Satori will get a kick out of this

[Obyeybyeogone]

So you actually have a sexy nurse uniform?

 

[Evisceratrix]

i went and rented one, just for satori

 

[HoserHellspawn]

SEND ME THE LINK!
SEND ME THE LINK!

I... *cough*, sorry...
okay, I'm calm now. In other news...

Someone posted a link to this forum:

http://www.faithforum.org

in another thread... it's obviously a christian forum (a lot of it is pretty downright funny), but there's an area called "Theology and Apologetics" with a thread called "To Seeker the Pragmatic. From Starfleet" where there is some seriously intelligent (or at least, intelligent-sounding) discussion going on - discussing relitivism vs. absolutism, etc. I suppose when words like "ontologically" come up it signals to me that some of the debaters of this forum (*cough* you know who you are) might be interested in taking on a Christian, who is actually a challenge, in some kind of theological debate.

Just a thought...

I've added 2 or 3 posts there myself, stealing some quotes from various threads around here to back me up.

I guess I'll see how they respond...

 

[Evisceratrix]

ive posted here like 4 times within the past two hours. what is wrong with me?!
well i just had to say-

tonight at work for some reason the random selection favored the 'chrisian/gospel sampler' cd. i wanted to scream. i wanted to kill. i wanted to listen to anything besides this awful shit.

christian music is what needs to fukkin evolve.
like the entire chorus-that was repeated 8 times- to one song was-

(female chorsu) JESUS!!!
(smooth black man) thats hisss name!!!
(fc) JEEEEEESUS!!!!
(sbm) say it again!!!!
(fc)JEEEEEEESUS!!!!
(sbm) one moe time!
(fc)JEEEEEESUS!!!!
(sbm)saved my soul!!!

and so on and on and on.......AHHHHHH

 

[HoserHellspawn]

's okay, I'm posting on a for-Christian site.

 

[Satori]

Originally posted by Tribal
Just as X-tians argue about religion, evolutionist do the same. Here are some examples of people who believe in evolution but has problems with it.

We could also find people who still believe the world is round, so while this is a little on the futile side, it's still worth a word or two.

Dr. Harold Urey, a Nobel Prize winner for his work with chemistry wrote, " All of us who study the origin of life find the more we look into it, the more we feel that it is too complex to have evolved anywhere." Then later added, "We believe as an article of faith that life evolved from dead matter on this planet. It is just that its complexity is so great, it is hard for us to imagine it did.", " I think that the fact that a theory so vauge, so insufficienty verifiable and so far from the criteria otherwise applied in 'hard' science has become a dogma can be explained only on sociological grounds."

An odd thing to say given that the fossil record actually shows life getting more varied and complex as it progresses, and also odd since evolution is not something which happened long ago and has stopped, it's happening all around us.

This guys sounds like he may be a spokesperson for some sort of religion, and as such, his ideas are skewed by what's he's been fed.

Then he later added " Darwin's theory said there must be millions of 'missing links', transitional life forms, would have to be found to prove this theory that all species had gradually evolved by chance mutation into a new species. But we have none.".

Oh boy, this is sooooo funny. Now I *know* this guy is full of it. There have been countless discoveries of transitional life forms, countless, in fact, every fossil ever discovered IS itself a transitional life form since all life is continually adapting/changing. Just in the ascent of man alone, there are MANY upright primates with large brains who were far more like modern humans than anything that currently exists on this planet. It would appear that this Dr. Harold Urey is attempting to mislead people by stating such nonsense, and the fact that he is a noble prize winner actually makes others take him seriously, which is truly sad.

Just this evening I was watching a nature program which was all about transitional life forms, in particular, ancient fossils were found of an odd species that was kind of like a very large seal except with 4 legs. This fossil had a very peculiar shaped bone in it's skull which is only found in whales. Studying further, it became obvious to them that this creature was a land/sea creature which existed somewhere between the land mammals and aquatic mammals.

I have to wonder, since such "scientists" can question evolution with such obviously flawed ideas, how to they account for the fossil record and all life we see today? Millions and millions and millions of species over billions of years have come and gone, come and gone, come and gone, over and over we see this. So what does Dr. Harold Urey think of this? Where does he think new species come from? How does he explain their striking similarity to the species which came before them? How does he explain the fossil record regarding the ascent of man? I'm sure he does not. I'm sure he's simply too confused by the abundance of life around him to see that at one time in earth's past there was NO life and then gradually it came into being, slowly, getting more complex as it grew, as evidenced by the fossil records, as we see life spread across the planet, changing, adapting, prospering and then going extinct, over and over this cycle is repeated. This is too much for Dr. Harold Urey to believe? How sad.

Satori

 

[Satori]

Originally posted by brightoffski
Satori, the necessity of 'random' I am sure will not be lost on you. Since random is just a idealised concept manufactured by humans and hence nothing can ever be observed ideally (pragmatically through using finite sets on the condition that there is no feedback from previous results) as random, I think it is profound that their could be pattern to such mutations. (I am not suggesting the presence of a religious diety) This opens a Pandora's box...

A "pattern" denotes intelligence of some sort. Random does not. Why do we feel genetic mutations are random? Well, when a child is born without eyes or something, we can only assume that this mutation was purely by chance, that there was no pattern it was following, it just happened. The fossil record is littered with such organisms, evolutionary dead ends, those with bizarre and fruitless characteristic like 5 eyes or 2 mouths.

Randomness is all that is needed to explain what we currently see all around us. There could be pattern in the mutations, but this seems like a rather laboured theory because of the shear volume of mutations which occur and the fact that the majority of these mutations actually act as a detriment to the species. Of course, it is possible, but then anything is really, so this isn't saying much.

Sure, William Bateson provided foundation for the mutation as an evolutionary mechanism, but the plot thickens when you consider how a particular 'choice' be made over another 'choice'... (and this includes random which I do not discredit as a real possibility)

I don't think a choice is made over another, all choices which can occur do eventually occur in a pretty much infinite combination. Thing is, we only see evidence of the successful choices since the unsuccessly ones are quickly weeded out by natural selection.

I think veil the sky was perhaps suggesting that despite our ability to observe these predictive models in action through specific examples, this can philosophically (even if subjectivity is dismissed for a moment) only be an empirical proof through inductive means.

Which is of course all we have.


I don't think anyone is suggesting that evolution is not the most logical explanation we have created for such phenomena or that the above example is inconclusive for supporting the thereom.

But I still haven't seen an atom. That doesn't mean I consider it an unworthy or unsatisfying model. It would void my professional knowledge if I did; or if I was 'forced' too believe a notion such as this. I would become redundant in a social sense, not to mention impacts on 'ego' and such. I don't think that this is completely detached from the scientific reasons that help me cling onto such models. You have to remember that humans can never seperate themselves from impacting on Scientific study, despite this being one of the fundamental notions of accurate experiment.

An "atom" is just way of looking at it, a name to give it, it is a human construct of mind, but for that matter, what isn't? The cold fact that nothing can be known with absolute certainty, that everything is ultimately just a reflection of someone's perspective, should not limit us from taking our observations as "true" in a human sense. We adopt the idea that the sky is blue even though we know colour is a complete fabrication of mind. In the deepest sense, everything we interpret is a fabrication of mind merely by the fact that we can only interact with the universe subjectively through the senses. This is why we play this game of pretending that our mental constructs are indeed accurate interpretations of reality, even though we know they are not necessarily. We are just humans and we are doing our best. I think we should work with what we have and draw the best conclusions we can muster, personified as these conclusions must ultimately be, they are all we have.

Satori

 

[Russell]

Anything truly random will show some patterns in it... I don't quite know if this applies eher tho

 

[brightoffski]

Originally posted by godisanathiest
Anything truly random will show some patterns in it... I don't quite know if this applies eher tho

It is possible to 'observe' patterns in randomness, but these would have to occur randomly and the pattern would then be fabricated by the mind of the observer.

 

[Russell]

Originally posted by brightoffski
It is possible to 'observe' patterns in randomness, but these would have to occur randomly and the pattern would then be fabricated by the mind of the observer.

All patterns are fabricated by the mind of the observer, so this makes the patterns found just the same as any other pattern. All patterns we see are patterns in randomness - if it wasn't for the pattern they would be random! Then of course to be randopm they'd have to show some patterns

If there were no patterns in random samples, then surelythey couldn't be completely random, as something must be happening, changing the numbers to make them not show pattterns, making them not random

Cheese

Edit:to clarify myself, the lol was me laughing at the futility of this debate, not you

 

[Satori]

Originally posted by veil the sky
I understand exactly the point you are making, but you are only making this point because you didn't understand mine. Evolution is not an 'observable thing' per se. You point to observable things such as black moths, but they aren't 'evolution' they are supposed positive instances of 'evolution.'

Exactly. Evidence which clearly shows that organisms and and do adapt to their environment as a result of a mutation in their genes, which then causes this mutation to be propagated. This is evolution, and the black moth story shows that it can and does occur.

This doesn't establish certainty because it is 'affirming the consequent.'

This is irrelevant. "Certainty" is irrelevant. We are talking about subject logic here, nothing is certain, nor should it be.

If I formulated a theory that birds only walk, I could point to many instances of birds that walk and without having seen one fly say "My theory that birds only walk is correct."

No it's not correct, nor is it incorrect. It's just an observation about the data, a theory, and nothing more.

That scientific method is identical to the example of the black moths, the possibility always remains that a falsifying instance will occur.

The possibility also remains that the sun may actually circle the earth. Until such time we see that it does, then we have no reason to expect that it does.

The moth example clearly illustrates natural selection working to the organisms favour. A falsifying instance will not change this.

I didn't phrase it very well in my earlier post on reflection, but you don't see evolution, you see moths and reason to evolution.

Or as I would say: we don't see reality, we see relections of reality, and we are the mirror. I have no interest in making this discussion focused on the inherent subjectivity of awareness, this is something we are all very aware of and there's no point talking about it. It's a given. Nothing is certain, it's all crap. Now let's move past this.

See Tribal's post on Dr. Harold Urey and 'thousands of missing links.' I couldn't better that.

That's a shame. I got a pretty good chuckle about how we have no missing links after had just watching a show on tv that was all about transitional life forms. The fossil record is not complete, nor should it be. Very very few organisms have the honour of being preserved for our observation, but fortunately enough have survived to give us an excellent indication of what went on.

Actually I'm glad they don't teach such trivial crap in schools as 'what is the smallest writing in the world'. Only conceivably useful for gameshow contestants and people that do crosswords.

That's not what I meant, and I know you realize this.

I don't mean we can't see atoms as in they are invisible, what we can't see is the electrons which form the shell and the positively charged core etc.

Let's not get hung up on definitions of words like "see". Yes, perception is inherently subjective, yawn.

Ok, I've got a better word than prejudice. Paranoia. The fear that all religion is simply a political tool to oppress the lower classes by ruling aristocracy belongs to a more bygone era than the middle of the 20th century.

This is funny. With the current state of affairs in the world, I'm a little shocked that some people can state such nonsense.

Who exactly is supposed to be controlling who?

People are controlling other people, it's not that hard to understand.

What fears are used by who and against whom, I just don't know who.

Who? Look around you. There are people everywhere who are locked into some sort of myth and who cannot escape it.

There are people in our modern world who actually believe that sex is equated with evil, and they don't get off because they are fearful of the consequences.

Religion CAN of course be used in a manipulative way, but the fault lies with humanity, not with the broad notion of what religious belief is.

Exactly, it can and IS used in a manipulative way all over the world. Of course the fault lies in humanity, and religion is a tool that has been used throughout history to this end, and it's still going on right now.

The threat of nuclear war is also the fault of humanity, does this mean we should stock pile nuclear arms? No. All the religious/political mind-fucking that goes on in the world is the fault of humanity, does this mean we should condone lying to people and scaring them into action/inaction with ridiculous myths? No. I think people deserve better than this.

Science CAN be used to controll masses by the threat of nuclear power.

This is not the same thing at all, and I think you realize this. Science has not made a habit of lying to people and twisting their minds with their deepest fears.

Politics CAN be used to rule with fear, but it doesn't mean we should abandon science or politics as human pursuit.

I'm not talking about abandoning religion or politics, I just think it needs to be refined in such a way that it has less potential to be used for harm. Religions are entirely too dogmatic and exclusive in their assertions and as such their potential to be used for evil (as we have seen time and time again throughout history) is very high. The shitty thing about religion is that once is gets someone, it typically has them for life. This person is for the most part permanently fucked and cannot change his mind about his alliance the way that he could switch political parties for instance. There's something particulary messed up about someone thinking they are ulimately vindicated in their ideas/actions by the "creator" of the universe, it has the potential to cause many social problems, as we have seen.

Well I don't know of any organised religion that believes that the universe was created by 'some human-like thing.'

I not sure which planet you are communicating from, but here on earth nearly all the religions (and ALL of the most dominate ones) assert that the creator of the universe is extremely human-like in a great number of ways, some even assert god looks like a human. So now you are aware of organized religions that believe that the universe was created by some human-like thing.

Furthermore you are still working on the assumption that the belief that 'there is a creative being' responsible for the universe necessarily entails the belief that 'the creation was note done by means of evolution.'

No, this was your mental construct which you inferred onto me.

Well of course I am, that's why I wrote it. Brainwashed ignorance is, specifically, the state of having no belief at all.

Let's not twist the ideas here, it's futile.

Religious belief is belief about the fundamental nature of the cosmos and the meaning of humanity. People can be brainwashed into believing principles that are essentially religious, but if they have been brainwashed into doing so, then those belief's aren't actually held 'religiously.'

Oh boy. It doesn't matter how you *think* they are held, the fact is that that are held, which makes this whole statement completely pointless.

People can also be brainwashed into believing scientific principles such as the belief that leeches will cure medical ailments, but those beliefs, by the same token will not be held 'scientifically.'

Irrelevant. How you regard beliefs as being "held" has nothing to do with this discussion. They are held, and that's all that we are concerned with here.

Ok then, the scientific model of creation relies on the principle of causality, that each independent event must be caused by an event which directly precedes it.

This is pointless, and you are beginning to sound like you are trapped by newtonian physics.

Now nothing can cause itself, since that would require it to pre-exist itself, which is clearly impossible.

"impossible"??? That's quite a claim to make, and you are beginning to sound kinda whacky now.

Ok, now I KNOW you are trapped within newtonian cause/effect and linear time reasoning. How unfortunate.

There is therefore the necessary requirement of some sufficient first cause which would begin the hence infinite chain of causal events until now and beyond.

Still so hopelessly trapped in newtonian reasoning I see. I prefer to discuss such things with reverence to ideas and observations which have been made in the last 100 years and I suggest you start doing the same before you make such short-sighted/archaic statements again.

The religious postulation of an ontologically different and
infinitely more powerful existing thing, whatever other qualities it may have is both logically necessary and practically useful to account for our own existence.

Powerful existing thing? Logically necessary? This is just too funny for comment. Speculations about the initial moment of creation has nothing to do with the observed processes of evoution.

I wont go on, but that as far as I know is no biblical quote, although it is religiously consistent and you're free to call it stupid if you like.

You have said absolutely nothing of value here, dispite your best attempts to sound logical and coherent, so you may as well have just given some mindless biblical quote.

No, but neither does religion, a theological principle cannot actively mislead someone.

The principles involved in racism cannot actively mislead someone either, instead, they are used as a tool to mislead.

Other human beings mislead people, sometimes they use religion, sometimes they use science, sometimes they use politics. It's always wrong, however it's done, and it's responsible for most of the evil in the world and throughout history.

Unlike religion, science and politics does not use a person's darkest fears of afterlife penance against them. That's the difference, as I'm sure you can see. Science and politics does not take away one's ability to think rationally or to potentially dismiss any and all ideas in favour of a newer/better one. Religions does not give people the opportunity to change their minds, which is why it is such a fiendish political tool. Anything that prevents people from abandoning old constructs when better ones avail themselves is quite counter-productive.

But that's because people can be, and often are, evil. Any good religious doctrine would recognise and condemn such things.

The religious doctrine itself is of human origins and as such isn't perfect and always capable of recognizing such things, in fact, religious doctrine has often been used to condone such things, but of course, you are aware of this and I needn't be stating it.

muwahah,

Satori

 

[requiem]

Hey Hoser, I perused the Christian forum and noticed that you didn't use your full handle... I could just imagine the fervour a certain HoserHellspawn would cause

I don't mean to be rude to any Christian's here, but it's almost creepy reading posts from apparently intelligent people ending their syllogism with "it's in the bible, so it's true". Blind faith indeed.

I especially enjoyed the discussion about whether Adam and Eve were monkeys put on earth by God and who then evolved into humans. One response was something like, "In the bible Adam and Eve can speak. Monkey's cannot speak, therefore Adam and Eve were not monkeys." Also, "Jesus was the image of God and he doesn't look like a monkey to me".

 

[Satori]

Originally posted by Evisceratrix
Countess Elizabeta likes your myth ...she is the 'satan' of this religion youve happened upon....you see it is not your own myth! cats have followed 'catianity' since time began... countess wanted me to correct you though-the big kitty in the sky sends you to her hellish realm, where she is the one who claws out your eyes, and denies the pleasures of catnip from your damned soul for all eternity !!

Please Sataness, what can I do to redeem myself? heheh

my point here is just trying to show that its wrong and shallow not to grant the relevance and importance of religion and myth to human civilizations and their indiviual psyche...

I totally grant the importance of myth/fantasy in the continued evolution of humans. I grant the same importance to any human construct, whether it be real or illusory, fact or spectulation.

Satori

 

[Satori]

Originally posted by bleedingskeptic
yeah, i was just adding on. religion and science had both been tinted by human imperfections. i was just adding that they both have similar goals, just different ways of getting mankind to acheive "perfection

Anything that makes a habit of lying to and scaring it's constituents with nonsensical gibberish will NOT lead mankind into "perfection" (not that that was ever the true intent in the first place, in the case of chrisitianity inparticular, we are pretty sure that it's roots are political and domineering in design).

Christianity is just a little too well constructed for mind-fucking and not giving people an opportunity to think past it (they are trapped within the myth by their own fears - not a good thing in any sense).


Satori

 

[brightoffski]

Originally posted by Satori


A "pattern" denotes intelligence of some sort. Random does not. Why do we feel genetic mutations are random? Well, when a child is born without eyes or something, we can only assume that this mutation was purely by chance, that there was no pattern it was following, it just happened. The fossil record is littered with such organisms, evolutionary dead ends, those with bizarre and fruitless characteristic like 5 eyes or 2 mouths.

Randomness is all that is needed to explain what we currently see all around us. There could be pattern in the mutations, but this seems like a rather laboured theory because of the shear volume of mutations which occur and the fact that the majority of these mutations actually act as a detriment to the species. Of course, it is possible, but then anything is really, so this isn't saying much.

Yeah, I obviously agree with you not denying the notion that pattern could exist, but I personally wouldn't label it as laboured. I do presume that we lack the science to look into random vs pattern vs whatever.

The existence of some kind of environmental feedback could explain pattern and the existence of so many unsuccessful choices as mutations are slowly influenced by environment, rather than just pitted randomly against it. No more probable really, because like you said, anything is really possible...

I don't think a choice is made over another, all choices which can occur do eventually occur in a pretty much infinite combination.

It would indeed have to be infinite for the above to be true... Because if the choices are randomly made, there is no guarantee that all possible choices will occur on a finite basis (even if enough fourth dimension had wound out to ideally allow a traversal of the choices). Random choice can reselect an option that has been previously 'trialed', if in this context it can't for some reason, then this also denotes some form of intelligence.

Thing is, we only see evidence of the successful choices since the unsuccessly ones are quickly weeded out by natural selection.

The evidence of unsuccessful choice (as you described further above, fossils etc) is the very thing that makes the notion of complete randomness plausible because otherwise this would indicate a great defiance of the laws of probability or again, some form of intelligence or 'pre-feedback' from environment.

Personally:
When any choice is made from a set, all remaining are not chosen.
Humans (and their machines) completely lack the ability to make random choices, and I find it impossible to mentally visualise the process of random selection, in a systemic and non-isolated sense. This makes it hard for me not to think of evolution as 'guided' somewhat by some form of environmental feedback. Random doesn't sit comfortably between my thighs?

An "atom" is just way of looking at it, a name to give it, it is a human construct of mind, but for that matter, what isn't? The cold fact that nothing can be known with absolute certainty, that everything is ultimately just a reflection of someone's perspective, should not limit us from taking our observations as "true" in a human sense. We adopt the idea that the sky is blue even though we know colour is a complete fabrication of mind. In the deepest sense, everything we interpret is a fabrication of mind merely by the fact that we can only interact with the universe subjectively through the senses. This is why we play this game of pretending that our mental constructs are indeed accurate interpretations of reality, even though we know they are not necessarily. We are just humans and we are doing our best. I think we should work with what we have and draw the best conclusions we can muster, personified as these conclusions must ultimately be, they are all we have.

Satori

Satori, I agree as long as this does not create some kind of righteous pseudo-seperation of our Scientific mindset from our environment. This causes all sorts of problems already, but I agree that we are trying our best for the most part!

BTW, This discussion rocks! I am glad we all don't only about Opeth...even though it would still be worthwhile anyway.

 

[Satori]

Originally posted by brightoffski
It is possible to 'observe' patterns in randomness, but these would have to occur randomly and the pattern would then be fabricated by the mind of the observer.

Indeed. The very notions of pattern and randomness are themselves just human constructs of mind are not literally 'real'.

Satori

 

[Russell]

Originally posted by requiem
Hey Hoser, I perused the Christian forum and noticed that you didn't use your full handle... I could just imagine the fervour a certain HoserHellspawn would cause

I don't mean to be rude to any Christian's here, but it's almost creepy reading posts from apparently intelligent people ending their syllogism with "it's in the bible, so it's true". Blind faith indeed.

I especially enjoyed the discussion about whether Adam and Eve were monkeys put on earth by God and who then evolved into humans. One response was something like, "In the bible Adam and Eve can speak. Monkey's cannot speak, therefore Adam and Eve were not monkeys." Also, "Jesus was the image of God and he doesn't look like a monkey to me".

What about

"I have never read Harry Potter. I won't let my daughter read those books because I feel that it would open the door to the occult in her life that doesn't need to be opened"

 

[Satori]

Originally posted by requiem
I don't mean to be rude to any Christian's here, but it's almost creepy reading posts from apparently intelligent people ending their syllogism with "it's in the bible, so it's true". Blind faith indeed.

I especially enjoyed the discussion about whether Adam and Eve were monkeys put on earth by God and who then evolved into humans. One response was something like, "In the bible Adam and Eve can speak. Monkey's cannot speak, therefore Adam and Eve were not monkeys." Also, "Jesus was the image of God and he doesn't look like a monkey to me".

Wow, that's some messed up shit. Just when I started to think there may be some intelligent christians with solid arguments you hit me with this stuff!

They are BRAINWASHED, they aren't thinking clearly and most importantly, they lack the ability to think clearly, it was stolen from them and replaced with the absolutist bullshit they cling to for their very lives. It's truly pathetic, and they have my deepest sympathies.

Satori

 

[brightoffski]

Originally posted by godisanathiest


All patterns are fabricated by the mind of the observer, so this makes the patterns found just the same as any other pattern. All patterns we see are patterns in randomness - if it wasn't for the pattern they would be random! Then of course to be randopm they'd have to show some patterns

If there were no patterns in random samples, then surelythey couldn't be completely random, as something must be happening, changing the numbers to make them not show pattterns, making them not random

Cheese

Edit:to clarify myself, the lol was me laughing at the futility of this debate, not you

Yeah, it is easy to boggle the mind if you look deeply into any concept... I wasn't really offering a challenge per se, it was only reinforced in an existing ideal random environment...asfhjfaux NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO! must stop.

 

[Satori]

Originally posted by brightoffski
It would indeed have to be infinite for the above to be true... Because if the choices are randomly made, there is no guarantee that all possible choices will occur on a finite basis (even if enough fourth dimension had wound out to ideally allow a traversal of the choices).

All possible choices do not need to occur, of course.

Personally:
When any choice is made from a set, all remaining are not chosen.
Humans (and their machines) completely lack the ability to make random choices, and I find it impossible to mentally visualise the process of random selection, in a systemic and non-isolated sense.

To see randomness in action, roll a dice.

This makes it hard for me not to think of evolution as 'guided' somewhat by some form of environmental feedback. Random doesn't sit comfortably between my thighs?

Evolution IS guided (in a very broad/rudimentary sense, after the fact) by the environment, but a mutation isn't pre-tested, first it occurs and then it is tested for suitability. If a mutation is favourable (as some are, eg. being a moth born with black instead of green pigment) then this mutation is propagated. The fact that this mutation was a positive one does not make it any less 'random', for each postive mutation there are many many more negative ones, it's just that these aren't propagated, that's why we see fewer of them in the fossil record.

Bear in mind that the moths being green in the first place was itself a mutation that got propagated, and this mutation was continually propagated only because it was favourable. As soon as the green gene was no longer favourable, it was quickly replaced by another mutation. Rest assured that if the volcanoe puked red ash over the island then those moths most likely would have 'evolved' to become red or else perhaps died out to make room for a better species (evolved from the random mutations) to exploit their niche in the ecosystem.

Why does the randomness of mutations not fit between your thighs? What is so implausible about it? How does it not account for the environmental adaptation of a species?

Satori