I consider "PSEUDOGENES" as irrefutrable evidence for common ancestry
-
Peace,
http//www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section4.html#pseudogenes
Pseudogenes are molecular examples of vestigial structures, meaning they are such genes which had functions in earlier species but dont have them anymore.This is how you define pseudogenes initially (taken from talk origins?)
Now when I present proof that functional pseudogenes do exist, you change your definition! Exactly the way the evolutionists have changed the definition of vestigial structures (from useless to reduced function).
You need to think through this before you ask me for an alternate explanation.
peace.
-
Peace "god1quran1",
This is how you define pseudogenes initially (taken from talk origins?)
Now when I present proof that functional pseudogenes do exist, you change your definition! Exactly the way the evolutionists have changed the definition of vestigial structures (from useless to reduced function).
You need to think through this before you ask me for an alternate explanation.
peace.
JK- Evolutionists did not change the definition of vestigial. Vestigial never necessarily meant completely useless though it obviously includes that too. But i guess thts too tough a cookie to grasp for creationists, apparently. GOD Bless!
-
Peace "god1quran1",
Well this proves my point even further. Although this article doesnt mention all pseudogenes it is well possible that some which have had recued function in other species regained there ones in a later species including us humans. You can ask any evolutionary biologists regarding the switvhing off of certain genes in us or any other species as compared to their ancestors. Your sure to get a detailed answer of exactly how this happens. Homological structures and even palaentology further support this even further. Also take a look at my 3rd last long paragraph at the end of "evolution poll" and also my other reply to you. GOD Bless!Where do those papers suggest that the pseudogenes have a reduced function? Why do you say stuff that you cannot back up with evidence?
Switch off .... switch on ... has this actually been proven in a lab or is it just speculation???
peace.
-
Peace "god1quran1",
Where do those papers suggest that the pseudogenes have a reduced function? Why do you say stuff that you cannot back up with evidence?
Switch off .... switch on ... has this actually been proven in a lab or is it just speculation???
peace.
JK- Please bro, i can only suggest you talk to an evolutionary biologist. The switch on and off is shown by the traces of pseudigenes in different species of living things. And yes whilst pseudogenes may have little function it is less in some than the others, while being present at the same chromosomic locations. It is ofcourse possible that those then adopt a new initially lesses function. If individual ceration were the case this would not be the case. These mark common ancestry and hence add evidence to the Oneness of GOD. GOD Bless!
-
Peace "god1quran1",
The first post of this thread claimed this
Pseudogenes are molecular examples of vestigial structures, meaning they are such genes which had functions in earlier species but dont have them anymore.
which has now changed to this
And yes whilst pseudogenes may have little function it is less in some than the others, while being present at the same chromosomic locations. It is ofcourse possible that those then adopt a new initially lesses function.
If now you agree that pseudodenes do have a "little" function, why did you not mention it in the opening post? Was it mere ignorance or were you trying to mislead?
And what is you definition of "little"? 10%, 20% or 30%?
JK- Please bro, i can only suggest you talk to an evolutionary biologist.
Again you are giving me a hadithist defence.
The switch on and off is shown by the traces of pseudigenes in different species of living things.
And now can you provide a link/evidence for us "less fortunate"
peace
-
Peace "god1quran1",
It seems your deliberately ignoring the bulk of evidence and start nickpicking on little things. Anyways lemme comment.If now you agree that pseudodenes do have a "little" function, why did you not mention it in the opening post? Was it mere ignorance or were you trying to mislead?
JK- What i said is tht they "had functions in earlier species but dont have them(meaning those in particular) anymore". It does not necessarily mean zero function.
And what is you definition of "little"? 10%, 20% or 30%?
JK- Man wht it means is LESSER COMPARED TO THE EARLIER SPECIES which contained them by any amount JUST LESS.
Again you are giving me a hadithist defence.
JK- No im not. The prob is only tht im not a molecular bioloist myself and havnt studied eveything in this field. Despite this ive given you plenty of evidence. If you wanna know all the details then youll have to go to a site where such a one has explained all the details.
And now can you provide a link/evidence for us "less fortunate"
peace
JK- I think ive provided enough links and if ur stubborn not to go through them in detail then thts ur prob. GOD Bless!
-
To JK,
It is clear that your assertion
The switch on and off is shown by the traces of pseudigenes in different species of living things.
has no scientific merit, for you refuse to provide any evidence to back up your claim. An internet search reveals nothing od significance.
In science, there is a huge difference in meaning b/w no function and "little" function because "little" is a very subjective term. Surely you must know that science requires objectivity. If I point this out to you it is not nitpicking but following scientific procedures.
The defensive tone of your post clear shows the "theory" you are defending is on a shaky ground and can easily be disproven using scientific evidence.
Please remember I hold no personal grudge against. It is the theory that you support that I have a problem with.
peace and good luck.
-
Peace "god1quran1",
To put it simple if evolution aint true why would an ostrich have wings if it was directly designed like creationism claims? Why does a mole still have eyelids? Why does the whale have vestigial olfactory traces in his nose which he doesnt require now anymore? Why does a snake have traces of hind legs which yes are now used for mating but they have an exact similar anatomic structure to previous reptiles with legs at those exact palces and those used the same part much more efficiently? If the snake were directly created we should see a more efficient mating organ. The human eye has the blood vessels infront. Some creationists have argued that this is to protect aginst UV light but again this is nonsense. Why not use an extra layer filter to protect against that and still have the blood vessels a the back which would be more efficient? Again these things can only be explained by evolution, NEVER creationism. If you look at your skin youll see even striking reptile scale similarities. Again a historical mark of evolution. What about the flying fish with a pair of fins like wings but yet these fish can still do no more than glide for a very short time? Again this makes no sense except if the creature is a transition to become something else in the far future. Why are both excretionary and sexual function packed into one organ? It would be more sensible according to direct creation if they both had seprate ones. This can definitely only be explaind through evolution since according to that this is what would happen, working with whats available, since both sexual fluid and urine are discharges. As mentioned earlier there are pseudogenes in the human DNA which are exactly the same in our previous ancestors but they cause more harm at present. They can easily develop into cancer cells so this is definitely unexplainable by direct creation. Ofcourse they might be reactivated for something much more useful int eh future but for now GOD is showing us historical contraint and common ancestry. Hes makking this clear all over the place and yet you deny it. All of this doesnt degrade GOD in the least because it is His law that there shall be(and logically has to if common decent be true which btw if were not would substantially wekaen the proof of there being One god only) HISTORICAL RESTRAINT and evolution must work with things already there. Hence these organs might just as well obtain a more sufficient function in the future while passing though certain phases. All plants and animals, including us humans, came from Eukaryotes in the beginning. The links can be traced through DNA sequencing. If you claim that thats not how it happened then how did it happen, please state your theory nd then the evidence. So far ive provided tons of evidence here but havent received an iota of evidence for creationism.LAST BUT NOT LEAST i ask you, do you support the Quran and science or the Bible and creationism? Youve named yourself "god1quran" but perhaps you shld change that to "god3in1bible1". I also made it clear that without common ancestry it is much less likely that there's only one god as anyone could claim that the creatures in his region or himself for that matter, though being quite similar, are yet created by a diferent god in very much the same way that honda and toyota models have many similarities but are two different companies. This is another reason why creationism doesnt support one god but lessens its value. GOD Bless!
-
Peace "god1quran1",
To put it simple if evolution aint true why would an ostrich have wings if it was directly designed like creationism claims? Why does a mole still have eyelids? Why does the whale have vestigial olfactory traces in his nose which he doesnt require now anymore? Why does a snake have traces of hind legs which yes are now used for mating but they have an exact similar anatomic structure to previous reptiles with legs at those exact palces and those used the same part much more efficiently? If the snake were directly created we should see a more efficient mating organ. The human eye has the blood vessels infront. Some creationists have argued that this is to protect aginst UV light but again this is nonsense. Why not use an extra layer filter to protect against that and still have the blood vessels a the back which would be more efficient? Again these things can only be explained by evolution, NEVER creationism. If you look at your skin youll see even striking reptile scale similarities. Again a historical mark of evolution. What about the flying fish with a pair of fins like wings but yet these fish can still do no more than glide for a very short time? Again this makes no sense except if the creature is a transition to become something else in the far future. Why are both excretionary and sexual function packed into one organ? It would be more sensible according to direct creation if they both had seprate ones. This can definitely only be explaind through evolution since according to that this is what would happen, working with whats available, since both sexual fluid and urine are discharges. As mentioned earlier there are pseudogenes in the human DNA which are exactly the same in our previous ancestors but they cause more harm at present. They can easily develop into cancer cells so this is definitely unexplainable by direct creation. Ofcourse they might be reactivated for something much more useful int eh future but for now GOD is showing us historical contraint and common ancestry. Hes makking this clear all over the place and yet you deny it. All of this doesnt degrade GOD in the least because it is His law that there shall be(and logically has to if common decent be true which btw if were not would substantially wekaen the proof of there being One god only) HISTORICAL RESTRAINT and evolution must work with things already there. Hence these organs might just as well obtain a more sufficient function in the future while passing though certain phases. All plants and animals, including us humans, came from Eukaryotes in the beginning. The links can be traced through DNA sequencing. If you claim that thats not how it happened then how did it happen, please state your theory nd then the evidence. So far ive provided tons of evidence here but havent received an iota of evidence for creationism.I must point out that this is a thread about Pseudogenes which you initiated. Why are giving me 19th century arguments that have been refuted countless number of times?
And I am still waiting for you to provide me with evidence.
LAST BUT NOT LEAST i ask you, do you support the Quran and science or the Bible and creationism? Youve named yourself "god1quran" but perhaps you shld change that to "god3in1bible1".
And you should refrain from ad hominums mate!
peace.
-
Peace "god1quran1",
I must point out that this is a thread about Pseudogenes which you initiated. Why are giving me 19th century arguments that have been refuted countless number of times?
JK- Could you please explain how they were refuted instead of just making a vague claim. However i must admit ht i was no different whilst i used to be a creationist before. You can read my previous articles and find out.
And I am still waiting for you to provide me with evidence.
And you should refrain from ad hominums mate!
peace.
JK- I think ive provided you with more than enough evidence and if all thts not enough evidence then i really cant help you. GOD Bless!
-
Peace "god1quran1",
JK- Could you please explain how they were refuted instead of just making a vague claim. However i must admit ht i was no different whilst i used to be a creationist before. You can read my previous articles and find out.
JK- I think ive provided you with more than enough evidence and if all thts not enough evidence then i really cant help you. GOD Bless!
Devolution is no evidence of evolution mate. You need to think through this.
On the other hand, a new feature requires additonal information that must appear in the DNA of the organism. Matter cannot create information. It requires a sender and a code that the receiver can use to decode the message. Evolution is unable to account for all this.peace.
-
Peace "god1quran1",
Devolution is no evidence of evolution mate. You need to think through this.
JK- Man i believe ive said this before evolution works both ways so generally one doesnt even talk about devolution.
On the other hand, a new feature requires additonal information thatnd must appear in the DNA of the organism. Matter cannot create information. It requires a sender and a code that the receiver can use to decode the message. Evolution is unable to account for all this.
peace.JK- Additional information as you call it is brought in by mutations and natural selection. As for you stating that matter cant create itself one has to understand that even the tiniest particles posess intelligence and ofcourse theyve been provided that by GOD, the Ultimate Intelligence. No evolutionist on this forum or any theitic evoltuionist for that matter doubts this so i dont see your problem. GOD put it all in the lelmetary particles and fixed constants at the beginning of the big bang in a way that we have all this diversity of life coming from a common ancestor which is the only way to give evidence for there being only one god, GOD. How many times do i have to repeat myself? If according to you GOD created every species or kind(as creationists say) separate then one could argue that such and such creature was created by a different GOD. GOD didnt want tht and this i believe is one of the major reasons He used evolution. GOD Bless!