The wikipedia article on eye color has a more comprehensive list of genes as well as a section on genetic determination of eye color.

And dont bitch and moan about it being wikipedia, none of us are geneticists specializing in eye color. If you would actually like to know in detail, look it up yourself troll.

__________________
“An intellectual is a person who has discovered something more interesting than sex.” - Aldous Huxley

Schadenfreude-, I'm not going to bother to quote your various posts because I'd be responding with the same answer to many of them. It's pretty obvious that this whole mess of whether a theory=fact or not is simply revolving around the definition of a fact. The problem with this word is that it has THREE meanings in science and you're using one definition while Nikias and friends are using another. It's a pretty hopeless issue since you're both on different pages and neither side is willing to bother to look at the other side.

So for the definitions of the word fact:

1) The observation/phenomenon under investigation.
2) The concept that a certain idea doesn't change at all.
3) The informal idea that if something is seen over and over again and all theories and explanations are the same over and over again, then it's a fact.

For your side, I'm not entirely sure what you're going after because you seem to be using the second definition and saying that a scientific theory is equal to that. Going by the side that you support, it's not. In other words, you're defeating yourself over and over yet for some reason you seem to continue your argument. I haven't a clue why.

For the side of most of the others, they view a fact as an observation and thus, evolution is the fact. The idea here is that the theories are not to address whether or not the fact occurs as that's pointless but rather to determine how it occurs (and possibly why). The theory of evolution is what's used to explain how and why.

In science, the definition of "fact" is either #1 or #3. Outside of science, #2 may be used. Since this discussion is centered around science, it makes some sense to use the definitions used in science. There is no other way I can think of to show you this.

For your question on eye colour, if you want to know how they are able to know, look it up online, read books, talk to a professor specializing in genetics or evolutionary genetics, etc... .

Wow, hahaha, that made my day. Hearing that creationists believe the Earth is only 6,000 years old, hahaha wow. I really did not know that. Thanks for the dirt at my next debate.

Seriously, scientists are going by years and years of actual research. Creationists on the other hand are using a book (according to their theory) almost as old as the the Earth (or excuse me, as young) to prove their B.S. theories. Which aren't even theories, they're just mumba jumba.

__________________
And you will know my name is the LORD, when I strike my vengeance upon thee!
-Jules Winnfield

The only reason why I am asking about detail about change in eye colour is so that you can provide the information needed to fully support your argument. ( The one with the pokemon avatar)

I'm not going to spend my time researching eye colour and genetics (which could take awhile) in order to contribute to your argument.

If you all couldn't tell I was being devils advocate. I'm not saying that theories are just guesses. There is obviously valid research there. But they are often disputed, which doesn't make it a fact. That's actually the only point I was trying to display, after you verbally attacked another user for stating theories weren't facts.

__________________

Guys. Please don't add me unless we're familiar with each other. KayThanks.

contributing to my argument? if you dont wish to school yourself, that is not my problem.

Oh ho! I see. Well I suppose then the rest of your post will hit the nail on the head when it comes to understanding the very basic things we've been trying to explain to you.

...or maybe not.

__________________
Got Google Wave? Get added to The Official Unofficial Teenspot Wave!

Think.

Schadenfreude-, it seems that as you continue to post in this thread, you gradually post more and more nonsense. Let me explain this to you because it's obvious it needs to be outlined so very carefully otherwise you're going to not get any of this through your skull.

This is just babble on your part that goes nowhere. If Whatevery0__ introduced their argument, then they can support it, they don't need whatever crap you're posting to help them along.

I speak for myself when I saw you were and are being a retard in addition to whatever else you think you may be.

Well it seems that it really is time for baby-steps here. It seems as though you don't exactly understand what it means to be a devil's advocate. It means that you take the side you don't support in order for the purpose of merely arguing and seeing the strength of whatever this issue is. In order for this to happen, one very important thing has to occur: you have to actually understand both sides. Sadly, you don't. Therefore, it's not being a devil's advocate, it's just being an absolute idiot. If you do actually understand the other side, then you're doing a wonderful job at concealing it with stupidity.

I wonder though, since this whole issue is about a difference with definitions, do you have your own unique definition of devil's advocate or are we actually sticking with the definition everyone accepts?

Still dont understand what a theory is then.

__________________
“An intellectual is a person who has discovered something more interesting than sex.” - Aldous Huxley

Study Geography, and you'll realize it's bullshit.

Study other sciences, and you'll realize that Christianity is just a fairy-tell, you can make big money on.