Jump to content
one.opinion

Is the vitamin C-making pseudogene evidence of shared ancestry?

Recommended Posts

21 minutes ago, Tristen said:

And so I think it naive in such a volatile climate, to suggest that finding a function for GULOP would result in creationists “being taken more seriously” by anyone.

It is quite possible you are right about this. But I can tell you with certainty that discovery of a function associated with GULOP would certainly be publishable. Unfortunately, any mention of creation would make that impossible. I’m not saying it should be that way, but it is.

If AiG has the capital for building museums and theme parks, they also have the capital to do research.

Additionally, please notice that what I said was “a step toward being taken more seriously.” You left out that important bit of context. I do not believe what I actually said was naive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, one.opinion said:

It is quite possible you are right about this. But I can tell you with certainty that discovery of a function associated with GULOP would certainly be publishable. Unfortunately, any mention of creation would make that impossible. I’m not saying it should be that way, but it is.

If AiG has the capital for building museums and theme parks, they also have the capital to do research.

Additionally, please notice that what I said was “a step toward being taken more seriously.” You left out that important bit of context. I do not believe what I actually said was naive.

It is quite possible you are right about this. But I can tell you with certainty that discovery of a function associated with GULOP would certainly be publishable. Unfortunately, any mention of creation would make that impossible. I’m not saying it should be that way, but it is.

I wonder if we are starting to argue for argument's sake. Though I think here we agree – a paper could be accepted if they presented the secular story of GULOP as fact in the introduction, but any serious inclusion of the creationist story would be rejected until 'corrected' (i.e. the creation implications removed) - even if they were both presented fairly, alongside each other.

 

If AiG has the capital for building museums and theme parks, they also have the capital to do research.

I don't know much about them. I don't know their financial situation or budgeting priorities. It's not my job to tell them how they should spend their money. I still think you may be underestimating how much it costs to set up and maintain a lab properly equipped and staffed to perform molecular biology experiments.

 

Additionally, please notice that what I said was “a step toward being taken more seriously.” You left out that important bit of context. I do not believe what I actually said was naive.

Is this really an actual issue? Your “important bit of context” seems redundant to me; overly hedged.

Either way, creationists already perform research. This has not resulted in any 'movement towards' serious or fair consideration of creationism by the “establishment”. So I don't see any reason why this one proposed experiment should alter the current status quo one iota.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Tristen said:

I wonder if we are starting to argue for argument's sake. Though I think here we agree – a paper could be accepted if they presented the secular story of GULOP as fact in the introduction, but any serious inclusion of the creationist story would be rejected until 'corrected' (i.e. the creation implications removed) - even if they were both presented fairly, alongside each other.

 

I prefer to think of our conversations as “dialogue” :-P This is quite a bit different from arguments I’ve had here!

I am sincere in my statement that it is upsetting to me that a mention of creation in a paper will disqualify it from publication. I am a creationist, although of a different vein.

1 hour ago, Tristen said:

I don't know much about them. I don't know their financial situation or budgeting priorities. It's not my job to tell them how they should spend their money. I still think you may be underestimating how much it costs to set up and maintain a lab properly equipped and staffed to perform molecular biology experiments.

I shouldn’t tell them how to spend their money either, but the Ark Encounter theme park cost over $100 million. It’s safe to say a good research lab could be built, funded, and staffed with that.

1 hour ago, Tristen said:

Either way, creationists already perform research.

Are you aware of any molecular biology “wet work”?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/28/2017 at 11:35 AM, one.opinion said:

Pseudogenes are sequences of DNA that share considerable resemblance ordinary genes (by examination of nucleotide sequence), but have either partially or completely lost function - essentially, they don't encode a functional protein product. Most of the roughly 13,000 pseudogenes in the human genome can be identified by finding very similar active gene sequences elsewhere in the genome, usually in close proximity. It is thought by most scientists that these pseudogenes arose by duplication and divergence, or accidental copying of an extra version, followed by mutations that result in loss of function. However, there are a much smaller number of "unitary pseudogenes" that do not have a functional "counterpart" within the genome. These unitary pseudogenes can be identified by observing DNA sequence similarity to functional genes in other organisms. One example of this in the human genome is the GULOP pseudogene, that shares considerable DNA sequence with GULO genes in other mammals. The functional GULO gene encodes the gulonolactone (-L) oxidase enzyme that is used to make vitamin C. Many animals, including most mammals, can make their own vitamin C using this gene instead of needing to acquire it through the diet like humans do. From a young earth creationist or intelligent design viewpoint, it seems rather odd for humans to have a non-functioning version of this gene present in our genomes. What is even more odd is that some of the critical mutations within the GULOP pseudogene are actually shared between humans and most other primates. The fact that this pseudogene is present in the human genome combined with the fact that this pseudogene shares these critical mutations in versions found in other primates seems to suggest our common biological ancestry. 

Everything came from the earth, and everything changed after the fall, something hardly any scientist take into account. God is very efficient so why wouldn't He reuse something. However, at the same time, human, animals, and fish all have different flesh...

1 Corinthians 15:37-39 (KJV)
And that which thou sowest, thou sowest not that body that shall be, but bare grain, it may chance of wheat, or of some other grain: But God giveth it a body as it hath pleased him, and to every seed his own body. All flesh is not the same flesh: but there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, and another of birds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 09/12/2017 at 2:44 PM, one.opinion said:

I prefer to think of our conversations as “dialogue” :-P This is quite a bit different from arguments I’ve had here!

I am sincere in my statement that it is upsetting to me that a mention of creation in a paper will disqualify it from publication. I am a creationist, although of a different vein.

I shouldn’t tell them how to spend their money either, but the Ark Encounter theme park cost over $100 million. It’s safe to say a good research lab could be built, funded, and staffed with that.

Are you aware of any molecular biology “wet work”?

"I shouldn’t tell them how to spend their money either, but the Ark Encounter theme park cost over $100 million. It’s safe to say a good research lab could be built, funded, and staffed with that."

Sure, but all that speaks to is their capacity to raise funds, not to the mission priorities of their organisation. Do they even have a research arm to their organisation?

 

"Are you aware of any molecular biology “wet work”?"

Nothing specific off the top of my head. Most of the experimental research performed by creationists (as far as I'm aware) is related to earth sciences. The few molecular studies I know about are primarily bioinformatic. I suppose I could have a better look - if there's a reason.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Tristen said:

Sure, but all that speaks to is their capacity to raise funds, not to the mission priorities of their organisation. Do they even have a research arm to their organisation?

They have science writers, but I don’t know about any actual research. That doesn’t seem to be a high priority.

2 hours ago, Tristen said:

The few molecular studies I know about are primarily bioinformatic.

That’s what I’ve seen, as well. But I was confident you would know better than I.

I just think it’s unfortunate that there is an interesting research opportunity there, but I’m afraid no one willing to pursue it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, one.opinion said:

I just think it’s unfortunate that there is an interesting research opportunity there, but I’m afraid no one willing to pursue it.

They're not gonna do it because they know that the: "Pseudo-Genes", ERV, Junk DNA :rolleyes: Texas Two-Step fiascos used to 'grease the skids' for the Pseudo-Scientific Trainwreck "Common Ancestry" Affirming The Consequent Formal Logical Fallacy from the Indoctrinated Peanut Gallery is a Tear Jerk'n Belly Laugher.  Their time would be better spent filling their common corporate latrines with "Mountain Fresh" Scents.

 

regards

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Enoch2021 said:

They're not gonna do it because they know that the: "Pseudo-Genes", ERV, Junk DNA :rolleyes: Texas Two-Step fiascos used to 'grease the skids' for the Pseudo-Scientific Trainwreck "Common Ancestry" Affirming The Consequent Formal Logical Fallacy from the Indoctrinated Peanut Gallery is a Tear Jerk'n Belly Laugher.  Their time would be better spent filling their common corporate latrines with "Mountain Fresh" Scents.

What, in your opinion, is stopping scientists from YEC or ID institutions from pursuing such investigations?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×