What is design ?

MonkenstickBecasue you think the genomes are just fairy floss you think that the way we work is somehow not systematic or mechanistic or whatever. It is simply not true.Do you want me to show you some code for how MS Office 2000 works? It looks like random junk too but mess up one byte and it fails to work. It would look like this and yet was definitely designed:3A 84 26 94 D6 72 3E AE 27 E8
B3 27 19 C3 1B 2C 7D B2 6C F3
etcThat protein sequence you listed (if it were not coded by a pseudogene but a gene) will specifically fold to 3D shape and have a catalytic site and a binding site. The substrate molecule (presumably urate) will be attracted to the binding site and the catalytic site will oxidize it in some way.Do you realise genes such as the Urate Oxidase gene are in genomes for a very good reason? These metabolic genes are part of a cascade of catalytic reactions not unlike a factory assembly line. Every gene in your body either directly does a job in your body or is used to make another chemical that will then go and do that job!THE HUMAN GENOME IS NOT FAIRY FLOSS! It works in an extremely similar manner to a piece of software. You are grossly violating common sense to somehow think that becasue the DNA sequence looks random that it somehow is. It is most certianly not. You be the first one to randomize your DNA. A single base change in one bad spot and you will die prematurely or may never have been born.This type of misunderstanding is utter folly by you or whoever gave you the idea. Common sense should have told you that something about your post was very, very wrong. In your zeal to denounce creation you are willing to deny all of molecular biology that deomnstrates the fine-tuned mechanistic basis of life.Please accept this very tough assessment of your question in the spirit of education (and hair tearing) in which it was written.[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 08-04-2002]

^ Your post insinuated that genes look lke they are not designed and I explained why they are, or at least why it all works mechanistically. I'm extremely sorry if that is not what you were insinuating.Yes it's a pseudogene becasue of the stop codons - but no-one is trying to say that is evidence of design. It's the gene prior to the mutation that is evidence of design.What are you insinuating then?

^ This extra information about your discussion explains a lot!OK - the stop codons could easily have mutated into the sequence for both organisms. Are the bad stop codons in the same place?

OK Mokenstick, this is very good evidence of common descent!Why (for the uninitiated)? Creationists argue (quite rightly IMO) that homology is evidence for a common creator as much as for common descent. However when this homology persists for degraded genes (non-functional pseudogenes) then, in isolation, this evidence would clearly favour common descent.The creationist alternatives are:1. These genes are not really pseudogenes - they have some function even though they are relaed to another gene.
2. Horizontal transfer of pseudogenes (ie it is known that DNA sequences can be passed between organisms and become part of the inherited genome)
3. Some natural agent preferentially changed the DNA bases at the same positions.
4. A supernatural agent preferentially changed the DNA bases at the same positions.I probably favour option #4. When man disobeyed, Genesis describes a curse that caused man to become mortal, frustrated his work and brought pain durin childbirth. As with everything God has done I believe this curse is manifest at spiritual, mental and physical levels. That is the sort of God he is. And of course this new found mortality would have genomic repercusions. Scripture says that He 'submitted the world to futility' in expectation that this cross-like process would bring a 'new man' through Christ. So whether it was Satan, God or a natural agent I am unsure but I link it to the curse.PS - you're a very good bioinformatician Monkenstick but your first post was a shocker![This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 08-06-2002]

^ When man was cursed so was the Earth and everything. It's in Genesis.PS - Most of that seqwunce similarity in point #1 comes from the fact that it is a pseudogene of a real gene! We put that down to a common designer as you know.

^ Scripture suggests that animals were cursed with man. In the flood at the very least this is clear. Scriptually we are give dominion and we effect each other, our planet and our biosphere. Creationism actually does support the the non-extreme aims of the environmental movement.