Did evolutionists lay an egg with the Vitellogenin Pseudogene?

[shunyadragon]

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

Do the original Biblical angels have wings or did they evolve from Babylonian winged creatures.

 

[ChristineM]

Do the original Biblical angels have wings or did they evolve from Babylonian winged creatures.

Good point, the bible is not 'very' forthcoming on the description of angels and I believe the wings first 'were popularised' in early christian art.

Edit : the word 'very' added and the word appeared changed to 'were popularised'

 

[whirlingmerc]

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?

LOL! You do have a sense of humor.... creation scientists are real scientists... atheist scientists have allot of baggage and are more at a disadvantage because they don't realize the extent of where their assumptions start

The scientific method itself was formulated by a creationist named Sir Francis Bacon
and one can go on and on Louis Pasture and many other groundbreaking scientists were creationists and many are today

 

[whirlingmerc]

Do the original Biblical angels have wings or did they evolve from Babylonian winged creatures.

The original cherubim had wings... in any case none evolved from Babylonian deities

 

[shunyadragon]

LOL! You do have a sense of humor.... creation scientists are real scientists... atheist scientists have allot of baggage and are more at a disadvantage because they don't realize the extent of where their assumptions start,

It is a literal fact that Creation scientists are required to pledge and commit themselves to a literal Genesis and interpretations based on the Bible take priority over science. This is not true science. In fact it is not science at all.

The scientific method itself was formulated by a creationist named Sir Francis Bacon
and one can go on and on Louis Pasture and many other groundbreaking scientists were creationists and many are today

To a certain extent this is true, but Muslim scientists were the first to develop a scientific method.
One of the principles of Sccientific methods from the beginning is that science is neutral to religious presuppositions.

You have failed to respond to this . . .

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?

 

[SomeRandom]

Hey, as long as we're doing a copy and paste of science-y stuff we don't understand, may I offer this cut and paste?
Going on an egg hunt
The knowledge that shared synteny can persist in separate lineages for a very long time was useful when looking for vitellogenin gene fragments in the human genome. As we saw in Part 1 of this series, placental mammals do not require vitellogenin genes to supply their embryos with yolk. Converging lines of evidence, however, indicate that placental mammals are the descendants of egg-laying ancestors. For example, placental mammals and birds (a group of modern-day, egg-laying organisms) are thought to have shared a common ancestral population about 310 million years ago. If this is the case, then it is possible that vitellogenin gene sequences, however fragmentary, might remain in the human genome. The scientists interested in this question used synteny to find the regions of the human genome worth examining.

Modern birds (such as chickens) have three vitellogenin genes: VIT1, VIT2, and VIT3. The latter ones sit side by side in the chicken genome, with VIT1 in a different location. The three VIT genes sit next to other genes in the chicken genome: VIT1 sits next to a gene called “ELTD1”, and VIT2 and VIT3 sit between genes named “SSX2IP” and “CTBS”. These genes are not involved in making egg yolk - they just happen to be the closest neighbors of the VIT genes (Figure

With these data in hand, the researchers then searched the human genome for the genes near to the chicken VIT genes. These three genes (ELTD1, SSX2IP, and CTBS) are also found as functional genes in humans - and as expected, these genes have the same spatial arrangement in the human genome as they do in chickens (Figure 3):



Figure 3. The genes flanking the VIT genes in chicken are present in the human genome in the same spatial pattern.

The researchers then did a careful sequence comparison between these regions in the human and chicken genomes. The gene sequences for ELTD1, SSX2IP, and CTBS were already known to be highly similar, but they found that other sequences in this region matched as well. We can represent sequence matches between the two genomes as a black bar between them to show what they found (Figure 4):



Figure 4. Shared synteny between humans and chickens spanning the regions with functional chicken VIT genes. Black bars between the two chromosomes indicate sequence matches. This figure is based on data from Brawand et al., 2008.

Source
https://biologos.org/blogs/dennis-v...nin-and-common-ancestry-understanding-synteny

Edit aww the pics didn't work.

 

[Astrophile]

Good point, the bible is not forthcoming on the description of angels and I believe the wings first appeared in early christian art.

There is a description of six-winged seraphim in Isaiah 6:2.

 

[Skwim]

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.

Yeah, whirlingmerc lifted his quotes from non other than---drum roll please--- the one, the only, and the last word in science research:

INSTITUTE for CREATION RESEARCH
click on ꜛ to access his page​

​

Is it any wonder he was reluctant to admit his source, and when he did he left us with this little morsel to giggle over.

creation scientists are real scientists... atheist scientists have allot of baggage and are more at a disadvantage because they don't realize the extent of where their assumptions start

​

.

 

[Father Heathen]

Is it any wonder he was reluctant to admit his source, and when he did he left us with this little morsel to giggle over.​

.

This whole exchange reminds me of this classic:

 

[ChristineM]

LOL! You do have a sense of humor.... creation scientists are real scientists... atheist scientists have allot of baggage and are more at a disadvantage because they don't realize the extent of where their assumptions start

The scientific method itself was formulated by a creationist named Sir Francis Bacon
and one can go on and on Louis Pasture and many other groundbreaking scientists were creationists and many are today

Wrong, real scientists do not have a problem with presenting their work for peer review.

And why are 'creation scientist' (btw, note the oxymoron) reluctant to be peer reviewed. Because they base their work (and i use the word work in its widest possible sense) on confirmation bias.


And Bacon rose above his predudices to some extent and actually helped develop the scientific method.

Pasteur has been proven wrong too often to be of any significance.

Bacon lived over 400 years ago when opposition to the church often meant the death penalty. Pasteur lived over 100 years ago. Now have you got anyone actually alive today and doing groundbreaking science or was this just an ancient history lesson.

 

[Yerda]

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

There is an argument that we are related to chickens because there is a 150 bp stretch of DNA in humans that is 60% similar to a stretch of chicken gene?

That would seem to be a terrible argument. Do you have links to sources for this claim?

 

[ChristineM]

There is a description of six-winged seraphim in Isaiah 6:2.

Not exactly a photofit description but point taken, i amend my comment to "the bible is not 'very' forthcoming"

 

[Audie]

LOL! You do have a sense of humor.... creation scientists are real scientists... atheist scientists have allot of baggage and are more at a disadvantage because they don't realize the extent of where their assumptions start

The scientific method itself was formulated by a creationist named Sir Francis Bacon
and one can go on and on Louis Pasture and many other groundbreaking scientists were creationists and many are today

So! Two kinds of cientists in the world, "creationist" , and "atheist".

The creationists at ICR say of themselves that data does not
matter, their assumption of "god" being central.

Whirl says it of atheists in their thousands-millions?-
that they do not know what they are doing, are.
incapable of good science.

Of course, no scientist of any sort anywhere hss ever
published fact one contrsry to ToE. A creationist may well
do good work, but, none of it hss ever come up with
that elusive fact.

Claims that they have come from frauds and fools.
We have not seen the work , nor the inevitable Nobel.

It is good for you to appreciate humour. Your presentation
was a bit dry, but the part where you listed creationists from
bygone days, nothing fresher than Pasteur, its good for
a chuckle or at least a wry grin.
Feet in the middle east of thousands of years ago,
head barely touching the 19th century, and with no
actual knowldege or training, but, look out ToE,
here you come with ICR cutnpaste!

 

[whirlingmerc]

There is an argument that we are related to chickens because there is a 150 bp stretch of DNA in humans that is 60% similar to a stretch of chicken gene?

That would seem to be a terrible argument. Do you have links to sources for this claim?

already provided

 

[Jumi]

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

"Noise" conveniently then becomes proof of creationism?

 

[whirlingmerc]

"Noise" conveniently then becomes proof of creationism?

Its yet another example of so called 'evolutionary science' claims.

Oddly, a claim still used by some evolutionary Christian groups who don't believe in a literal Adam or Eve

 

[Subduction Zone]

Its yet another example of so called 'evolutionary science' claims.

Oddly, a claim still used by some evolutionary Christian groups who don't believe in a literal Adam or Eve

A literal Adam and Eve were disproven a long time ago. That is why many, if not most Christians, approach Genesis as a series of morality tales.

 

[whirlingmerc]

A literal Adam and Eve were disproven a long time ago. That is why many, if not most Christians, approach Genesis as a series of morality tales.

Hardly true. Conservative protestants largely do not.
But Bible illiteracy in America tend to be rather high.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Hardly true. Conservative protestants largely do not.
But Bible illiteracy in America tend to be rather high.

I was talking worldwide. Even in the U.S. there is a fairly high percentage of Christians that accept the theory of evolution. And calling those that deny science "conservative" could be taken as an attack on that group in general.

 

[whirlingmerc]

I was talking worldwide. Even in the U.S. there is a fairly high percentage of Christians that accept the theory of evolution. And calling those that deny science "conservative" could be taken as an attack on that group in general.

Generally Catholics and liberals... not generally from gospel cantered churches
But that is also a generality

I'm just saying most people with that view tend to be Biblically illiterate and the more biblically literate that are the less likely it's true

Among Americans about one third say evidence supports evolution
https://news.gallup.com/poll/14107/...e-has-supported-darwins-evolution-theory.aspx