Psuedogenes are good for Creationism!

Evolutionist often say that creationism doesn't make any predictions. That there is no way to potentially falsify it. Well, I think that if a Creationist theory includes the Ark and Mankind's fall from Eden there is a nifty prediction that it makes. In fact, it's so nifty that if it's right it could mean that we could solve all sorts of age related diseases.Here's how it goes:So most people know of psuedogenes and how evolutionist say they prove evolution. Creationists then reply that psuedogenes might yet have a purpose that we don't know about. I don't think they need to say that. Creationist should embrace psuedogenes, because they show what creationists have been saying all along. In fact, according to creationism, there should be LOTS of psuedogenes.After all, when all the animals went onto the Ark, there were for the most part only 2 of each kind. Since then, the kinds have undergoing rapid speciation, losing qualities that thier Ark kind must have had. Those qualities should be located in their DNA as psuedogenes! This should even allow the exact discovery of where on the classification ladder you should put the term "kinds."But that's not even the best part. Remember how after the Fall people started aging and dying? Well, presumably God took away some of his sustaining power right away. But that couldn't have been the whole story because it took quite a few generations for people to reach thier currently short maximum life span. Noah lived to about 600 right? Well, presumably God wasn't using his mystical power to keep him alive that long. He must have had mechanisms in his DNA to let him get that elderly. And eventually mutations destroyed enough of them to make his decendents have a maximum life time of about 120. But those beneficial genes would still reside in all of us as psuedogenes!So what do you think? Does that sound like a great research project for creationists or what? If someone was to find those psuedogenes and figure out how to turn them back on, they could prove the bible true and elimiate untold suffering by extending life by hundereds of years!Any takers?

Good point about the danger of reactivating psuedogenes. I suppose the normal way of testing the function of psuedogenes is by finding corrisponding DNA structure in other animals and reactivating it there. Or probably an easier way would be to just look for a working example of such a gene in the animal kindom.But a creationist might think such immortal psuedogenes are unique to humans and therefor activating them in a human is the only way. I certainly wouldn't want anyone to do this because of my mockery of creationism.Of course, I don't think such a senario happened. But I'm trying to predict where creationism is going with it's next "arguement". They went from Thermodynamics to information theory to the latest arguement of Specified Complexity. I think this last one is going to be short lived because of two things. One is of course the very idea SC information is contradictory. The other is that it's too theoretical for most creationist to wrap their head around.I've been wondering when I'm going to see creationists try to use psuedogenes for creationism since all animals that belong to the same 'kind' must have had the same DNA on the Ark. Of course, human psuedogenes' similarity to other animals will still present them with a problem, but I've seen them gloss over worse.Lam, I realize there's not enough time for normal evolution to occure. Creationists seem to relaize this as well and say that the Ark creatures were some type of super beasts that had a lot more traits(DNA) then animals do now. Then every new species that de-volved lost some of this super DNA until present day when they can't lose anymore because thier current DNA is so crappy. (I guess the super-DNA had a lot of redundancy) I'm simply waiting for creationists to link this idea with psuedogenes and say that they are evidence for the bible.

Saying humans are the best at anything always strikes me as fishy. (Except for language, abstract reasoning, etc) After all, with humans we have a sample size of 6 billion individuals and we have a much better idea of when people were born. These two facts alone mean that we know the upper bound of our age with high percision. We have no such advantages when trying to determine the longest lifespan of other mammals. Add to that the fact that our technology is aimed at helping people live the longest. With domesticated animals our tech is aimed at getting the most use out of them.But these objections are based purely on theoretical ground. If you actually know of research that's looked into this, I'll of course bow to the evidence.