So you did not bother to look at the link?
The 'SAME GENES' described there are the same exact ones you did here, AND with the same descriptions.
Here is what
pshun2404 posted on this forum:
Human Gene HDLBP (uc002wba.1) a 110-kD protein that specifically binds HDL molecules, which functions in the removal of cellular cholesteral...it is a section 87,092 base pairs long
Rat Gene Hdlbp (NM_172039) which is only 68, 238 base pairs long performs a similar function but apparently not identically.
The allegedly the “SAME GENE” in Yeast, S. cerevisiae Gene SCP160 (YJL080C) functions differently and is primary to cell division, and only has 3,669 base pairs.
Finally, the alleged “SAME GENE” in D. Melongaster, Gene Dp1 (CG5170-RB). Having 9119 base pairs (3 times that of Yeast) seems to do nothing!
and here is what I found on
yahoo answers from 10 years ago:
For example, Human Gene HDLBP (uc002wba.1) is a "High density lipoprotein-binding protein, also known as vigilin, is a 110-kD protein that specifically binds HDL molecules and may function in the removal of excess cellular cholesterol." It is 87092 base pairs long.
In other species it is:
(Rat) Rat Gene Hdlbp (NM_172039) - 68238 base pairs - also performs a similiar function.
(Fly) D. melanogaster Gene Dp1 (CG5170-RB) - 9119 base pairs - not sure what it does
(Roundworm) C. elegans Gene C08H9.2 (C08H9.2) - 3900 base pairs - not sure what it does
(Yeast) S. cerevisiae Gene SCP160 (YJL080C) - 3669 - where it is thought to be used in cell division
I highlighted the areas of 100% similarity...
I find it next to impossible to think that you and the person that made that posting at Yahoo answers independently picked, out of the blue, the same examples, using the same identity codes, with the same bp numbers (as I already indicated, the rat designation
NM_172039] returns only the mRNA sequence, 4414 bp), and the same general means of describing them (to include many instances of verbatim depictions).
Totally independently. I ran into another creationist that had provided a lengthy quote from I think it was Richard Lewontin, which had 2 sets of ellipses in it, which I thought odd. So, I googled the quote and darned if I did not get a dozen returns for creationist websites, each with the ellipses in the exact same spot. That guy also expected me to believe that it was just a coincidence.
From the same source that you plagiarized from? That could be. But at least the person on yahoo Answers put parts in quotes, at least indicating that it was not his original work. And he provided an original source link (which is now, not surprisingly, dead).
You provide no links.
This calls many things into question, frankly.
When we have students that simply copy paste wholesale from other sources, we often get the old 'I was going to change it later but forgot' excuse. Depending on the believability of their sob story, we may accept that they had intended to come back to it later and transform it into their own words, or use the plagiarized parts for 'ideas.' They still get nailed for plagiarism, but the punishment may be less severe. When we see students that have plagiarized but change just a few words here and there, and try to deny that they plagiarized, well, that goes to their intent. we usually nail them.