For reference purposes I also include your very thoughtful 9/12 post but
do not copy it here.
Glenn challenged me to do a bit of research before questioning his
proposal. I've looked into the subject of pseudogenes and my preliminary
studies agree with yours in a number of areas.
GM>"The biggest piece of evidence in my mind connecting us to them is a) the
extreme similarity in DNA (99%) and b) the existence of pseudogene insertions at
the same locations in man, chimp,and orangutan. (Max, 1986, p.42; 1990, p. 48) A
pseudogene a BROKEN gene which is found in a part of the genome far removed from
its normal position. The pseudogene has lost the control which informs the
cellular machinery how to make the and thus it does nothing."
The current thinking regarding pseudogenes includes the idea that they
are genes that have an obvious DNA sequence similarity to other genes
but are not expressed. This does not necessarily imply "broken". They
are common in eukaryotes but their functions are oft debated. Possible
explanations include...
1. Pseudogenes are remnants of evolutionary mistakes (inactivated by
mutation rather than being eliminated)
2. Pseudogenes are genes that are in the act of evolving (perhaps one
day to be activated and expressed)
3. While not expressed, pseudogenes play an essential role in the
expression of their normal counterparts.
These multiple explanations caution us as to how much weight one should
give to the pseudogene concept when developing one's model. One can
easily chose one particular explanation from several proposed by
geneticists as an assumption from which to build a supporting argument.
While being sensitive to the work that Glenn has done and the weight
that he places on the "brokenness" of pseudogenes, it is entirely
possible that alternative and equally valid explanations for
pseudeogenes can be helpful in developing competing models.
A creationist may choose option "3" above and argue from an intelligent
design asssumption. Genes are essential "nuts and bolts" in that design
and God uses them alternately depending upon the species created. God
has purposely placed the pseudogene in question at the same site in man
and apes for specific purposes. Expanding on that, we see a lot of
genetic similarity between man and apes, however it is the difference
that speaks more to God's creative intelligence in his original design,
rather than His reliance on chance evolution/mutation to account for
that difference. The predictive aspects of this model would include the
discovery some day that pseudogenes are not broken but do indeed have a
purpose.
The rigor of both models, of course, is only as strong as the
explanation for pseudogenes currently proferred by geneticists. Absolute
evidence to the contrary, that the pseudogene in question is, in fact,
"broken" through mutation in both man and apes would falsify this
creationist model and necessitate modification to it.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rv:4:11: Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for
thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Durham
Oakland, Maryland
pdd@gcc.cc.md.us