Psuedogenes are good for Creationism!

I'm not sure this is exactly on topic, but you seem to be under the impression that biologists consider the existence of pseudogenes to be evidence of the common descent of organisms.This isn't exactly true. It's not (for instance) the fact that both apes and humans have pseudogenes that suggests common descent. It's the fact that they have a lot of the same pseudogenes. For instance apes and humans both have a broken gene that could synthesize Vitamin C if it worked. In both humans and apes, the gene is broken in the same place.What process would break the gene in the same way, twice, in a number of seperate species? The obvious conclusion is that apes and humans share heredity to some degree. Or they could kill someone. Even if what you say is true, humans have adapted to the absence of the protiens those pseudogenes code for. Re-introducing them could be fatal. I'd be worried that someone would take your idea so seriously - based on a faith in the Bible that supercedes any conclusion based on evidence in nature - that they would rush ahead to do just what you suggest. They'd be so certain that it would work that they wouldn't stop to consider how to protect the subject in case it didn't.

The ones who make statements they know aren't supported by the evidence are the liars. The problem is that you have to be ready to assess the evidence yourself. Just taking the word of whoever you like best just isn't going to cut it.

True enough. But as far as anyone can tell, we're the only ones to talk to. (After all anyone who says God exists is human themselves, and could be mistaken!)Nobody's saying our knowledge is perfect. The point of the scientific methodology is that there's always a community of scientists looking over your shoulder, checking your work. That's the best way I can think of to keep the mistakes to a minimum, don't you think?

Or, both. After all since humans are apes, it's like you're asking for something "either doglike or mammal-like."Also the problem that you have with this theory is that there are ape fossils. If all fossil sediment is a product of the flood, then we know that apes predate the flood and cannot be decendants of the humans on the Ark - they predate the Ark.Added by edit: You say you're new, and your post is ambiguous, so let me just mention, I'm an evolutionist. I didn't write the above to support the Noaic flood, but rather, to show the inconsistencies in any attempt to reconcile a Biblical flood and human-ape heredity.[This message has been edited by crashfrog, 04-24-2004]

According to creationists, most of the sediments (and the fossils in them) are the result of flooding. Some are post-flood.Which ones? They won't say. It was pretty unambiguous to me that you were an evolutionist. I just wanted you to be sure I was, too.