J N Vanderbilt III: I’m still wondering did both eyes appear simultaneously or did just part of one eye appear that bestowed some advantage? Gee even if it did, what are the chances another eye would show up at all? And in just the right spot??

I can’t stop laughing that you would buy into this

It’s enough to stop evolution in its tracks

I imagine a moth having two eyespots would be more advantageous than having one.

But as has been said, "The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read."

You're claiming it's more probably that moth was zapped into existence by an unevidenced deity, using magic, based on bronze age superstition, than by an objectively evidenced and observed scientific fact of species evolution?

As I said you don't understand what probability means, let alone how it functions. Here's a clue creationism has no more evidence to support it than Zeus, evolution is supported by all the scientific evidence, which is why it is supported by the entire scientific world, barring a few creatards.

All medical research is based on the fact of species evolution for a start. Indeed R & D in major American pharmaceutical companies is being hampered by the creationists attempts to ruin children's education with their creationist myths, the companies are lamenting the fact they cannot properly recruit enough personnel because of it. As a result the concern is that America is already starting to loose ground to other developed countries in this field of research.

Next time someone claims religious beliefs are innocuous they might bear that in mind. I mean look how thoroughly this teenage boys education has been ruined. It's very sad really.

J N Vanderbilt III: Just the statement of my position should give any reasoning person serious pause, of which you are not one I suspect
Are you not curious which false eye mutated into existence first and how it ended up with two?
Hmmmm?

You act as though you are curious, but it is clear that you have not read any scientific research on the subject.

I find it rather disingenuous that you inquire into my state of mind on the subject when you have done nothing to satiate your own feigned curiosity. If you are not even interested in the subject, why do you expect others to engage you in discussion?

"Just the statement of my position should give any reasoning person serious pause,"

Unlike risible bronze age creations myths about talking snakes you mean? You are funny.

Your position is directly opposing a scientific fact, no reasonable person would do anything but laugh at it, and you, as of course we have been so for many weeks.

You've been told again and again that mutations occur at the genetic level, things only morph into existence instantly in your risible religious fantasy in the bible.

@ Klamatha

And like our friend jnv3, you also fail to understand the definition of "code" vs "sequence"

Someone did not read...

rmfr

He didn't say snowflakes were codes, you really have a very remedial reading comprehension for a teenager.

Evolution has nothing to do with with my Atheism. You do know what Atheism is?

No I am not "getting jittery" about yet another of your creatard misrepresentations of evolution, why on earth would I? You might as well be claiming to be incredulous that the earth is not in the centre of the universe, as your religion of course claimed it was, until someone used the scientific method to objectively falsify this claim.

Now, do you have any objective evidence for a deity yet? Or is it still just an argument from ignorance fallacy?

"My hunch is this shakes up your atheism to its core"

Why on earth would my atheism be shaken by your ignorance of a scientific fact that has nothing at all to do with my atheism? That's truly bizarre, even by your standards.

I am an atheist because there is no objective evidence for any deity, evolution could be falsified tomorrow and deities would remain unevidenced. Can you really be so stupid as to not have grasped this yet?

Your question is both clear and simple, but it does not address Sapporo's point.

J N Vanderbilt III:
Scientific literature does not apply any further than the random mutation effects for this particular discussion. Now i’m just asking for your opinion on which mutated first, the right owl eye, part of the second owl eye, part of either pupil or the iris formation on the left eye. Or did both eyes mutate into existence simultaneously? where do you stand on that?

If you had read the scientific literature, you would know it is possible for symmetrical features to be the result of one mutation. You would also know that there are instances of species with less than two and more than two eyespots. You would also know that there is a full spectrum in apparent complexity of eyespots. If you were genuinely interested in the subject, you may care to read about which genes have been shown to be responsible for such phenomena.