Evidence for God from Science

Forge wrote:I think we need a break for pie. All this scientific schtuff is seriously freaking me out.

Lol

yum yum.

Jbuza wrote:Bgood Wrote
A pseudogene is like a corrupted gene. It is not a working copy. Think of it like an old school book in which the cover fell off and pages are missing. Like cytochrome C closely related organisms are consistent in the pseudogenes found in their DNA.

Two comments
Ok I think I have demonstrated that similar creations will be more similar already.
Stop the work we have all the answers. Just because you label them pseudogenes doesn't mean they have some as yet undiscovered function. Just like the appendix was once thought to be a vestigial organ, but it was discoveredt hat it has functions.

They bear a striking resembalance to working genes in other animals. And this provides us with a powerful explanation as to why Humans and Guinea Pigs need ascorbic acid in their diet. Can you explain why humans cannot synthesize their own vitamin C?

Jbuza wrote:So I first have a problem with them being called pseudogenes. Yes it is true that Primates, Humans, and Guinea Pigs (at least) lack the capability to synthesize Vitamin C. Last I checked the Guinea pig wasn't a primate, but yes it's true. Can you describe how this proves evolution? Since my original post in reply to these “proofs” was in the spirit that they are equal proof for creation, I would like to know to what extent I am supposed to be proving creation.

If you would take the time to examine the pseudogenes you will notice several things. First the pseudogenes of all primates corresponding to this lacking protein are all similar. And second the pseudogene of Guinea pigs besides both lacking a start codon are not at all similar.
Humanhttp://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/view ... l=20270500
Guinea Pighttp://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/view ... l=62899630
These links are on public servers and the information is under public domain

Jbuza wrote:I know you didn't want me to quote other scientists, but as I have no laboratory or subjects to test on to verify similarities in Genetic sequences amongst these animals you will just have to settle for this quote I guess.

Other authors have estimated that the guinea pig lost Gulo function [ability to synthesize Vitamin C] less than 20 million years ago. In contrast, the separate inactivation of the Gulo gene in primates allegedly occurred between the time of simian-prosimian divergence (50-65 million years ago) but before the Old/New world monkey divergence (35-45 million years ago).

This can be estimated due to the level of degradation of the gene.

Jbuza wrote:In fact, the similarities he describes suggest that humans are more closely related to guinea pigs than to prosimian primates or to other rodents. (Many scientists argue that guinea pigs are not rodents like rats, shrews and mice.) There is no apparent reason to question the validity of this new information, which certainly seems to falsify the pseudogene 'shared mistakes' argument.

This claim I beleive was added by whatever website you copied this from because obviously the genetic evidence does not support this. Not only do the pseudogenes of guinea pigs and humans for vitamin C synthesys not show close relationship, the guinea does not share other pseudogenes as humans do with other primates. The only "relation" that humans have with guinea is the physical inability to produce vitamin C on their own. This argument is akin to saying that because bats have wings they are more closely related to sea gulls than to dogs.

Jbuza wrote:The striking degree of identicalness between the 'lesions' of presumably non-functional pseudogenes, unrelated by evolutionary ancestry, clearly dispenses with organic evolution as a necessary explanation for this overall phenomenon. Moreover, it reopens the consideration of such pseudogenes being one-time functional genes that became independently disabled sometime after the Fall.
http://www.tasc-creationscience.org/ind ... 3&Itemid=1

First off are you now supporting that pseudogenes are relics of once functioning genes? Second look at the pseudogenes yourself, where is the striking resembalance? The only similarity is that the stop codon appears multiple times in both sequences thus deactivating it.

BGoodForGoodSake wrote: Can you explain why humans cannot synthesize their own vitamin C?

Sure humans have no genetic code that creates the enzyme that allows its synthesis

Jbuza wrote:

BGoodForGoodSake wrote: Can you explain why humans cannot synthesize their own vitamin C?

Sure humans have no genetic code that creates the enzyme that allows its synthesis

You only want to address one thing? I can only assume your monitor must not be in working order. Perhaps you should get a new one.

So by that token (a poor monitor) we are led to assume that his monitor was not in fact designed by an Intelligent Designer?

(felt like making fun of good old dawkins...and every stupid person's attempt as claiming that bad design equals no designer...and that bad design actually exists)

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:

Jbuza wrote:

BGoodForGoodSake wrote: Can you explain why humans cannot synthesize their own vitamin C?

Sure humans have no genetic code that creates the enzyme that allows its synthesis

You only want to address one thing? I can only assume your monitor must not be in working order. Perhaps you should get a new one.

Sorry I'm not sure what you wan't all you did is recite me evidence of work that has been done on psuedogenes, were you expecting me to say no the observations are not true?

So what are your conclusions based upon the fact that some animals that eat foods high in vatamin C nolonger have the ability to process vitamin C?

Remeber there is no direct eivdence to say that they once could processes Vitamin C. Perhaps those animals that have diets high in Vitamin C do not have the ability to manufacture it as a protective factor. Although the dosage would need to be high and the effects of vitamin C toxicity are not well understood. Perhaps they would be better understood if I were capable of synthesixing all the Vit. C I need and then I sat down and ate four oranges.

Not to sure, But I don't really see what conculsions need to be made about this. I don't see any evidence more for one than the other. I mean sure I could say see this proves creation or see this proves evolution, but it is just an observation that a few critters and man don't produce vitamin C.

Don't get me wrong, I read your post, but I'm not sure what to tell you about it.

Bgood wrote:First off are you now supporting that pseudogenes are relics of once functioning genes? Second look at the pseudogenes yourself, where is the striking resembalance? The only similarity is that the stop codon appears multiple times in both sequences thus deactivating it.

No I'm not caliming that, I'm still reading, and seeing what you have to say. I'm not an expert on pseudogenes. The similarity is in the double helix, the prescnece of cytochrome c and the phosphorylation and respiration process, and numerous numerous other things that show similarity within all of life.

Forge wrote:I think we need a break for pie. All this scientific schtuff is seriously freaking me out.

Is that fortified with Vitamin C? Every time I eat to much C I get a rash. Bbbrrrhhh, I'm glad I don't make my own.

Jbuza, I appreciate your honesty.
And I accept your response.
Let me know when you are ready to discuss the final topic.

3.) Endogenous retroviruses

Remenants of past viral infections. These are supposed to have been parasitic.

I'm not sure we know the entirety of how the genome functions, and resist calling things vestigial. Genetics is a new science, much newer than anatomy, and since anatomy has discovered functions for some previously thought nonfunctioning organs it isn't unreasonable to assuem that their is enough we don't know that there could be functions to much of these DNA sequences.

IS it possible that these "remenants" are also presen't in the DNA structure to aid in immunities? I will see what I can find out about this, and look forward to hearing your take on HERV's

IT seems there is some recation between these DNA sequences and viruses. I'm not to sure hwat is known about this.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/quer ... t=Abstract


These people are interested in HERV's
Department of Immunology and Microbiology and the Karmanos Cancer Institute
http://jvi.asm.org/cgi/content/abstract/77/1/142

They definatly react to the prescence of cancers and viruses, and the body puts out factors, it isn't unreasonable to think this is it?

Jbuza wrote:IT seems there is some recation between these DNA sequences and viruses. I'm not to sure hwat is known about this.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/quer ... t=Abstract


These people are interested in HERV's
Department of Immunology and Microbiology and the Karmanos Cancer Institute
http://jvi.asm.org/cgi/content/abstract/77/1/142

When a virus enters a cell it hijacks the host cells genetic material and injects its own DNA into it. This causes the host cell to produce proteins which will be used to form new viral particles.

Endogenous Retroviruses are viral DNA which has made its way into the human genome. The article above shows how ancient viral DNA can become reactivated.

Most of these HERV's are not expressed. In other words they are not active.

The article you refered to is an example of a virus which produces complications by causing one of the HERV's to be expressed. In the absence of this HERV an infection from this virus would not cause the same symptoms. If you would like me to go into detail, just let me know.

By comparing the sequences of these ERV's one can plot out a common line of descent among organisms which have them in homologous positions.

BGoodForGoodSake wrote: By comparing the sequences of these ERV's one can plot out a common line of descent among organisms which have them in homologous positions.

Were not back to similar animals being more similar than to less similar animals being evidence of something are we?

Lets see this decent from ERV's.

I am still intrigued by my idea. The article said that there were also antigens present. The paticular DNA sequence that viruses key into shows us what? Don't innauculations work by the wekened or killed viruses activating parts of the DNA causing synthesis of immune factors? Perhaps without HERV's we would all be dead.

The vast majority of all virus infections appear to be asymptomatic in nature that is, the infections are so mild and the host response so effective that clinical signs of disease never develop.

http://maxshouse.com/viral_diseases.htm

What mechanism drives this host reponse?

I also found this here
http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/junkdna.html

Jbuza wrote:

BGoodForGoodSake wrote: By comparing the sequences of these ERV's one can plot out a common line of descent among organisms which have them in homologous positions.

Were not back to similar animals being more similar than to less similar animals being evidence of something are we?

Lets see this decent from ERV's.

I am still intrigued by my idea. The article said that there were also antigens present. The paticular DNA sequence that viruses key into shows us what? Don't innauculations work by the wekened or killed viruses activating parts of the DNA causing synthesis of immune factors? Perhaps without HERV's we would all be dead.

The vast majority of all virus infections appear to be asymptomatic in nature that is, the infections are so mild and the host response so effective that clinical signs of disease never develop.

What mechanism drives this host reponse?

http://maxshouse.com/viral_diseases.htm

You apparently misread the article.
Here is an excerpt.
Superantigens (SAgs) are proteins produced by pathogenic microbes to elicit potent, antigen-independent T cell responses that are believed to enhance the microbes' pathogenicity. Here we show that the human lymphotropic herpesvirus Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) transcriptionally activates the env gene of an endogenous retrovirus, HERV-K18, that possesses SAg activity.

SAgs increase a virus pathogenicity.
Pathogenicity is the ability to cause disease.

HERV-K18 possesses SAg activity if activated. This is genetic code found in the human genome.

EBV's pathogenicity is a result of activating this endogenous retrovirus.

Here is an analogy.
I build a sink(organism).
Somewhere along the line a fork(retrovirus) falls into the sink which could have caused the garbage disposal to break. But instead the fork is stuck to the side of the drain.

I make another sink(descendant) copying the first sink exactly, including the stuck fork(Endogenous Retrovirus).

An apple(Epstein Barr Virus) gets thrown into the new sink. It dislodges the fork(SAG) and breaks the garbage disposal.

WE cross posted a bit I was still editing some. I agree in that abstract those peple propose that the T-cells activated were "believed to enhance the microbes' pathogenicity". I wish the entire study was avilable. I was showing that the activation of these "retroViral" DNA sequences by an infection seems to produce a bodily response.

Wouldn't a cancer that illicited a T-cell response be a good response?

In spite of the marvelous ability of the body to react with immunities some viruses are killers.

From the site I listed in the cross post

It was assumed that retroviral sequences in human DNA represented leftover genes from infection of retroviruses. However, a new study demonstrates that these sequences actually block the infection of human cells with certain retroviruses (70). So, now these sequences seem to posses a vital function.

http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/junkdna.html


I think there is fruitful research to be had from hypothesizing that "junk DNA" or "retroviral remnants" are actually important protective factors included by a benevolant creator.

Evolution seems to hypothesize that 97 percent of the human DNA is junk.