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

I know this seems like spiking the football, but consider this litany of illegitimate arguments from those who oppose evolution that we have seen in this thread:

- the demand that evolution be proven, but when this is clearly not a reasonable request relative to a scientific theory.

- the old "its just a theory" line that is based on hoping readers do not understand the specialized meaning of the word "theory" when used in reference to science

- repeated refusals to actually engage arguments presented in a post

- the easily refuted "evolution is refuted by thermodynamics" argument.

- the also easily refuted misrepresentation that evolution is all about "luck" (natural selection - a non-random process is conveniently ignored)

- the profoundly misleading use of the word "error" to describe mutations. In one sense, one could call such mutations "errors" but the intent of using this word is clear: to confuse the reader with the seemingly nonsensical notion that evolution says "errors produce evolutionary progress". Yes, that does seem wrong, but only because the creationist is cynically using artfully chosen language to deceive. More neutral, fair characterizations, would be "alterations" or "modifications" or "acts of copying that produce a different result than is normally produced".

expos4ever said:

But, please, prove me wrong - give us one reason why we should not believe evolution.

Click to expand...

Not enough time.

The Bible only allows for 6000 years of history.

AV1611VET said:

The Bible only allows for 6000 years of history.

Click to expand...

But as I believe you yourself have eluded to, being created 6000 years ago, doesn't mean that the earth is only 6000 years old. One conclusion doesn't necessarily follow from the other.

partinobodycular said:

But as I believe you yourself have eluded to, being created 6000 years ago, doesn't mean that the earth is only 6000 years old.

Click to expand...

That is correct.

partinobodycular said:

One conclusion doesn't necessarily follow from the other.

Click to expand...

But for evolution to work, eons of time must pass.

The Bible makes no provision for such deep time.

How does "Creation" explain how the moth got its eye spots? I mean specifically? And when?

AV1611VET said:

But for evolution to work, eons of time must pass.

The Bible makes no provision for such deep time.

Click to expand...

Sure it does, if one stops looking at things from a limited human perspective. If we simply assume that the creation of a thing includes more than just the thing itself, it includes everything that makes that thing possible. It includes the entire history of the thing, even if that history includes the billions of years that led up to it. They all come to be, past, present, and future, in that one single act of creation.

I'm told that God can see the future. Well... when did that future come to be? Logic would dictate that it must have come to be 6000 years ago, in that one divine act of creation. And if the future came to be 6000 years ago, then presumably the past came to be as well. And that past may very well include the evolution of stars, and galaxies, and planets, and us. All created at the same time, but existing, from our perspective, at different times... even billions of years worth of time.

So concluding that God created the world 6000 years ago, doesn't in and of itself, disprove evolution, because in the act of creation God could not only have created the present, but the future and the past as well. A past that apparently includes evolution.

partinobodycular said:

So concluding that God created the world 6000 years ago, doesn't in and of itself, disprove evolution, because in the act of creation God could not only have created the present, but the future and the past as well. A past that apparently includes evolution.

Click to expand...

Omphalism?

AV1611VET said:

Omphalism?

Click to expand...

Well there's a word that I was unfamiliar with, but for the uneducated people like me, it's simply "Last Thursdayism". The idea that the world could've been created at any time, but with the illusion of age.

Unfortunately, that's not what I'm talking about. The past isn't an illusion any more than 'here and now' is an illusion. It's just that the biblical story of creation could be understood to include the creation of not only the present, but the future, and the past as well. The past doesn't just 'look' like it happened, it really did happen.

If God is indeed omnipotent, then it's a possibility that can't be excluded.

partinobodycular said:

Sure it does, if one stops looking at things from a limited human perspective. If we simply assume that the creation of a thing includes more than just the thing itself, it includes everything that makes that thing possible. It includes the entire history of the thing, even if that history includes the billions of years that led up to it. They all come to be, past, present, and future, in that one single act of creation.

I'm told that God can see the future. Well... when did that future come to be? Logic would dictate that it must have come to be 6000 years ago, in that one divine act of creation. And if the future came to be 6000 years ago, then presumably the past came to be as well. And that past may very well include the evolution of stars, and galaxies, and planets, and us. All created at the same time, but existing, from our perspective, at different times... even billions of years worth of time.

So concluding that God created the world 6000 years ago, doesn't in and of itself, disprove evolution, because in the act of creation God could not only have created the present, but the future and the past as well. A past that apparently includes evolution.

Click to expand...

When something has to be concluded in order to reach a desired perspective, that all sounds like a Human made perspective to me.

dlamberth said:

When something has to be concluded in order to reach a desired perspective, that all sounds like a Human made perspective to me.

Click to expand...

Just to be clear, my previous posts don't represent my 'desired' perspective. I was simply attempting to point out that YEC, even if true, doesn't disprove evolution, because the act of creation, even if it occurred last Thursday, might by default involve the creation of the past as well.

For example, determinism tells us that the state of a system today not only tells us what the state of the system will be tomorrow, but it also tells us what the state of the system was yesterday. So it doesn't matter 'when' we create it... at it's beginning, at it's end, or anywhere in between... that act of creation determines the state of the entire thing.

Hence, even if creation occurred last Thursday, evolution may still be true, because creating any single point along the line creates the entire line. Unfortunately for us, we're confined to experiencing one small slice at a time.

It always helps to remember that I'm a solipsist. So don't take anything that I say too seriously, it's just meant to be food for thought. If anybody's actually interested in that sort of thing.

Thurston-howell-III said:

Can anyone explain what it took for a moth to gain owl eyes on ea wing? Owl are formidable predators recognized by would-be moth enemies.
Just wondering. View attachment 345574

Click to expand...

God. God being very creative.

Thurston-howell-III said:

"The codes found in DNA are simply chemical reactions of their make up."
The nucleotide arrangements that translate to functional proteins speaks volumes to how wrong you are. I suppose the words in a book are just random ink,right? This is your logic.
But do show us a code that gets coded and decoded that is not the product of intel.

Click to expand...

The point is that the function of proteins depends on their environment and that mutations of the DNA that generates can change the proteins... to potentially increase or decrease the effectiveness of the system they are a part of.

As for an example, well DNA is a perfect one... there is no demonstrable consciousness in the process of division and mutation from one generation to the next.

You, and all your inherited traits as well as the novel mutations you possess all were generated from chaos of your parents genes splicing together.

We can demonstrate this kind of event chemically, so unless you can demonstrate a barrier to these changes... or better yet an objective measure to Creationist versions of information and function, then we have an example.

As to the language and book example... we have random generators to mix and match text, it just needs some kind of selection process to winnow out the failures. Intelligent design is a faster way to generate content, but it is hardly unique.

JesusFollowerForever said:

evolution is still a theory and was never proven nor will it ever be.

Click to expand...

In the mathematical sense, no scientific theory is ever proven.

But in the common use, of "demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt" then evolution has absolutely already been proven.

JesusFollowerForever said:

Adaption could be possible but not in this case, there are in the genetic code made by our creator leeway for compensation to preserve life but I am not saying adaptation caused the design in this Brahmin moth.

Click to expand...

Unless you can demonstrate the barrier to variation, then we have no reason to assume this to be true.

The owl eyes are simply interesting looking marks on the wings... nothing "macro" about the change. IT's a great demonstration that a very gradual change would offer a continual advantage.

The moths with wing spots would be a little safer than their spotless kin... and the moths with more owl like wings would be safer still.

JesusFollowerForever said:

however adaption requires an external stimuli but really, how can a moth know that looking like an owl will protect it? absurd.

Click to expand...

The point is that moth doesn't decide to have eye shaped marks any more than you and I decided how tall we are.

It's a variation in pattern, and it's helpful so it's more likely to be passed on.

JesusFollowerForever said:

I see GOD behind this and the beauty of creation in this design, it actually proves that GOD exists! But many refuse to learn from this, instead thinking erroneously that random mutations are responsible.

Click to expand...

Random mutations are trivially demonstrable and the relics of an evolutionary past is in the rocks of the ground and the DNA of life... evolution doesn't disprove God, but it certainly disproves an honest intelligent designer of a recent creation.

JesusFollowerForever said:

look up the laws of thermodynamic they disprove without a doubt that evolution is possible, do not believe me, just look up for yourself. what you write is false, systems left to themselves will degrade to their simplest components, Huge amounts of energy are required to create a ""semblant"" of order. for a simple cell to contain all the machinery for its survival plus a code to reproduce itself is not possible by random movements of molecules the degrees of organization if far too complex, scientists have tried and failed, never could create a semblant of autonomous life.

Click to expand...

You are fundamentally mistaken about how the physics of thermodynamics mean. It isn't about order and disorder it's about temperature equilibrium.

Thermodynamics make no comment about more ordered structures forming... for example when warm liquid water falls through air of sub freezing temperatures the temperature equalizes and the chaotic water forms into delicate and ordered crystal structures of ice and snow flakes.

But regardless of the particular thermodynamic status of life and evolution, the constant energy of the Sun and volcanic vents give life all the energy it needs to thrive. The evolution of life is a separate issue and I've seen no evidence that heat equilibrium is relevant.

The formation of cells from simpler chemicals is trivial to demonstrate... it happens constantly as each living cell on the each absorbs simpler chemicals and chemically bonds them into new cell materials until the entire cell divides into two almost identical cells.

I suspect you are making the mistake of assuming that a fully developed cell is the starting point of live... when most hypotheses are about simpler self replicating chemicals and structural catalysts to the formation of naturally occurring amino acids into RNA or DNA.

Thurston-howell-III said:

That Sounds reasonable.

Click to expand...

It's a misunderstanding of physics.

JesusFollowerForever said:

still not proven today because it cannot.

Click to expand...

Yet another lacking in the most basic understanding
of what science is but somehow able to believe they know
more than any scientist on earth.

Like magic!

expos4ever said:

I know this seems like spiking the football, but consider this litany of illegitimate arguments from those who oppose evolution that we have seen in this thread:

- the demand that evolution be proven, but when this is clearly not a reasonable request relative to a scientific theory.

- the old "its just a theory" line that is based on hoping readers do not understand the specialized meaning of the word "theory" when used in reference to science

- repeated refusals to actually engage arguments presented in a post

- the easily refuted "evolution is refuted by thermodynamics" argument.

- the also easily refuted misrepresentation that evolution is all about "luck" (natural selection - a non-random process is conveniently ignored)

- the profoundly misleading use of the word "error" to describe mutations. In one sense, one could call such mutations "errors" but the intent of using this word is clear: to confuse the reader with the seemingly nonsensical notion that evolution says "errors produce evolutionary progress". Yes, that does seem wrong, but only because the creationist is cynically using artfully chosen language to deceive. More neutral, fair characterizations, would be "alterations" or "modifications" or "acts of copying that produce a different result than is normally produced".

Click to expand...

-There is no valid argument
-none of our " anti" folk have even the most
basic understanding of science
-they all get their "anti" chants from the
Triple S. (Same sorry sources)
- anyone with knowledge of science will
refrain from "anti" arguments, the which of
why being to avoid looking foolish.

Or dishonest.

Estrid said:

Yet another lacking in the most basic understanding of what science is but somehow able to believe they know more than any scientist on earth.

Click to expand...

Or some scientists thinking they can eventually achieve the mind of God?

Stephen Hawking was the most influential know-it-all. In his 1988 mega-bestseller A Brief History of Time, Hawking predicted that physicists would soon find an “ultimate theory” that would explain how our cosmos came into being. He compared this achievement to knowing “the mind of God.” This statement was ironic. Hawking, an atheist, wanted science to eliminate the need for a divine creator.

Theories of Everything, by John Barrow (1991)
The Mind of God, by Paul Davies (1992)
Dreams of a Final Theory, by Steven Weinberg

SOURCE

Estrid said:

Like magic!

Click to expand...

More like satanic.

Isaiah 14:14 I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High.

Estrid said:

-There is no valid argument

Click to expand...

Would you know one, if you saw it?

Like, for instance:

"The Bible says otherwise."

Estrid said:

-none of our " anti" folk have even the most basic understanding of science

Click to expand...

Don't need it.

A child should be able to tell a scientist he's wrong.

Estrid said:

-they all get their "anti" chants from the Triple S. (Same sorry sources)

Click to expand...

Scriptures?

Estrid said:

- anyone with knowledge of science will refrain from "anti" arguments,

Click to expand...

Believe you me they do.

The more challenges I make, the faster they run.

My magnum opus here is my Apple Challenge.

You can take it, if you dare:

My Apple Challenge

Estrid said:

the which of why being to avoid looking foolish.

Or dishonest.

Click to expand...

Since your idea of "refraining" is to put people on IGNORE, which one are you?

Thurston-howell-III said:

Let’s see if any Darwinist here can show such a code that was formed by “nature”

Click to expand...

Since there is no way to scientifically show that DNA wasn't formed by non-natural/supernatural forces, there is nothing else that can be said on the matter.
It's false equivocation from you, for sure, but it's not a mark against 'Darwinists'.

It's funny but this really did become what I thought it would be: just mud slinging and gish-galloping from Creationists without any understanding on the science of evolution.

Warden_of_the_Storm said:

Since there is no way to scientifically show that DNA wasn't formed by non-natural/supernatural forces, there is nothing else that can be said on the matter.

Click to expand...

Except for:

Science can take a hike then.