Re: CONTRARY EVIDENCE (WASRe: Evide)nce!

Ron Dean wrote:

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
have mentioned the same bunch of facts not in dispute, while you have
made zero effort to explain how these facts are evidence for ID and/or
against evolution by natural processes, while you have completely
ignored the informed explanations posted in reply.

 >
As I've pointed out so many times before, several writers most famous was Wm. Paley who presented the scientific evidence, known at the time as evidence of design. But he went one step to far, he identified his God as the designer. But with no supportive evidence. I personally think this became the purpoise of Darwin's labors. To "explain design without Paley's God". If true, and I think it is, Evolution is an _alternative_ methodology to explain the same evidence and the same facts.
And in the final analysis it's ones own personal _paradigm_ that takes charge, presides and over-rides every thing: opinion, belief evidence and facts. So, I think it's a stalemate!~

That two theories start initially with the same facts, but offer
different explanations, is the way scientific progress often
happens. And not just scientific theories, everyday questions
just as much. Me and my neighbour both observe in the morning that our lawns
are wet. This is the shared and agreed observation. He now proposes a design explanation: the sprinkler was timed to water
the lawns overnight. I offer a natural law explanation: it has
been raining overnight. While at this point, for a very brief moment,
one could say there is a "stalemate", this of course does
not mean that it is impossible to make rational decisions which theory to prefer. They have in particular different predictions. The design theory predicts that we should find
a sprinkler. If we don't, then it is weakened. Does not
mean that proves it is false, but an exp[nation would
be needed as to why the sprinkler is not there. Maybe it was removed by the gardener. But then we may expect the footprints of the gardener (who had to walk over wet grass)or the indentation of the sprinklers themselves. If
we don't find these either, the theory is again weakened. But
of course there could be another explanation for this. Maybe
the gardener was flying in a balloon, and the sprinkler
very light etc. At this point, two things can happen: we lose
interest in this explanation because it leads to nothing, and
spend more and more time explaining away counter-evidence. Second, it is likely to conflict with other things we know - for instance that gardeners don't normally fly in balloons. Here
we see the importance of committing to the identity of the designer - not their name and address, but the type of agent they
are and what tools are at their disposal, otherwise the theory becomes quickly empty and even less interesting.
What if we find the sprinkler? That strengthens the theory, but does not prove it either - maybe it was not switched on. But that would now be for me to demonstrate - looking e.g. if the timer has logs that keep a record of this.
The same applies to my theory of course. One of its predictions
for instance is that not only our gardens, but also those of
the other neighbours should be wet - rain being normally not
as geographically limited as sprinklers. If we find that the
adjacent gardens are bone dry, which weakens my explanation. Of
course, there could be reasons for this - maybe my and my neighbour's
gardens have soggy ground and bad drainage, whereas our neighbour's
don't, so they are already dried out. But that of course can be tested, e.g. through soil analysis - our soil could e.g be
more compacted than theirs. At some point, we can now compare the quality of the respective
theories - the one that explains more of the additional findings,
directs us to new and unexpected discoveries, makes the fewest
ad-hoc assumptions, is the one we should rationally prefer. Same with evolution. The ToE in particular required a mechanism
to introduce novelty, on which NS could then act. Finding such a mechanism would strengthen that theory while giving
the burden of explaining it away to the other side. And that of course is exactly what happened when DNA, and its imperfect transmission, was discovered. Could a design theory account for
this? Well, yes, if the mutations could be attributed to the
designer. But then we find that they are random with
regard to the need of the organism i.e. only a few are beneficial, more are harmful, most are neutral). This is not how a rational designer would do this, they would introduce a bias towards beneficial mutations. Then we observe that living beings
can be naturally grouped into nested hierarchies. And we observe that
the same nested hierarchies always appear when there is a mix of mutations and selection -e.g. in the way printing errors are passed
on, or how languages change before our eyes. But it is not something
that we observe in design, where lateral transfer is more common.
And then we observe that many traits are antagonistic - which
the ToE explains through predator-prey dynamics. The speed of
the gazelle evolves in response to the teeth of the lion. Can design
explain this? Sure, we observe it in the design of gladiatorial
games, or gaming more generally. We also observe it in very competitive, hostile design contexts, e.g. hackers vs
anti-virus software developers. At this point, the identity of the designer(s) comes in, just as in the balloon example above:
If for the design advocate, it is plausible that there were
multiple, mutually hostile designers, their theory can be
more easily repaired. Equally, if it is only one designer, but one who wants as much blood and gore, for as long as possible.
If this is deemed unlikely, the theory has problems, just as
the one above that invokes flying gardener.
And then we observe the pattern of geographical distribution
of species, and their environments, which again follows
naturally form the ToE, but for design requires multiple
adjustments, none of them very plausible, and again
allowing us to inder attributes of the designer that even design advocates will find implausible.
At this point we can compare the two theories again:
one that leads constantly to new, and interesting observations and explains quite naturally a huge
amount of divergent data - the ToE. And another
that now needs to spend all its energy to come up
with more and more elaborate repairs, is purely
"reactive" and does not lead to new observations and
insights, depicts the designer in ways that even on for the advocates of the theory look more and more problematic, etc.
so far from a stalemate, a rational choice between them
is pretty straightforward

With that in mind, it's necessary to ask: Is it your intent to spam?
If so, you're doing a great job.
--
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge
>