Pseudogene Eugenie

[Glenn]

" She goes on to say this pseudogene is “not going to function. It’s not going to do anything” because it is an “inert gene.”

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iZhO7_GhDH0&t=1s

"2021 paper in Developmental Cell found that this pseudogene—which Dr. Scott claimed does “diddly”—has “essentiality” and “indispensability” for human red blood cell formation. "

https://evolutionnews.org/2022/01/blast-from-the-past-eugenie-scotts-failed-prediction-on-pseudogenes/

Let the Poo Pooing continue.

[RonO]

more second rate denial junk from the guys that gave you the Top Six
that you have been running from for over 4 years.

Top Six:
https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/a2K79skPGXI/m/uDwx0i-_BAAJ

Why go back to the ID perps for their second rate junk?

Ron Okimoto

[Dexter]

By all means, continue. While I wouldn't have used that phrase
to describe your posts, far be it from me to disagree with you.

[jillery]

On Thu, 20 Jan 2022 17:13:32 -0800 (PST), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>
wrote:

Despite your characterization of your own posts, Dr. Scott's hour-long
lecture is a good one I had not heard before. So thank you for citing
it.

FTR Dr. Scott first discusses pseudogenes @39:27, as good evidence for
common descent, as opposed to common design. Her argument is that
pseudogenes are like document typos that are included in copies of
that document. Just as a very particular typo in copies can be traced
back to the original, so too would a very particular pseudogene appear
only in descendants of a common ancestor.

Scott refers a particular pseudogene as psi beta 1. It's a pseudogene
in the sense that it's a non-protein coding copy of another gene that
codes for a blood globin. I acknowledge that Scott is emphatic that
psi beta 1 is non-functional, in keeping with her "copied typo"
analogy.

Luskin refers to the same pseudogene as HBBP1, in keeping with the two
papers he cites. These papers present evidence that HBBP1 aka psi
beta 1 exhibits *regulatory* functionality. According to Luskin, that
means Scott's argument is wrong, and so hinders science in accepting
Intelligent Design.

Setting aside for the moment how functional pseudogenes are evidence
for Intelligent Design, both Scott and Luskin miss the fact that
Scott's analogy remains valid whether or not the pseudogene is
functional. Instead, it's the particular form of the pseudogene that
proves the point.

There are only a few particular forms that would work to turn a
protein-coding gene into a non-coding regulatory gene. Apparently
HBBP1 is one of those particular forms. And that particular form is
recognizable among all humans, and IIUC Ken Miller's slide, all
primates.

So Scott's analogy remains valid, with the difference of allowing for
either non-functional typos (evoluxion) or functional typos
(elocution).

--
You're entitled to your own opinions.
You're not entitled to your own facts.

[RonO]

Glenn has run from the pseudogene IDiocy before. He likely understands
how bogus it is, and is only in it for the denial. It is something that
he just doesn't want to understand. One of the last times he put up the
pseudogene argument he had to run because it was something that he just
could not deal with. There was a processed transcript of some gene and
it got stuffed back into the genome by reverse transcription (the same
way that retrovirus move around the genome) but it no longer made the
protein of the original gene because it had not inserted into a position
where it could be transcribed into an mRNA. Instead it had inserted
near to an existing gene, but the coding sequence was on the
complementary sequence to the existing gene. It caused splicing errors
and the pseudogene sequence got incorporated into the existing gene's
mRNA. A chimeric protein was produced, but it had the antisense
sequence of the pseudogene in it, so a totally different protein
sequence was produced. It was obviously the creation of a new gene, but
all the ID perps were interested in was their claim that pseudogenes
could be functional. All it was was further evidence for biological
evolution because all subsequent descendant lineages had that new
chimeric protein. It is like gene knockout for GULO (vitamin C
producing gene) in simians. Prosimians still have a functional gene,
but the ancestor of monkeys suffered a gene knockout, and this knockout
was inherited by all subsequent lineages including the ape lineage.
Such pseudogenes are just evidence for evolution.

Ron Okimoto

[jillery]

Not just evidence for evolution, but also evidence against Intelligent
Design.

Whatever Glenn's motives, his posts are seeds to document the idiocy
in ID. Glenn is the type specimen for whom T.O. was expressly
designed.