Article <oZKJN.525905$c3Ea.150518@fx10.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 <oZKJN.525905$c3Ea.150518@fx10.iad>
Deutsch English Français Italiano
<oZKJN.525905$c3Ea.150518@fx10.iad>

View for Bookmarking (what is this?)
Look up another Usenet article
Path: ...!news.mixmin.net!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!newsfeed.xs3.de!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: Sun, 17 Mar 2024 19:25:07 -0400
Organization: Public Usenet Newsgroup Access
Lines: 76
Sender: to%beagle.ediacara.org
Approved: moderator@beagle.ediacara.org
Message-ID: <oZKJN.525905$c3Ea.150518@fx10.iad>
References: <us50n9$38rn0$1@dont-email.me> <86msr8tztx.fsf@example.com>
 <0kimuihr7sulviejpk5dnrjcduda26f8n0@4ax.com> <86il1wty8k.fsf@example.com>
 <hleoui5fr9lhkuk3at87j8nepa0cob8hb5@4ax.com> <86le6rvetn.fsf@example.com>
 <qqiouipguu6qv08k5uiuj5lmged9a6scic@4ax.com>
 <p_0HN.545269$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>
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="47351"; 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: <ut6ol3$3ha7j$1@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 7143

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.