Pseudogenes: functional or non-functional


(Curtis Henderson) #21

Oh Phil, thank you for that good laugh!


#22

You missed the low hanging fruit!!

Bladderworts are carnivorous plants. If they share a common ancestor with tomatoes then we already have examples of the transitional forms:

image


(Chris) #23

If you search their site you will find several articles on pseudogenes but I don’t see that they’re "cranking them out ". E.g.
As Research Advances, Debunking “Junk DNA” Is Almost Trendy
…transcript numbers, and working like switches to turn other genes on or off. We’ve seen “ pseudogenes ” (still assumed to be decaying remnants of evolutionary duplication events) acting as regulators. Even…


(Curtis Henderson) #24

It’s been a few months since I perused Bio-complexity, but I don’t recall seeing any research done on potential functions of pseudogenes. A report on the discoveries of other groups is not the research I was envisioning. Obviously, there would be hurdles to such research in humans, but analysis of psuedogenes in human cell lines should be feasible and would be a great way to actually support what they claim based on the ENCODE project.


#25

Finding a handful of pseudogenes that act as gene regulators does not mean the other 100,000 also have function.


(Chris) #26

Correct, however since some pseudogenes that formerly were believed to be non-functional have now been shown to have function it casts doubt on the assumption that pseudogenes are non-functional. Remember that very few have at this stage have been examined in detail.

From a YEC perspective we would not be surprised that some pseudogenes have lost their function since creation since everything has been affected by the fall.


(Matthew Pevarnik) #27

Like the pseudogenes (even with shared deactivations in closely related species) for digesting insects that all mammals have or the pseudogenes for making teeth in birds and turtles or the pseudogenes for making enamel in baleen whales or the over 50%+ deactivated genes out of 1200 for smelling that are gone but have remnants in cetaceans. Does YEC have any specific pseudogenes that we should expect to find or just simply come in after the data and claim some happened after the fall and the others are all functional?


#28

You would first have to show that those specific pseudogenes were once thought to be non-functional.

They have all been examined for sequence conservation. A lack of sequence conservation is very strong evidence for a lack of function.


(Chris Falter) #29

Hi Chris,

I’m tempted to think you’re playing a game with us on the thread. No matter what evidence and logic is presented to you, you keep repeating the exact same two-sentence thought. Let’s review:

It all started with this post, from which you have not deviated:

The refutations have taken three basic directions:

(1) Shared DNA sequences in pseudogenes point to common ancestry.

(2) The theory of evolution does not assume that every pseudogene does not have function.

(3) The vast majority of pseudogenes in the human genome have already been investigated and shown to have no possibility of function.

Yet, here we are 28 posts later, and you still have not addressed a single one of the logical and evidential points that strongly refute your assertion. You just keep repeating the same two-sentence thought, as if repetition will somehow magically make the enormous amounts of scientific evidence and logic just disappear without a trace:

False. See point #2 above: The theory of evolution does not assume that every pseudogene does not have function.

False. See point #3 above: The vast majority of pseudogenes in the human genome have already been investigated and shown to have no possibility of function.

False. See point #3 above: The vast majority of pseudogenes in the human genome have already been investigated and shown to have no possibility of function.

So your statement has been strongly refuted by the evidence presented by many people. Yet you keep repeating it without bothering to address that evidence.

This is a serious problem. Your repetition of the same inaccuracies casts doubt on the assumption that you are willing to engage with us in good faith discussions.

If you want to keep receiving credibility and respect in this discussion forum, Chris, I suggest that you start giving respect to the people who are interacting with you by actually thinking about the logic and the evidence they are presenting to you.

Assuming no change in behavior on your part, at some point in the near future I will probably conclude that trying to interact with you on issues of scientific evidence is a waste of time and effort. Others may do the same.

Of course, as followers of Christ we have many important things in common. If you make it impossible for us to talk constructively about scientific evidence, then we’ll just have to move on to other topics.

Best regards,
Chris Falter


(Chris) #30

I think it may be best to let this topic rest for now.


(system) #31

This topic was automatically closed 6 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.