XPost: alt.bible, alt.bible.prophecy, alt.christian.religion   
   XPost: alt.christian, alt.religion.last-days   
   From: a202010@mail.com   
      
   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?   
      
   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?   
      
      
    > 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?   
      
   i still think common ancestry is a circular argument, [if A then A]   
      
   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?   
      
   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   
      
   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?   
      
      
      
    > 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   
    > there is a common underlying genetic plan for the eye, and that on top   
    > of this program, this eye developmental program in the mouse and in the   
    > fruit fly, is the same gene."   
      
   yeah, i see the function clear enough, but now the "when" becomes more   
   relevant.   
      
   me trying -not- to wave my hands in the air too much...   
      
   resorting to 'theory'   
      
   -if- there are multiple phylogentic trees and bushes, then,   
   the appearance of an nearly identical functionality on clearly   
   disparate organisms, is beyond coincidence, and says;   
      
   "common engineer"   
      
   but, for those who wish to stick to a single phylogenetic tree   
      
   this homeobox gene thing does not seem to   
   put up a barrier to them doing just that,   
      
   except of course the 3 freakish accidents theory, makes for 3 trees and   
   or bushes,   
      
   so, it's not -quite- at an impasse?   
      
   agree disagree, or am i incomprehensible?   
      
      
   you seem to be advocating an appearance of systematic engineering   
      
      
   but why does the homeobox not tend to -enforce- "common ancestry"   
      
   in your opinon?   
      
   aside from the 3 freakish accidents of course...   
      
   like, if someone were to say;   
      
   "koala bears wolves and kitty cats have always   
   been just as disparate as they are now, unable   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)