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

AV1611VET said:

My "opinion" is based on the fact that God created everything perfect; including Adam & Eve.

Click to expand...

Only on paper.

AV1611VET said:

Why?

Vegetarians don't drink milk?

Click to expand...

God said we were supposed to eat plants. Nothing in Genesis about milk or dairy products.

BCP1928 said:

God said we were supposed to eat plants. Nothing in Genesis about milk or dairy products.

Click to expand...

Eating plants and drinking milk are two different things.

Lacto-vegetarian diets exclude meat, fish, poultry and eggs, as well as foods that contain them. Dairy products, such as milk, cheese, yogurt and butter, are included.

SOURCE

AV1611VET said:

Now I consider this an honest answer.

Click to expand...

If I valued your opinion I would be offended by the implication that some of my answers are dishonest.

AV1611VET said:

* cough *

Click to expand...

I predicted your cough, or its equivalent, so don't get overly smug.

AV1611VET said:

There is none.

Bacteria emit mycotoxins to repel invading bacteria.

One country emits their "mycotoxins" to repel invading countries.

The scale is just larger on our end.

Click to expand...

Well, you have it half right. Nature is very much about competition. However, you missed the other half. Nature is very much about cooperation.

AV1611VET said:

I believe it's called either survival of the fittest, or fight or flight.

Click to expand...

Well, you have it half right. Nature is very much about competition. However, you missed the other half. Nature is very much about cooperation.

Aside: Those are not Darwin's words and his attitude to them was arguably ambivalent.

AV1611VET said:

What's the difference between nature's mycotoxins and mankinds' weapons of mass destruction?

Click to expand...

Mankind has the power of reflection and self-control. (This can be used to do sensible things like reclassifying Pluto, or restricting the use of certain drugs when context sensitive problems are identified.)

AV1611VET said:

Finally!

Someone who understands!

Click to expand...

Most of us understand your position. We just don't like wading through it when it is that deep.

AV1611VET said:

No.

You can watch Inherit the Wind sixty times, until you know what they're going to do and say by heart.

That doesn't mean you're the cause of their actions.

Click to expand...

It is if you wrote the script.

AV1611VET said:

Satan's plan, yes.

Click to expand...

I thought nothing happened outside God's plan?

Thurston-howell-III said:

But Did the sequences originate before the decoding mechanism did? Or at the same time? hmmmm?

Click to expand...

The decoding as you call it is inherit to the chemical structure of the molecule. It's a physical process not a mental abstract.

The letters of DNA is something we apply to DNA not truly a part of it.

Thurston-howell-III said:

What in the world is "dishonest luck?" That would be akin to your opponent getting 50 royal flushes in a row dealt to him. That's what getting all the correct mutations in the right order to "evolve" an eye is

Click to expand...

Fortunately, they don't all have to be in any particular order.

Thurston-howell-III said:

No? You mean things like blood would be in place b4 arteries? The heart would exist before blood, joint cartilage before bones?

Click to expand...

No, they don't have to be in order, in fact they almost certainly won't be, but it doesn't make any difference. You're beating a straw man... please, just let him die.

Thurston-howell-III said:

No? You mean things like blood would be in place b4 arteries? The heart would exist before blood, joint cartilage before bones?

Click to expand...

You seem to have this odd perception that the first heart looked and worked more or less the same as a present day heart. Or that the first blood had pretty much the same composition and properties of the blood circulating in your body today. Now that would be a remarkable thing to discover and would pretty well consign evolutionary theory to the dustbin. However, as @partinobodycular has pointed out, you keep attacking strawmen.

Here is a suggestion. There are many weaknesses and areas of doubt in modern evolutionary theory. You haven't come close to any of them yet. I recommend you go spend four or five years of serious study of the field, then come back and ask some genuinely challenging questions, instead of indulging in the usual anti-evolution drivel. I can assure you that will earn you some respect for your arguments.

Ophiolite said:

Here is a suggestion. There are many weaknesses and areas of doubt in modern evolutionary theory. You haven't come close to any of them yet. I recommend you go spend four or five years of serious study of the field, then come back and ask some genuinely challenging questions, instead of indulging in the usual anti-evolution drivel. I can assure you that will earn you some respect for your arguments.

Click to expand...

Respect in what way?

Suppose someone was omniscient in the area of modern evolutionary theory.

Knew it inside out; upside down; forward and backward; right, left, and center.

And he claimed that, in having a total understanding of it, he can't find anything scientifically wrong.

Then he makes the statement that evolution can take a hike, as God created man fully formed in one day.

How much respect would you have for him?

My guess is that you would disparage him more than you would someone who can't even spell "evolution," yet claims it's wrong.

Isn't there some theologian -- (I can't think of his name) -- that says something to the effect of:

"Even if someone proved to me beyond a shadow of a doubt the universe is old, I'd still be a YEC"?

How much respect would he get around here?

Thurston-howell-III said:

so tell us how the first heart came to be, did it work w out blood? Or was blood somewhere else and miraculously integrated w the heart?

Click to expand...

I haven't finished this paper yet, but it looks interesting and I believe it will answer your question.

Thurston-howell-III said:

so give us your version.

Click to expand...

Evolution.

Thurston-howell-III said:

so tell us how the first heart came to be, did it work w out blood? Or was blood somewhere else and miraculously integrated w the heart?

Click to expand...

I have not studied the evolution of the heart, or of blood. I'll make a commitment to find material you can read to inform yourself about it, if you make a commitment to make a serious study of that material.
Before you ask one of your "clever" questions, I don't need to have studied them to know that the predecessor of today's heart possesses characteristics absent from the ancestral ones. Because that's what happens when random mutations are subject to natural selection, so that valuable, heritable changes occur.
I see you've already been presented with that information by @BCP1928. I also note you couldn't be bothered to read it. Why am I not surprised? Because while populations can certainly evolve genetically, it seems some humans cannot evolve intellectually.

Thurston-howell-III said:

so tell us how the first heart came to be, did it work w out blood? Or was blood somewhere else and miraculously integrated w the heart?

Click to expand...

Based on the research, it seems that blood was already present inside organisms before there were mechanisms to pump it around said organisms.

The evolution of blood seems to be a difficult question to fully answer, due to the scarcity of hard evidence.

This study (https://ashpublications.org/blood/a...ng-the-evolutionary-history-of-blood-cells-to) gives evidence to support a hypothesis that the evolution of blood occurred in a number of stages as unicellular life developed into more complex multi-cellular life which then developed into chordates and then vertebrates. The process likely started at least 1 billion years ago and took multiple hundreds of millions of years until it was completed.

Much is still speculation though:



Evolution of hearts is much better understood, as there is supporting and direct fossil evidence.


Cliff notes:

The heart has changed and adapted from a single-layered tube with its own contractility supporting an open circulatory system, to a powerful four-chambered muscular pump devoted to loading and unloading a large amount of blood around a closed, valved circuit circulatory system

The primitive blueprint for the circulatory system emerged around 700–600 million years ago. Specific genes have been isolated in certain jellyfish species which have been shown to play a role in myogenesis, leading to the conclusion that these different genes may be the primordial beginnings of the heart and circulatory system that we see in later bilaterian species.

The primitive blueprint for the heart and circulatory system emerged with the arrival of the third mesodermal germ layer in bilaterians. The first heart-like organ appeared over 500 million years ago, most likely in an ancestral bilaterian. This system most likely resembled that of the most primitive urchordates or cephalochordate. The circulatory system of these species did not have a definitive heart, but included a single-layered tube with pulsatile contractility, in support of an open circulatory system.

Thurston-howell-III said:

Dna DOES contain symbols/ signs : ATGC.
These are letters
These get translated during transcription.
I guess you don’t like biologists who refer to it as a code because that is what it is,
It is encoded, and gets translated, fits the definition of code perfectly.

Click to expand...

No. DNA is made of nucleotides.
1) these are chemicals, not letters.
2) it doesn't contain - it is made of.
Te letter sequence is a useful representation of the sequence of nucleotides. The letters aren't the DNA.