Pseudogenes and Dead-End Darwinism

Stevia Dolce, the lead baker at the Darwin Ranch up yonder near Deception Pass, surprised me with a visit. She brought Dekker Halls, who was visiting for the Christmas season. They heard talk about pseudogenes that did not sit right with them and wanted to ask me.

After digging into the fabulous croissants that Stevia brought, we commenced to discussing the problem. Evolutionary thinking is bad for medical science, and even science itself. Scientists studied DNA, but expected everything to code for proteins. Big mistake.

Directional street sign generator at RedKid

Like when someone receives a delivery that isn't interesting, "Just set it over there" and it gets forgotten. These things called pseudogenes look like genes, but did not work the way Darwinists expected.

"Why do you say Darwinists, Cowboy Bob?" Dekker asked. "Nobody really believes classical Darwinism anymore."

I replied, "True, but it has a couple of uses. The first one is for simplicity. People know a discussion is about descent with modifications, or the neo-Darwinian Synthesis (which is also on the rocks), or some other minerals-to-mycologist evolution. The other use is that if creationists did not give Darwin credit for what he instituted, I reckon his followers would use that to rail against us."

Dekker seemed satisfied. We continued.

Apes also have these pseudogenes, so Darwinists assume it is evidence for evolution. To be logically consistent, similarities point very strongly to a common Designer, the God of the Bible. Also, they are not fragmented and chaotic, which would imply a great deal of mutations. Once in a while, someone gets a notion to do real science instead of leaving pseudogenes on the shelf next to the spare coffee pot. They keep finding functions for them. Mayhaps they should find a name for them that doesn't reek of evolutionary bias.

‘Pseudogene’ means ‘false gene’. Scientists coined the term for the many things they were finding that looked like protein-coding genes but were not used to make proteins. In the evolutionary mind, a pseudogene is a broken gene which once coded for a protein. Supposedly, mutations, i.e. copying mistakes, crippled the gene at some time in the past. Thus, a pseudogene was considered to be a form of ‘junk’ DNA.

Humans, chimpanzees, and gorillas share some pseudogenes. Treating them as errors, evolutionists have argued that they must have come from a common ancestor. . . .

However, are pseudogenes actually useless, i.e. junk DNA? If they are not mistakes, but are functional, then the whole ‘shared mistakes’ argument collapses.

You would do well to read "HBP1 pseudogene function" in its entirety. It's not as technical as the title may imply.