Macrocilix Maia - checkmate atheists!

[Shol'va]

Great critter which, thanks to what appears to be an almost complete lack of scientific study to date, is being trotted around increasingly on social media sites as proof of design.
Have you guys seen it? Any good research that you've seen, or rebuttals to BS ID claims?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macrocilix_maia

[Hydra009]

Is there anything to refute?  Eyespots are commonplace.  Granted, this is a very complicated example of that, but still.

[Solitary]

Yes, it is a design, but doesn't imply a designer, and only supports evolution.

Some moths and butterflies bear circular, high-contrast marks on their wings that have long been thought to scare off predators by mimicking the eyes of the predators' own enemies.

Not so, say Martin Stevens and two colleagues at the University of Cambridge in England, who argue the marks work simply because they are conspicuous. (Predators are wary of prey with striking patterns, as those patterns often warn of toxic substances.)

To test their claim, the team created artificial prey using pieces of gray paper marked with black-on-white spots in various shapes, sizes, and numbers; they attached the paper "wings" to dead mealworms, pinned the worms to trees, and waited.

Eye spots obviously scare off predators, and some patterns are used for camouflage. Both that also support evolution.  :roll:  "Long live the King with science!" Illegal move, science wins again.  :rollin:    Solitary

[stromboli]

Cool find, one of the best adaptations of Batesian mimicry ever. Frankly don't see how this could support creationism, however.

[Shol'va]

The argument is over randomness, again.
In other words argument from incredulity.
"What are the chances that at random, undirected, such a pattern would develop with such a high degree of precision and efficacy. What's more likely, undirected evolution or ID."
Argument ignores selective pressure and the time scale involved, not to mention that this was likely a gradual change not spontaneous end result.

[Hydra009]

Argument ignores selective pressure and the time scale involved, not to mention that this was likely a gradual change not spontaneous end result.

And it relies on pure, unadulterated ignorance to boot.  "How could this exist?" answered with Goddidit, rather than we don't know or we do know (the only two possible answers).

[Plu]

Anyone who says that evolution is a random undirected pattern can be dismissed for not knowing even the first thing about evolution.

[Jason78]

It reminded me of this:

[Shol'va]

XKCD is always brilliant

[kilodelta]

Checkmate atheists! It obviously depends on the nut to determine the evolution from generation to generation. This chart shows the design.

[Jason78]

XKCD is always brilliant

Which is why I have accepted Randall Munroe as my personal lord and savior.  :)


Have you?

[aitm]

"What are the chances that at random, undirected, such a pattern would develop with such a high degree of precision and efficacy.
.

ah yes, the same god what did this fascinating design also put the anus three inches from the vagina, made humans unable to live underwater on a world that is 80% water and eyes that can't see in the dark in a world that is dark 50% of the time.....yep great design.

[Shol'va]

Add on stuff like the distinct possibility of developing back problems/compressed disks/etc due to bipedal walk, etc, don't see ID either.
And lets not start with the neuropsychology of the mind and its incredible imperfection.

[Solitary]

Eve's mind is perfect with God. Checkmate!  :shock:  #-o Dumb atheists.    Solitary

[Jason78]

Solitary and Eve
Sitting in a tree
K - I - S - S - I - N - G!