By chance?

[no one]

No matter how much you simplify it, tater tot's .001 watt bulb will blow when attempting to comprehend it.

[Peebothuhlu]

At work.

I find it interesting that Yukon_Jack is happy accepting that tha 'Owl spots' are there to deter/scare away predators.

As has possibly been alluded to previously. What if the spots are actually predetor ATRACTORS'?

As in signaling devises that attrack birds to peck at wing edges, which while damage may hamper flight, instead of the centre of mass of the moth/butterfly? Which, if stuck, a 'Body blow' as such would seem to induce higher mortality?

Might some one know of and link to any such studies?

Cheers.

[The Architect Of Fate]

Not mention it's not always successful

And more interestingly why would a god  put owl eyes on a butterfly when he would have any other option ?

[Yukon_Jack]

Did both eyes appear at the same time do you think? Or did luck govern that the second one would appear in later generations?
How gullible you are!

Yeah, were there first horses with only one leg and then they evolved other three?

But kidding aside, that's called Bilateral symmetry. 99% of organisms are bilaterally symmetric

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symmetry_in_biology

So Bilateral symmetry ensures the eyes are spaced apart just perfectly, my!

“said mutations are 100% random”
False ”

Nope, you are false, mutations are 100% random. This is your crutch to lie about this.
NS can do absolutely nothing in the way of developing new traits because mutations are what causes new traits to emerge.
Your repeated lies to this not helping your cause

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Yeah, were there first horses with only one leg and then they evolved other three?

But kidding aside, that's called Bilateral symmetry. 99% of organisms are bilaterally symmetric

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symmetry_in_biology

So Bilateral symmetry ensures the eyes are spaced apart just perfectly, my!

“said mutations are 100% random”
False ”

Nope, you are false, mutations are 100% random. This is your crutch to lie about this.
NS can do absolutely nothing in the way of developing new traits because mutations are what causes new traits to emerge.
Your repeated lies to this not helping your cause

No, mutations do not cause new traits to emerge. Mutations provide the raw material for selection to act upon, either preserving or elimination the mutations.

If Gregor Mendel was alive, he'd slap your face.

Boru

[no one]

I don't think tater tot can type and breathe at the  same time. Which is why all its posts are the same repeated drivel.

[Simon Moon]

Not mention it's not always successful

And more interestingly why would a god  put owl eyes on a butterfly when he would have any other option ?

Exactly.

But no matter how evolution selects for survival advantages, creationists would be pointing to those as the work of a god. A very inefficient god, but a god nonetheless.

There are many species of butterflies, that are extremely colorful and are the least camouflaged of all, but they taste bad to predators. So, their survival advantage is to advertise their identity of tasting bad, by being gaudy.

Bad taste must be created by god, too. Not as impressive as flashy owl eye patterns, though.

When 'god did it' is your panacea to explain everything, it actually explains nothing. It has no explanatory power.

As soon as one can substitute, 'butterfly designing gnomes are responsible for owl eye patterns on butterfly wings' in place of 'a god is responsible', and lose nothing in explanatory power, you know your explanation is useless.

[The Architect Of Fate]

So Bilateral symmetry ensures the eyes are spaced apart just perfectly, my!

Yay more personal incredulity pretending to be a response

“said mutations are 100% random”
False ”

Nope, you are false, mutations are 100% random. This is your crutch to lie about this.
NS can do absolutely nothing in the way of developing new traits because mutations are what causes new traits to emerge.
Your repeated lies to this not helping your cause

Nope you're the one lying here.But that's to be expected you are a creationist after all 

And my "cause " has already won and is the only legit mainstream science.So i don't need to lie .

---

Not mention it's not always successful

And more interestingly why would a god  put owl eyes on a butterfly when he would have any other option ?

Exactly.

But no matter how evolution selects for survival advantages, creationists would be pointing to those as the work of a god. A very inefficient god, but a god nonetheless.

There are many species of butterflies, that are extremely colorful and are the least camouflaged of all, but they taste bad to predators. So, their survival advantage is to advertise their identity of tasting bad, by being gaudy.

Bad taste must be created by god, too. Not as impressive as flashy owl eye patterns, though.

When 'god did it' is your panacea to explain everything, it actually explains nothing. It has no explanatory power.

As soon as one can substitute, 'butterfly designing gnomes are responsible for owl eye patterns on butterfly wings' in place of 'a god is responsible', and lose nothing in explanatory power, you know your explanation is useless.

True

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Yo, YJ, ever seen a dead leaf mantis?

[Ranjr]

Oh.  I get it now.  God was tired of little birds eating his butterflies so he said fuck you birds.  It's cool that he made birds too stupid to know the difference between a real owl and a butterfly with owl eyes.  God may screw up a lot for a deity, but He can kludge the shit out of bad design.  Don't you know the butterflies were happy when that update successfully installed.  And the birds had to be freaking out.  Oh shit, there's owls where all the butterflies used to be.  Fly for your lives!