He does and has before for me. He only goes by the scientific journals for all his information.

Eye color in humans is considered a multifactorial inheritnace trait (a myriad of genes are involved in this process). OCA2 and HERC2 are genes located on chromosome 15q. Their exact functions are unknown according to Frudakis et al (2007; Human Genetics) and Eiberg et al (2008, Human Genetics); although they are known to interact with each other, are involved in the production of melanin, and are the major loci contributing to brown or blue eye color variaion in humans. A blue eye phenotype
most likely occurs due to one or more mutations (possibly single nucleotide polymorphisms; SNP) in this area of chromosome 15q. These so called "workings" of the OCA2 gene have nothing to do with the estimated first occurance of the blue eyed phenotype which was first described in 1994 by Cavalli-Sforza et al. This phenotype has been estimated to have first occured between 6,000 and 10,000 years ago by many groups. That estimate fits perfectly into a young earth creationist model no matter
what the function of the gene.

Why would brown eyed people be created and then as an afterthought blue eyed people created?

I think KFC believes that the earth is only about 10,000 years old anyway. (Not sure)

The photons she's reading this with are somewhere in the neighborhood of 10,000-170,000 years old, by the way. They are emitted in the process of hydrogen->helium fusion at the center of the sun and undergo a process of absorption and re-emmision bouncing from atom to atom like a mini billiard balls. Add + 8 minutes to reach us )

Yet another useless scientific fact.

Here's a citation on it from NASA. Age of sunlight Some older calculations register up to 50 million years. Whatever the case, 10,000 is on the low end of the bell curve of results. Probability would state that it's older.

You've got all the info. Go back, read your papers again and pay real close attention to the English.

All of what I've said I've referenced and you have the full references in your hands to everything.

A Biblical model does not conflict with the theory that a polymorphism (as i previously suggested was probably the case and correctly cited Frudakis for) in OCA2 could lead to the blue-eyed phenotype. The Frudakis paper, however, didn't confirm anything.

God didn't create brown eyed people and then create blue eyed people (as an afterthought). Either this is pure ignorance to what creationism actually teaches (which shouldn't be the case due to your "extensive research experience") or you are creating a false dilema argument (either accept your view of evolution or you must believe that God created brown eyes then blue eyes as an afterthought).

According to the Biblical model, God created one man, Adam, who had all of the genetic capability to produce all of the variations in humans that we see today. It's very similar to evolutionary theory except that we do not believe that this original man was preceded by an ancestor of a lower species (aka monkeys) and we believe this man was created 6 to 10,000 years ago. Scientific evidence seems to suggest that the first man had brown eyes. Over time, blue-eye and other color phenotypes along with other phenotypic traits would have developed due to natural selection and mutation, which can be the result of a number of different factors. It is ignorant to think that there is not variation within the gene pool, and it is equally ignorant to presuppose that Christians do not believe in established scientific truths.

This data does not support or deny either worldview (creationism, evolutionism, or something else). It merely stands by itself to be interpreted. That interpretation will be based on the bias and presuppositions that you have already established in your mind. Think outside the box asaxygirl.

I thought that you had a great response until I read that last jab.  Can somebody who relates everything back to the bible really say that they are thinking outside the box?  Come on- how is your view any more free thinking than hers?  You just have a different bias.

Yes.



That's true too. Like I keep saying both sides have the same data, just different interpretations of the data.

We have two sites going on at the same time with this discussion, here and on my site. There, I just posted this quote from my son:

even well known evolutionists at prominent medical schools have admitted publicly that there must be something more than just evolution as we know it now and that creationism is a valid hypothesis (even though none of them ever believe in it)..

Here we see they are going to the edge of the box, not willing to step out. Why? Because it would involve something more.

The reason for them not venturing outside the box is they will not accept that a God would or could create all that we see here. There is not a lot of thinking "outside the box" when it comes to the evolutionary theory. Students are being taught hook, line and sinker drinking in all their Prof's tell them without doing extended research outside this realm. Their interest is to get their papers, do the work needed and get on with their careers. The Christians who are also sitting under these same Profs are the ones truly thinking outside the box. They question everything because their world view is different, yet they are still Scientists.

Case in point would be this whole blue eyed discovery. What happened maybe 6,000 years ago that an evolutionist could point to that could have made this happen? From a creationist POV it's pretty easy. But if an evolutionist believes that we evolve from a lower life form and the animals had blue eyes first, then how in the world did this transfer to humans only 6,000 years ago?

That's true too. Like I keep saying both sides have the same data, just different interpretations of the data.

Exactly. So what's wrong with having different interpretations?

Your bias is really showing there.

I don't think that all evolutionist agree on where we started and how we evolved.  A genetic mutation can happen in any animal, including humans. 

It also wasn't stated as "6,000" years ago, it was 6,000 to 10,000 years ago.  But, that time frame wouldn't jive if you follow the bible. since the bible places the Earth as less than 7,000 years old.

You also don't have to be "Christian" to believe that there could be some sort of creation + evolution.  I, personally, think that something started this whole mess, but it wasn't "God", and that creator no longer exists.  Is that thinking "outside the box"?  Probably not in your view, since everything has to relate back to Christianity in some form for it to be valid view.

 

 

 

We both can't be right. We can both be wrong. But we both can't be right.

I just happen to believe, as do more and more scientists, that there is something outside of us that has all the answers. That's why Intelligent Design has been making the waves lately. It's a way to marry both Moses and Darwin together. I don't buy that either and that's where Behe comes in.

When we look at anything in life, we know there is a creator behind it, weather it be a building, a car, a computer or a snowman. We don't just say these things evolve. To me that's just a way to get God out of the picture. I think the same with nature and the world all around us. There is a master designer behind all of this.

You say no.

So we both can't be right.

So we both can't be right.

Again...so what? You want to be right? I personally don't care. I don't engage in these conversations for the sole purpose of showing you you're wrong.

If I'm wrong about something, I want to know so I can admit it. But I don't just take someone's word for it because they say I'm wrong loud enough or long enough. Evidence must be involved - the objective testable kind. I have no use for someone's "feelings" of what is true. That's me, and your mileage may vary. You're entitled for it to, and I've never debated that.

And here I was, thinking to myself, "finally, a fight free article! Yay!"

heh heh, little did I know...

By the way, brown eyes, here. Not related.

A brown eyed girl? Do you remember when we used to sing Sha la la la la la la la la la la dee dah...Just like that?



~Zoo

Ummmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.......no.

I know that's a song, but unfortunately, I can't remember the reference. I suck!

ALL of these sources are cited in the Eiberg paper we're discussing and Wikipedia is NOT a very scientific source for information.

Cavalli-Sforza LL, Menozzi P, Piazza A (1994). The History and
geography of Human genes. Princeton University Press, Princeton

Eiberg H, Troelsen J, Nielsen M, Annemette M, Mengel-From J, Kjaer KW,
Hansen L (2008). Blue eye color in humans may be caused by a perfectly
associated founder mutation in a regulatory in a regulatory element
located within the HERC2 gene inhibiting OCA2 expression. Hum Genet (Epub
ahead of print).

Frudakis T, Terravainen T, Thomas M (2007) Multilocus OCA2 genotypes
specify human iris colors. Hum Genet 122:311–326.
doi:10.1007/s00439-007-0401-8

Rebbeck TR, Kanetsky PA, Walker AH, Holmes R, Halpern AC, Schuchter LM,
Elder DE, Guerry D (2002). P gene as an inherited biomarker of human
eye color. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 11:782–784
[quote]



I thought you said you were looking for the truth? I guess truth doesn't matter to everyone...but for some of us we desire to know truth. Have you ever heard the Persian Proverb...."The man who speaks the truth is always at ease."

"We know the truth not only by the reason but also by the heart." Blaise Pascal



well......it would be nice. I'd rather be right than wrong. What kind of a question is that anyhow?   



You don't care if you're right or you don't care if I'm right?



You know Ock. I absolutely agree with you here. I don't believe in God because of "feelings." In fact I harp on this all the time to other believers. It's not our feelings we should go by. Our feelings and emotions can deceive us. So I agree.

I absolutely have tested out his word and the principles behind it. I've spent years in research and have come to the conclusion that everything he said has either come true, is relevant to my life or is going to come true in the future based on what has transpired in the past.



hahahah well I've got brown eyes to Cedarbird....who knows maybe we're related....  

Why does it matter so much who is right?

I thought you said you were looking for the truth?

I think Asaxygirl meant why is it so important that others recognize YOUR conclusion as THE conclusion? Many people have extensively tested things. You wish us to recognize your extensive tests as conclusive, but you do not allow such conclusive testing to yield the same results for others when those results do not agree with yours. That's a pretty stellar display of self righteousness, is it not?

I absolutely have tested out his word and the principles behind it. I've spent years in research and have come to the conclusion that everything he said has either come true, is relevant to my life or is going to come true in the future based on what has transpired in the past.

Yes, you've mentioned this before. Could you describe your research and tests for me? I've been curious, but I haven't asked. This is at least the second or third time I've seen it mentioned, so I'm finally asking. What tests. What method. What evidence. What conclusion. Well, you can describe the conclusion if you feel it's beyond what seems obvious your conclusion already is.

Call me another name, if it makes you feel better but it's not true. I'm all for testing and results. I think I answered this on my blog just now.

It's not about me Ock. It's not MY truth. While I do care that you find the truth, I fully realize it's your own personal quest to do so. I just want to encourage you to look at both sides that's all. Did you check out Answers in Genesis? Did you at least give it a glance over? Or are you just going to dismiss it as a bunch of crock? Be truthful. Remember I went to public schools all my life. I ONLY got your side in school. But, yet, I managed to come out of it with the opposite viewpoint or interpretation of the evidence.

I love Francis Schaeffer. He was a great philosopher and had some really deep thoughts and truths that are timeless. Check him out sometime when you have time. He said:

Truth demands confrontation; loving confrontation, but confrontation nevertheless."

— Francis Schaeffer

BTW....did you ever read the "Case For Christ?" It's all about research and he will give you many of the same answers I'd give you less my own personal journey.