Article <BnFKN.113542$Sf59.70363@fx48.iad>

Warning: mysqli::__construct(): (HY000/1203): User howardkn already has more than 'max_user_connections' active connections in D:\Inetpub\vhosts\howardknight.net\al.howardknight.net\includes\artfuncs.php on line 21
Failed to connect to MySQL: (1203) User howardkn already has more than 'max_user_connections' active connections
Warning: mysqli::query(): Couldn't fetch mysqli in D:\Inetpub\vhosts\howardknight.net\al.howardknight.net\index.php on line 66
Article <BnFKN.113542$Sf59.70363@fx48.iad>
Deutsch English Français Italiano
<BnFKN.113542$Sf59.70363@fx48.iad>

View for Bookmarking (what is this?)
Look up another Usenet article
Path: ...!news.mixmin.net!sewer!alphared!2.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!feeds.news.ox.ac.uk!news.ox.ac.uk!nntp-feed.chiark.greenend.org.uk!ewrotcd!news.eyrie.org!beagle.ediacara.org!.POSTED.beagle.ediacara.org!not-for-mail
From: Ron Dean <rondean-noreply@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: CONTRARY EVIDENCE (WASRe: Evide)nce!
Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2024 13:52:32 -0400
Organization: Public Usenet Newsgroup Access
Lines: 174
Sender: to%beagle.ediacara.org
Approved: moderator@beagle.ediacara.org
Message-ID: <BnFKN.113542$Sf59.70363@fx48.iad>
References: <qqiouipguu6qv08k5uiuj5lmged9a6scic@4ax.com>
 <p_0HN.545269$xHn7.365886@fx14.iad>
 <dtqquippo9sdpp0g234gl44ru4hpraaq6c@4ax.com>
 <LM8IN.701577$p%Mb.613681@fx15.iad>
 <5vl2vilpidbokkqrd0v635aoudh42ql3u2@4ax.com>
 <DiuIN.572243$xHn7.66749@fx14.iad>
 <fa08vitrlk8u0dicb4lvi3e0044k8512rf@4ax.com>
 <8bpJN.709697$p%Mb.210946@fx15.iad> <ut6ol3$3ha7j$1@dont-email.me>
 <oZKJN.525905$c3Ea.150518@fx10.iad>
 <4magvi9b50bgt3jf3kaohi5s8e6odfgqke@4ax.com>
 <kE0KN.380206$yEgf.153945@fx09.iad>
 <9gqkvidr799ptgm63mv1oo4lvf8okmkv48@4ax.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Info: beagle.ediacara.org; posting-host="beagle.ediacara.org:3.132.105.89";
	logging-data="55235"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@beagle.ediacara.org"
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 13.4; rv:91.0)
 Gecko/20100101 Firefox/91.0 SeaMonkey/2.53.18.1
To: talk-origins@moderators.isc.org
In-Reply-To: <9gqkvidr799ptgm63mv1oo4lvf8okmkv48@4ax.com>
Bytes: 11796

jillery wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Mar 2024 15:31:28 -0400, Ron Dean
> <rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> jillery wrote:
>>> On Sun, 17 Mar 2024 19:25:07 -0400, Ron Dean
>>> <rondean-noreply@gmail.com> 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
>>>>>> that the same master control gene exist in fruit flies, mice and
>>>>>> humans. The eye gene (Pax6 gene) was taken from a mouse and placed
>>>>>> into a fruit fly embryo and the mouse gene produced eyes in the fruit
>>>>>> fly, but not mouse eyes, but fruit fly eyes. . Furthermore, some of
>>>>>> the first complex organisms ie certain species of trilobites had
>>>>>> highly complex functioning eyes. Is there reason to think the same
>>>>>> Pax6 gene was not involved in the eyes of trilobites with vision?
>>>>>
>>>>> One of the functions of DNA binding regulatory proteins is to "specify"
>>>>> parts of the body. For example the Hox proteins divide the bilaterian
>>>>> body into regions along the anterior/posterior axis. Some MADS box genes
>>>>> in plants divide the developing flower along the proximal/distal access
>>>>> into the floral whorls of calyx, corolla, androecium and gynoecium.
>>>>>
>>>>> There is an obvious hypothesis for the role of Pax6 genes in
>>>>> independently evolved eye development - that Pax6, among it's other
>>>>> roles, specifies a forward facing region of the head, which is where
>>>>> eyes usually developed, and has been pressed into service as a switch in
>>>>> the early stages of eye development. One possible test for this
>>>>> hypothesis is look at the control of eye development in organisms with
>>>>> non-cephalic eyes - is the claim that Pax6 is a "master control gene"
>>>>> 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
>>>> brain. But the fact that a mouse gene function controlling or switching
>>>> on the downstream fly genes suggest it's the same gene. What seems
>>>> amazing is that this gene remains "fixed" or unchanged back into deep
>>>> time,100s of millions of years. I think deliberate and purposeful design
>>>> is a better explanation than random, unguided blind natural forces for
>>>> what is observed.
>>>>>
>>>> The most vexing problem I have with evolution is the dogma of a blind,
>>>> random, unguided process. I'm an engineer. In engineering we never see
>>>> this, there no chance that a complex program can undergo random changes
>>>> without dire consequence. There might possibly be on rare occasion where
>>>> an unguided change might have no effect. Engineering starts out with an
>>>> objective or goal,  so must evolution. If there's no goal, then what
>>>> distinguishes a beneficial mutation from a bad mutation. Survival one
>>>> might say? But no! offspring with bad mutations can do frequently
>>>> survive, protected by the mother. And they can have offspring; only the
>>>> worst die out.
>>>>
>>>> The members that usually survival depends largely upon luck, surviving
>>>> to adulthood without being eaten by other beast while at rest or asleep
>>>> at night and living long enough to reproduce is real. The fittest is in
>>>> reality survival of the luckiest. In other cases massive numbers of eggs
>>>> are laid. Sea turtles for example, lay eggs by thousands and they hatch
>>>> and rush forwards into the sea, except for the large numbers that become
>>>> food for birds and other animals. Another consideration is the fact that
>>>> each cell has it's own DNA proofreading and repair systems, a defective
>>>> cell can repair itself or it is destroyed.
>>>>
>>>> Another vexing issue for me is the will to survive. In the case of the
>>>> turtles, it's as if they _know_ they are in danger, and seek the
>>>> protection of the sea. How do the know. Instinct where did instinct come
>>>> from. Going back the first living cell. What was the impetuous of dead
>>>> inorganic chemicals to created a living cell. Did the first living cell
>>>> have the will to survive? Where did this will come from?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Having conceived of this issue, I identified a group of organisms with
>>>>> non-cephalic eyes, i.e. Pectinidae (scallop), and asked a question of
>>>>> the web. The reply was Wang et al, Scallop genome provides insights into
>>>>> evolution of bilaterian karyotype and development, Nature Ecology and
>>>>> Evolution 1: 0120 (2017), which reports that eye development in
>>>>> Patinopecten yessoensis does not utilise Pax6, nor several other genes
>>>>> involved in eye development in Homo.
>>>>>
>>>> I can accept that there are exceptions, but where commonality exist I
>>>> think this is valid. According to some sources the homo eye gene is the
>>>> same as the mouse eye gene. I can accept that there or other genes in
>>>> addition to the Pax6 gene involvement in the development of the homo eye.
>>>
>>>
>>> Here's a link that shouldn't tax your comprehension:
>>>
>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PAX6>
>>> **************************************
>>> It acts as a "master control" gene for the development of eyes
>>> AND OTHER SENSORY ORGANS [emphasis mine]
>>> ***************************************
>>>
>> Thanks for the cite, but it confirms what I wrote.
> 
> 
> Incorrect.  To refresh your convenient amnesia from your own words:
> 
> "but the pax6 gene function is a function of eyes and part of the
> brain."
> 
> The cite confirms the pax6 gene is *not* a function of eyes
> specifically, but of sensory organs generally, nor is it part of the
> brain.  These facts confirm how pax6 has been exapted for use in the
> development of multiple and different sensory systems.
> 
> In addition, you completely ignored Ernest Major's point that many
> organisms develop eyes sans pax6, which also refutes what you wrote
> and I quoted.
> 
> Some people call your comment immediately above a lie aka bearing
> false witness.  Do you think it's ok to lie for God?
> 
> 
>> I realize that it is
>> involved in other body parts including the head and the brain. But the
>> term "master control gene", is the term used by the scientist who
>> discovered homeobox genes Dr. Walter Gehring. In fact the title of his
>> book on the subject is entitled "Master Control genes in Development and
>> Evolution". Furthermore, the term "master Control Genes is commonly used
>> by another scientist, considered a leader in the field Dr. Sean B.
>> Carroll in his book entitled, " The New Science of Evo Devo" Subtitled
>> Endless Forms Most
>> beautiful".
>>
>>   Quote from the article you referenced:
>>>
>> PAX6 protein function is highly conserved across bilaterian species. For
>> instance, mouse PAX6 can trigger eye development in Drosophila
>> melanogaster. Additionally, mouse and human PAX6 have identical amino
>> acid sequences.[11]
>>
>> These papers reported an unusually high degree of homology between
>> Drosophila ey and both the mouse and human PAX6 genes. The authors went
>> on to show that mouse Pax6 could substitute for Ey during normal and
>> ectopic eye development (Halder et al., 1995a). This startling
>> observation prompted a profound rethinking of how the eye evolved within
>> the animal kingdom and eventually led to the replacement of the
>> polyphyletic hypothesis (Salvini-Plawen and Mayr, 1977) with a single
>> origin model for the evolution of the eye (Halder et al., 1995b;
>> Callaerts et al., 1997)
>>
>> https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5746045/#R22
>>
>> Historically evolution theorized that the eye evolved independently
>> about 39 times.  But according to the article above there was a single
>> evolution of the eye. I contended for years that evolution is
>> unfalsifiable. This is an example.
> 
> 
> You have posted about pax6 many times over many years.  Each time, you
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========