Beg , fabricate, do whatever you want. Your paper provides no proof that they are psuedogenes and your entire argument rests on there being no function.
They list the frame shift mutations that produce the pseudogenes. That is the proof.
You can't look at a gene and from studying it determine its function or its functionlessness.
Yes, we can. When a stretch of DNA starts accumulating mutations at a rate consistent with neutral drift it doesn't have function. If it had function then we would see conservation of sequence due to negative selection of deleterious mutations.
Haven't you learned anything for the last 10-20 years of claiming something was junk DNA and then finding out it isn't?.
90% of the human genome is still considered junk DNA, and that is after tons of research over the last 10-20 years. 90% of the human genome is accumulating mutations at a rate consistent with neutral drift.
Further more in your own darwinist framework frame shift mutations (thats right the same ones you keep repeating over and over as if you have somthing) are claimed to have been the cause of new functions that were then entrenched and conserved for millions of years.
Pseudogenes don't show conservation of sequence which is evidence for a lack of function.
Oh so now YOU are criticizing the normally accepted scientists and accusing them of not being able to explain eh? Thats rich. So you use that rhetoric even on scientists who aren't Creationsts when they say something that doesn't fit what you want them to say eh?.
The normally accepted scientists are the ones saying that the ENCODE paper is oversold function. This is one of those normally accepted scientists.
"Thus, according to the ENCODE Consortium, a biological function can be maintained indefinitely without selection, which implies that at least 80 - 10 = 70% of the genome is perfectly invulnerable to deleterious mutations, either because no mutation can ever occur in these "functional" regions or because no mutation in these regions can ever be deleterious. This absurd conclusion was reached through various means, . . ."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23431001
ENCODE defined "function" as doing something. That isn't function. The trash in your trash can does something when it releases odor molecules into the air. It is still junk. No scientist has ever said that junk DNA should be entirely inert, yet that is how ENCODE tried to define it.
Of course ENCODE was never attempting to pin down functions as no such study could do that effectively. What they got blasted for was just claimng that the high level of activity -
They came right out and said that it was functional.
Sure thats what pseudogenes are. Captain obvious. have you provided any proof that they all are broken genes (in respect to function being all that matters? Nope
The mutations that break the genes have been given.
[qutoe]where did I say broken? I said isn't used for smell. Meanwhile why would it violate any design for designer to create new functions by moving around (frame shifting) what in effect is code?[/quote]
Why would that function be impervious to deleterious mutations?
