XPost: alt.bible, alt.bible.prophecy, alt.christian.religion   
   XPost: alt.christian, alt.religion.last-days   
   From: Dean"@gmail.net   
      
   On 5/14/2019 10:07 PM, Timothy Sutter wrote:   
   >   
   >   
   > On 5/14/19 7:48 PM, Ron Dean wrote:   
   >  > On 5/14/2019 1:24 AM, Timothy Sutter wrote:   
   >  >> On 5/14/19 12:17 AM, Ron Dean wrote:   
   >  >>> On 5/13/2019 11:36 PM, Timothy Sutter wrote:   
   >  >>>> On 5/13/19 10:05 PM, Ron Dean wrote:   
   >   
   >  >>>>> Before I go into this, do you know about these genes?   
   >   
   >  >>>> are you going to say that the homeobox gene/s cannot have   
   >  >>>> slowly and gradually developed from precursor elements   
   >  >>>> but can only function as a fully formed multi-component tool-kit?   
   >   
   >  >>> The evidence is they appeared prior to the Cambrian Radiation.   
   >   
   >  >> so? so they weren't there, and then, all of a sudden, they are there?   
   >  >> are you trying to suggest, that the genes themselves appear without   
   >  >> precursor?   
   >   
   >  > There are theories as to the origin via slow gradual change over time,   
   >  > however, no one has offered any verifiable, empirical evidence from the   
   >  > Cambrian or earlier as to how this toolkit actually came about. So,   
   >  > they have little option, but to turn to theory.   
   >   
   > you mean like, formulate a hypothesis, and just assume   
   > it is valid because there is no clever way to test it?   
   >   
   I have not seen or read anything about where they were able to test   
   the origins of these toolkits.   
   >   
   > ok, 1 in favor of it not being 'science'   
   >   
   >   
   >  >> is this what you are trying to "falsify?"   
   >   
   >  >> C Darwin says;   
   >   
   >  >> "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which   
   >  >> could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive,   
   >  >> slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."   
   >   
   >  >> are you saying that this homeobox apparatus constitutes   
   >  >> a complex system that could not have formed by numerous,   
   >  >> successive, slight modifications?   
   >   
   >  > Neither professionals, nor I claim some special knowledge as to the   
   >  > origin of these master control genes. All anyone knows for certain   
   >  > is they have been around for at least 500 million years, they are highly   
   >  > conserved (virtually no change) and they are found controlling the body   
   >  > shape, organs, and limbs of every animal of the animal kingdom.   
   >   
   >   
   > did they just pull '500 million years' out of a hat as well?   
   >   
   No, it's from what is known about the age of the Cambrian, and the   
   fully functional nature of the animals  of this era.   
   >   
   >   
   >  > One example is the eye. It was previously believed that eyes evolve   
   >  > separately and independently in the phyla for at least 39 times.   
   >  > One of the researchers in examining the eye gene, Pax6 gene of a mouse,   
   >  > stated that he had seen the same gene before in fruit flies. He showed   
   >  > this to Dr. Gehring. Dr Gehring knew he could place the fly eye gene   
   >  > an a wing, leg or antenna, and an normal eye would develop.   
   >  > In an interview Gehring was asked:   
   >  > "Q: What got you thinking that there might have been one and only one   
   >  > evolution of the primitive eye?"   
   >  > He responded:   
   >   
   >   
   > yeah, they used to call that "homoplasies" or 'convergent evolution'   
   > about eyes and other things evolving independantly, and i would have said   
   > that homoplasies speak =against= the necessity for common ancestry, but,   
   > would you say, that, with these homeobox genes, that convergence is tied   
   > back up?   
   >   
   Evolutionist have to read between the lines to argue that higher   
   catogories have evidence for descending from single cell organisms.   
   This requires a great deal of reading between the lines and faith.   
   >   
   > i still think common ancestry is a circular argument, [if A then A]   
   >   
   Well yes it is: This is how it goes, all mammals descended from   
   a common ancestor. How do we know all mammals descended from a common   
   ancestor? We know because of their similarities. But how do we know   
   that their similarities came from a common ancestor. Because we know   
   they had from a common ancestor. And how do we know they had a common   
   ancestor?..........   
   >   
   > but, for those who believe it, or assume it to be true,   
   >   
   > would you say that there is a chance that   
   > the homeobox gene is on all animals from inception?   
   >   
   Yes, because these homeobox genes are the controlling factor.   
   >   
   > i see below, that you would agree that 3 freakish accidents,   
   > would be a little Too freakish in that animals plants and fungi   
   > all have -different- homeoboxes,, which one could resort to theory   
   > and say that there were at least 3 phylogentic trees, and not one.   
   > for those who want to 'resort theory' and assume a conclusion.   
   >   
   > i personally think there are a lot more hard breaks and   
   >   
   > many phylogenetic trees or bushes   
   >   
   Of course there is. Read books by the late Stephen J Gould and Niles   
   Eldredge.   
   >   
   > but, would you hold that accidental theorists   
   > could hold to at least 3 trees, -because-   
   > there are 3 sets of homeobox genes?   
   >   
   > is that at all clear?   
   >   
   Probably, it;s difficult to predict.   
      
   >   
   >   
   >  > A This was a pure accident, or serendipity. We stumbled upon a gene in   
   >  > the fruit fly, which was already known from humans, and was known from   
   >  > the mouse. And the gene in the mouse is called "small eye," because when   
   >  > it is mutated the eye is much reduced in size, and when you remove both   
   >  > copies of the normal gene and replace them by a mutated gene, then the   
   >  > eyes are totally missing.   
   >   
   >  > After five paragraph, he comes to the result of his experiment. Gehring   
   >  > says:   
   >   
   >  > "But now the question was, How universal is this? I made an even bolder   
   >  > claim, that this was the universal master control gene. This question we   
   >  > tested by taking the mouse gene and putting it into fruit flies. To   
   >  > everybody's surprise, the mouse gene works perfectly well and can induce   
   >  > a compound eye in the fruit fly. Now, this is not a mouse eye, of   
   >  > course, because the mouse gives you only the main switch, and then   
   >  > switches on the developmental program, which is built into the genome of   
   >  > the fruit fly. Therefore you get a Drosophila [eye] with the mouse   
   > switch.   
   >   
   >  > Now, we've also done the reciprocal lately. We've put the fly gene into   
   >  > a frog, which is also a vertebrate, an amphibian. In the frog we can   
   >  > induce a frog eye with the Drosophila gene. That nails it down that, at   
   >  > least between vertebrates and the insects, this universal rule is   
   > obeyed.   
   >   
   >  > Since this Pax-6 gene works both when you put the mouse gene into fruit   
   >  > flies and when you put the fruit fly gene into frogs, we think that   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)