Did evolutionists lay an egg with the Vitellogenin Pseudogene?

[whirlingmerc]

A tiny piece of 15 base pairs is 60 or 70% similar with egg layers and in the human genome
so we are related to an egg layer so the claim goes

But really.. 60 to 70% is not so high and the so called sequence inside a larger section of DNA for brain so the case is not made

quote
The main piece of evidence for the vtg pseudogene is the presence of a 150-base human DNA sequence that shares a low level of similarity (62%) to a tiny portion of the chicken vitellogenin (vtg1) gene.8 However, the chicken vtg1 gene is actually quite large at 42,637 bases long, so a 150-base fragment of 62% similarity represents less than 0.4% of the original gene if the evolutionary story were true! But this miniscule amount of questionable data isn’t the only problem for the evolutionary egg-laying fable.
unquote


quote
As an enhancer element, the 150-base alleged vtg sequence contains a variety of highly specialized sequences that enable the binding of specific protein machinery that controls the activity and function of the GAM gene.8 These specialized sequences are also associated with a wide variety of epigenetic marks—chemical modifications in the DNA. The specific types of biochemical data associated with these marks also tells us that this DNA feature is not only active but important to the overall three-dimensional structure and function of the GAM gene in a process called long-range chromatin interaction.8,9

Upon investigation, we see that this 150-base sequence is not an ancient egg-laying “fossil” in the human genome. It’s a functional enhancer element in a GAM gene expressed in brain tissues. Once again, when we examine the genetic data more closely, the evolutionary scoreboard shows nothing but a big zero—a “goose egg,” as the saying goes.
unquote

http://www.icr.org/article/evolutionists-lay-egg-vitellogenin/

appears a really bad argument

 

[ChristineM]

And we are approximately 35% daffodil and 25% banana. All genetic material is related, so why is it a bad argument?

 

[whirlingmerc]

And we are approximately 35% daffodil and 25% banana. All genetic material is related, so why is it a bad argument?

It's statistically noise and doesn't make the case

 

[David T]

And we are approximately 35% daffodil and 25% banana. All genetic material is related, so why is it a bad argument?

Don't forget we are 72% avian as well.

A tiny piece of 15 base pairs is 60 or 70% similar with egg layers and in the human genome
so we are related to an egg layer so the claim goes

But really.. 60 to 70% is not so high and the so called sequence inside a larger section of DNA for brain so the case is not made

quote
The main piece of evidence for the vtg pseudogene is the presence of a 150-base human DNA sequence that shares a low level of similarity (62%) to a tiny portion of the chicken vitellogenin (vtg1) gene.8 However, the chicken vtg1 gene is actually quite large at 42,637 bases long, so a 150-base fragment of 62% similarity represents less than 0.4% of the original gene if the evolutionary story were true! But this miniscule amount of questionable data isn’t the only problem for the evolutionary egg-laying fable.
unquote


quote
As an enhancer element, the 150-base alleged vtg sequence contains a variety of highly specialized sequences that enable the binding of specific protein machinery that controls the activity and function of the GAM gene.8 These specialized sequences are also associated with a wide variety of epigenetic marks—chemical modifications in the DNA. The specific types of biochemical data associated with these marks also tells us that this DNA feature is not only active but important to the overall three-dimensional structure and function of the GAM gene in a process called long-range chromatin interaction.8,9

Upon investigation, we see that this 150-base sequence is not an ancient egg-laying “fossil” in the human genome. It’s a functional enhancer element in a GAM gene expressed in brain tissues. Once again, when we examine the genetic data more closely, the evolutionary scoreboard shows nothing but a big zero—a “goose egg,” as the saying goes.
unquote

appears a really bad argument

And?

.

 

[Father Heathen]

If you're going to copy and paste someone else's garbage, at least cite the source. And don't pretend like you understand what you're looking at, either. You simply accepted it because you were told it supports the creationist narrative.

 

[suncowiam]

If you're going to copy and paste someone else's garbage, at least cite the source. And don't pretend like you understand what you're looking at, either. You simply accepted it because you were told it supports the creationist narrative.

I was thinking the same exact thing.

 

[whirlingmerc]

Don't forget we are 72% avian as well.

And?

.

Why are we 72% birds? I don't fly less than .1% of the time

Interesting that T REX are claimed an ancestor of avians but they are lizard hipped ... lizard hipped dines are like stegosaurus and triceratops

 

[David T]

And we are approximately 35% daffodil and 25% banana. All genetic material is related, so why is it a bad argument?

Don't forget we are 72% avian as well. But clearly angel wings scientifically can't be explained via random mutation nor is there any evidence angel's lay eggs. Ahhh ha!!!

Personally I think science geeks atheist religious all of them are artistic retards.*

*Disclaimer note on term retard.

Now I say retard but my daughter has disabilities she lacks the capacity to be literally retarded. Now smart people can be totally retarded by too much reading.

 

[whirlingmerc]

I was thinking the same exact thing.

You are too kind

A superficial comparison of a tiny sequence of DNA found in a larger church of DNA where the larger church is used for the brain makes a poor case that we are related to birds

 

[suncowiam]

You are too kind

A superficial comparison of a tiny sequence of DNA found in a larger church of DNA where the larger church is used for the brain makes a poor case that we are related to birds

Lol. You sure know how to cut and paste.

 

[David T]

Why are we 72% birds? I don't fly less than .1% of the time

Interesting that T REX are claimed an ancestor of avians but they are lizard hipped ... lizard hipped dines are like stegosaurus and triceratops

OK so you are crap at religion and science.

I am not sure why you want to support your lame capacity at religion with a demonstration of your lame capacity scientifically can we limit lame to a single domain? .

 

[whirlingmerc]

Don't forget we are 72% avian as well. But clearly angel wings scientifically can't be explained via random mutation nor is there any evidence angel's lay eggs. Ahhh ha!!! View attachment 22887

Personally I think science geeks atheist religious all of them are artistic retards.*

*Disclaimer note on term retard.

Now I say retard but my daughter has disabilities she lacks the capacity to be literally retarded. Now smart people can be totally retarded by too much reading.

Bird evolution is challenging to explain at all except by superficial claims

Bird lungs being more like a jet engine that continuously pumps air and more directly to wing muscles with hollowed bones and feathers that fall out in pairs... no clear path to go from the bellows like lungs of lizards and scales coming from a different skin layer.

 

[David T]

Lol. You sure know how to cut and paste.

Hard core science baby

 

[whirlingmerc]

Were you home schooled? While drinking?

No but on the subject at hand the Vitellogenin Pseudogene
the name is a misnomer... it doesn't code for a protein so its called a false gene.... however it can have a function of regulating other functions and so can have quite a good function

another back label

 

[Father Heathen]

No but on the subject at hand the Vitellogenin Pseudogene
the name is a misnomer... it doesn't code for a protein so its called a false gene.... however it can have a function of regulating other functions and so can have quite a good function

another back label

Again, from where are you copying and pasting all of this?

 

[shunyadragon]

A tiny piece of 15 base pairs is 60 or 70% similar with egg layers and in the human genome
so we are related to an egg layer so the claim goes

But really.. 60 to 70% is not so high and the so called sequence inside a larger section of DNA for brain so the case is not made

quote
The main piece of evidence for the vtg pseudogene is the presence of a 150-base human DNA sequence that shares a low level of similarity (62%) to a tiny portion of the chicken vitellogenin (vtg1) gene.8 However, the chicken vtg1 gene is actually quite large at 42,637 bases long, so a 150-base fragment of 62% similarity represents less than 0.4% of the original gene if the evolutionary story were true! But this miniscule amount of questionable data isn’t the only problem for the evolutionary egg-laying fable.
unquote


quote
As an enhancer element, the 150-base alleged vtg sequence contains a variety of highly specialized sequences that enable the binding of specific protein machinery that controls the activity and function of the GAM gene.8 These specialized sequences are also associated with a wide variety of epigenetic marks—chemical modifications in the DNA. The specific types of biochemical data associated with these marks also tells us that this DNA feature is not only active but important to the overall three-dimensional structure and function of the GAM gene in a process called long-range chromatin interaction.8,9

Upon investigation, we see that this 150-base sequence is not an ancient egg-laying “fossil” in the human genome. It’s a functional enhancer element in a GAM gene expressed in brain tissues. Once again, when we examine the genetic data more closely, the evolutionary scoreboard shows nothing but a big zero—a “goose egg,” as the saying goes.
unquote

appears a really bad argument

This a terrible selective approach to the evidence based on a religious agenda.

The Science of evolution is not dependent on the selective phony 'argument from ignorance.'

I see selective biased cut and paste without coherent scientific peer reviewed reference.

 

[whirlingmerc]

This a terrible selective approach to the evidence based on a religious agenda.

The Science of evolution is not dependent on the selective phony 'argument from ignorance.'

I see selective biased cut and paste without coherent scientific peer reviewed reference.

The whole argument that we are related to egg layers from a tiny 150 long base pair with a statitistally week correlation with birds is weak... particularly when it's in a larger section of genome for brain functions..

 

[David T]

Bird evolution is challenging to explain at all except by superficial claims

Bird lungs being more like a jet engine that continuously pumps air and more directly to wing muscles with hollowed bones and feathers that fall out in pairs... no clear path to go from the bellows like lungs of lizards and scales coming from a different skin layer.

Well in the Bible they would say you think you are a clock and you believe your thinking is turning reality. So I suppose if two thinkers are thinking they are clocks then their times will conflict. That's if someone is lame enough to believe they are a clock!!!!!

Now that actually has zero to do with say the new testament but it does have everything to do with comic books. So I think you have confused comic book with the Bible and even atheists do that mostly because of you!!! In particular..... If I didn't know better I would totally agree with them.

 

[David T]

This a terrible selective approach to the evidence based on a religious agenda.

The Science of evolution is not dependent on the selective phony 'argument from ignorance.'

I see selective biased cut and paste without coherent scientific peer reviewed reference.

He has nature as machine on the brain shuny. Which is a mental disorder I think reinforced in science. It leads to the Bible as comic book. Also a mental disorder.

 

[ChristineM]

Don't forget we are 72% avian as well. But clearly angel wings scientifically can't be explained via random mutation nor is there any evidence angel's lay eggs. Ahhh ha!!! View attachment 22887

Personally I think science geeks atheist religious all of them are artistic retards.*

*Disclaimer note on term retard.

Now I say retard but my daughter has disabilities she lacks the capacity to be literally retarded. Now smart people can be totally retarded by too much reading.

David, David, David, i shake my head is dispare... Angels???
So you saying angels are just birds in disguise or is the angel bit just strawman? Im guessing man of straw with stuck on wings... Am i right?

Regards? Perhaps you project. Oh and my brother in law is schizophrenic, is a world class artist and he has as much to do with it as your daughter.