not laying eggs. vit have another functions. so it possible that it was function as something else.
no.
yep.
because it was functional in the past. so just from the starting point it was very similar. and then become degenerate.
i dont think its true that volution predict something here. can you give this prediction you are refer to?
Hello Theo,
It’s not mere “commonality” or “similarity.” It’s the degree of difference that’s the key, which is something that you never see addressed by evolution denialists.
[quote=“Theo_Book, post:47, topic:4604”]
It is evidence of a common creator.
[/quote]Then how do you explain the patterns of differences? Those mathematical patterns were and continue to be predicted by common descent, so clearly that it’s been easy to detect exceptions, such as horizontal gene transfer. They are tested every day with new data.
[quote=“Theo_Book, post:47, topic:4604”]
I fail to comprehend why that is so hard to understand. What say you?
[/quote]I’d say that you fail to understand the mathematical patterns predicted by common descent, which are NEVER observed in objects with a common creator.
You are assumimg the examples you offer are not resulting form a common creator.
If in fact, the “Common Creator” is the correct beginning, then everything you cite as an example [b]is a direct result" of a beginning caused by that “Common Creator.”
To declare it is one and not the other assumes it is the one, to begin with.
You still missed the focus of my post; i.e., Common DNA source removes need for common ancestor and suggests common creator.
[quote=“Theo_Book, post:52, topic:4604, full:true”]
You are assumimg the examples you offer are not resulting form a common creator.[/quote]
Hello Theo,
I am doing nothing of the sort.
I didn’t cite any examples. In fact, I cited a single exception. You don’t seem to be responding to what I wrote at all.
How do you explain the patterns of differences?
I didn’t make any declaration to that effect. Perhaps you should read what I wrote carefully.
[quote]You still missed the focus of my post; i.e., Common DNA source removes need for common ancestor and suggests common creator.
[/quote]The focus of your post seems to be an avoidance of evidence. What say you?
Unless of course, you are reading results of common creation for results of common Ancestor.
You cannot simply assign your own work or that of others as of equal credence with another who claims authorship if the creation account, unless that work of others has equal credence therewith.
Scholars compare their Scholastic degrees with almost a jealous regard for accomplishment. I allow at least the same regard for God. I think His testimony establishes much more than the testimony of those who deny His without equal status; unless you are claiming scientists are equal with God.
Hi @dcscccc -
I hope you are doing well this day. I do appreciate your answers, we seem to be making progress. Let me summarize my understanding of your predictions based on the creationist model, and you can correct me if I have misunderstood anything:
Humans actually have a vitellogenin gene; it is not a pseudogene. It is participating in the production of vitellogenin even today among us humans; if you were to take an appropriate blood or tissue sample of a human of the appropriate age, you would find vitellogenin. Vitellogenin does not play the same role as it plays in oviparous vertebrates such as birds, however.
Opossums have functional vitellogenin genes, which produce vitellogenin in members of the species.
The discussion of why pseudogenes would be similar or dissimilar in certain circumstances is irrelevant to the question of vitellogenin, because no one has discovered a vitellogenin pseudogene.
I would need only one further piece of information to consider this a logically complete, testable, scientific theory:
What does the creation model predict regarding the function of vitellogenin in humans, opossums, and other non-oviparous vertebrates?
And now let me respond to your question:
In an earlier thread, Dennis stated this:
Vitellogenins are the genes used for bulk yolk transfer in egg-laying organisms. The minuscule amount of yolk found in placentals is not VIT based. So, there is no reason, from a antievolutionary perspective, to find VIT sequences in placental mammals, since placentals have no need for bulk yolk transfer. Evolution, however, predicts that placental mammals are descended from egg-laying ancestors, and thus may retain
fragments of the VIT genes harkening back to that former way of life. If so, these fragments should be in blocks of syntenty conserved with egg-laying vertebrates. So, what we observe in placentals is exactly what evolution would predict.
In his first article in the series, Dennis also stated this:
One example that I have discussed several times in the past is the curious case of vitellogenin pseudogenes in placental mammals. Vitellogenins are large proteins used by egg-laying organisms to provide a store of nutrition to their embryos in egg yolk. Since vitellogenins are so large, they are a good source of amino acids when digested (proteins are made of amino acids linked together). Many of the amino acids in vitellogenins have sugars attached to them as well, so they also serve as a source of carbohydrates. The three-dimensional shape of vitellogenin proteins also acts as a carrier for lipids. As such, vitellogenins can be synthesized in the mother and transferred to the yolk as a ready-made supply of amino acids, sugars, and lipids for the developing embryo.
Placental mammals, on the other hand, use a different strategy for nourishing their embryos during development: the placenta. This connection between the mother and embryo allows for nutrient transfer right up until birth. As such, there is no need for vitellogenins, or storing up a supply in the egg yolk for the embryo to use. Evolutionary biology predicts that placental mammals descend from egg-laying ancestors, however – and one good line of evidence in support of that hypothesis (among many) is that placental mammals, humans included, have the remains of vitellogenin gene sequences in their genomes.
Looking forward to your last answer, so we can look at the evidence together.
Peace,
EDIT: Added link to Dennis Venema’s article
Hi @Theo_Book -
In order to distinguish between the two, we need to do more than sloganize. We need to derive predictions from the two models (common creation vs. common ancesry), then compare how well they predict the evidence.
Therefore I will repeat for you the question I already asked you, but you seem to have overlooked:
Thanks.
chris. i actually claiming that the vit pseudogene was active in the past but not for laying eggs but something else.
so your 3 points doesnt have conection to my claim.
the key word here is “may”. so its actually what i have said- even if we will find a working vit in some mammals evolution will not have any problem. its not a prediction. even in an opposite evidence- that we will not find any vit remains, also predict by evolution. even the paper could not find some vit genes in some species. so there is no a real prediction here. for both creation and evolution models.
Does that mean you accept the existence of a hard firmament that separates the waters above from the water below, with the sun, moon and stars stuck in the firmament?
Peace. At all times.
I was mostly addressing the headline “Vitellogenin and Common Ancestry” -
I am a firm believer that common ancestry is simply one of at least two possible scenarios that would fit the issue of cause for commonality.
“Common Creator” most certainly will and would be my choice of selections if in fact, there is a better explanation for shared DNA than simply “Evolution,” hereby one specie develops the same DNA as another specie but has no other known connection than an assumed Evolutionary connection. So I offer first a reminder of a common DNA source, which is what you have when the seas and dry and were one big MUD DNA source. The Seas were separated from the dry land, and each brought forth what was required by the Creator, and had some DNA in common. There is therefore no “evidence of Evolution” based solely upon a commonality of shared DNA. In fact, the real surprise would be Evolution based upon DNA sharing, when we know they came from the same DNA Pool in the beginning.
I was not addressing the eggshell material per se; but the argument would be the same whatever the material involved would be.
Thank you for your question and your input. Do you think the issues remain the same when you now know the DNA pools are what each specie had in common?
You are correct in that I indeed overlooked it. Sorry 'bout that. I do not think any kind of development can be “predicted” based upon a Pseudogene location in a specie. I don’t even think we can “predict” how our own offspring will develop other than to guess similarity in design of specie.
To determine anything based upon “apparent” designs, seems to me to be pretentious in the extreme. I do not say this in any mean way, only to show the direction of my thinking. There are way too many “possibilities” in the realm of “development” even between species of similar utility, i.e., Duckbilled Platypus for example, when compared with duck-billed Dinosaur, and a Marsupial Lion of past eras. The end-result possibilities are just way too many for anything other than the wildest speculation, in my world.
But I think it is wildly speculative also to expect “Evolution” to explain all the vagaries of Creation from a common DNA source. The open availability of DNA in common does not have to depend upon anything beyond the imagination of a Creator, sometimes a creator with a sense of beauty, sometimes with a sense of awe, and sometimes with a sense of humor.
Competent ones don’t. Degrees are just a waypoint.
The DNA and protein sequences are His testimony regarding His creation.
I suggest that you take the time to compare and contrast them for yourself. You are grossly misrepresenting the nature and extent of the evidence for common descent without examining it when you employ vague terms like “shared” without bothering to witness for yourself.
Hi Theophilus -
I see in your writings a very poetic outlook on life…a vision of God’s grandeur, majesty, and creativity…and a sense that we are created for Him, to enjoy His presence and abide in His love. Those are wonderful qualities; thanks for sharing them.
It also seems that you are uninterested in scientific details. That’s OK; not everyone is. I would only urge you to consider Proverbs 18:17 as you mull over the issue or origins and creation:
The one who states his case first seems right,
until the other comes and examines him. (ESV)
When I was an avid believer in young-earth creationism, I did not heed this counsel of Scripture. Instead, when scientists, many of them Christian, attempted to advance scientific evidence for evolution or non-literalistic interpretations of Genesis, I would grab the nearest club. Then I would beat down their statements as ferociously as I could.
I hope you will learn from my mistakes; listen carefully to the evolutionary creationist side that gets shut out of many conservative evangelical gatherings. You may or may not change your position on how to interpret Genesis 1-3. I am, however, confident that you will reach the point where you consider “evolutionary creationists” as brothers and sisters in Christ who are doing their very best to glorify Him in a tough, complex world.
Peace,
Chris Falter
@dcscccc -
How are you doing, my friend? I hope you are feeling prepared in your heart to celebrate the death and resurrection of our Lord, which we commemorate this week. (And our brethren in the Orthodox churches a few weeks later.)
Thanks for clarifying this. You are stating now that humans have a vitellogenin pseudogene because, in the past, humans had a functional vitellogenin gene. I hope you will be willing to help me understand your position by providing a few more details:
As for the use of the word “may”:
You simply do not understand how probability works, and how scientists use probabilistic language.
I will try, one last time, to explain probabilistic language. Please, please, please, please try to pay attention. I think you will be glad you did. You may or may not agree with me about pseudogenes after our discussion, but at least you will understand what we have been talking about in all of the various threads where we have discussed probability. And that will be a good thing!
Suppose I were asked: will the German soccer (football) team win at least one game in the next 100 years? Based on what I know about soccer, I would say… absolutely! The probability of nothing but losses and draws over that period of time is infinitesimally small for the defending World Cup champions.
Now suppose I were asked: will the German soccer team win their next game?
That’s a lot harder question. Now we’re only talking about one game. One game is a lot harder to predict than 1000. So I would have to say “maybe.” That doesn’t seem like a very bold prediction, I know. But it’s all I could say. Anything can happen in one game.
Using evolution to predict pseudogene observations works the same way. Given a vast body of DNA evidence to work with, evolution predicts that many, many pseudogenes will be found. Evolution also predicts that the similarity of pseudogenes across species will correspond quite strongly to the phylogenetic nested hierarchy of the species. In general, the DNA sequence of a pseudogene in two closely related species should be more similar than the DNA sequence in two distantly related species.
However, it is a lot harder to predict what will be found with respect to just one pseudogene. Just like it is a lot harder to predict what will happen in just one soccer game.
The best way to examine the pseudogene evidence is to look at many of them, not just one. But it’s probably easier to understand when we look at just one at a time. That’s why this thread is dedicated to just one, the vitellogenin pseudogene.
Here’s what evolution predicts about pseudogenes, then:
Don’t give up hope, dcs! We can make progress if we work hard–especially if we listen to one another carefully.
Peace,
Chris Falter
P.S. I invite any biologists who are reading this thread to confirm or clarify what I have written about the predictions of evolution with regard to pseudogenes. Thanks!
This is correct. It is the precise mathematical pattern of differences that fulfills incredibly precise predictions.
We can be very confident that anyone trying to avoid this by using vague terms like “shared” and “similar” is only pretending to have familiarity with the massive evidence God has provided for us.
Hi Benjamin -
I greatly appreciate your help! And I pray you may experience the full measure of God’s grace this week as we remember our Lord’s sufferings and triumph.
It was not my assessment. Evolutionists have and do claim that since Man “shares” 97% to 98% of our DNA with Great Apes, we must conclude we descend from Great Apes. I make no such assessment. And my reason goes way beyond simply comparing the differences. It even included my assessment of my own ability to assess, compared with that same category of ability among the Great Apes. And I compare abilities to communicate the comparisons. Then I plug into the final equation what God has published about it. My God, not the Great Apes deity.
Why would I need to change? I already know from God’s word, that He utilizes either evolution, or a ministry of creation unknown to Man but assessed as Evolution.
At the top of God’s “evolution” H placed Man with the greatest of the Evolved Natural traits, i.e., Man makes tools, then evolves from them greater tools. He began with the simple club for making war, or the firs stick for making fire, and evolved his arsenal to the point He sent Men to the Moon. I call that Evolution in God’s Creature, Man.
And I am not a “young-earth” Christian. I do not picture God, from His revelation in Genesis, to have spent eons of time contemplating creation, and kajillions of eons gathering “Stuff” from which to make things.
God did not create time. Time and space are necessary for God to “BE.” “Place” requires Space, and “TO BE” requires Time. And no scripture ever says God made time and space. Simply that He “IS.”
The first thing God did, prior to creation, was “bring forth Wisdom” and Co-authored creation of what is. This can be found in Proverbs 8:22-31.
Proverbs 8:22 “The LORD possessed me in the beginning of his way, before his works of old.23 I was set up from everlasting, from the beginning, or ever the earth was. 24 When there were no depths, I was brought forth; when there were no fountains abounding with water.
25 Before the mountains were settled, before the hills was I brought forth: 26 While as yet he had not made the earth, nor the fields, nor the highest part of the dust of the world. 27 When he prepared the heavens, I was there: when he set a compass upon the face of the depth: 28 When he established the clouds above: when he strengthened the fountains of the deep: 29 When he gave to the sea his decree, that the waters should not pass his commandment: when he appointed the foundations of the earth:30 Then I was by him, as one brought up with him: and I was daily his delight, rejoicing always before him; 31 Rejoicing in the habitable part of his earth; and my delights were with the sons of men.”
Then God said “Let us make Man in our image.” This does not contribute to a triune deity, it contributes to careful reading of scripture.
Psalm 104:24 O LORD, how manifold are thy works! in wisdom hast thou made them all: the earth is full of thy riches.
Psalm 136:5 To him that by wisdom made the heavens: for his mercy endureth for ever.
Proverbs 3:19 The LORD by wisdom hath founded the earth; by understanding hath he established the heavens.
Jeremiah 51:15 He hath made the earth by his power, he hath established the world by his wisdom, and hath stretched out the heaven by his understanding.
When God continued to invest in Man, He taught him, and blessed him, and protected him, and nourished him, for He had made Man in His own image. He gave Man oversight of the creatures of the Earth, and geve him free will, and a knowledge of options, which gender selection, and choice, then told him to “Choose ye this day…” which brought about at least as much “Evolution” as Gene modification. It was the Modification of the mind that took Man to the Moon.
If you want to see evolution in action, look to the newborn infant. He begins by examining his hand. He will fist it, turn it about, taste it, smell it, gaze upon it until he knows everything there is to know, until one day he will use it to hold his bottle, or a rattle, or some toy, by which grasping affect, he learns to modify his living.
As He grows, and by examination and use, begins to see uses for toys, that were not the originally intended use, he is evolving before your very eyes. He is tool making, with every “thing” he can grasp in his hand, by his strength. Then he goes outside, and to the moon.
THAT is my understanding of God and His creating, and the “age of the earth” (at least as old as God less one second) kajillions of eons of time unmeasured by our standards, only recognized by Science’s ability to discover.
Science and God are not exclusionary one to the other. It was God who said "Doth not nature teach you…; and it was God who stated about the
Gods made by Men, “Them who by nature are no Gods.” This subtle suggestion tells us God is the only one who IS GOD BY NATURE. So why would he be at odds with Nature?
It is simply the ignorance of Man that promotes that insignificant babel.
God was first to point Man to nature as something to study and from which to learn.
Remember “Faith is the substance of things hoped for, by evidence of things not seen.” THAT is God suggesting you “bring out your magnifiers, of whatever nature you have made them, and study the things too small to see without them, and learn of Me.”
We begin to see ourselves and things within ourselves that are replicated in the small, in abundance, and marvel and wonder, and call it evolution. But it is simply God telling us and showing us that what is has always been, and what will be has already come before us. “No new thing…” we are told.
And God said it; I believe it; That SETTLES IT!
[quote=“Theo_Book, post:66, topic:4604”]
It was not my assessment. Evolutionists have and do claim that since Man “shares” 97% to 98% of our DNA with Great Apes, we must conclude we descend from Great Apes.[/quote]
Hello Theo,
See, there you go. You can’t even accurately represent the thing you’re arguing against.
You have made the assessment that it is wrong without characterizing it correctly nor examining the evidence that God provides.
One contrasts with differences. Comparisons are about similarities. There’s no evidence you have done either one before judging.
It seems that you have never examined the evidence before coming to a strong conclusion. Nor can you be bothered to accurately represent the “evolutionists’” position.
But you haven’t assessed the evidence.
Wouldn’t you need to make the comparisons and contrasts before communicating them?
[quote]Then I plug into the final equation what God has published about it.
[/quote]There’s a lot in the Bible about how carefully we are to weigh evidence before judging others. There’s very little about the generation of biodiversity. So why is the latter apparently so much more important to you than the former?
The sequences are God’s word on His creation, too, but you apparently ignore them. Why?
"There are small bits of data (pseudogenes) that are shared only by humans and primates, and found nowhere else in the animal kingdom.
[Evolution 2.0 by Perry Marshall, p.19 (bottom of page).
“The pseudogenes that humans and primates exclusively share are identical mobile DNA elements…A historian would naturally conclude common ancestry.”
[Evolution 2.0 by Perry Marshall, p.20 (center of page).
I differ with Marshall’s conclusion in that I would have said “Science” rather than “historian.”
The point remains the same. the popular conclusion would be, and still is, that humans and Apes share a common Ancestor. The fact that there is progress being made, in that some theologians are beginning to consider Evolution, and some Evolutionists are beginning to consider Theology, does not alter the equation by much, YET.
While I disown the assessment, I agree that God used Evolution in His creative effort. I preached about this prior to the turning of the century (in the 1980s), but was mostly ignored, occasionally debated, and often reviled. I also concluded “shared DNA” is due to a common creator instead of a common ancestor; because the dry land was separated from the sea, which shows a common source for DNA in the beginning, when creation took place.
As for your correction, that differences are contrasted, but similarities are compared; Both can be contrasted, both can be compared, depending upon the focus of your study. If I want to prove, I compare. If I want to disprove, I contrast. Others may do it differently. I do not insist it be said like I say it.
As for evidence I have made no such examination, none is required to reach my conclusion. My statement was one of theological discovery, contrasted with scientific conclusion. I disagree with a conclusion that disregards a scientific exercise in scriptural exegesis, but is interested only in the scientific research of a scientific interest.
As for the “Evolutionists position” remark, you reach an erroneous conclusion based upon a lack of bulk to my post that would cover such unimportant “Stuff” as my remarks were only concerned with pointing out the obvious, i.e., that the “scientific interest” was limited to the scientific experiment, and ignoring theological considerations.
I did assess the evidence, I just did not include the pros and cons in my post. They are not Germaine to the observation “Shared DNA does not prove common ancestry, but when common DNA source is discovered, it reflects a common creator.”
As for comparing and contrasting before communicating, I did that, and focused upon the discovery that agrees with my conclusion without including all that extemporaneous “stuff” of argument by which I reached my conclusion. It is not necessary to prove it in a simple statement about an observation of theological import.
I simply inserted my conclusion in response to a statement about “common ancestry.”
“Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.” -Colossians 4:6
This is a place for gracious dialogue about science and faith. Please read our FAQ/Guidelines before posting.