Faid
Posts: 1143
Joined: Mar. 2006
|
-Sigh-
And you're calling us confused?
Dave, that gene is a pseudogene. Pseudogenes are just part of what is commonly referred to as junk DNA, and noone says that they never had any coding function. In the case of this gene, we know it's function: We have identified the gene (in it's active form) in the rat,verified it's existense in many organisms, and it's corrupted form in primates and guinea pigs:
+AND+267[VOL]+AND+842[PAGE]&doptcmdl=Abstract]http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez.....bstract
<edit: I can't seem to link to the article... Anyway, googling "Nishikimi et al, J Biol Chem 267" will do it.>
Which this gene is, and what it does (coding for a specific protein), is not a wild assumption; it is a FACT. A wild (and completely unsupportable) assumption is what you say: that the gene in question has some other imaginary, undefined purpose in its broken form, that we have not understood yet (or the mechanism by which it is produced), and it just happens to look identical to a broken GULO gene- and that's about as unscientific as you can get.
And what arguments do you provide for this? Analogies with language. Sheesh.
Dave, Language is arbitrary. Words are arbitrary.
"Barking" and "Barfing" look alike only because we made them that way in English, not because there's some magical connection between the two actions they represent, so that one can become the other with a change of a letter in the word (well, unless you believe in Kabbalah, that is  ).
Genetics is not arbitrary. Change (or rather, destroy) a key element in the complicated biochemical process of transcription, and it's not another intriguing result that suddenly pops up: You know what happens? That's right, nothing. Everything else is just wishful thinking on your part. Wishful dreaming, rather.
Dave, noone expects you to become a rocket scientist. We just think that it's necessary, since you also like to refer to yourself as an "amateur scientist", to have at least some knowledge of the fundamentals of the sciences (yes, whole sciences) you're arguing against.
Is that too much to ask?
You can start here, if you really came to learn something in these forums:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/molgen/
http://www.indiana.edu/~ensiweb/lessons/psa.ball.html
Answer key
I won't even adress your other "arguments" (about losing the PR fight, ToE's boat sinking etc). They were blown to smithereens the first time you posted them; it gets tedious after a while.
--------------
A look into DAVE HAWKINS' sense of honesty:
"The truth is that ALL mutations REDUCE information"
"...mutations can add information to a genome. And remember, I have never said that this is not possible."
|
