Did evolutionists lay an egg with the Vitellogenin Pseudogene?

[whirlingmerc]

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.

You are too kind

 

[David T]

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.

You read my writing like a creationist reads the Bible! Now that's interesting to me!!!!! I have been working on that.

 

[whirlingmerc]

You read my writing like a creationist reads the Bible! Now that's interesting to me!!!!! I have been working on that.

You are too kind

 

[David T]

You are too kind

Hey The Bible as comic book is "normal". My favorite is thor!! My last name actually.

Based on your science expertness the inside of the Tardis is factually larger inside than the outside!!!! Pure science but hey you are not alone. Plenty in science are exactly the same way. It's called reductionism. Mental but true.

 

[ChristineM]

You read my writing like a creationist reads the Bible! Now that's interesting to me!!!!! I have been working on that.

You are the one who brought up angels. I can see you've been working on creationist writing

 

[David T]

You are the one who brought up angels. I can see you've been working on creationist writing

I wasn't working on creationist writing. I am working on reading as I write.

We can blend what we perceive as a logic structure, a mapped form of writing such as Chiltons auto repair and blend that into what in that form of writing is fiction. In this case angel's. In modernity we have two distinct writings fact and fiction. We can distinguish and its qued automatically by culture.

In the ancient world in particular the bronze age, they saw this and so the wrote with awareness of that. Ancient Esoteric texts are different from today's Factual fictional divide. They if read straight up are eqviilant to LSD. I find atheism and belief share a lack of awareness of that here in modernity curious.

So I wrote in that fashion and it read out as mental illness for you or creationism because you aren't a "believer" it should have made zero sense to you but it did make some kind of sense to you and your default was mental illness. It's not it was written with intent. And if I wrote with intent I might understand mental illness I might understand how we process reading.

The ancient Thomas paradox is very interesting in that regard. Truth does not start in a book any book including the word of God, so says the word of God. That's a paradox written into the ancient "word of god". Now that's funny and brain bender.

 

[Jose Fly]

I was thinking the same exact thing.

I was thinking someone bought a creationist book or found a new (to him) website, and now is going to spam us with its contents.

 

[Jose Fly]

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

Oh my.

 

[Audie]

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

Did the creationist lay a string of widdle gish-eggs?

 

[Audie]

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

Do you try to get things mixed up an wrong?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Do you try to get things mixed up an wrong?

Of course. That is taught in creationism 101 in "How to defeat an evolutionist".

 

[QuestioningMind]

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

Really? Considering the tremendous differences between humans a egg layers, you think that a 60-70 percent similarity is too LOW? And how exactly did you come to that conclusion?

 

[shunyadragon]

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..

The relationship is very distant, millions if not billions of years, and your statistics are hokus bogus with a religious agenda.

Again, you are relying on bad dishonest statistics, and ignoring the physical evidence in time that genetics is correlated with.

Your ignorance of science is appalling.

 

[shunyadragon]

Really? Considering the tremendous differences between humans a egg layers, you think that a 60-70 percent similarity is too LOW? And how exactly did you come to that conclusion?

I have looked at Creationist statistics before, and know the major flaws.

Can you cite the assumptions and factors Creationists use in their models to arrive at their figures for probability?

 

[ChristineM]

I wasn't working on creationist writing. I am working on reading as I write.

We can blend what we perceive as a logic structure, a mapped form of writing such as Chiltons auto repair and blend that into what in that form of writing is fiction. In this case angel's. In modernity we have two distinct writings fact and fiction. We can distinguish and its qued automatically by culture.

In the ancient world in particular the bronze age, they saw this and so the wrote with awareness of that. Ancient Esoteric texts are different from today's Factual fictional divide. They if read straight up are eqviilant to LSD. I find atheism and belief share a lack of awareness of that here in modernity curious.

So I wrote in that fashion and it read out as mental illness for you or creationism because you aren't a "believer" it should have made zero sense to you but it did make some kind of sense to you and your default was mental illness. It's not it was written with intent. And if I wrote with intent I might understand mental illness I might understand how we process reading.

The ancient Thomas paradox is very interesting in that regard. Truth does not start in a book any book including the word of God, so says the word of God. That's a paradox written into the ancient "word of god". Now that's funny and brain bender.

Yet you brought up angels which i indicated made zero sense by identifying it as a man of straw with stick on wings

 

[Twilight Hue]

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

I'll say it's a bad argument.

The "Institute" for creation research????

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

So where is the detailed report recently published in a technical Journal?

(As if they don't want to mention just what technical - er "technical" journal and who was the person or persons behind the study making the report)

 

[ChristineM]

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

No, its DNA and DNA does not lie, ask any convict on death row convicted on DNA evidince

 

[ChristineM]

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

Evolution can do that to a dinosaur, a daffodil a banana even a lump of organic slime

 

[ChristineM]

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..

You really dont know much about dna do you?

 

[ChristineM]

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

I have just discovered (text search) that your uncited quotes are from the institute of creation research. After i stopped laughing i decided to ask you if you had any quotes from real genetic scientists with names and qualifications?