You dont understand the relationship to malaria?
Why are you asking this? I'm a bit at a loss.
Upvote
0
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.
You dont understand the relationship to malaria?
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.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.
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.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.
I'm still eager for you to answer my question, Thurston:You’re right, atheists do.
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,
There is evidence for how these spots arose through evolution. Your alternatives lack such evidence.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.
right. So, evolution.Microevolution is my second choice.
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 first choice is that God created them in 4004 BC with those spots on their wings.
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?My second choice is that God created them in 4004 BC without spots, but with spots encoded into their DNA.
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.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.
right. So, evolution.
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?
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 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.
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.
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 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.
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.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?
What kind of information are you talking about?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.
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.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?
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.
Why guided? If God knows the future he would know that unguided evolution would eventually produce them.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.
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?Fine with me.
I have no qualms in attributing it to microevolution whatsoever.
Very good question.
Why indeed?
Perhaps God knew the future?
I certainly know that's what you believe, but it's irrelevant to this OP.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,
Nope. Much more is needed. The "God" part, specifically.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.
How was it guided?Good enough then.
Those spots came later.
Those moths didn't have them at first, and now they do.
Guided evolution, perhaps?
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.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.