The Ojai Post

evan,

Interesting you should raise this issue. Did you know that all blue eyed people are descended from a single ancestor?

Perhaps we could go after them next as the next conspiracy. Maybe some of the 9/11 plotters had blue eyes or maybe even Jock Doubleday has blue eyes. Why not round them all up too. Anyway, before I go to far, here's a synopsis of the article that appeared on a science web page

Blue-eyed Humans Have A Single, Common Ancestor
ScienceDaily (Jan. 31, 2008) — New research shows that people with blue eyes have a single, common ancestor. A team at the University of Copenhagen have tracked down a genetic mutation which took place 6-10,000 years ago and is the cause of the eye colour of all blue-eyed humans alive on the planet today.

What is the genetic mutation
“Originally, we all had brown eyes”, said Professor Eiberg from the Department of Cellular and Molecular Medicine. “But a genetic mutation affecting the OCA2 gene in our chromosomes resulted in the creation of a “switch”, which literally “turned off” the ability to produce brown eyes”. The OCA2 gene codes for the so-called P protein, which is involved in the production of melanin, the pigment that gives colour to our hair, eyes and skin. The “switch”, which is located in the gene adjacent to OCA2 does not, however, turn off the gene entirely, but rather limits its action to reducing the production of melanin in the iris – effectively “diluting” brown eyes to blue. The switch’s effect on OCA2 is very specific therefore. If the OCA2 gene had been completely destroyed or turned off, human beings would be without melanin in their hair, eyes or skin colour – a condition known as albinism.

Limited genetic variation
Variation in the colour of the eyes from brown to green can all be explained by the amount of melanin in the iris, but blue-eyed individuals only have a small degree of variation in the amount of melanin in their eyes. “From this we can conclude that all blue-eyed individuals are linked to the same ancestor,” says Professor Eiberg. “They have all inherited the same switch at exactly the same spot in their DNA.” Brown-eyed individuals, by contrast, have considerable individual variation in the area of their DNA that controls melanin production.

Professor Eiberg and his team examined mitochondrial DNA and compared the eye colour of blue-eyed individuals in countries as diverse as Jordan, Denmark and Turkey. His findings are the latest in a decade of genetic research, which began in 1996, when Professor Eiberg first implicated the OCA2 gene as being responsible for eye colour.

Nature shuffles our genes
The mutation of brown eyes to blue represents neither a positive nor a negative mutation. It is one of several mutations such as hair colour, baldness, freckles and beauty spots, which neither increases nor reduces a human’s chance of survival. As Professor Eiberg says, “it simply shows that nature is constantly shuffling the human genome, creating a genetic cocktail of human chromosomes and trying out different changes as it does so.”

All eyes are awesome. The eyes have it, in my opinion.

On another topic, does anyone know why men have nipples?

Jock
http://therevolutionwillnotbeorganized.org

This is a specious argument. Gays have ALWAYS had the same right to marry as anyone else. What's next people who want to marry their pets?

Jock is already married to his toy poodle.....

i dunno about ALWAYS, #3...up until the recent court decision that wasn't the case. besides, even if that were true, this new CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT would remove that right, specifying that marriage is defined as between "one man and one woman" in our state. the anti-gay-marriage folks will claim that gay couples have all the same benefits and rights as heterosexual married couples, so what's the big deal? but if it's the same thing, then why won't we call it "marriage"?

your "people marrying pets" argument is unfounded and frankly quite tired. the defining factor - the COMMON SENSE - is that marriage (and sex, for that matter) be between CONSENTING ADULTS.

You can find a list of all the people who have given money to support or oppose Prop 8 here. Ojai is lightly represented, with more money going to deny rights than to support current law in CA.

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-metro-prop-8%2C0%2C2463893.htmlstory?appSession=57027485215100

Prop 8 does not take away any legal rights for gays and lesbians with domestic partnerships. It also does not interfere with with gays living the lifestyle they choose.

Brian, you're right. domestic partnership rights remain intact, but prop 8 pulls the currently-legal right to marry. if domestic partnerships are so awesome and equal, then why isnt that what we heterosexual folks have? why won't we call the gay relationships "marriages"? separate but equal is inherently unequal.

and it DOES, ABSOLUTELY interfere with living the lifestyle they choose. what if they choose to get married, just as you and i have chosen? well, that'd be illegal, wouldn't it?

Traditionally and thoughout history, marrage has been between a man and a woman. I don't have any problem with gays and lesbians having all the same rights that married men and women have, but for these groups to insist on changing the definition of a word and concept that has existed for thousands of years seems a bit presumptuous to me. Why do they feel the need to hijack another group's tradition, why don't they just start their own new tradition. Why are they forcing the rest of us to change our definition of marrage against our will?

Evan I've heard the "Gays have ALWAYS had the same right to marry as anyone else," argument before.

Usually what they mean is gay people are free to marry under the same rules as everyone else - meaning they can marry someone of the opposite sex.

I mean, why wouldn't that be enough for gay people?

Brian, i suppose that marriage has "traditionally" been between a man and a woman mostly because we've NEVER let gays marry! doesn't seem like such a noble tradition in that light. and nobody's trying to change the definition of the word, in my opinion. marriage is a legal contract between two consenting adults, to care for one another and share their things. it has NOTHING to do with gender or even sex.

good one, Tanya! sounds like some of the religion-based arguments i've heard, ie "you can be as gay as you want, as long as you marry a woman and have children with her."

Ojai is the last name of papuan tribes found in west papua. Ojai mean a methuselah tree that only found in the land in west papua. If you want to seek more imformation just fill free to contact.