Path: ...!2.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!paganini.bofh.team!news.killfile.org!news.eyrie.org!beagle.ediacara.org!.POSTED.beagle.ediacara.org!not-for-mail From: jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com> Newsgroups: talk.origins Subject: Re: CONTRARY EVIDENCE (WASRe: Evide)nce! Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2024 07:56:24 -0400 Organization: What are you looking for? Lines: 107 Sender: to%beagle.ediacara.org Approved: moderator@beagle.ediacara.org Message-ID: <4magvi9b50bgt3jf3kaohi5s8e6odfgqke@4ax.com> References: <86le6rvetn.fsf@example.com> <5vl2vilpidbokkqrd0v635aoudh42ql3u2@4ax.com> <8bpJN.709697$p%Mb.210946@fx15.iad> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Injection-Info: beagle.ediacara.org; posting-host="beagle.ediacara.org:3.132.105.89"; logging-data="69231"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@beagle.ediacara.org" User-Agent: ForteAgent/8.00.32.1272 To: talk-origins@moderators.isc.org Cancel-Lock: sha1:UdCgj60XL/BSWETbD5abCm2A2PQ= Return-Path: X-Original-To: talk-origins@ediacara.org Delivered-To: talk-origins@ediacara.org id 698B822976C; Mon, 18 Mar 2024 07:52:52 -0400 (EDT) by beagle.ediacara.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 524F2229758 for ; Mon, 18 Mar 2024 07:52:50 -0400 (EDT) id 938237D121; Mon, 18 Mar 2024 11:56:27 +0000 (UTC) Delivered-To: talk-origins@moderators.isc.org by mod-relay.zaccari.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 740AF7D009 for ; Mon, 18 Mar 2024 11:56:27 +0000 (UTC) id EA11ADC01CA; Mon, 18 Mar 2024 12:56:25 +0100 (CET) X-Auth-Sender: U2FsdGVkX1/Lsco7nPoDKxVWqlA5tEFo1AQwTk9C5Wc= Bytes: 7349 On Sun, 17 Mar 2024 19:25:07 -0400, Ron Dean wrote: >Ernest Major wrote: >> On 16/03/2024 22:37, Ron Dean wrote: >>> Explain how if eyes evolved independently about 40 times, how is it=20 >>> that the same master control gene exist in fruit flies, mice and=20 >>> humans. The eye gene (Pax6 gene) was taken from a mouse and placed=20 >>> into a fruit fly embryo and the mouse gene produced eyes in the fruit= =20 >>> fly, but not mouse eyes, but fruit fly eyes. . Furthermore, some of=20 >>> the first complex organisms ie certain species of trilobites had=20 >>> highly complex functioning eyes. Is there reason to think the same=20 >>> Pax6 gene was not involved in the eyes of trilobites with vision? >>=20 >> One of the functions of DNA binding regulatory proteins is to = "specify"=20 >> parts of the body. For example the Hox proteins divide the bilaterian=20 >> body into regions along the anterior/posterior axis. Some MADS box = genes=20 >> in plants divide the developing flower along the proximal/distal = access=20 >> into the floral whorls of calyx, corolla, androecium and gynoecium. >>=20 >> There is an obvious hypothesis for the role of Pax6 genes in=20 >> independently evolved eye development - that Pax6, among it's other=20 >> roles, specifies a forward facing region of the head, which is where=20 >> eyes usually developed, and has been pressed into service as a switch = in=20 >> the early stages of eye development. One possible test for this=20 >> hypothesis is look at the control of eye development in organisms with= =20 >> non-cephalic eyes - is the claim that Pax6 is a "master control gene"=20 >> for eye development across all Bilateria an overly hasty = generalisation? > > >Ok, but the pax6 gene function is a function of eyes and part of the=20 >brain. But the fact that a mouse gene function controlling or switching=20 >on the downstream fly genes suggest it's the same gene. What seems=20 >amazing is that this gene remains "fixed" or unchanged back into deep=20 >time,100s of millions of years. I think deliberate and purposeful design= =20 >is a better explanation than random, unguided blind natural forces for=20 >what is observed. > > >The most vexing problem I have with evolution is the dogma of a blind,=20 >random, unguided process. I'm an engineer. In engineering we never see=20 >this, there no chance that a complex program can undergo random changes=20 >without dire consequence. There might possibly be on rare occasion where= =20 >an unguided change might have no effect. Engineering starts out with an=20 >objective or goal, so must evolution. If there's no goal, then what=20 >distinguishes a beneficial mutation from a bad mutation. Survival one=20 >might say? But no! offspring with bad mutations can do frequently=20 >survive, protected by the mother. And they can have offspring; only the=20 >worst die out. > >The members that usually survival depends largely upon luck, surviving=20 >to adulthood without being eaten by other beast while at rest or asleep=20 >at night and living long enough to reproduce is real. The fittest is in=20 >reality survival of the luckiest. In other cases massive numbers of eggs= =20 >are laid. Sea turtles for example, lay eggs by thousands and they hatch=20 >and rush forwards into the sea, except for the large numbers that become= =20 >food for birds and other animals. Another consideration is the fact that= =20 >each cell has it's own DNA proofreading and repair systems, a defective=20 >cell can repair itself or it is destroyed. > >Another vexing issue for me is the will to survive. In the case of the=20 >turtles, it's as if they _know_ they are in danger, and seek the=20 >protection of the sea. How do the know. Instinct where did instinct come= =20 >from. Going back the first living cell. What was the impetuous of dead=20 >inorganic chemicals to created a living cell. Did the first living cell=20 >have the will to survive? Where did this will come from? > > >> Having conceived of this issue, I identified a group of organisms with= =20 >> non-cephalic eyes, i.e. Pectinidae (scallop), and asked a question of=20 >> the web. The reply was Wang et al, Scallop genome provides insights = into=20 >> evolution of bilaterian karyotype and development, Nature Ecology and=20 >> Evolution 1: 0120 (2017), which reports that eye development in=20 >> Patinopecten yessoensis does not utilise Pax6, nor several other genes= =20 >> involved in eye development in Homo.=20 >>=20 >I can accept that there are exceptions, but where commonality exist I=20 >think this is valid. According to some sources the homo eye gene is the=20 >same as the mouse eye gene. I can accept that there or other genes in=20 >addition to the Pax6 gene involvement in the development of the homo = eye. Here's a link that shouldn't tax your comprehension: ************************************** It acts as a "master control" gene for the development of eyes=20 AND OTHER SENSORY ORGANS [emphasis mine] *************************************** -- To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge