Since the genes from a mouse produced eyes of a fly, that shows that some basic general blueprint is preserved through vast time and many species.
That is an ABYSMAL
non-sequitur. taken from one percent of one percent of one percent of the total experiments of such examples, that would be required for your induction. Here is an EQUAL example:
We find that Ted Bundy had milk in his fridge, and that mike also had milk in his fridge, so then mike is the same as Ted Bundy.
What it actually shows is that
information namely coded-instructions, are what is KEY in the design of all animals. So then the word, "eyes" might be expected to be used if the author
talks about things that see.
Now looking at that photograph and not marveling at the truth of the incredible Designer's imagination, now that is crazy, and beyond acceptable!
Last common ancestor between flies and mice was probably in cambrian
Can I see the evidence please. The evidence I collect only shows flies preserved in amber, that unfortunately, don't look very
mouse-like. But they do look exactly the same as their extant counter-parts! Indeed, all the way back, flies they are and flies they remain.
Why did mouse genes produce fly eyes?
That's a misleading thing to say, the gene told the eyes to start to develop.
Why did I use the same words, "why did" in this sentence, as you did in your sentence? Does it now follow that this "shows that some basic general blueprint is preserved through vast time and many species"?
Or are you saying that the same author should use different words/language, for each book s/he writes?
I'm not even sure of your example because of what I read here:
the Pax-6 developmental gene is part of a genetic switch that induces eye development.
This would indicate that the gene "told" the fly's eye to start to develop, the example would actually be very unremarkable, even though the outcome seems remarkable.
I think the terms, "mouse" and "flies" are misleading to our human-imagination, what we are really dealing with is the same type of gene that is common and shared and unremarkable, in many species, so effectively, it is like me giving
you my pen and paper so you can write the words, "Why did". Is this really remarkable if we can both write those words?
in the same way, is it really remarkable, that creatures with eyes, can develop eyes given the same instruction to "start to build"? Not really!
Improbable evo devo - creation.com
Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.