Ok great... We agree. Evolutionists 'MOSTLY IGNORED' psuedogenes. Fortunately not all scientists believed they were useless evolutionary leftovers.
LOL! I notice how you describe those who "ignored pseudogenes" as "evolutionists", but described those who studied them as "scientists". It always interesting to see all the different ways your bias manifests itself.
I did bring this subject up with a colleague of mine who is a geneticist. She explained that it wasn't so much that pseudogenes were "ignored" as they were "not prioritized". In the 1970's and 1980's, genetic sequences were pretty hard to come by and we really were in the earliest stages of figuring out what the human genome even looked like, let alone what it all did. So it was quite logical for geneticists to first prioritize coding regions in their research. Coding regions = proteins, and proteins are where most of the action is in the cell. But even then (as I showed with references to the literature), some geneticists
were looking at non-coding regions.
Then in the 1990's, as larger segments of genomes became available for study, more research was done on non-coding regions. But for sure the bulk was focused on coding regions, because they still hadn't figured out what most of them did.
Then in the 2000's, as whole genomes became available for comparison (under the framework of evolutionary theory), more geneticists noticed these highly conserved sequences among the non-coding regions and the results are in the papers we've been discussing.
You can keep making the claim
Sheesh 6days, are you even paying attention? It's not me who's making that claim,
it's the geneticists who do the work who are making that claim.
Through evolutionary analysis, we have identified candidate sequences for functional human transcribed pseudogenes, and have pinpointed 68 strong candidates for further investigation as potentially functional transcribed pseudogenes across multiple mammal species.
I'm curious....do you think they were lying when they wrote that?
And we can look at more than just research into pseudogenes.
CLICK HERE for a Nat Geo blog post by Carl Zimmer where he describes (complete with citations) how geneticists at the Scripps Research Institute have been applying evolutionary theory to make all sorts of discoveries. Relevant to our current discussion...
Wahlestedt is finding these promoters, and it’s evolution he’s using as his guide. He and his colleagues described their approach in an open-access paper published earlier this year in the journal BMC Genomics. They lined up the sequences of human genes with their corresponding genes in mice. They then looked near the genes, in the long sequence of non-coding DNA, searching for short stretches of DNA that were similar in both species. Their reasoning was this: if a piece of non-coding DNA in the common ancestor of humans and mice didn’t serve an important function, it might pick up mutations over time without causing any harm. As a result, most non-coding sequences should be noticeably different in humans and mice, because we share an ancestor that lived some 100 million years ago. But switches probably played a vital role in that common ancestor, and most mutations that struck them would have had a devastating effect. Natural selection should have prevented most of these mutations from becoming fixed in both humans and mice. As a result, parts of DNA involved in switching genes on and off should look very similar in humans and mice, unlike the other non-coding DNA.
Wahlestedt and his colleagues used this method to identify a number of candidate switches. Further tests confirmed that most of them actually did affect the way genes work. And still more tests showed that humans carry different versions of these switches, and that these differences affect the way that these genes make proteins. If Wahlestedt had used creationism as his guide, he’d still be floundering in an ocean of DNA.
And if you look at the paper he's describing (
CLICK HERE), you'll see that he's not exaggerating. The concept of "evolutionally conserved regions" is the entire basis for his work.
I will keep saying your wrong.
So that's how it is, eh? You're just going to keep saying "You're wrong. You're wrong. You're wrong." no matter what? Even when the scientists you're citing say "we used evolutionary theory" you'll just say "You're wrong"?
Well, I suppose you can keep saying black is white and up is down, but all you're doing is making yourself look ridiculous.
Finding similar functional sequences in multiple mammal series can be explained by a common Designer, or common ancestry.
So just as I predicted, you've left an enormous amount of unanswered questions and unaddressed facts on the table. One of those questions is, why does similar sequences = design? And another question is, if similarity = design, does that mean dissimilarity is evidence against design?
Further (another issue you ignored), are you saying that a designer, in crafting a regulatory sequence, would take a copy of a gene, break the exon region but keep the introns, and then put the whole thing....
exons and all....in another section of the genome so that just the introns can regulate another gene?
How does that make any sense whatsoever?
function and purpose should be looked for in all of our genome...not just 68 sequences that seem to fit the common ancestry belief system.
Well there's a research opportunity for creationism! Like I said earlier, science is a "put up or shut up" endeavor. If creationists truly believe their framework is superior and would generate better results, then they need to show it.
So far, all we've seen is them (and you) sitting on the sidelines throwing rocks at the scientists who are actually doing the work and generating results. Pretty lame.
