HOMEOBOX GENES FALSIFICATION FOR EVOLUTION?

[Bob Wardlaw]

Homeobox genes are short (about 180 base pairs) extremely ancient,
highly conserved and are shared across the animal kingdom. More than
100 homeobox genes are known. These genes also called Master Control
genes, control the formation of eyes, hearts, limbs etc across the
animal kingdom.
For example the eye across the animal phylum was believed to
have evolved at least 40 times, however, a single Master Control Gene
called Pax 6 has been responsible for the development of eyes in
fruit flies (Drosophilia) further research found that the same gene
or a homeologue was found to control the development of eyes in
vertebrates including zebra fish, squid, mice and all animals tested
including humans. The discoverer of these genes, Professor Walter
Gehring was met with considerable resistance by his peers. So, In an
experiment he took the Pax 6 gene from a mouse and placed it in various
parts ofthe fruit fly, Drosopholia, what appeared was eyes, not mouse
eyes, but the multi-fascited eyes of the fruit fly. So, a mouse Pax 6
Gene controlled the formation of fly eyes in a fly.

www.youris.com/Health/Genetics/One_Gene_One_Vision.kl

It has been shown that another Master Control Gene called Tinman, (after
Tinman movie charcter in the Wizare of OZ.) is responsible for the
formation of all types of hearts from the fruit fly nK2 homeobox to
humans. In humans this gene for unknown reasons is said to be a
homologue labled NkX2-5 homeobox gene. Yet these genes had to be present
and highly functional during the Cambrian expansion.
https://www.revolvy.com/main/index.php?s=Tinman%20gene
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/gtr/genes/3227/
What is not very well understood is exactly how these homeobox genes
work. But they are said to be played by upstream genes which select
the sections of the homeobox genes which in turn switch on genes
that cascade downstream which express the type of eye, heart, as well
as other body organ and parts. More than 100 of these master control
genes are known
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hox_gene


As a long term religious non-believer it it became difficult to
turn a blind eye on the possible engineering concept show by
this obvious long term Hox genes which are virtually unchanged
from the Cambrian and no doubt before the so called Cambrian
explosion. This, to me. is clearly a case of appearance of highly
functional and set genes long before they were needed for the
Cambrian radiation. And they remain highly conserved (another
term for fixed) to the present day and in common across the animal kingdom.

[MarkA]

Post by Bob Wardlaw
Homeobox genes are short (about 180 base pairs) extremely ancient,
highly conserved and are shared across the animal kingdom. More than 100
homeobox genes are known. These genes also called Master Control genes,
control the formation of eyes, hearts, limbs etc across the animal
kingdom.
For example the eye across the animal phylum was believed to have
evolved at least 40 times, however, a single Master Control Gene called
Pax 6 has been responsible for the development of eyes in fruit flies
(Drosophilia) further research found that the same gene or a homeologue
was found to control the development of eyes in vertebrates including
zebra fish, squid, mice and all animals tested including humans. The
discoverer of these genes, Professor Walter Gehring was met with
considerable resistance by his peers. So, In an experiment he took the
Pax 6 gene from a mouse and placed it in various parts ofthe fruit fly,
Drosopholia, what appeared was eyes, not mouse eyes, but the
multi-fascited eyes of the fruit fly. So, a mouse Pax 6 Gene controlled
the formation of fly eyes in a fly.
www.youris.com/Health/Genetics/One_Gene_One_Vision.kl
It has been shown that another Master Control Gene called Tinman, (after
Tinman movie charcter in the Wizare of OZ.) is responsible for the
formation of all types of hearts from the fruit fly nK2 homeobox to
humans. In humans this gene for unknown reasons is said to be a
homologue labled NkX2-5 homeobox gene. Yet these genes had to be present
and highly functional during the Cambrian expansion.
https://www.revolvy.com/main/index.php?s=Tinman%20gene
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/gtr/genes/3227/
What is not very well understood is exactly how these homeobox genes
work. But they are said to be played by upstream genes which select the
sections of the homeobox genes which in turn switch on genes that
cascade downstream which express the type of eye, heart, as well as
other body organ and parts. More than 100 of these master control genes
are known
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hox_gene
As a long term religious non-believer it it became difficult to turn a
blind eye on the possible engineering concept show by this obvious long
term Hox genes which are virtually unchanged from the Cambrian and no
doubt before the so called Cambrian explosion. This, to me. is clearly a
case of appearance of highly functional and set genes long before they
were needed for the Cambrian radiation. And they remain highly conserved
(another term for fixed) to the present day and in common across the
animal kingdom.

That's a basic feature of evolution: if something works, it is retained,
and built upon.

[Bob Wardlaw]

Post by MarkA

Post by Bob Wardlaw
Homeobox genes are short (about 180 base pairs) extremely ancient,
highly conserved and are shared across the animal kingdom. More than 100
homeobox genes are known. These genes also called Master Control genes,
control the formation of eyes, hearts, limbs etc across the animal
kingdom.
For example the eye across the animal phylum was believed to have
evolved at least 40 times, however, a single Master Control Gene called
Pax 6 has been responsible for the development of eyes in fruit flies
(Drosophilia) further research found that the same gene or a homeologue
was found to control the development of eyes in vertebrates including
zebra fish, squid, mice and all animals tested including humans. The
discoverer of these genes, Professor Walter Gehring was met with
considerable resistance by his peers. So, In an experiment he took the
Pax 6 gene from a mouse and placed it in various parts ofthe fruit fly,
Drosopholia, what appeared was eyes, not mouse eyes, but the
multi-fascited eyes of the fruit fly. So, a mouse Pax 6 Gene controlled
the formation of fly eyes in a fly.
www.youris.com/Health/Genetics/One_Gene_One_Vision.kl
It has been shown that another Master Control Gene called Tinman, (after
Tinman movie charcter in the Wizare of OZ.) is responsible for the
formation of all types of hearts from the fruit fly nK2 homeobox to
humans. In humans this gene for unknown reasons is said to be a
homologue labled NkX2-5 homeobox gene. Yet these genes had to be present
and highly functional during the Cambrian expansion.
https://www.revolvy.com/main/index.php?s=Tinman%20gene
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/gtr/genes/3227/
What is not very well understood is exactly how these homeobox genes
work. But they are said to be played by upstream genes which select the
sections of the homeobox genes which in turn switch on genes that
cascade downstream which express the type of eye, heart, as well as
other body organ and parts. More than 100 of these master control genes
are known
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hox_gene
As a long term religious non-believer it it became difficult to turn a
blind eye on the possible engineering concept show by this obvious long
term Hox genes which are virtually unchanged from the Cambrian and no
doubt before the so called Cambrian explosion. This, to me. is clearly a
case of appearance of highly functional and set genes long before they
were needed for the Cambrian radiation. And they remain highly conserved
(another term for fixed) to the present day and in common across the
animal kingdom.

That's a basic feature of evolution: if something works, it is retained,
and built upon.

As you must have noted I posed this matter as a question. It's been
pointed out before that evidence is sometimes subjective.
People can observe the same yet arrive at different conclusions. You may
see this as supporting evolution whereas another could see this as
evidence of design by a supernatural designer. I see both sides,
however, I tend to be agnostic regarding the meaning. Your are right
evolution does use and improve on whatever works.

[Bob Wardlaw]

Post by Bob Wardlaw

Post by MarkA

Post by Bob Wardlaw
Homeobox genes are short (about 180 base pairs) extremely ancient,
highly conserved and are shared across the animal kingdom. More than 100
homeobox genes are known. These genes also called Master Control genes,
control the formation of eyes, hearts, limbs etc across the animal
kingdom.
For example the eye across the animal phylum was believed to have
evolved at least 40 times, however, a single Master Control Gene called
Pax 6 has been responsible for the development of eyes in fruit flies
(Drosophilia) further research found that the same gene or a homeologue
was found to control the development of eyes in vertebrates including
zebra fish, squid, mice and all animals tested including humans. The
discoverer of these genes, Professor Walter Gehring was met with
considerable resistance by his peers. So, In an experiment he took the
Pax 6 gene from a mouse and placed it in various parts ofthe fruit fly,
Drosopholia, what appeared was eyes, not mouse eyes, but the
multi-fascited eyes of the fruit fly. So, a mouse Pax 6 Gene controlled
the formation of fly eyes in a fly.
www.youris.com/Health/Genetics/One_Gene_One_Vision.kl
It has been shown that another Master Control Gene called Tinman, (after
Tinman movie charcter in the Wizare of OZ.) is responsible for the
formation of all types of hearts from the fruit fly nK2 homeobox to
humans. In  humans this gene for unknown reasons is said to be a
homologue labled NkX2-5 homeobox gene. Yet these genes had to be present
and highly functional during the Cambrian expansion.
  >
https://www.revolvy.com/main/index.php?s=Tinman%20gene
  >
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/gtr/genes/3227/
  >
  >
What is not very well understood is exactly how these homeobox genes
work. But they are said to be played by upstream genes which select the
sections of the homeobox genes which in turn switch on genes that
cascade downstream which express the type of eye, heart, as well as
other body organ and parts. More than 100 of these master control genes
are known
  >
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hox_gene
As a long term religious non-believer it it became difficult to turn a
blind eye on the possible engineering concept show by this obvious long
term Hox genes which are virtually unchanged from the Cambrian and no
doubt before the so called Cambrian explosion. This, to me. is clearly a
case of appearance of highly functional and set genes long before they
were needed for the Cambrian radiation. And they remain highly conserved
(another term for fixed) to the present day and in common across the
animal kingdom.

That's a basic feature of evolution: if something works, it is retained,
and built upon.

As you must have noted I posed this matter as a question. It's been
pointed out before that evidence is sometimes subjective.
People can observe the same yet arrive at different conclusions. You may
see this as supporting evolution whereas another could see this as
evidence of design by a supernatural designer. I see both sides,
however, I tend to be agnostic regarding the meaning. Your are right
evolution does use and improve on whatever works.

This shows that evolution is not falsifiable. It's so broad and elastic
that any newly discovered evidence can be fitted within the theory.
Indeed there is no limits that any evidence can be outside the limits.

[MarkA]

Post by Bob Wardlaw

Post by MarkA

Post by Bob Wardlaw
Homeobox genes are short (about 180 base pairs) extremely ancient,
highly conserved and are shared across the animal kingdom. More than
100 homeobox genes are known. These genes also called Master Control
genes, control the formation of eyes, hearts, limbs etc across the
animal kingdom.
For example the eye across the animal phylum was believed to have
evolved at least 40 times, however, a single Master Control Gene
called Pax 6 has been responsible for the development of eyes in fruit
flies (Drosophilia) further research found that the same gene or a
homeologue was found to control the development of eyes in vertebrates
including zebra fish, squid, mice and all animals tested including
humans. The discoverer of these genes, Professor Walter Gehring was
met with considerable resistance by his peers. So, In an experiment he
took the Pax 6 gene from a mouse and placed it in various parts ofthe
fruit fly, Drosopholia, what appeared was eyes, not mouse eyes, but
the multi-fascited eyes of the fruit fly. So, a mouse Pax 6 Gene
controlled the formation of fly eyes in a fly.
www.youris.com/Health/Genetics/One_Gene_One_Vision.kl
It has been shown that another Master Control Gene called Tinman,
(after Tinman movie charcter in the Wizare of OZ.) is responsible for
the formation of all types of hearts from the fruit fly nK2 homeobox
to humans. In humans this gene for unknown reasons is said to be a
homologue labled NkX2-5 homeobox gene. Yet these genes had to be
present and highly functional during the Cambrian expansion.
https://www.revolvy.com/main/index.php?s=Tinman%20gene
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/gtr/genes/3227/
What is not very well understood is exactly how these homeobox genes
work. But they are said to be played by upstream genes which select
the sections of the homeobox genes which in turn switch on genes that
cascade downstream which express the type of eye, heart, as well as
other body organ and parts. More than 100 of these master control
genes are known
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hox_gene
As a long term religious non-believer it it became difficult to turn a
blind eye on the possible engineering concept show by this obvious
long term Hox genes which are virtually unchanged from the Cambrian
and no doubt before the so called Cambrian explosion. This, to me. is
clearly a case of appearance of highly functional and set genes long
before they were needed for the Cambrian radiation. And they remain
highly conserved (another term for fixed) to the present day and in
common across the animal kingdom.

That's a basic feature of evolution: if something works, it is retained,
and built upon.

As you must have noted I posed this matter as a question. It's been
pointed out before that evidence is sometimes subjective.
People can observe the same yet arrive at different conclusions. You may
see this as supporting evolution whereas another could see this as
evidence of design by a supernatural designer. I see both sides,
however, I tend to be agnostic regarding the meaning. Your are right
evolution does use and improve on whatever works.

Those who point to a supernatural designer consistently ignore the
elephant in the room: what are the properties of the designer? How did
it arise? Keep in mind that the hallmark of science is explaining the
workings of the natural world WITHOUT invoking magical forces or beings.
That is why invoking a supernatural designer is no different from any
other religion, and is clearly NOT science.

[Christopher A. Lee]

Post by MarkA

Post by Bob Wardlaw

Post by MarkA

Post by Bob Wardlaw
Homeobox genes are short (about 180 base pairs) extremely ancient,
highly conserved and are shared across the animal kingdom. More than
100 homeobox genes are known. These genes also called Master Control
genes, control the formation of eyes, hearts, limbs etc across the
animal kingdom.
For example the eye across the animal phylum was believed to have
evolved at least 40 times, however, a single Master Control Gene
called Pax 6 has been responsible for the development of eyes in fruit
flies (Drosophilia) further research found that the same gene or a
homeologue was found to control the development of eyes in vertebrates
including zebra fish, squid, mice and all animals tested including
humans. The discoverer of these genes, Professor Walter Gehring was
met with considerable resistance by his peers. So, In an experiment he
took the Pax 6 gene from a mouse and placed it in various parts ofthe
fruit fly, Drosopholia, what appeared was eyes, not mouse eyes, but
the multi-fascited eyes of the fruit fly. So, a mouse Pax 6 Gene
controlled the formation of fly eyes in a fly.
www.youris.com/Health/Genetics/One_Gene_One_Vision.kl
It has been shown that another Master Control Gene called Tinman,
(after Tinman movie charcter in the Wizare of OZ.) is responsible for
the formation of all types of hearts from the fruit fly nK2 homeobox
to humans. In humans this gene for unknown reasons is said to be a
homologue labled NkX2-5 homeobox gene. Yet these genes had to be
present and highly functional during the Cambrian expansion.
https://www.revolvy.com/main/index.php?s=Tinman%20gene
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/gtr/genes/3227/
What is not very well understood is exactly how these homeobox genes
work. But they are said to be played by upstream genes which select
the sections of the homeobox genes which in turn switch on genes that
cascade downstream which express the type of eye, heart, as well as
other body organ and parts. More than 100 of these master control
genes are known
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hox_gene
As a long term religious non-believer it it became difficult to turn a
blind eye on the possible engineering concept show by this obvious
long term Hox genes which are virtually unchanged from the Cambrian
and no doubt before the so called Cambrian explosion. This, to me. is
clearly a case of appearance of highly functional and set genes long
before they were needed for the Cambrian radiation. And they remain
highly conserved (another term for fixed) to the present day and in
common across the animal kingdom.

That's a basic feature of evolution: if something works, it is retained,
and built upon.

As you must have noted I posed this matter as a question. It's been
pointed out before that evidence is sometimes subjective.
People can observe the same yet arrive at different conclusions. You may

They don't. Religious loonies twist it to fit their beliefs. And when
objective, real world research shows t heir beliefs are wrong, they
ignore it.

Post by MarkA

Post by Bob Wardlaw
see this as supporting evolution whereas another could see this as
evidence of design by a supernatural designer. I see both sides,

There are no "both sides" - just people insistinging that reality is
wrong.

Get a decent high school education in any other first world country.

There is simply no way to determine design.

Post by MarkA

Post by Bob Wardlaw
however, I tend to be agnostic regarding the meaning. Your are right
evolution does use and improve on whatever works.

Those who point to a supernatural designer consistently ignore the
elephant in the room: what are the properties of the designer? How did
it arise? Keep in mind that the hallmark of science is explaining the
workings of the natural world WITHOUT invoking magical forces or beings.
That is why invoking a supernatural designer is no different from any
other religion, and is clearly NOT science.

If there were actually any evidence for one, science would have
investigated it and incorporated the results into the global knowledge
base - and it would have gone down that route.

As far as science is concerned, unless and until somebody provides
objective justification for a designer, there is nothing there.

[aaa]

Post by MarkA

Post by Bob Wardlaw

Post by MarkA

Post by Bob Wardlaw
Homeobox genes are short (about 180 base pairs) extremely ancient,
highly conserved and are shared across the animal kingdom. More than
100 homeobox genes are known. These genes also called Master Control
genes, control the formation of eyes, hearts, limbs etc across the
animal kingdom.
For example the eye across the animal phylum was believed to have
evolved at least 40 times, however, a single Master Control Gene
called Pax 6 has been responsible for the development of eyes in fruit
flies (Drosophilia) further research found that the same gene or a
homeologue was found to control the development of eyes in vertebrates
including zebra fish, squid, mice and all animals tested including
humans. The discoverer of these genes, Professor Walter Gehring was
met with considerable resistance by his peers. So, In an experiment he
took the Pax 6 gene from a mouse and placed it in various parts ofthe
fruit fly, Drosopholia, what appeared was eyes, not mouse eyes, but
the multi-fascited eyes of the fruit fly. So, a mouse Pax 6 Gene
controlled the formation of fly eyes in a fly.
www.youris.com/Health/Genetics/One_Gene_One_Vision.kl
It has been shown that another Master Control Gene called Tinman,
(after Tinman movie charcter in the Wizare of OZ.) is responsible for
the formation of all types of hearts from the fruit fly nK2 homeobox
to humans. In humans this gene for unknown reasons is said to be a
homologue labled NkX2-5 homeobox gene. Yet these genes had to be
present and highly functional during the Cambrian expansion.
https://www.revolvy.com/main/index.php?s=Tinman%20gene
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/gtr/genes/3227/
What is not very well understood is exactly how these homeobox genes
work. But they are said to be played by upstream genes which select
the sections of the homeobox genes which in turn switch on genes that
cascade downstream which express the type of eye, heart, as well as
other body organ and parts. More than 100 of these master control
genes are known
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hox_gene
As a long term religious non-believer it it became difficult to turn a
blind eye on the possible engineering concept show by this obvious
long term Hox genes which are virtually unchanged from the Cambrian
and no doubt before the so called Cambrian explosion. This, to me. is
clearly a case of appearance of highly functional and set genes long
before they were needed for the Cambrian radiation. And they remain
highly conserved (another term for fixed) to the present day and in
common across the animal kingdom.

That's a basic feature of evolution: if something works, it is retained,
and built upon.

As you must have noted I posed this matter as a question. It's been
pointed out before that evidence is sometimes subjective.
People can observe the same yet arrive at different conclusions. You may
see this as supporting evolution whereas another could see this as
evidence of design by a supernatural designer. I see both sides,
however, I tend to be agnostic regarding the meaning. Your are right
evolution does use and improve on whatever works.

Those who point to a supernatural designer consistently ignore the
elephant in the room: what are the properties of the designer? How did
it arise?

Thanks for your interest in God. God, as a spirit, has only spiritual
properties. The spiritual has too many properties. I have a simplified
list in my signature. You can check it out. It should be able to satisfy
your curiosity for a time.

The spiritual existence of God is nothing like our physical existence.
Our physical existence has a beginning and ending. God's spiritual
existence, however, has no beginning and ending. It's the eternal
incorruptible existence. So God does not have to arise since he has
always existed.


Keep in mind that the hallmark of science is explaining the

Post by MarkA
workings of the natural world WITHOUT invoking magical forces or beings.
That is why invoking a supernatural designer is no different from any
other religion, and is clearly NOT science.

Since the natural world is created by God, God can always be natural as
well as super natural. To God, there is no difference. The difference is
only the result of our limited ability to understand God's boundless
wisdom. So the problem is with us instead of God.

[Teresita]

God does not have to arise since he has always existed.

Why did he wait for half of forever to get over before turning the
lights on?

[aaa]

Post by Teresita

God does not have to arise since he has always existed.

Why did he wait for half of forever to get over before turning the
lights on?

God never left the world to leave us alone. He simply didn't want to
show himself when the human race had abandoned him. Your Bible quote
about God not showing his face actually proves it.

[Teresita]

Post by aaa

Post by Teresita

God does not have to arise since he has always existed.

Why did he wait for half of forever to get over before turning the
lights on?

God never left the world to leave us alone.

That didn't answer the question. Why did God wait from infinity BC to
4,004 BC before he created light?

[notX]

Post by aaa

Post by Teresita

God does not have to arise since he has always existed.

Why did he wait for half of forever to get over before turning the
lights on?

God never left the world to leave us alone. He simply didn't want to
show himself when the human race had abandoned him. Your Bible quote
about God not showing his face actually proves it.

You'd claim that "God knows everything". Then he'd know that showing
himself would allow even reasonable people to believe in him.

"Not showing himself" is more consistent with a nonexistent God than
with an omniscient God.

BTW, That omniscient God would also know EXACTLY why I don't believe in
him, and what he could do about it. Doing that would require
infinitesimal power. He continues to not do it. Why should I worry about
HIS failing?

[Bob Wardlaw]

Post by aaa

Post by Teresita

God does not have to arise since he has always existed.

Why did he wait for half of forever to get over before turning the
lights on?

God never left the world to leave us alone. He simply didn't want to
show himself when the human race had abandoned him. Your Bible quote
about God not showing his face actually proves it.

IOW you are saying that since the human race abandoned God, he abondoned
the human race. I remember from the past that God was sorry he had made
man. And it repented him. But IMO this doesn't speak highly of God.

[Bob Wardlaw]

Post by aaa

Post by MarkA

Post by Bob Wardlaw

Post by MarkA

Post by Bob Wardlaw
Homeobox genes are short (about 180 base pairs) extremely ancient,
highly conserved and are shared across the animal kingdom. More than
100 homeobox genes are known. These genes also called Master Control
genes, control the formation of eyes, hearts, limbs etc across the
animal kingdom.
For example the eye across the animal phylum was believed to have
evolved at least 40 times, however, a single Master Control Gene
called Pax 6 has been responsible for the development of eyes in fruit
flies (Drosophilia) further research found that the same gene or a
homeologue was found to control the development of eyes in vertebrates
including zebra fish, squid, mice and all animals tested including
humans. The discoverer of these genes, Professor Walter Gehring was
met with considerable resistance by his peers. So, In an experiment he
took the Pax 6 gene from a mouse and placed it in various parts ofthe
fruit fly, Drosopholia, what appeared was eyes, not mouse eyes, but
the multi-fascited eyes of the fruit fly. So, a mouse Pax 6 Gene
controlled the formation of fly eyes in a fly.
www.youris.com/Health/Genetics/One_Gene_One_Vision.kl
It has been shown that another Master Control Gene called Tinman,
(after Tinman movie charcter in the Wizare of OZ.) is responsible for
the formation of all types of hearts from the fruit fly nK2 homeobox
to humans. In  humans this gene for unknown reasons is said to be a
homologue labled NkX2-5 homeobox gene. Yet these genes had to be
present and highly functional during the Cambrian expansion.
   >
https://www.revolvy.com/main/index.php?s=Tinman%20gene
   >
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/gtr/genes/3227/
   >
   >
What is not very well understood is exactly how these homeobox genes
work. But they are said to be played by upstream genes which select
the sections of the homeobox genes which in turn switch on genes that
cascade downstream which express the type of eye, heart, as well as
other body organ and parts. More than 100 of these master control
genes are known
   >
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hox_gene
As a long term religious non-believer it it became difficult to turn a
blind eye on the possible engineering concept show by this obvious
long term Hox genes which are virtually unchanged from the Cambrian
and no doubt before the so called Cambrian explosion. This, to me. is
clearly a case of appearance of highly functional and set genes long
before they were needed for the Cambrian radiation. And they remain
highly conserved (another term for fixed) to the present day and in
common across the animal kingdom.

That's a basic feature of evolution: if something works, it is retained,
and built upon.

As you must have noted I posed this matter as a question. It's been
pointed out before that evidence is sometimes subjective.
People can observe the same yet arrive at different conclusions. You may
see this as supporting evolution whereas another could see this as
evidence of design by a supernatural designer. I see both sides,
however, I tend to be agnostic regarding the meaning. Your are right
evolution does use and improve on whatever works.

Those who point to a supernatural designer consistently ignore the
elephant in the room: what are the properties of the designer?  How did
it arise?

Thanks for your interest in God. God, as a spirit, has only spiritual
properties. The spiritual has too many properties. I have a simplified
list in my signature. You can check it out. It should be able to satisfy
your curiosity for a time.
The spiritual existence of God is nothing like our physical existence.
Our physical existence has a beginning and ending. God's spiritual
existence, however, has no beginning and ending. It's the eternal
incorruptible existence. So God does not have to arise since he has
always existed.
  Keep in mind that the hallmark of science is explaining the

Post by MarkA
workings of the natural world WITHOUT invoking magical forces or beings.
That is why invoking a supernatural designer is no different from any
other religion, and is clearly NOT science.

Since the natural world is created by God, God can always be natural as
well as super natural. To God, there is no difference. The difference is
only the result of our limited ability to understand God's boundless
wisdom. So the problem is with us instead of God.

Fact is, if you accept the notion that evidence is unnecessary to
demonstrate the existence of God then faith by itself is insufficient,
Over the years I've seen people on this and other NGs post pointing
to what could be seen as evidence: which could be seen as evidence
implying a foward thinking intelligent creator deity. The discovery of
homeobox genes is one solid example. For two reasons:
1) they are ancient, yet called "highly conserved" (fixed) by professional.
They had to be in existence before the Cambrian explosion, yet remain
highly conserved to the present. One can argue from some hypothesis
that they had to evolve. And so, this is in keeping with Darwin's
theory. But where is the evidence?
2) These homeobox genes are basically universal in that every animal so
far tested has the same homeobox genes: even to the extent that a mouse
Pax6 gene was substituted in a fruit fly and the mouse gene controlled
the development of multi-phasited fly eye on the wing of this fly.
There is no justification for denying the reality of the appearance of
these genes before they were needed. These genes are extremely ancient
sufficently perfect to be highly conserved (unchanged).

There may be a naturalistic explanation for this, but none come across
as better than the opinion that homeobox genes are the product of
intelligence. I think any open mind can recognize this possibility.
I do not know of any possible better evidence of Gods existence than
these homeobox genes.

This has rendered my agnostic. I think there must be a naturalistic
explanation that better explains this than intelligence, but I've
yet to find it.

[Teresita]

Post by MarkA
Those who point to a supernatural designer consistently ignore the
elephant in the room: what are the properties of the designer? How did
it arise? Keep in mind that the hallmark of science is explaining the
workings of the natural world WITHOUT invoking magical forces or beings.
That is why invoking a supernatural designer is no different from any
other religion, and is clearly NOT science.

From what we have observed, intelligence must be preceded by at least
13 billion years of time.

[Bob Wardlaw]

Post by MarkA

Post by Bob Wardlaw

Post by MarkA

Post by Bob Wardlaw
Homeobox genes are short (about 180 base pairs) extremely ancient,
highly conserved and are shared across the animal kingdom. More than
100 homeobox genes are known. These genes also called Master Control
genes, control the formation of eyes, hearts, limbs etc across the
animal kingdom.
For example the eye across the animal phylum was believed to have
evolved at least 40 times, however, a single Master Control Gene
called Pax 6 has been responsible for the development of eyes in fruit
flies (Drosophilia) further research found that the same gene or a
homeologue was found to control the development of eyes in vertebrates
including zebra fish, squid, mice and all animals tested including
humans. The discoverer of these genes, Professor Walter Gehring was
met with considerable resistance by his peers. So, In an experiment he
took the Pax 6 gene from a mouse and placed it in various parts ofthe
fruit fly, Drosopholia, what appeared was eyes, not mouse eyes, but
the multi-fascited eyes of the fruit fly. So, a mouse Pax 6 Gene
controlled the formation of fly eyes in a fly.
www.youris.com/Health/Genetics/One_Gene_One_Vision.kl
It has been shown that another Master Control Gene called Tinman,
(after Tinman movie charcter in the Wizare of OZ.) is responsible for
the formation of all types of hearts from the fruit fly nK2 homeobox
to humans. In humans this gene for unknown reasons is said to be a
homologue labled NkX2-5 homeobox gene. Yet these genes had to be
present and highly functional during the Cambrian expansion.
https://www.revolvy.com/main/index.php?s=Tinman%20gene
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/gtr/genes/3227/
What is not very well understood is exactly how these homeobox genes
work. But they are said to be played by upstream genes which select
the sections of the homeobox genes which in turn switch on genes that
cascade downstream which express the type of eye, heart, as well as
other body organ and parts. More than 100 of these master control
genes are known
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hox_gene
As a long term religious non-believer it it became difficult to turn a
blind eye on the possible engineering concept show by this obvious
long term Hox genes which are virtually unchanged from the Cambrian
and no doubt before the so called Cambrian explosion. This, to me. is
clearly a case of appearance of highly functional and set genes long
before they were needed for the Cambrian radiation. And they remain
highly conserved (another term for fixed) to the present day and in
common across the animal kingdom.

That's a basic feature of evolution: if something works, it is retained,
and built upon.

As you must have noted I posed this matter as a question. It's been
pointed out before that evidence is sometimes subjective.
People can observe the same yet arrive at different conclusions. You may
see this as supporting evolution whereas another could see this as
evidence of design by a supernatural designer. I see both sides,
however, I tend to be agnostic regarding the meaning. Your are right
evolution does use and improve on whatever works.

Those who point to a supernatural designer consistently ignore the
elephant in the room: what are the properties of the designer? How did
it arise?

For two reasons, it doesn't matter how this supernatural deity arose:
As in the case of evolution, how life arose is not pertinent to the
validity of evolution. Abiogenesis and evolution are two different
scientific disciplines.
We might have created life in a test tube, but how life actually
started, it's unfortunate, but doubtful we will ever really
know.
As in the case of the universe, scientist, before the discovery of the
Big Bang, thought the universe was always the same, eternal with no
beginning and no end. Even Albert Einstein and Fred Hoyle believed this.
Dr. Hoyle attempted to give the eternal universe a scientific basis by
advancing his "steady state theory". The "how" did the universe arise
was not pertinent. It didn't matter to the observations scientist were
making before the Big Bang discovery.

It's the same with the design in the universe. Where there might be
design, how the designer arose is not pertinent to design. To argue it's
somehow different is hypocrisy.


Keep in mind that the hallmark of science is explaining the

Post by MarkA
workings of the natural world WITHOUT invoking magical forces or beings.

I agree with this comment. Scientist prefer to think of nature as
within the confines of a scientific inquiry. This way everything
every force and every action is under sciences and the "authority" of
science. Whatever is deemed outside the realm of scientific inquiry
and understanding is deemed non-scientific, superstition or magic.
So, your expression here, while true, is just a modern philosophical
stance _advanced_ by philosophers of science and accepted by certain
scientist and individuals who think of themselves as "thinkers and
rationalist".

Post by MarkA
That is why invoking a supernatural designer is no different from any
other religion, and is clearly NOT science.

I totally agree with you it's not science. And neither is it necessary
to invoke a supernatural designer. There is no way, at present time
to know who, what or how design occurred. Perhaps it was evolution
by mutations and natural select over vast periods of time. But some
people disagree with this. And they are within their rights and they
have the right to defend their views when challenged or denounced, but
do not have the right to try forcing their views on others.

Many early scientist were religious people whose religion did not
alter, effect or influence their scientific experiments or research.
I would point to Priest such as Gregor Mendel. He followed the
scientific method in his experiments with peas: he is considered to be
the father of genetics.
Another was Carl Linnaeus, a christian who believed that since God
created the world, it was possible to understand God's wisdom by
studying His creation. This is the man who gave us the current method of
classification of organisms.
Isaac Newton a Catholic who determined the force of gravity and gave us
calculus.
Another Priest was Georges Lemaitre an astronomer who first saw in
Einstein's theory of relativity and found his math showed universes
expansion and predicted a beginning which he called the Primal atom. He
gave us the (Big Bang theory, but Fred Hoyle sarcastically called it
the Big Bang.
There were numerous Christians who are known as the fathers or mothers
of many of the scientific disciplines we know today. While they used
the scientific method they did not reject their religion. Neither did
they turn to their religion when engaging in scientific activities.

It might be intereisting to note that the modern scientific method in
Europe was further developed by a Roger Bacon, a Franciscan frar who
turned to ancient Greek, ohilospher and Muslem scientist to further
develop the scientific method.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Bacon

Another founder of the modern scientific method was Francis Bacon a
devout Anglican and the father of induction.
www.christianitytoday.com/history/people/scholarsandscientists/francis-bacon.html

So based on the significance contributions to science, it's obvious that
religion is not a hinderance to science.

[Kevrob]

Post by Bob Wardlaw
And they are within their rights and they
have the right to defend their views when challenged or denounced, but
do not have the right to try forcing their views on others.
Isaac Newton a Catholic

Nope. Nominally Church of England, in his heart of hearts
someone the Anglican "heretics' would consider a heretic.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Isaac_Newton

Post by Bob Wardlaw
who determined the force of gravity and gave us calculus.

He published first. Leibniz figured calculus out separately.
Big Science Feud, Classic Edition.

https://www.xkcd.com/626/

Post by Bob Wardlaw
Another founder of the modern scientific method was Francis Bacon a
devout Anglican and the father of induction.
www.christianitytoday.com/history/people/scholarsandscientists/francis-bacon.html
So based on the significance contributions to science, it's obvious that
religion is not a hinderance to science.

Neither is it a hindrance. :)

A religious person can have a scientific mindset, at the expense of the
kind of immanent ghod that many fundamentalists insist on, the one
who answers your prayer that your corn flakes didn't wilt in the milk
when breakfast got interrupted by your need to head to the Little
Fundies' room and tinkle. It is most consonant with the Deist's
"Cosmic Watchmaker" model of ghod.

Occam's razor continues to reduce the areas needed for this ghod
of the gaps to tinker with, as we learn more about the universe.

Take the logic to its inevitable conclusion.

Kevin R

[Bob Wardlaw]

Post by Kevrob

Post by Bob Wardlaw
And they are within their rights and they
have the right to defend their views when challenged or denounced, but
do not have the right to try forcing their views on others.
Isaac Newton a Catholic

Nope. Nominally Church of England, in his heart of hearts
someone the Anglican "heretics' would consider a heretic.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Isaac_Newton

Post by Bob Wardlaw
who determined the force of gravity and gave us calculus.

He published first. Leibniz figured calculus out separately.
Big Science Feud, Classic Edition.
https://www.xkcd.com/626/

Post by Bob Wardlaw
Another founder of the modern scientific method was Francis Bacon a
devout Anglican and the father of induction.
www.christianitytoday.com/history/people/scholarsandscientists/francis-bacon.html
So based on the significance contributions to science, it's obvious that
religion is not a hinderance to science.

Neither is it a hindrance. :)
A religious person can have a scientific mindset, at the expense of the
kind of immanent ghod that many fundamentalists insist on, the one
who answers your prayer that your corn flakes didn't wilt in the milk
when breakfast got interrupted by your need to head to the Little
Fundies' room and tinkle. It is most consonant with the Deist's
"Cosmic Watchmaker" model of ghod.
Occam's razor continues to reduce the areas needed for this ghod
of the gaps to tinker with, as we learn more about the universe.
Take the logic to its inevitable conclusion.

There is nothing in this response that addresses anything I believe
or that I wrote.

Post by Kevrob
Kevin R