From Genes to Pseudogenes to Pseudo-Pseudo Genes
Awkward title I have there, isn't it? There's a reason. Genome research is getting mighty
awkward as well, especially from those who start with the presupposition that
slime-to-stalker evolution is a fact. Years ago, some of the human
genome was incompletely studied, and pronouncements were made that we
had "junk" DNA. This "junk" was supposedly leftovers from our
evolutionary past that had no function. Why did it have no function?
Because scientists couldn't find a use for it, wrote it off, and moved
on. Better scientists did further research with better equipment, and
have junked the junk concept.
You really have to hand it to secularists, the hubris continues. They found pseudogenes,and didn't understand what their purposes were, either. Those have been determined to be important as well. Further discoveries have been made, and now we have the pseudo-pseudogene.
This whole thing shows that evolutionary scientists often tend to be
arrogant in their incomplete assessments of data, work from
fundamentally flawed presuppositions, and that evolutionary thinking
actually hinders science. If they admitted that the genome was designed by our Creator, they wouldn't be fouling up so often.
 |
| Image credit: Pixabay / geralt |
Pseudogenes were once thought to be genomic fossils—the broken remnants of genes that mutated long ago. However, research is progressively showing that many pseudogenes are highly functional and critical to life. Now, a newly characterized pseudogene has been shown to produce a functional protein, but only in cells where it is required—leading researchers to coin a new term pseudo-pseudogene.To finish reading, click on "Pseudo-Pseudogenes Shake Up Evolutionary Paradigm".
Pseudogenes were originally characterized as the remnants of once-functional genes. This was based on the apparent "stop signals" in their sequence that prematurely halted the production of a functional protein. However, this initial assessment was based on an over-simplistic view and a lack of advanced information about the complexity of protein production.