection, etc.)

Good enough then.

Those spots came later.

Those moths didn't have them at first, and now they do.

Guided evolution, perhaps?

You're just guessing based on what you believe a bronze age text written by people who could not have possibly witnessed the accounts they describe says about "creation" might suggest.

Here we go.

Thanks for demonstrating my point that you don't fully understand.

I even took God out of the equation, and you still don't understand.

That's because, even though I took God out of the equation, you're putting Him back in.

In short, you're working hard not to understand.

And doing a good job of it.
 
Upvote 0

Thurston-howell-III

Active Member
Mar 20, 2024
178
22
62
FL
✟13,596.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I'm still eager for you to answer my question, Thurston:

How does Creation explain the eye spots? Be specific about how they came to be and when that happened, please.

I found AV's answer dissatisfying and ultimately he agrees that it was evolution, but then AV's view of what creation actually entails is unique among other creationists here, so I'd like to hear your answer.

As a conciliatory prompt, I'll note that @Gene2memE provided the science of the specific DNA sequence that is responsible for this trait and the phylogeny of the trait in post #52.

The eyespots are obviously created as that is the best explaination. You believe that chance mutations produced quite the masterpiece of owl eyes, on BOTH wings. Do you play the lottery, have you won?
 
Upvote 0

Thurston-howell-III

Active Member
Mar 20, 2024
178
22
62
FL
✟13,596.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Except that it doesn't. Having sickle cells DOES raise the risk of having sickle cell anaemia, but not everyone who has sickle cells has sickle cell anaemia. They perfectly have sickle cells AND also the resistance to malaria said cells provide.
oh so having sickle cells is ok? I think not, it causes red blood cells to be deformed into a sickle shape. Anyway, this just shows that no mutations have resulted in the beneficial change or otherwise in body plans,( unless you're talking about mutants) mutations are a LOSS of information.
 
Upvote 0

BCP1928

Well-Known Member
Jan 30, 2024
8,716
4,376
82
Goldsboro NC
✟262,406.00
Country
United States
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Married
The eyespots are obviously created as that is the best explaination. You believe that chance mutations produced quite the masterpiece of owl eyes, on BOTH wings. Do you play the lottery, have you won?
I don't see why it would be a problem. In any case, a single gene set probably controls the pattern on both wings bilaterally. I don't know all that much about biology or genetics, because my background is in math, but you can model the evolutionary process mathematically and it turns out to be perfectly feasible. And no, it is nothing like getting a winning lottery ticket.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hans Blaster
Upvote 0

BCP1928

Well-Known Member
Jan 30, 2024
8,716
4,376
82
Goldsboro NC
✟262,406.00
Country
United States
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Married
oh so having sickle cells is ok? I think not, it causes red blood cells to be deformed into a sickle shape. Anyway, this just shows that no mutations have resulted in the beneficial change or otherwise in body plans,( unless you're talking about mutants) mutations are a LOSS of information.
What kind of information are you talking about?
 
Upvote 0

The IbanezerScrooge

I can't believe what I'm hearing...
Sep 1, 2015
3,458
5,853
51
Florida
✟310,373.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Democrat
The eyespots are obviously created as that is the best explaination. You believe that chance mutations produced quite the masterpiece of owl eyes, on BOTH wings. Do you play the lottery, have you won?
No. The obvious explanation is that they evolved via the processes that have been observed as the origin of various traits for all living things. Saying they were "created" is not at all obvious or demonstrated.

Stop trying to assume what I "believe." These things are in evidence. The scientific research on this specific trait was provided in post #52.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Hans Blaster
Upvote 0

Warden_of_the_Storm

Well-Known Member
Oct 16, 2015
15,174
7,494
31
Wales
✟427,141.00
Country
United Kingdom
Gender
Male
Faith
Deist
Marital Status
Single
oh so having sickle cells is ok? I think not, it causes red blood cells to be deformed into a sickle shape. Anyway, this just shows that no mutations have resulted in the beneficial change or otherwise in body plans,( unless you're talking about mutants) mutations are a LOSS of information.

Except that sickle shape has a benefit to the host, in that they combat the virus that causes malaria, making it virtually impossible for the malaria virus to gain a foothold and infect the host.

It's a beneficial mutation. A classic example even.
 
Upvote 0

BCP1928

Well-Known Member
Jan 30, 2024
8,716
4,376
82
Goldsboro NC
✟262,406.00
Country
United States
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Married
Fine with me.

I have no qualms in attributing it to microevolution whatsoever.



Very good question.

Why indeed?

Perhaps God knew the future?



You do realize that Jesus' crucifixion was planned even before the world was created, do you not?

1 Peter 1:18 Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers;
19 But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot:
20 Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you,



Again, if God didn't created these moths with the spots already on them, He made sure they had them afterwards.



Best answer: "God did it."

That's all you need.



Good enough then.

Those spots came later.

Those moths didn't have them at first, and now they do.

Guided evolution, perhaps?
Why guided? If God knows the future he would know that unguided evolution would eventually produce them.
 
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Site Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,855,790
52,555
Guam
✟5,135,623.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Why guided?

Another good question.

If God knows the future he would know that unguided evolution would eventually produce them.

True.

I have no problem with that.

Whether they were created with owl eyes, or the owl eyes came later, I'm good with it.
 
Upvote 0

The IbanezerScrooge

I can't believe what I'm hearing...
Sep 1, 2015
3,458
5,853
51
Florida
✟310,373.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Democrat
Fine with me.

I have no qualms in attributing it to microevolution whatsoever.



Very good question.

Why indeed?

Perhaps God knew the future?
Perhaps? Maybe? Who knows? Certainly not you and yet you continue to act as if you're answers mean anything. What's this "God" to which you refer? Can you show it?
You do realize that Jesus' crucifixion was planned even before the world was created, do you not?

1 Peter 1:18 Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers;
19 But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot:
20 Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you,
I certainly know that's what you believe, but it's irrelevant to this OP.
Again, if God didn't created these moths with the spots already on them, He made sure they had them afterwards.



Best answer: "God did it."

That's all you need.
Nope. Much more is needed. The "God" part, specifically.
Good enough then.

Those spots came later.

Those moths didn't have them at first, and now they do.

Guided evolution, perhaps?
How was it guided?
Here we go.

Thanks for demonstrating my point that you don't fully understand.

I even took God out of the equation, and you still don't understand.

That's because, even though I took God out of the equation, you're putting Him back in.

In short, you're working hard not to understand.

And doing a good job of it.
Here we go, indeed. We've been there. You don't even have a variable to plug into any equation that represents God. It was never in any equation. I'm certainly not putting it in anywhere, but you insist it had something to do with it.

I assure you I understand fully. I understand that you cannot demonstrate anything that you're saying. You're literally making it up as you go based on those bronze age writings.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Ophiolite
Upvote 0