Fifty different genes for eye color?

_{Denyse O'Leary

March 29, 2021

Genetics, Human evolution, Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Close-ups of people's | Credit: © Prostock-studio / stock.adobe.com

You’ve heard this one before. From the study group: Eye color is “much more complex than previously thought.” If we’d thought of trademarking that phrase, we wouldn’t be asking for money from our readers at Christmas. On the other hand, it’s just as well used for free; it’s needed so often now.

Researchers have identified 50 new genes for eye color in a study involving the genetic analysis of almost 195,000 people across Europe and Asia.
An international team of researchers led by King’s College London and Erasmus University Medical Center Rotterdam have identified 50 new genes for eye colour in the largest genetic study of its kind to date. The study, published today in Science Advances, involved the genetic analysis of almost 195,000 people across Europe and Asia…
In addition, the team found that eye colour in Asians with different shades of brown is genetically similar to eye colour in Europeans ranging from dark brown to light blue…
This study builds on previous research in which scientists had identified a dozen genes linked to eye colour, believing there to be many more. Previously, scientists thought that variation in eye colour was controlled by one or two genes only, with brown eyes dominant over blue eyes.
Co-senior author Dr Pirro Hysi, King’s College London, said: “The findings are exciting because they bring us to a step closer to understanding the genes that cause one of the most striking features of the human faces, which has mystified generations throughout our history.
King’s College London, “Eye color genetics not so simple, study finds” at ScienceDaily (March 11, 2021)

Some of us recall learning in school that eye color was strictly a one-off. Brown eyes were represented by a capital B and blue eyes by a small b. Only one square in the diagram had two bb’s. That, we were told, was why blue eyes were rare…

Not that they were at all rare in our community. But hey, it was science! Who were we to argue?

Well, fast forward: Trust the science? It’s a good thing no one needed to take that one very seriously. It’s another thing when they’re dogmatically wrong about the stuff that really matters.

By the way, all this stuff supposedly came about purely by natural selection acting on random mutations (Darwinism)? Naw.

The paper is open access.

Hat tip: Philip Cunningham

Comments

Andrew
I never had brown eyes.”
But don’t it make my brown eyes blue?count of crisco_{March 30, 2021
March
03
Mar
30
30
2021
12:14 PM
12
12
14
PM
PDT}

This is a nice little progression: "Previously, scientists thought that variation in eye colour was controlled by one or two genes only" "previous research in which scientists had identified a dozen genes linked to eye colour" "Researchers have identified 50 new genes for eye color in a study " And then... "The findings are exciting because they bring us to a step closer to understanding the genes" Yeah, I nearly peed my jeans when I read the headline. ;) Andrewasauber_{March 30, 2021
March
03
Mar
30
30
2021
11:51 AM
11
11
51
AM
PDT}

JVL i am just confused. 2008: "“A team of scientists has tracked down a genetic mutation that leads to blue eyes." 2021: 50 genes are responsible for eyes color, so it can't be a single genetic mutation, can it? So which one to take seriously ?martin_r_{March 30, 2021
March
03
Mar
30
30
2021
11:38 AM
11
11
38
AM
PDT}

"Don’t take every publication that seriously." Already there. Andrewasauber_{March 30, 2021
March
03
Mar
30
30
2021
11:21 AM
11
11
21
AM
PDT}

“Originally, we all had brown eyes,” I never had brown eyes. Andrewasauber_{March 30, 2021
March
03
Mar
30
30
2021
11:20 AM
11
11
20
AM
PDT}

Martin_r: Do i get this right? So no single mutation cause blue eye? I am a bit confused… could someone explain ? I think you should just wait and see how it all plays out later. Don't take every publication that seriously.JVL_{March 30, 2021
March
03
Mar
30
30
2021
11:18 AM
11
11
18
AM
PDT}

Some expert here? So now the following is is wrong? Livescience.com (2008): "People with blue eyes have a single, common ancestor, according to new research." "A team of scientists has tracked down a genetic mutation that leads to blue eyes. The mutation occurred between 6,000 and 10,000 years ago. Before then, there were no blue eyes. "Originally, we all had brown eyes," said Hans Eiberg from the Department of Cellular and Molecular Medicine at the University of Copenhagen. The mutation affected the so-called OCA2 gene, which is involved in the production of melanin, the pigment that gives color to our hair, eyes and skin" https://www.livescience.com/9578-common-ancestor-blue-eyes.html --- Do i get this right? So no single mutation cause blue eye? I am a bit confused... could someone explain ?martin_r_{March 30, 2021
March
03
Mar
30
30
2021
11:15 AM
11
11
15
AM
PDT}

seversky @1: "The lesson is that we are still learning. " no seversky... you Darwinists have infested the whole world with just-so stories, and this is the result. As we can see with every new day, these just-so stories have nothing to do with reality... “… more complex that thought ….” “… it challenges a long-held theory…” “… it upends a common view…” “… it shakes up the dogma … ” “… it needs a rethink … ” “… the findings are surprising and unexpected …. ” “… earlier than thought…” “… younger than thought….” “… smarter than thought ….” in Darwinian 'science', using these words now became a rule, not an exception... it is a shame... Darwinism is as wrong as it can be... and i am sure, it will get much worse ...martin_r_{March 30, 2021
March
03
Mar
30
30
2021
11:09 AM
11
11
09
AM
PDT}

Jerry: He has access to the world out there which is critical of ID but fails to come back with anything that would lead anyone to not accept ID. So do all the other so called critics of ID. How about: no known intelligent designers about . . . .when was it exactly? Who did what exactly? I know you think you have no questions about how intelligent design came about and was implemented but it's not clear to me and the ID community as a whole has not addressed those issues. How can others accept your point of view when they don't really know what you are saying? Why not spell it out specifically?JVL_{March 30, 2021
March
03
Mar
30
30
2021
09:39 AM
9
09
39
AM
PDT}

"He has access to the world out there which is critical of ID" He defers to his Betters. Their thinking is way above his. They are lord and he is subject. He refuses to think independently. Behold the Inferior Intellect. Andrewasauber_{March 30, 2021
March
03
Mar
30
30
2021
07:35 AM
7
07
35
AM
PDT}

But Sev IS imprisoned by Scientism.
Seversky is one of the biggest proponents of ID on this site. He has never once provided any rationale for not accepting it. He has access to the world out there which is critical of ID but fails to come back with anything that would lead anyone to not accept ID. So do all the other so called critics of ID. If that's not an endorsement of ID, I fail to see what could be better. It's almost as if someone is paying the critics of ID to post here. Their objections are so specious.jerry_{March 30, 2021
March
03
Mar
30
30
2021
07:22 AM
7
07
22
AM
PDT}

Of further note to Bob's claim that Darwinists "have models initially developed a century ago" that can tell us exactly how eye color originated. From Oxford we also see this help wanted ad: "Grand theories in physics are usually expressed in mathematics. Newton’s mechanics and Einstein’s theory of special relativity are essentially equations. Words are needed only to interpret the terms. Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection has obstinately remained in words since 1859. …",,, "mathematical population geneticists mainly deny that natural selection leads to optimization of any useful kind.",,,
Oxford University Seeks Mathemagician - Douglas Axe - 2011 Excerpt: In the Oxford job description [1], under the heading Extracts from the grant application to the St John’s Research Centre, subheading Objectives: "1. To construct a mathematical framework, with appropriate theorems, to represent fully the core argument in Darwin’s Origin of Species, namely that the purely mechanical processes of inheritance and reproduction can give rise through natural selection to the appearance of design." Under the same heading, subheading Summary: "Grand theories in physics are usually expressed in mathematics. Newton’s mechanics and Einstein’s theory of special relativity are essentially equations. Words are needed only to interpret the terms. Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection has obstinately remained in words since 1859. …" "The idea that organisms maximise their fitness as a result of natural selection is extremely important in many areas of biology. The explanatory apparatus of most whole organism, behavioural ecology, work would make no sense without it. However, the logical basis for the idea is in considerable doubt. The mainstream of mathematical population geneticists since about 1964 has emphatically rejected the claim that fitness is maximised. … There has been essentially no formal consideration of the kind of optimisation that emerges so naturally from verbal arguments such as those of Darwin (1859) and Dawkins (1976)." "The concept of fitness optimization is routinely used by field biologists, and first-year biology undergraduates are frequently taught that natural selection leads to organisms that maximize their fitness. Dawkins’ The Selfish Gene (1976) promoted a conceptual integration of modern evolutionary theory in which genes are viewed as optimising agents, which is extremely influential and widespread today and encompasses inclusive fitness theory and evolutionarily stable strategies as well as general optimality ideas. However, mathematical population geneticists mainly deny that natural selection leads to optimization of any useful kind. This fifty-year old schism is intellectually damaging in itself, and has prevented improvements in our concept of what fitness is. …" Generality is important, as a major aim [of the proposed work] is to find mathematical arguments that match Darwin’s verbal arguments in the Origin of Species, as well as Dawkins’s verbal arguments in the Selfish Gene and later works. … https://www.biologicinstitute.org/post/19310975799/oxford-university-seeks-mathemagician
Given the background that Darwinists can't explain "optimization of any useful kind" with their mathematical models, can Bob please entertain us with his exact mathematical model that explains exactly how an eye can be optimized, via unguided Darwinian processes, to the point of detecting a single photon?
William Bialek: More Perfect Than We Imagined - March 23, 2013 Excerpt: photoreceptor cells that carpet the retinal tissue of the eye and respond to light, are not just good or great or phabulous at their job. They are not merely exceptionally impressive by the standards of biology, with whatever slop and wiggle room the animate category implies. Photoreceptors operate at the outermost boundary allowed by the laws of physics, which means they are as good as they can be, period. Each one is designed to detect and respond to single photons of light — the smallest possible packages in which light comes wrapped. “Light is quantized, and you can’t count half a photon,” said William Bialek, a professor of physics and integrative genomics at Princeton University. “This is as far as it goes.” … Scientists have identified and mathematically anatomized an array of cases where optimization has left its fastidious mark, among them;,, the precision response in a fruit fly embryo to contouring molecules that help distinguish tail from head;,,, In each instance, biophysicists have calculated, the system couldn’t get faster, more sensitive or more efficient without first relocating to an alternate universe with alternate physical constants. http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2013/03/william-bialek-more-perfect-than-we.html
As far as intelligently designed man-made cameras are concerned, this level of optimization borders on being science fiction. As the following article states, "Any man-made detector would need to be cooled and isolated from noise to behave the same way.”
Study suggests humans can detect even the smallest units of light – July 21, 2016 Excerpt: Research,, has shown that humans can detect the presence of a single photon, the smallest measurable unit of light. Previous studies had established that human subjects acclimated to the dark were capable only of reporting flashes of five to seven photons.,,, it is remarkable: a photon, the smallest physical entity with quantum properties of which light consists, is interacting with a biological system consisting of billions of cells, all in a warm and wet environment,” says Vaziri. “The response that the photon generates survives all the way to the level of our awareness despite the ubiquitous background noise. Any man-made detector would need to be cooled and isolated from noise to behave the same way.”,,, The gathered data from more than 30,000 trials demonstrated that humans can indeed detect a single photon incident on their eye with a probability significantly above chance. “What we want to know next is how does a biological system achieve such sensitivity? How does it achieve this in the presence of noise?” http://phys.org/news/2016-07-humans-smallest.html
To be blunt, it is sheer insanity to believe that unguided Darwinian processes can possibly construct a visual system that greatly outclasses any intelligently designed camera that man has ever built.
podcast - Dr. Brian Miller examines evolutionary explanations for the development of the eye. What is needed to build a complex eye? And how long would it take to get the necessary coordinated mutations? Miller argues the eye presents multiple insurmountable problems for evolution https://www.podomatic.com/podcasts/intelligentdesign/episodes/2017-04-03T15_09_20-07_00 The Evolution of the Eye, Demystified - Otangelo Grasso - February 24, 2020 We have, so far, only scratched the surface. But we can safely say that the origin of both vision and its key player, rhodopsins, cannot be explained by the evolutionary mechanisms of random mutations and natural selection. Instead they must have existed from inception as a unified and codified system. Such an observation, I believe, is best explained by intelligent design. https://evolutionnews.org/2020/02/the-evolution-of-the-eye-demystified/
bornagain77_{March 30, 2021
March
03
Mar
30
30
2021
07:00 AM
7
07
00
AM
PDT}

"We are not imprisoned by the ineluctable truths of religious dogma." But Sev IS imprisoned by Scientism. It has it's own religious dogmas. And he clings to them like flies on manure. Andrewasauber_{March 30, 2021
March
03
Mar
30
30
2021
06:32 AM
6
06
32
AM
PDT}

seversky:
We are not imprisoned by the ineluctable truths of religious dogma.
You are imprisoned by the nonsensible dogma of materialism and evolutionism. Way to take a step backwards. Neither materialism nor evolutionism have helped advance our knowledgeET_{March 30, 2021
March
03
Mar
30
30
2021
05:42 AM
5
05
42
AM
PDT}

What is Bob O'H talking about? There aren't any models of evolution by means of blind and mindless processes.ET_{March 30, 2021
March
03
Mar
30
30
2021
05:40 AM
5
05
40
AM
PDT}

No we’re not, we have models initially developed a century ago, and since refined. Please do some basic research on quantitative genetics.
Two things First, I maintain whatever Darwinists believe, it is nothing more than modern genetics. Thus, it’s very useful but extremely trivial in the understanding of evolution. Darwinism has been a bait and switch concept for a long time now. The irony is that it essentially has nothing to do with evolution. Second, Bob O’H identifies as a Darwinist.jerry_{March 30, 2021
March
03
Mar
30
30
2021
04:54 AM
4
04
54
AM
PDT}

Bob O'H in response to this,
Thus Darwinists, (since at least 50 genes underpin eye color), are at a complete loss, (with the genetic reductionism model), to explain how something as simple as eye color came about.
states,
No we’re not, we have models initially developed a century ago, and since refined. Please do some basic research on quantitative genetics.
Well Bob, besides the article I cited directly contradicting your claim,
The next evolutionary synthesis: from Lamarck and Darwin to genomic variation and systems biology – Bard – 2011 Excerpt: If more than about three genes (nature unspecified) underpin a phenotype, the mathematics of population genetics, while qualitatively analyzable, requires too many unknown parameters to make quantitatively testable predictions [6]. The inadequacy of this approach is demonstrated by illustrations of the molecular pathways that generates traits [7]: the network underpinning something as simple as growth may have forty or fifty participating proteins whose production involves perhaps twice as many DNA sequences, if one includes enhancers, splice variants etc. Theoretical genetics simply cannot handle this level of complexity, let alone analyse the effects of mutation. http://www.biosignaling.com/content/pdf/1478-811X-9-30.pdf
This Oxford scientist also directly contradicts your claim,
With a Startling Candor, Oxford Scientist Admits a Gaping Hole in Evolutionary Theory - November 2011 Excerpt: As of now, we have no good theory of how to read [genetic] networks, how to model them mathematically or how one network meshes with another; worse, we have no obvious experimental lines of investigation for studying these areas. There is a great deal for systems biology to do in order to produce a full explanation of how genotypes generate phenotypes,,,?http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/11/with_a_startling_candor_oxford052821.html
Moreover Bob, different scientists do get overly attached to their own models to the point of being unable to see any flaws their own models may have. And that is the beauty of empirical science. That is to say, can you empirically demonstrate that your particular Darwinian model is correct over and above those who say your Darwinian model is fatally flawed? And the point is that you can't. In fact, when realistic, (empirically established), rates of detrimental mutations are included in Fisher's formulation of population genetics then it falsifies Fisher's formulation of population genetics.
Geneticist Corrects Fisher’s Theorem, but the Correction Turns Natural Selection Upside Down - December 22, 2017 | David F. Coppedge A new paper corrects errors in Fisher’s Theorem, a mathematical “proof” of Darwinism. Rather than supporting evolution, the corrected theorem inverts it. Excerpt: The authors of the new paper describe the fundamental problems with Fisher’s theorem. They then use Fisher’s first principles, and reformulate and correct the theorem. They have named the corrected theorem The Fundamental Theorem of Natural Selection with Mutations. The correction of the theorem is not a trivial change – it literally flips the theorem on its head. The resulting conclusions are clearly in direct opposition to what Fisher had originally intended to prove.,,, The authors of the new paper realized that one of Fisher’s pivotal assumptions was clearly false, and in fact was falsified many decades ago. In his informal corollary, Fisher essentially assumed that new mutations arose with a nearly normal distribution – with an equal proportion of good and bad mutations (so mutations would have a net fitness effect of zero). We now know that the vast majority of mutations in the functional genome are harmful, and that beneficial mutations are vanishingly rare. The simple fact that Fisher’s premise was wrong, falsifies Fisher’s corollary. Without Fisher’s corollary – Fisher’s Theorem proves only that selection improves a population’s fitness until selection exhausts the initial genetic variation, at which point selective progress ceases. Apart from his corollary, Fisher’s Theorem only shows that within an initial population with variant genetic alleles, there is limited selective progress followed by terminal stasis.,,, The authors observe that the more realistic the parameters, the more likely fitness decline becomes. https://crev.info/2017/12/geneticist-corrects-fishers-theorem/ Fisher’s proof of Darwinian evolution has been flipped? - December 27, 2017 Excerpt: we re-examine Fisher’s Theorem, showing that because it disregards mutations, and because it is invalid beyond one instant in time, it has limited biological relevance. We build a differential equations model from Fisher’s first principles with mutations added, and prove a revised theorem showing the rate of change in mean fitness is equal to genetic variance plus a mutational effects term. We refer to our revised theorem as the fundamental theorem of natural selection with mutations. Our expanded theorem, and our associated analyses (analytic computation, numerical simulation, and visualization), provide a clearer understanding of the mutation–selection process, and allow application of biologically realistic parameters such as mutational effects. The expanded theorem has biological implications significantly different from what Fisher had envisioned. https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/fishers-proof-of-darwinian-evolution-has-been-flipped/ The fundamental theorem of natural selection with mutations - June 2018 Excerpt: Because the premise underlying Fisher’s corollary is now recognized to be entirely wrong, Fisher’s corollary is falsified. Consequently, Fisher’s belief that he had developed a mathematical proof that fitness must always increase is also falsified. We build a differential equations model from Fisher’s first principles with mutations added, and prove a revised theorem showing the rate of change in mean fitness is equal to genetic variance plus a mutational effects term. We refer to our revised theorem as the fundamental theorem of natural selection with mutations. Our expanded theorem, and our associated analyses (analytic computation, numerical simulation, and visualization), provide a clearer understanding of the mutation–selection process, and allow application of biologically realistic parameters such as mutational effects. The expanded theorem has biological implications significantly different from what Fisher had envisioned. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00285-017-1190-x
bornagain77_{March 30, 2021
March
03
Mar
30
30
2021
04:53 AM
4
04
53
AM
PDT}

ba77 @ 6 -
Thus Darwinists, (since at least 50 genes underpin eye color), are at a complete loss, (with the genetic reductionism model), to explain how something as simple as eye color came about.
No we're not, we have models initially developed a century ago, and since refined. Please do some basic research on quantitative genetics.Bob O'H_{March 30, 2021
March
03
Mar
30
30
2021
04:08 AM
4
04
08
AM
PDT}

This is simply devastating to Dawkins's entire 'selfish' gene concept. As James Shapiro explains, "this notion of the genome as a collection of discrete gene units prevailed when the neo-Darwinian "Modern Synthesis" emerged in the pre-DNA 1940s. Some prominent theorists even proposed that evolution could be defined simply as a change over time in the frequencies of different gene forms in a population.,,, The basic issue is that molecular genetics has (now) made it impossible to provide a consistent, or even useful, definition of the term "gene.,, The modern concept of the genome has no basic units. It has literally become "systems all the way down." ,,, diehard defenders of orthodoxy in evolutionary biology are grievously mistaken in their stubbornness. DNA and molecular genetics have brought us to a fundamentally new conceptual understanding of genomes, how they are organized and how they function."
Why the 'Gene' Concept Holds Back Evolutionary Thinking - James Shapiro - 11/30/2012 Excerpt: The Century of the Gene. In a 1948 Scientific American article, soon-to-be Nobel Laureate George Beadle wrote: "genes are the basic units of all living things.",,, This notion of the genome as a collection of discrete gene units prevailed when the neo-Darwinian "Modern Synthesis" emerged in the pre-DNA 1940s. Some prominent theorists even proposed that evolution could be defined simply as a change over time in the frequencies of different gene forms in a population.,,, The basic issue is that molecular genetics has made it impossible to provide a consistent, or even useful, definition of the term "gene." In March 2009, I attended a workshop at the Santa Fe Institute entitled "Complexity of the Gene Concept." Although we had a lot of smart people around the table, we failed as a group to agree on a clear meaning for the term. The modern concept of the genome has no basic units. It has literally become "systems all the way down." There are piecemeal coding sequences, expression signals, splicing signals, regulatory signals, epigenetic formatting signals, and many other "DNA elements" (to use the neutral ENCODE terminology) that participate in the multiple functions involved in genome expression, replication, transmission, repair and evolution.,,, Conventional thinkers may claim that molecular data only add details to a well-established evolutionary paradigm. But the diehard defenders of orthodoxy in evolutionary biology are grievously mistaken in their stubbornness. DNA and molecular genetics have brought us to a fundamentally new conceptual understanding of genomes, how they are organized and how they function. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-a-shapiro/why-the-gene-concept-hold_b_2207245.html
In fact, and as is somewhat obvious, having multiple interacting genes underly phenotypic traits constrain the ability of 'genes' to evolve. As Jeffrey Tomkins explains, "Before the advent of modern molecular biology, scientists defined a gene as a single unit of inheritance. If a gene was found to influence multiple externally visible traits, it was said to be pleiotropic.,,, as our understanding of genetics grew through DNA science, it became clear that genes operate in complex interconnected networks.",,, "Many studies have provided evidence for the ability of pleiotropy to constrain gene evolution.",,, "Our study provided supportive evidence that pleiotropy constraints the evolution of transcription factors (Tfs).",,,
Gene Pleiotropy Roadblocks Evolution by Jeffrey P. Tomkins, Ph.D. - Dec. 8, 2016 Excerpt: Before the advent of modern molecular biology, scientists defined a gene as a single unit of inheritance. If a gene was found to influence multiple externally visible traits, it was said to be pleiotropic—a term first used in 1910.2 During this early period of genetic discovery, pleiotropy was considered to be quite rare because scientists assumed most genes only possessed a single function—a simplistic idea that remained popular throughout most of the 20th century. However, as our understanding of genetics grew through DNA science, it became clear that genes operate in complex interconnected networks. Furthermore, individual genes produce multiple variants of end products with different effects through a variety of intricate mechanisms.2,3 Taken together, these discoveries show that pleiotropy is a common feature of nearly every gene.,,, The pleiotropy evolution problem is widely known among secular geneticists, but rarely discussed in the popular media. In this new research report, the authors state, "Many studies have provided evidence for the ability of pleiotropy to constrain gene evolution.",,, "Our study provided supportive evidence that pleiotropy constraints the evolution of transcription factors (Tfs).",,, http://www.icr.org/article/9747
In short, and directly contrary to what Darwinists had originally presupposed, neither DNA, nor the genes in DNA, can be considered "the blueprint of life". As the following article bluntly states, "DNA cannot be seen as the 'blueprint' for life,"
DNA may not be life's instruction book—just a jumbled list of ingredients - Kimbra Cutlip, University of Maryland - APRIL 22, 2020 Excerpt:,,, "DNA cannot be seen as the 'blueprint' for life," Jose said. "It is at best an overlapping and potentially scrambled list of ingredients that is used differently by different cells at different times." ,,, In addition, scientists are unable to determine the complex shape of an organ such as an eye, or that a creature will have eyes at all, by reading the creature's DNA. These fundamental aspects of anatomy are dictated by something outside of the DNA. https://phys.org/news/2020-04-dna-life-bookjust-jumbled-ingredients.html
And as far as experimental science can tell us, biological form simply is not reducible to mutations to DNA, As Jonathan Wells states in the following article, Studies using saturation mutagenesis in the embryos of fruit flies, roundworms, zebrafish and mice also provide evidence against the idea that DNA specifies the basic form of an organism. Biologists can mutate (and indeed have mutated) a fruit fly embryo in every possible way, and they have invariably observed only three possible outcomes: a normal fruit fly, a defective fruit fly, or a dead fruit fly.
Jonathan Wells: Far from being all-powerful, DNA does not wholly determine biological form - March 31, 2014 Excerpt: Studies using saturation mutagenesis in the embryos of fruit flies, roundworms, zebrafish and mice also provide evidence against the idea that DNA specifies the basic form of an organism. Biologists can mutate (and indeed have mutated) a fruit fly embryo in every possible way, and they have invariably observed only three possible outcomes: a normal fruit fly, a defective fruit fly, or a dead fruit fly. https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/jonathan-wells-far-from-being-all-powerful-dna-does-not-wholly-determine-biological-form/ Response to John Wise - October 2010 Excerpt: But there are solid empirical grounds for arguing that changes in DNA alone cannot produce new organs or body plans. A technique called “saturation mutagenesis”1,2 has been used to produce every possible developmental mutation in fruit flies (Drosophila melanogaster),3,4,5 roundworms (Caenorhabditis elegans),6,7 and zebrafish (Danio rerio),8,9,10 and the same technique is now being applied to mice (Mus musculus).11,12. None of the evidence from these and numerous other studies of developmental mutations supports the neo-Darwinian dogma that DNA mutations can lead to new organs or body plans–,,, (As Jonathan Wells states),,, We can modify the DNA of a fruit fly embryo in any way we want, and there are only three possible outcomes: A normal fruit fly; A defective fruit fly; or A dead fruit fly. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/10/response_to_john_wise038811.html
In fact, directly contrary to Darwinian presuppositions, it is now known that "It's the organism controlling the DNA, not the DNA controlling the organism.”
Ask an Embryologist: Genomic Mosaicism - Jonathan Wells - February 23, 2015 Excerpt: humans have a "few thousand" different cell types. Here is my simple question: Does the DNA sequence in one cell type differ from the sequence in another cell type in the same person?,,, The simple answer is: We now know that there is considerable variation in DNA sequences among tissues, and even among cells in the same tissue. It's called genomic mosaicism. In the early days of developmental genetics, some people thought that parts of the embryo became different from each other because they acquired different pieces of the DNA from the fertilized egg. That theory was abandoned,,, ,,,(then) "genomic equivalence" -- the idea that all the cells of an organism (with a few exceptions, such as cells of the immune system) contain the same DNA -- became the accepted view. I taught genomic equivalence for many years. A few years ago, however, everything changed. With the development of more sophisticated techniques and the sampling of more tissues and cells, it became clear that genetic mosaicism is common. I now know as an embryologist,,,Tissues and cells, as they differentiate, modify their DNA to suit their needs. It's the organism controlling the DNA, not the DNA controlling the organism. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2015/02/ask_an_embryolo093851.html
Moreover, the failure of the reductive materialism of Darwinian evolution to be able to explain the basic form of any particular organism occurs at a very low level. Much lower than DNA itself. In the following article entitled 'Quantum physics problem proved unsolvable: Gödel and Turing enter quantum physics', which studied the derivation of macroscopic properties from a complete microscopic description, the researchers remark that even a perfect and complete description of the microscopic properties of a material is not enough to predict its macroscopic behaviour.,,, The researchers further commented that their findings challenge the reductionists' point of view, as the insurmountable difficulty lies precisely in the derivation of macroscopic properties from a microscopic description."
Quantum physics problem proved unsolvable: Gödel and Turing enter quantum physics - December 9, 2015 Excerpt: A mathematical problem underlying fundamental questions in particle and quantum physics is provably unsolvable,,, It is the first major problem in physics for which such a fundamental limitation could be proven. The findings are important because they show that even a perfect and complete description of the microscopic properties of a material is not enough to predict its macroscopic behaviour.,,, "We knew about the possibility of problems that are undecidable in principle since the works of Turing and Gödel in the 1930s," added Co-author Professor Michael Wolf from Technical University of Munich. "So far, however, this only concerned the very abstract corners of theoretical computer science and mathematical logic. No one had seriously contemplated this as a possibility right in the heart of theoretical physics before. But our results change this picture. From a more philosophical perspective, they also challenge the reductionists' point of view, as the insurmountable difficulty lies precisely in the derivation of macroscopic properties from a microscopic description." http://phys.org/news/2015-12-quantum-physics-problem-unsolvable-godel.html
In other words, the reductive materialistic framework that Darwinian evolution rests upon is a non-starter in regards to ever being able to explain the 'macroscopic' phenotypic features of any organism. Darwinists, (with their belief that mutations to DNA will 'evolve' fundamentally new body plans), are, (to borrow Shapiro's characterization), "grievously mistaken" and are not even on the correct 'theoretical' playing field in order to properly understand how any organism might achieve its particular biological form. Or any of the traits of that form.
Darwinism vs Biological Form - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JyNzNPgjM4w
Verse:
Psalm 139:13 For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother's womb.
bornagain77_{March 30, 2021
March
03
Mar
30
30
2021
03:10 AM
3
03
10
AM
PDT}

As to: "Researchers have identified 50 new genes for eye color,,, The genetics of human eye colour is much more complex than previously thought,"
Eye color genetics not so simple, study finds - March 11, 2021 Summary: Researchers have identified 50 new genes for eye color in a study involving the genetic analysis of almost 195,000 people across Europe and Asia. Excerpt: The genetics of human eye colour is much more complex than previously thought, according to a new study published today. An international team of researchers led by King's College London and Erasmus University Medical Center Rotterdam have identified 50 new genes for eye colour in the largest genetic study of its kind to date. The study, published today in Science Advances, involved the genetic analysis of almost 195,000 people across Europe and Asia.,,, In addition, the team found that eye colour in Asians with different shades of brown is genetically similar to eye colour in Europeans ranging from dark brown to light blue. This study builds on previous research in which scientists had identified a dozen genes linked to eye colour, believing there to be many more. Previously, scientists thought that variation in eye colour was controlled by one or two genes only, with brown eyes dominant over blue eyes. Co-senior author Dr Pirro Hysi, King's College London, said: "The findings are exciting because they bring us to a step closer to understanding the genes that cause one of the most striking features of the human faces, which has mystified generations throughout our history. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2021/03/210311123443.htm
This, (like so many other things that Darwinists ignore since it contradicts their theory), presents an insurmountable difficulty for Darwinists. First off, within the mathematics of population genetics, we find that, "If more than about three genes (nature unspecified) underpin a phenotype, the mathematics of population genetics, while qualitatively analyzable, requires too many unknown parameters to make quantitatively testable predictions,,, Theoretical genetics simply cannot handle this level of complexity, let alone analyse the effects of mutation."
The next evolutionary synthesis: from Lamarck and Darwin to genomic variation and systems biology – Bard - 2011 Excerpt: If more than about three genes (nature unspecified) underpin a phenotype, the mathematics of population genetics, while qualitatively analyzable, requires too many unknown parameters to make quantitatively testable predictions [6]. The inadequacy of this approach is demonstrated by illustrations of the molecular pathways that generates traits [7]: the network underpinning something as simple as growth may have forty or fifty participating proteins whose production involves perhaps twice as many DNA sequences, if one includes enhancers, splice variants etc. Theoretical genetics simply cannot handle this level of complexity, let alone analyse the effects of mutation. http://www.biosignaling.com/content/pdf/1478-811X-9-30.pdf
Thus Darwinists, (since at least 50 genes underpin eye color), are at a complete loss, (with the genetic reductionism model), to explain how something as simple as eye color came about. Moreover, as the following article states, "most human (phenotypic) traits are influenced by so many genes that there is no likely systematic cause and effect"
Gene previously linked to obesity is unrelated - June 29, 2015 Excerpt: … in the real world of careful analysis, scientists are just not finding the “genes” that the headline writers need. British geneticist Steve Jones points out that most human traits are influenced by so many genes that there is no likely systematic cause and effect: "We know of more than 50 different genes associated with height … That has not percolated into the public mind, as the Google search for “scientists find the gene for” shows. The three letter word for — the gene FOR something — is the most dangerous word in genetics." And the craze is not harmless, he warns. … https://uncommondescent.com/genetics/gene-previously-linked-to-obesity-is-unrelated/
To repeat, "human traits are influenced by so many genes that there is no likely systematic cause and effect". And, needless to say, finding "no likely systematic cause and effect", throws another big monkey wrench into the Darwinian claim that genotype generates phenotypic traits. Here is an excellent powerpoint presentation (and article) by Dr. Jonathan Wells showing that the central dogma of Darwinian evolution, which simply stated is “DNA makes RNA makes protein makes us”, is incorrect at every step.
Design Beyond DNA: A Conversation with Dr. Jonathan Wells – video (14:36 minute mark) – January 2017 https://youtu.be/ASAaANVBoiE?t=876 Dr. Jonathan Wells: Biology’s Quiet Revolution - podcast - April 15, 2016 On this episode of ID the Future, Dr. Jonathan Wells discusses a popular claim, which he describes as “DNA makes RNA makes protein makes us”—or, every organism contains a program for itself in its DNA. Though this view fits neatly with the perspective of Darwinian evolution, it has been shown to be incorrect at every step. Listen in as Dr. Wells explains. https://www.discovery.org/multimedia/audio/idtf/2016/04/dr-jonathan-wells-biologys-quiet-revolution/
If fact, the irresolvable genotype-phenotype mapping problem, (as is usual for Darwinian presuppositions), is turning out to be far worse for Darwinists than just 50 genes underlying a phenotypic trait. As the following 2016 article states, "It’s now thought that such (phenotypic) traits are the work of thousands of genetic variants, working in concert."
What If (Almost) Every Gene Affects (Almost) Everything? - JUN 16, 2017 Excerpt: If you told a modern geneticist that a complex trait—whether a physical characteristic like height or weight, or the risk of a disease like cancer or schizophrenia—was the work of just 15 genes, they’d probably laugh. It’s now thought that such traits are the work of thousands of genetic variants, working in concert. The vast majority of them have only tiny effects, but together, they can dramatically shape our bodies and our health. They’re weak individually, but powerful en masse. https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2017/06/its-like-all-connected-man/530532/
And as the following 2018 article states, "in the cell types that are relevant to a disease, it appears that not 15, not 100, but essentially all genes contribute to the condition. The authors suggested that for some traits, “multiple” loci could mean more than 100,000."
Theory Suggests That All Genes Affect Every Complex Trait - June 20, 2018 Excerpt: Mutations of a single gene are behind sickle cell anemia, for instance, and mutations in another are behind cystic fibrosis. But unfortunately for those who like things simple, these conditions are the exceptions. The roots of many traits, from how tall you are to your susceptibility to schizophrenia, are far more tangled. In fact, they may be so complex that almost the entire genome may be involved in some way,,, One very early genetic mapping study in 1999 suggested that “a large number of loci (perhaps > than 15)” might contribute to autism risk, recalled Jonathan Pritchard, now a geneticist at Stanford University. “That’s a lot!” he remembered thinking when the paper came out. Over the years, however, what scientists might consider “a lot” in this context has quietly inflated. Last June, Pritchard and his Stanford colleagues Evan Boyle and Yang Li (now at the University of Chicago) published a paper about this in Cell that immediately sparked controversy, although it also had many people nodding in cautious agreement. The authors described what they called the “omnigenic” model of complex traits. Drawing on GWAS analyses of three diseases, they concluded that in the cell types that are relevant to a disease, it appears that not 15, not 100, but essentially all genes contribute to the condition. The authors suggested that for some traits, “multiple” loci could mean more than 100,000. https://www.quantamagazine.org/omnigenic-model-suggests-that-all-genes-affect-every-complex-trait-20180620/
bornagain77_{March 30, 2021
March
03
Mar
30
30
2021
03:08 AM
3
03
08
AM
PDT}

. Seversky, you believe that documented science (and history) is something to be strategically ignored if it conflicts with your personal ideology. You protect your beliefs by demanding nothing less than a logical impossibility as the only counter-evidence to those beliefs (rendering your claims unfalsifiable) and you do this for the explicit purpose of dismissing well-supported conclusions that you are emotionally incapable of acknowledging — even though they are based on recorded science and history that you cannot refute, and logic that you espouse yourself. Your are basically anathema to science, Seversky. It is no wonder that all your remaining comments are soaked in transparent assumptions and the most gratuitous non-sequiturs.
Seversky: You are the one asserting an insupportable claim of impossibility. If you want to support the claim that it is impossible for a self-replicating system such as specified by von Neumann to have come about through natural causes then you must be able to eliminate all possible natural causes. UB: Where did I make that claim, Sev? I wrote the text above, and don’t recall making any such claim Seversky: So you are allowing that it is at least possible for such a system to emerge through natural causes? UB: You asked me if I claimed a naturalistic origin of life was impossible. I told you I don’t make that claim, nor do I require it. Logic doesn’t require it. Science doesn’t require it. Things typically proceed in science by way of specific propositions and supportive details, not featureless questions. However, if you are simply asking me in the abstract, then I’d say a person really can’t analyze a proposition if they don’t leave the door open to it being possible in light of given details. So if your question is merely in the abstract, then I can say “yes” in the same way that you say “yes” design is possible — but I really don’t think that is what you are after. Let’s hang a little meat on the bones of your question, and ask it in a way that adds some value to the answer. Since we agree on von Neumann’s predictions and their confirmation, we can let that agreement add some needed form to your question: – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Question: Do I think it is possible for pre-biotic chemical event X to become an autonomous open-ended self-replicator (i..e. marking the OoL on earth), if … 1: … if chemical event X does not control dynamic construction by means of a non-dynamic “quiescent description” (von Neumann, 1966)? Answer: No, I do not believe that is possible. 2: … if chemical event X does not contain a set of interpretive constraints to establish a symbolic medium, making that description possible? Answer: No, I do not believe that is possible. 3: … if chemical event X does not have the descriptive power to specify each of the building blocks required in its construction? Answer: No, I do not believe that is possible. 4: … if chemical event X does not control the production of individual molecular objects (i.e. start, produce, stop)? Answer:: No, I do not think that is possible. 5: … if chemical event X does not describe (the molecular objects within) a dissipative process that maintains itself and reproduces itself? Answer:: No, I do not think that is possible. 6: … chemical event X does not describe its set of interpretive constraints Answer:: No, I do not think that is possible. 7: … chemical event X does not transcribe its memory and provide it to its offspring (along with a set of constraints)? Answer:: No, I do not think that is possible. 8: … chemical event X does not achieve semantic closure, that is, a simultaneous coordination between two critical sets of descriptions: a) those that describe the dissipative processes (maintenance and reproduction) and b) those that describe the set of constraints? Answer:: No, I do not think that is possible. – – – – – – – – – – – – – – So, there are eight instances off the top of my head where I do not think a naturalistic unguided origin of life is possible. I believe the OoL requires an organization to establish a high-capacity medium. It must be able to freely describe itself in that medium, as well as produce the products of that description. The products of that description must use dynamics (natural law) to cause it to maintain itself within a dissipative process (i.e. life’s “far from equilibrium state”), as well as control its reproduction. And to accomplish these things (i.e to start the system) will require semantic closure. Without semantic closure, it cannot function. So what about you? Do you think a thing would have to specify itself in order to reproduce? Do you think its offspring would have to be able to read and interpret that specification? Would the products of that specification have to actually function in specific ways? Do you think that a prebiotic organization could hail the origin of life on earth if it could not do these things? So when you pretend we know nothing substantive or conclusive about the OoL, its not really true is it? We know that encoded symbolic representation is the mechanism that allows something to specify itself, which in turn, enables the origin of life. We know this because, among other things, it was predicted by logic, confirmed by experiment, and under methodical scientific analysis, it fully comports to our universal experience of material reality. The entire system has been coherently described in the literature as a genuine sign process with very specific physical requirements, including specific objects with specific roles to play in the process — a system found nowhere else in the physical sciences, except in the use of language and mathematics, which is a universal correlate of intelligence. And if it is true that an encoded symbol system was predicted as fundamental to the OoL, and if it is true that an encoded symbol system was found at the very heart of the living cell, and if it is true that the use of language is a universal correlate of intelligence (a logical deduction made by scientific associations, universities and governments around the world) then the presence of empirical evidence supporting design in biology is already a documented fact. But the evidence and ramifications certainly don’t stop there. This can be grasped by simply asking the obvious questions that naturally fall from the evidence. Frankly, I’ve been asking them for years now. Those questions remain orphans, even among the well educated. Here is the deal, Sev. Whatever I think is possible or not possible is subject to evidence, just as it should be. You can tell me that you can flap your arms and fly, and I will immediately think that it is not possible. You are hopelessly heavy, your muscles are all wrong, your arms don’t have enough surface area, etc. etc. But if you just demand it, and spend years upon years demanding it, and indeed, I am expected to believe that you can flap your arms and fly or else I will suffer consequences — then I am not going to say “it’s not possible”. I’m going to say “show me”. That is how proper science works. It supports its legitimacy not by claim, but by evidence. That is the situation we are in here. Our positions on OoL, yours and mine, design versus materialism, are not equal. They are really not even close. I needn’t make any bold assumptions in recalling the fact that an encoded symbol system was predicted to be the critical condition of self-replication. That is part of the historical record. I needn’t make assumptions in pointing out that Crick predicted that a set of “adapter” molecules would be found operating in the gene system. That is another historical fact. I needn’t make assumptions regarding Hoagland and Zamecnik confirming the adapters, along with the complex proteins that charge them; that is a documented result of experiment. I make no wild assumptions in recognizing that genetic code assignments could not be calculated from the dynamic properties of the constituents, but had to be demonstrated in order to be known. The list goes on and on. In stark contrast to my position, Sev, you can do nothing but lead with assumptions. When you run for the tall grass (as you always do) and say we just don’t yet know how the system came about by unguided natural processes, you are merely assuming your conclusion. You dig a trench between you and the established facts of the matter, and you jump in. Other than regurgitating your personal contempt for religion, you’ve done little else on this forum for more than a decade now. You did it in the comments leading up to this posting, and you’ll do it again in your response afterwards. Seversky:. *crickets*
Upright BiPed_{March 29, 2021
March
03
Mar
29
29
2021
09:20 PM
9
09
20
PM
PDT}

Deleted by commentercount of crisco_{March 29, 2021
March
03
Mar
29
29
2021
07:55 PM
7
07
55
PM
PDT}

Some of us recall learning in school that eye color was strictly a one-off. Brown eyes were represented by a capital B and blue eyes by a small b. Only one square in the diagram had two bb’s. That, we were told, was why blue eyes were rare…
If I remember correctly, the punnet square was used to teach us about dominant and recessive genes and the odds of what would be expressed. It had nothing to do with the number of alleles possible for a gene.count of crisco_{March 29, 2021
March
03
Mar
29
29
2021
07:55 PM
7
07
55
PM
PDT}

The lesson is that we are still learning. We are not imprisoned by the ineluctable truths of religious dogma. Research by human scientists uncovered the role of insulin in glucose metabolism and enabled us to treat if not yet cure diabetes. In physics, hitherto entirely unknown particles like the neutrino have been detected and the strange phenomena of the quantum world exposed. The Bible told us nothing about these things, We had to discover them for ourselves. God could have told his children what caused the Black Death that was killing them in their thousands but didn't. It took his children another 300 years to find out for themselves. So either He didn't care or He wasn't there.Seversky_{March 29, 2021
March
03
Mar
29
29
2021
07:25 PM
7
07
25
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply