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

[AV1611VET]

Nope
Whatever that is is meaningless

My point is that they would find something, even if they had to make it up.

 

[BCP1928]

Do you believe it’s possible if a billion monkeys typing 100 chars per second on a billion typewriters, you would ever have one legible page of information?
(Which equivocates to a simple protein)

Don't know, but you might be surprised. LLMs do something similar.

But equivocate as you will, the monkeys still are not a good analogy for protein synthesis.

 

[Gene2memE]

How many copying errors have led to new novel body parts?

Some light reading

Hox genes and evolution​

Hox protein mutation and macroevolution of the insect body plan ​

You should be able to read these (and 100,000s of other evolutionary biology studies) for free by signing up to the National Centre for Biotechnology Information website.

 

[Thurston-howell-III]

Some light reading

Hox genes and evolution​

Hox protein mutation and macroevolution of the insect body plan ​

You should be able to read these (and 100,000s of other evolutionary biology studies) for free by signing up to the National Centre for Biotechnology Information website.

The answer is a big fat NONE, no new body parts from random mutations which sticks a fork in your TOE

 

[Thurston-howell-III]

Don't know, but you might be surprised. LLMs do something similar.

But equivocate as you will, the monkeys still are not a good analogy for protein synthesis.

Sure is a good analogy, monkeys type randomly, you just can’t admit that randomness leads to chaos, not a new protein, and certainly not hundreds of them needed for life and new body parts!

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

The answer is a big fat NONE, no new body parts from random mutations which sticks a fork in your TOE

Your own incredulity does you no favours whatsover.

 

[BCP1928]

Sure is a good analogy, monkeys type randomly, you just can’t admit that randomness leads to chaos, not a new protein, and certainly not hundreds of them needed for life and new body parts!

Putting your imaginary ideas about how evolution works aside for a moment, what's your point? What are you pushing as a replacement for it?

 

[Thurston-howell-III]

Your own incredulity does you no favours whatsover.

Your own incredulity does you no favours whatsover.

Sure it does. It shows that you’re wearing no logical clothes and blindly believe that copying errors created a human body
Total BS.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Sure it does. It shows that you’re wearing no logical clothes and blindly believe that copying errors created a human body
Total BS.

This coming from the guy who's given nothing of actual substance to try and even attempt to show that evolution might be wrong and pretends that he's some sort of intellectual when he's done nothing intellectual on this thread in the slightest.

I even called it from the beginning that this thread was going to just be bait from a guy who doesn't want to accept that evolution is a valid scientific theory. You don't understand what you're arguing against and it's clear that you don't actually want to understand what you're arguing against. If that's the case, there's other parts of the website you can go to if you don't want to interact with people who accept evolution.

You're not here to converse in good faith, that much is 100% clear.

 

[AV1611VET]

I even called it from the beginning that this thread was going to just be bait from a guy who doesn't want to accept that evolution is a valid scientific theory.

Thanks for giving me an idea for a challenge thread.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Thanks for giving me an idea for a challenge thread.

Can you at least do it as a poll this time? Many of your 'challenges' would benefit from being polls.

 

[AV1611VET]

Can you at least do it as a poll this time? Many of your 'challenges' would benefit from being polls.

Will do.

 

[Thurston-howell-III]

This coming from the guy who's given nothing of actual substance to try and even attempt to show that evolution might be wrong and pretends that he's some sort of intellectual when he's done nothing intellectual on this thread in the slightest.

I even called it from the beginning that this thread was going to just be bait from a guy who doesn't want to accept that evolution is a valid scientific theory. You don't understand what you're arguing against and it's clear that you don't actually want to understand what you're arguing against. If that's the case, there's other parts of the website you can go to if you don't want to interact with people who accept evolution.

You're not here to converse in good faith, that much is 100% clear.

Why don’t you address the BS that you believe is true? I’ve given you logical sensibilities and figures which you choose to ignore. No macro evolution has ever been observed, mutations cause disease, you are fantasizing against the odds

 

[Thurston-howell-III]

Putting your imaginary ideas about how evolution works aside for a moment, what's your point? What are you pushing as a replacement for it?

First tell me if the monkeys will ever produce one legible page

 

[Gene2memE]

The answer is a big fat NONE, no new body parts from random mutations which sticks a fork in your TOE

Did you not read the papers, or is it just that you don't understand them?

What would you like to challenge about the observed evidence of mutation of homeobox and Hox genes in producing novel body plans and body parts?

 

[BCP1928]

First tell me if the monkeys will ever produce one legible page

They might. It might not be in English, though. But a legible page produced by monkeys is not the same thing as protein synthesis.

 

[Thurston-howell-III]

Did you not read the papers, or is it just that you don't understand them?

What would you like to challenge about the observed evidence of mutation of homeobox and Hox genes in producing novel body plans and body parts?

How genes suppress or control where body parts form
You didn’t mention where the info for those genes arise from.
But here’s a notion: do you even believe that DNA is a code?

 

[Ophiolite]

But here’s a notion: do you even believe that DNA is a code?

Define code. That means describe what a code is, concisely and without ambiguity.

 

[Gene2memE]

How genes suppress or control where body parts form

Read the first paper - it's a surface level review of what we know and don't know about how Hox gene clusters do things like ensure organisms have bilateral symmetry and contribute to the development of novel organs.

If you want to know more, look up the references

You didn’t mention where the info for those genes arise from.

Chemistry. But, that's not relevant to the discussion.

But here’s a notion: do you even believe that DNA is a code?

Depends on what you mean by "code".

I believe DNA is similar to a code, but is categorically different from the creations of intelligent agents as it is without teleology.

 

[Thurston-howell-III]

Define code. That means describe what a code is, concisely and without ambiguity.

Here we go, a good atheist will always doubt that dna is a code: like you can’t look it up yourself?
“A system of words, letters, or signs used to represent a message in secret form, or a system of numbers, letters, or signals used to represent something in a shorter or more convenient form:”
Or
“coded language : a word or phrase chosen in place of another word or phrase in order to communicate an attitude or meaning without stating it explicitly”