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

Tropical Wilds · May 2, 2024

AV1611VET said:
You're safe.

It's to a thread right here in christianforums I made in 2007.

I’ll search it.

Gene2memE · May 2, 2024

Thurston-howell-III said:
There you have it
“the necessary mutations “
Every mammal seems to have gotten them!

LOL LOL LOL LOL

Natural selection, do you comprehend it?
You position is akin to that of a person who doesn't understand basic mathematics rejecting the conclusions from quantum mechanics.

Thurston-howell-III · May 2, 2024

BCP1928 said:
Only if the eye was expected to evolve to its present state along the shortest evolutionary pathway, and if its essential configuration was not evolved when eyes generally were of much simpler construction.

Tell us about how many necessary lucky sequential mutations In just the correct order it took to create an eye and integrate it with a brain, muscles, eyelashes, pupil dilation, lens focusing. I’m curious because an eye is a masterpiece

BCP1928 · May 2, 2024

Thurston-howell-III said:
Tell us about how many necessary lucky sequential mutations In just the correct order it took to create an eye and integrate it with a brain, muscles, eyelashes, pupil dilation, lens focusing. I’m curious because an eye is a masterpiece

To create the eye as it is now? You ought to read up on it. The evolution of the eye has been extensively studied and is very interesting.

Thurston-howell-III · May 2, 2024

BCP1928 said:
To create the eye as it is now? You ought to read up on it. The evolution of the eye has been extensively studied and is very interesting.

So you can’t tell me about the fact that just the correct mutations had to occur in just the right order? It was just bound to happen? Only an atheist would believe such nonsense as perfect chance

Thurston-howell-III · May 2, 2024

Gene2memE said:
Natural selection, do you comprehend it?
You position is akin to that of a person who doesn't understand basic mathematics rejecting the conclusions from quantum mechanics.

NS has zero creative power, relies on luck of just the right mutations

Gene2memE · May 2, 2024

Thurston-howell-III said:
NS has zero creative power,

No is suggesting otherwise.

Thurston-howell-III said:
relies on luck of just the right mutations

Not 'luck', but the facts of biochemistry. It also doesn't need 'just the right mutations' - natural selection works with anything that confers an advantage based on the fitness landscape.

BCP1928 · May 2, 2024

Thurston-howell-III said:
So you can’t tell me about the fact that just the correct mutations had to occur in just the right order? It was just bound to happen? Only an atheist would believe such nonsense as perfect chance

I can tell you it's not a fact and I'm not even an atheist.

partinobodycular · May 2, 2024

Thurston-howell-III said:
So you can’t tell me about the fact that just the correct mutations had to occur in just the right order?

Actually, the order is pretty much irrelevant. All that's required is the proper set of genes, mutation or not, natural selection will then put them in order all by itself. Isn't NS just amazing.

Your great "mystery' may be a mystery to you, but pretty much everybody else has got it figured out already... try to keep up.

Thurston-howell-III · May 2, 2024

partinobodycular said:
Actually, the order is pretty much irrelevant. All that's required is the proper set of genes, mutation or not, natural selection will then put them in order all by itself. Isn't NS just amazing.

Your great "mystery' may be a mystery to you, but pretty much everybody else has got it figured out already... try to keep up.

Let’s see you keep up w this:: you need multiple mutations to create a new body plan , Any two mutations might produce no more than a mutant.

“What about trying for four related mutations? Chances are One in 10^28. Suddenly, the earth isn’t big enough to hold enough organisms to make that very likely, and we’re talking about only four mutations. It would take many more than that to change a fish into a philosopher, or even a fish into a frog.

BCP1928 · May 2, 2024

Thurston-howell-III said:
Let’s see you keep up w this:: you need multiple mutations to create a new body plan

Why? The body plans were laid down when the critters were all simple and pretty fluid, putting out any number of protuberances. A trait (like a body plan) has to exhibit reproductive variation before it can evolve. There need to be variants already in the population for natural selection to select from.

Thurston-howell-III said:
, Any two mutations might produce no more than a mutant.

“What about trying for four related mutations? Chances are One in 10^28. Suddenly, the earth isn’t big enough to hold enough organisms to make that very likely, and we’re talking about only four mutations. It would take many more than that to change a fish into a philosopher, or even a fish into a frog.

Show your math or cite the work it came from.

Hans Blaster · May 2, 2024

Thurston-howell-III said:
While ignoring the gist of my post.
What about all the just right mutations that “just happened “?
Coincidence?

The gist of your post is either that:

1. You don't understand what is being communicated to you and persist as if you do; or
2. You refuse to understand what is being communicated to you and persist as if that doesn't matter; or
3. You do understand and persist through knowingly falsely as if we are wrong when you know we aren't.

I prefer honest ignorance to intentional blindness and/or gaslighting, but I have little patience for those who refuse to learn even what we are talking about. (Understanding it and agreeing to it are two separate things.)

Yttrium · May 2, 2024

Thurston-howell-III said:
“What about trying for four related mutations? Chances are One in 10^28. Suddenly, the earth isn’t big enough to hold enough organisms to make that very likely, and we’re talking about only four mutations. It would take many more than that to change a fish into a philosopher, or even a fish into a frog.

Probability only matters if you have a goal. If there's no goal, then you're going to end up with something. If you draw four cards, whatever four cards you draw will be a pretty unlikely combination. But you still managed to draw four cards. The chances that you're going to come up with some result is 1 in 1.

Evolution has no plan. No goal. Mutations happen, and then selection comes in to take out the traits that don't work well. Rinse and repeat. Something comes out at the end, it doesn't matter what.

Hans Blaster · May 2, 2024

Ophiolite said:
1. You are mistaken.
2. You have certainly not sited (sic) Douglas Axe. This is how you cite a research article:
Citation: Rousselle M, Simion P, Tilak M-K, Figuet E, Nabholz B, Galtier N (2020) Is adaptation limited by mutation? A timescale-dependent effect of genetic diversity on the adaptive substitution rate in animals. PLoS Genet 16(4):

Not only are useful mutations commonplace, but the above research does a study of the extent to which adaptation is limited by the supply of mutations. Just so you are clear, to carry out the study there need to be enough useful mutations to have a positive influence on adaptation. The reality of useful proteins is implicit in the study, or do you seriously contend the researchers are just making this stuff up in order to . . . . .well what?

If you choose to continue denying the reality of positve mutations, I'll just post research examples. I realise it is highly unlikely you will read them, but others will. The more you deny reality, the more other readers will be given the opprtunity to learn how mistaken you are.

This is how I cite Douglas Axe:

Douglas Axe

or like this:

which covers in detail the emptiness of his slim publication record in science.

Hans Blaster · May 2, 2024

Thurston-howell-III said:
There you have it
“the necessary mutations “
Every mammal seems to have gotten them!

LOL LOL LOL LOL

We didn't get them all separately. All mammals are descended from the same, original proto-mammal species. That species had acquired the "necessary mutations" to make a mammal.

partinobodycular · May 2, 2024

Thurston-howell-III said:
Let’s see you keep up w this:: you need multiple mutations to create a new body plan ,

No problem there.

Thurston-howell-III said:
“What about trying for four related mutations? Chances are One in 10^28."

This is where AIG's logic goes bonkers, because it assumes that all four of these mutations have to occur in one specific individual, in one specific generation... all at the same time. And I'll admit, the odds of that happening are extremely low. But then again that's not what genetics says happens... so who cares.

What really happens is this ingenious thing that we call sex. Wherein 8 billion people run around swapping genes with each other,

and before you know it somebody who inherited one of these mutations from their parents, swaps genes with somebody who inherited a different one of these mutations from their parents. And for gosh sakes, now we've got people running around with two of these mutations. And sure as heck their offspring are gonna swap genes with somebody else's offspring. What is it with these people? :doh:

Don't they realize that if they keep doing this we'll soon have people with three mutations... and then heaven forbid... four, or five, or six, or God only knows how many.

But wait, what are the odds of somebody carrying each of these mutations? Well, not that bad actually. Remember those 8 billion people running around swapping genes? Well, along with the mutations that they got from their parents, they each got about 70 new mutations. That means that along with all the old mutations, each generation gets 560 billion new ones... in a genome that's only three billion letters long. So we've got a whole lot of repetition going on. Which means that the gene pool is constantly overflowing with mutations. So yeah, the odds that somebody with three of those mutations is unknowingly gonna swap genes with somebody with the fourth one, isn't really as far fetched as AIG makes it seem like it is.

But in any case, if you're really being honest with yourself... that 10^28 number is pure lunacy.

Ophiolite · May 3, 2024

partinobodycular said:
No problem there.

This is where AIG's logic goes bonkers, because it assumes that all four of these mutations have to occur in one specific individual, in one specific generation... all at the same time. And I'll admit, the odds of that happening are extremely low. But then again that's not what genetics says happens... so who cares.

What really happens is this ingenious thing that we call sex. Wherein 8 billion people run around swapping genes with each other, and before you know it somebody who inherited one of these mutations from their parents, swaps genes with somebody who inherited a different one of these mutations from their parents. And for gosh sakes, now we've got people running around with two of these mutations. And sure as heck their offspring are gonna swap genes with somebody else's offspring. What is it with these people? Don't they realize that if they keep doing this we'll soon have people with three mutations... and then heaven forbid... four, or five, or six, or God only knows how many.

But wait, what are the odds of somebody carrying each of these mutations? Well, not that bad actually. Remember those 8 billion people running around swapping genes? Well, along with the mutations that they got from their parents, they each got about 70 new mutations. That means that along with all the old mutations, each generation gets 560 billion new ones... in a genome that's only three billion letters long. So we've got a whole lot of repetition going on. Which means that the gene pool is constantly overflowing with mutations. So yeah, the odds that somebody with three of those mutations is unknowingly gonna swap genes with somebody with the fourth one, isn't really as far fetched as AIG makes it seem like it is.

But in any case, if you're really being honest with yourself... that 10^28 number is pure lunacy.

In addition there appears to be an assumption that only one specific gene, or one set of specific genes can produce the end result. Not so. The inhabitants of the Tibetan plateau and the high Andes have genes that enable a more efficient capture of oxygen. However, the mutations responsible for this differ between the two locales.
There are a plethora of routes I can take from Cardiff to Manchester. To argue that the odds of me taking a particular route are very high does not mean that I an very unlikely to reach Manchester.

Thurston-howell-III · May 3, 2024

Yttrium said:
Probability only matters if you have a goal. If there's no goal, then you're going to end up with something. If you draw four cards, whatever four cards you draw will be a pretty unlikely combination. But you still managed to draw four cards. The chances that you're going to come up with some result is 1 in 1.

Evolution has no plan. No goal. Mutations happen, and then selection comes in to take out the traits that don't work well. Rinse and repeat. Something comes out at the end, it doesn't matter what.

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?

Yttrium · May 3, 2024

Thurston-howell-III said:
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?

Not any time soon, no. But if they had a word selection system, the way nature has a trait selection system, then they would.

Thurston-howell-III · May 3, 2024

Yttrium said:
Not any time soon, no. But if they had a word selection system, the way nature has a trait selection system, then they would.

What word selection system? Remember, no goal

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

Little Lebowski Urban Achiever

Newbie

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Active Member

Newbie

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Rocket surgeon

Independent Centrist

Rocket surgeon

Rocket surgeon

Well-Known Member

Recalcitrant Procrastinating Ape

Active Member

Independent Centrist

Active Member

Similar threads