Welcome to the home of The Question Evolution Project. Presenting information demonstrating that there is no truth in minerals-to-man evolution, and presenting evidence for special creation. —Established by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

Monday, February 18, 2019

Pseudogenes and Evolutionary Pseudoscience

While scientists work from their presuppositions and interpret the evidence accordingly, many owlhoots will attempt to force-fit the evidence into their views. For years, proponents of muck-to-misotheist evolution have claimed that we have "junk" DNA, arguing from ignorance. In addition, they claim that we have pseudogenes. This was also based on assumptions and lack of knowledge. Then they commenced to making excuses with what they called pseudo-pseudogenes.

Evolutionists speak from ignorance when they say we have junk and pseudogenes in our DNA. Further research shows that the Master Engineer put things in their places and they are functional.
Background image modified and furnished by Why?Outreach
There is still a great deal to learn from the science of genetics that Mendel began (peas be upon him), so a bit of humility from scientists is in order. Similar "mistakes" in different organisms are illogically hailed as evidence for evolution. Not hardly! When further scientific research with better methods is conducted, we learn that there is no "junk" DNA and that pseudogenes do indeed have functions. Important functions.


Yes, sometimes they have broken down due to mutations and genetic entropy. That does not mean that the Master Engineer was not involved; he put things in place for specific reasons. Biblical creationists have maintained that God did not make junk, nor did he use evolution. Unfortunately, naturalists cannot admit to evidence for creation, so they continue with their unscientific vexatious antics.
Some evolutionists have promoted the idea that similar sequences in pseudogenes strongly support common ancestry, especially between humans and great apes. The alleged disruptions in the sequence are attributed to random copying errors. If two organisms appear to carry identical disruptions, then it is considered far more likely that they both inherited them from a common ancestor than that those errors occurred independently. While created genes might need to be identical in some regions to carry out their normal function, no-one would expect a creator to put the same error in two different organisms.
To read this article from the beginning, click on "Pseudo-pseudogenes: revealing further complexity in the genome".




Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Labels