Do You Have Blue Eyes? Then we're family!

Hey Cuz!

Woo hoo!  Does this mean you're going to lend me money? I mean, we ARE family and all.....

Man, just wait until you see the family reunion we throw together here . . .

If your grandma yells out, "Come look at what I made before I FLUSH it!" you might be a redneck.

oh darn it.....I thought it was being able to burp all stanzas of Jingle Bells that proved you were a redneck.

Well I'm not related to you Ock in more ways than one. No blue eyes in this family atall. In fact, been told I have the darkest brown eyes than anyone they've ever seen more than once!

If you've ever climbed up on a water tower with a bucket of paint to defend your sister's honor, then you might be a...

Anyway, my Dad's eye's are blue but mine are brown. Hmmmm...  :NOTSURE: 

My hubby and I both have baby blues.  We always joked when people would ask "Do you think your baby's eyes will stay blue?" I'd say "They better or I'm in a lot of trouble"

My mom and dad both have very similarly colored blues too.  My hubby swears they're cousins because he thinks I'm a major hick.  There is a difference between being a hick and a redneck!  A hick is only a hick when they're still in the sticks but a redneck is a redneck wherever he goes.

Hmm...I know there's a number out there that says we're all related by a certain extension...but I really can't find it.

Oh well, I have blue eyes...'sup cousin?

~Zoo

I've always thought of mine as blue but Simon describes them as 'chromed steel.'

Mine are Blue Steel

I just read the whole article Ock and all I have to say is....hmmmmmm

no kidding.. its like they don't even know what they are concluding..
blue eyes originate from one person about 6 to 10,000 yrs ago?.. go figure..

 :LOL: 

Seems far fetched to me too, but I'm not a geneticist, so I won't hate on it until I understand more.

Well, everyone knows Adam and Eve had brown eyes...so where'd blue come from, eh?  :LOL: 

~Zoo

hahahah well I'm not hating on it. As a creationist I'm loving it actually.

I saw the article, and in light of what some geneticists are saying, it sounds kind of strange.  They (about 10 years ago) claimed that through mitachondrial DNA that we are all descended from a woman in Africa about 250,000 years ago.

So of course we are all related! Or maybe ET snuck in to get us the blue eyes?

hahahah well I'm not hating on it. As a creationist I'm loving it actually.

Awesome! Then you can explain to us the workings of the OCA2 gene! Please, continue!

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.