bren. why you doesnt answer my question? if you cant show that its impossible to get shared mutations under the creation model - then you cant claim that the creation model doesnt predict this. its very simple. here is one example of 2 shared mutations in a pseudogene without a commondescent:
according to your model its extremely unlikely. and still we find this. interesting.
Hi @dcscccc,
The reason he doesnât answer your question is that it is impossible to answer your question. Itâs impossible for any human being to answer your question. And the reason it is impossible to answer the question about shared mutations under the creation model is thatâŚ
âŚyou have not defined a âcreationâ model for the expected degree of shared mutations in the vitellogenin gene(s).
Until there are two well-defined modelsâone for evolution and one for âcreationââthat predict the expected degree of shared mutations across the observed taxonomic distance, it is impossible for anyone to make comparisons.
You are literally asking for the impossible.
So I would suggest that you define the âcreation modelâ that so many have been asking for.
For those keeping count, that now makes 5 times that you have decided not to define a âcreation model,â dcs.
Have a blessed dayâŚ
Thanks for your efforts DC, but it has now been 5 direct evasions that Iâve seen since I started counting (as you know), and Iâd rather not experience another 5 posts watching you flounder about trying at all costs to evade a single, simple and direct request made by 3 people literally dozens of times in one string (this has been a real evasive tour-de-force for you!).
Itâs been a little painful, if interesting, watching you deflect attention from this request by throwing out new questions of your own, pretending not to understand the most basic concepts (like the suddenly controversial idea that there may be an actual discernible difference between an extensive shared pattern and totally unrelated sequences - sorry that I donât believe you, but I just canât credit anyone taking such an absurd position) and posting any article you can get your hands on to try to get the agenda moving in a different direction.
Iâve appreciated Dennisâ patient efforts to explain complex issues to you as well as Chrisâ frankly incredibly generous approach to your lackluster posts. Iâve been far pushier obviously (though with a purpose in mind), and Iâm sorry if you did not appreciate being painted into a corner.
I am also aware that this is not the type of conversation, past a certain point, that is likely to be very constructive for third-party readers. I think you simply wonât let yourself do something that might cause you to question your own position (thatâs about as far as I am capable of going when it comes to pop-psychology) and there are diminishing returns in trying to get you to see your own duplicity. That said, I think this has revealed as much about the creationist position in general as it has about your own idiosyncrasies.
It has been interesting digging to see if there was anything more that could possibly be salvaged from the creationist perspective. I was secretly hoping for some wild hypothesis out of left-field - a genetic equivalent to âhydrological sortingâ for flood geology would have been a blast, so Iâm a bit disappointed, but at least I know what not to look for from now on! I really enjoyed the Vitellogenin posts, since this was a creationist paper that Iâve wanted to see critiqued ever since it came out, so I donât want to distract from the posts by continuing this.
This is therefore my last response to you in this string. Iâm very sorry to see that you were unwilling to give an honest, straightforward response after all of that effort. Think about it my friend;-)
Once again, thanks for your interesting articles and all the best for now!
what do you mean by that? the creation model means that all the familys (or kind if you want) in nature designed by the creator and doesnt evolve from each ohter.
feel free. i think that i answered your questions.and you doesnt answer my questions either. i asking why do you think its impossible to get this pattern under the creation model and you doesnt answer it. i also provied evidence that shared mutations on pseudogenes can be find without any commondescent (and therefore the vitellogenin pseudogene cant be consider as evidence for a commondescent) and you also ignore this issue.
have a nice day
Hi @dcscccc
What kind of prediction would the creation model (hereafter, your model) make with respect to the similarity of the DNA in a human and the DNA in a chicken in the vitellogenin gene region?
Would your model predict that a vitellogenin pseudogene would exist in a human? If so, why?
Would your model predict that a vitellogenin pseudogene would exist in a marsupial (for example, the opposum)?
Would your model predict that a vitellogenin pseudogene in a chimpanzee would be more similar to that of a human, or to that of an opossum? On what basis?
Dennis Venemaâs articles provided the evolutionary modelâs answer to these questions. To compare the evolutionary model with the creation model, we need to know what both models predict with respect to the vitellogenin gene/pseudogene. Until you can provide the creation modelâs predictions, it is impossible to discuss which model fits the evidence better.
And until we can discuss which model fits the evidence better, this discussion will make no progress.
Can you answer the 4 questions, @dcscccc?
Thanks!
I agree!
Commonality of DNA shared is not evidence of common ancestry. It is evidence of a common creator. Look at the Genesis record - And God separated the Waters from the dry land; and the waters He called Seas, and the dry land He called Earth.
So if Earth and Seas were one primordial soup prior to their division, it would be one great morass of DNA common source. Why would it then follow that common DNA sharing indicates a common ancestor? The reality is, the sharing of DNA in common with other creatures, indicates a common source of DNA, and a common creator. One creator made us all.
I fail to comprehend why that is so hard to understand. What say you?
that we will find such a match if human once have a working vit.
not necessarily. because even if human and chicken doesnt shared a commondescent we can find cases when the same gene can have another function in the same luci.
the same.
to that of a human. but because of a commondesigner that designed a similar sequence.
do you think that evolution model predict this? if so- what kind of evidence will falsified it?
Hi @dcscccc
Thanks for taking the time to respond. Your responses were, unfortunately, so brief that I am unable to understand exactly what the predictions are. Letâs see if we can clarify the predictions so we can move forward.
You used the word if, so Iâm not sure what you are predicting. Are you stating that humans have, in the past, laid eggs and therefore had need of a functional vitellogenin gene?
âNot necessarilyâ is not a prediction. Yes or no, or at least some quantitative probability, is a prediction. If you donât mind my trying to help you, though, I think you are saying that a human does not, indeed cannot, have a vitellogenin pseudogene. However, the vitellogenin gene might be present in a human, but produce some other protein or have some other active role in human function. Is that correct?
You seem to be stating that the opossum does not have a vitellogenin pseudogene, but it might have the vitellogenin gene; but that gene would not be producing vitellogenin, but playing some other role. Is that correct?
Previously, you seemed to be stating that humans and other mammals do not have a vitellogenin pseudogene.
If you are now claiming that they chimps, opossums, and humans in fact have the vitellogenin pseudogene, letâs bear in mind what a pseudogene is:
âPseudogenes are functionless relatives of genes that have lost their gene expression in the cell or their ability to code protein.â [emphasis mine]
If the genes have no function, why would they be similar? I understand why the genes for human hands are more similar to the genes for chimp hands than the genes for opossum forepaws; itâs because human hands are more similar to chimp hands than to opossum forepaws. Similar function requires similar blueprints.
But where the DNA in many species has no functionâi.e., no functional designâwhat is the reason you would expect it to be similar? Any random, non-functional sequence is as good as another if there is no design.
You failed to quote the sentence I wrote just prior:
If you read Dennisâ articles carefully, you would know what the evolutionary model predicted and how it fits the evidence. After you have provided a clear creationist model, we will compare the two models to the evidence, okay?
@Theo_Book Thanks for taking the time to respond. However, this statement is so vague that I cannot extract a prediction from it. What would you predict with regard to the locus on the human genome that corresponds to the vitellogenin gene locus on a chicken?
Peace,
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,
Itâs not mere âcommonalityâ or âsimilarity.â Itâs the degree of difference thatâs the key, which is something that you never see addressed by evolution denialists.
[quote=âTheo_Book, post:47, topic:4604â]
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 itâs been easy to detect exceptions, such as horizontal gene transfer. They are tested every day with new data.
[quote=âTheo_Book, post:47, topic:4604â]
I fail to comprehend why that is so hard to understand. What say you?
[/quote]Iâd 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 âCommon Creatorâ is the correct beginning, then everything you cite as an example [b]is a direct result" of a beginning caused by that âCommon Creator.â
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=âTheo_Book, post:52, topic:4604, full:trueâ]
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 didnât cite any examples. In fact, I cited a single exception. You donât seem to be responding to what I wrote at all.
How do you explain the patterns of differences?
I didnât 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 â 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 Venemaâs 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 âmayâ. 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 âVitellogenin and Common Ancestryâ -
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.
âCommon Creatorâ most certainly will and would be my choice of selections if in fact, there is a better explanation for shared DNA than simply âEvolution,â 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 âevidence of Evolutionâ 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 âpredictedâ based upon a Pseudogene location in a specie. I donât even think we can âpredictâ how our own offspring will develop other than to guess similarity in design of specie.
To determine anything based upon âapparentâ 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 âpossibilitiesâ in the realm of âdevelopmentâ 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 âEvolutionâ 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.
âLet your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.â -Colossians 4:6
This is a place for gracious dialogue about science and faith. Please read our FAQ/Guidelines before posting.