Hi Art and Eduardo,
I wish it hadn't been you all to reply in the way you did. This last week,
I have spent much time with a young earth creationist who continually used
the "wait until tomorrow" approach to solving all of his problems. According
to him,"Tomorrow" will be a glorious time when all of our questions will be
answered. I finally found the title for this tendency. It is the Great YETi
search. The "We haven't found the solution YET" answer. While this may be
true, it is useless as an explanation because the evolutionist can use it
when you stump him. It is a all round way for anyone to avoid having to
deal with the knowledge we have today. To me this is an unfair tactic for
both the evolutionist and the creationist.
One thing that immediately comes to mind is regulation. This is
>especially apparent in the beta globin genes, where a pseudogene precedes
>the three successively synthesized genes produced in the embryo, and
>another pseudogene precedes the two genes produced in the adult. Very
>little attention has been paid to the fact that the genes are in precisely
>the order of function in the development of the infant. The probability of
>that arrangement by chance is miniscule, and there is no apparent reason
>why it might be important to the survival of the infant, unless it is
>because the arrangement makes it possible for the precise timing of the
>production of the various forms. If that is the case, the "pseudogenes"
>are appropriately placed to perform a function in regulation, although I
>have no clue as to what that function might be yet. You should be aware
>too that old "pseudogenes" are popping off the list about as fast as new
>"pseudogenes" are popping on the list, as functions are discovered for them.
Are these processed pseudogenes like the epsilon immunoglobin? I want to
clarify that what I am talking about is NOT junk DNA. There are regions of
junk DNA which are monotonous sequences of repeats. These have been shown
to have a function in many cases. What I am talking about are the
processed pseudogenes--control section cut out, tail added introns gone. In
your above case where you say the pseudogene resides just before the 3
successively synthesized genes, the 3 genes are in the order of function in
development. I presume that the pseudogene is not synthesized. In this case
you have not really answered the problem because as I understand your
description it looks like this:
pseduogene-gene 1-gene 2-gene3
which relates to
unused-used-used-used.
What is it missing on the pseudogene in comparison with its neighbors? If it
is not synthesized, then how do you know it has a function?
By the way, do you have a reference?
glenn
Foundation, Fall and Flood
http://www.isource.net/~grmorton/dmd.htm