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

[Aaron112]

Can anyone explain what it took for a moth to gain owl eyes on ea wing?

Something I did not think of last time/ whenever.

Explain what it took ? It took an ARTIST!

 

[AV1611VET]

... but men are by far much more savage killing many many more men, women, and babies every day.

Animals, I tell you!

Animals!!!

(Sinners, actually.)

 

[Thurston-howell-III]

Random variations over large populations with selection only maintaining the functional versions.




Each change from the simpler not reproducing monomer chemicals doesn't need to occur in a particular chain of events for a single chain. It's important to remember that each successful variation will multiply to fill the environment massively increasing the sample space for a successful variant.

A particular genetic make up is vanishingly unlikely, but the task of survival doesn't require a particular technique.

It's like the old playing cards analogy... the chance of a single specific hand is very, very low, but the chance of a winning hand is significantly higher.

So the sequence (code) was created by nature? Code's NEVER get created w out intelligent design, we know this.

 

[Thurston-howell-III]

Well, the Rugged landscape experiment, described in post n° 617 shows this statement wrong. A gene can emerge from scratch in 20 generations.
When hard empirical evidence contradicts a theory, it's the theory that is wrong.

"A gene can emerge from scratch" tell us about this in detail.

 

[Thurston-howell-III]

The annoying thing is that reality - god's creation, if you like - shows you wrong.
Just a few examples:
Here is a link to a site that lists more than 700 variations of the human haemoglobin gene - all viable.

Table of Contents

A very cool experiment, performed by Yuuki Hayashi et al. proves you also wrong.
Before the actual gene there is a genetic "switch" in the DNA before the DNA part that codes for a protein. This switch can be activated by a hormone, a the metabolic starting material or any other signal molecule. Yuuki Hayashi et al. performed a cool experiment: they stripped the coding part of the DNA of a virus that codes for the protein that grants access to a E. coli batcteria and replaced it with a random stretch of DNA. After 20 generations the virus had increased its infectivity by 1.7*10^7 compared with the starting generation.
The funny thing is that despite doing exactly the same function (allowing the virus to enter a cell) the sequence was completely different from the wild type.
source to the original papers:

Experimental Rugged Fitness Landscape in Protein Sequence Space​

The fitness landscape in sequence space determines the process of biomolecular evolution. To plot the fitness landscape of protein function, we carried out in vitro molecular evolution beginning with a defective fd phage carrying a random polypeptide ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0022519306005984


Another simple and elegant way to show multiple variations can perform the same function, was set up by professor Kishony and his team. A gigantic petri dish was divided in lanes with increasing concentration of antibiotics, from (0 , no antibiotics: 1 just enough to kill all bacteria, gradually up to 1000 x the concentration of 1). Different strains of Escherichia Coli were spotted in the 0 lane. As this lane got filled and the places for new bacteria got depleted the bacteria were pushing against the boundary of the 10 lane. Only those bacteria and their descendants that got the suitable mutations for surviving in a higher concentration of antibiotics made it to the next lane. The experiment filmed over 11 days shows clearly that bacteria can evolve a resistance to a 1000 fold stronger concentration of antibiotics than the wild type bacteria.

Here you have the same experiment, but with professor Kishony explaining the experiment


It shows that evolution is cumulative. Each mutation increases the resistance to the antibiotics in an incremental way (see how the growth of the culture pauses at every boundary and how the growth always start at one tiny spot). But it also shows that different lineages with different DNA sequences can make it to the next concentration.

a technical paper published by the team

Spatiotemporal microbial evolution on antibiotic landscapes

the website of Roy Kishony's research institue:

Home - Kishony lab

"Before the actual gene there is a genetic "switch" in the DNA before the DNA part that codes for a protein."
Where did the DNA come from? How about the machinery to interpret DNA? did they evolve at the same time? If so, what luck!!!!

 

[BCP1928]

For a typical protein length of about 300 amino acids, more than 10^390 different polypeptide chains could theoretically be made. This is such an enormous number that to produce just one molecule of each kind would require many more atoms than exist in the universe.

The problem with statistical "arguments" of that kind is that it assumes all possible compounds are equally likely to form under all conditions, which is not the case.

 

[Shemjaza]

So the sequence (code) was created by nature? Code's NEVER get created w out intelligent design, we know this.

The code is a description of the chemicals not inherit to them.

You could create a code for classifications of river turn shapes then describe every river on Earth with them, it wouldn't make them a code.

"Before the actual gene there is a genetic "switch" in the DNA before the DNA part that codes for a protein."
Where did the DNA come from? How about the machinery to interpret DNA? did they evolve at the same time? If so, what luck!!!!

It's not a translation like a language, it's a chemical reaction. It's like asking how the mud knows to be the shape of your boot when you step in it or how the mirror knows to look like you.

Machinery, code and other descriptions are meant to be a helpful analogy to help people understand the multi step process, not be taken literally.

People have being trying to explain this to you for a month.

 

[Hans Blaster]

"A gene can emerge from scratch" tell us about this in detail.

You start with a random DNA sequence that is expressed as a protein and if it does something useful it is selected for. Otherwise it is just some random protein running about the cell.

This gives me a chance to post this paper about finding functional proteins coded by random DNA sequences.

Functional proteins from a random-sequence library

Abstract: Functional primordial proteins presumably originated from random sequences, but it is not known how frequently functional, or even folded, proteins occur in collections of random sequences. Here we have used in vitro selection of messenger RNA displayed proteins, in which each protein is covalently linked through its carboxy terminus to the 3′ end of its encoding mRNA, to sample a large number of distinct random sequences. Starting from a library of 6 × 10^12 proteins each containing 80 contiguous random amino acids, we selected functional proteins by enriching for those that bind to ATP. This selection yielded four new ATP-binding proteins that appear to be unrelated to each other or to anything found in the current databases of biological proteins. The frequency of occurrence of functional proteins in random-sequence libraries appears to be similar to that observed for equivalent RNA libraries.

As it says, the started with 6 trillion proteins of 80 random amino acids and after applying a selection pressure (to bind to the ATP, the energy transfer molecule of the cell, the found that some of the proteins did bind to it, about 1 in 100 billion.

That's the kind of thing that might go on.

 

[driewerf]

"A gene can emerge from scratch" tell us about this in detail.

It is explained in post #617, as is referenced in the post Thurston-howell III quoted. But Thurston-howell III deleted that part "by coincidence" deleted that part.

 

[driewerf]

"Before the actual gene there is a genetic "switch" in the DNA before the DNA part that codes for a protein."
Where did the DNA come from? How about the machinery to interpret DNA? did they evolve at the same time? If so, what luck!!!!

Thurston-howell III is committing the fallacy of moving the goal posts. His original challenge was

The sequence is VERY SPECIFIC, it is a code that gets translated. Tell us how the sequence became arranged.

Post n° 617 gives three real life examples that his statement is wrong.
Instead of having the integrity of admitting as such, he isn't addressing not a single point tat is made, but deflects to a side question.

 

[Thurston-howell-III]

The problem with statistical "arguments" of that kind is that it assumes all possible compounds are equally likely to form under all conditions, which is not the case.

So if you limit the conditions, the chance is even less that a useful protein will emerge

 

[BCP1928]

So if you limit the conditions, the chance is even less that a useful protein will emerge

It is a fact of biochemical synthesis that the compounds which are produced will depend on the starting conditions. Given the starting materials, not all possible combinations of them will be equally likely to form under any given set of conditions.

 

[Shemjaza]

So if you limit the conditions, the chance is even less that a useful protein will emerge

I think you have your logic backwards.

 

[Larniavc]

So if you limit the conditions, the chance is even less that a useful protein will emerge

The opposite is true. That’s what takes care of the randomness. It’s the difference between getting six sixes on 6d6 with or without keeping the sixes.

 

[Thurston-howell-III]

The opposite is true. That’s what takes care of the randomness. It’s the difference between getting six sixes on 6d6 with or without keeping the sixes.

A human cell contains about 10000 different proteins, do you want to play this numbers game?

 

[Thurston-howell-III]

Thurston-howell III is committing the fallacy of moving the goal posts. His original challenge was

Post n° 617 gives three real life examples that his statement is wrong.
Instead of having the integrity of admitting as such, he isn't addressing not a single point tat is made, but deflects to a side question.

Not following you, what goal post??????
But it doesn't matter- a moot pt really,, no codes have ever arranged themselves.

 

[Shemjaza]

A human cell contains about 10000 different proteins, do you want to play this numbers game?

How are you measuring them?

Are you assuming they all need to be developed at once?
That they all need to be developed in a specific order?
That there are no possible alternatives to any of them?

Because those don't make for reasonable models for development.

 

[Hans Blaster]

How ate you measuring them?

Oh look -- a mutation!

 

[Shemjaza]

Oh look -- a mutation!

luckily, point mutations are reversible.

 

[Aaron112]

Because those don't make for reasonable models for development.

We following Jesus do not need any models for development.
He told us what we need to know,
and He Says He Will Reveal more than we can figure out when we ask Him.