Okay nick, let me explain the basic genetics of my example
This is the translation of the entirety of the human code:
Met A H Y H N N Y K K N D E V E F V R T G Y G K E Met V K V L H I Q Stop D G K Y H S I K E V A T S V Q L T L S S K K D Y L H G D N S D I I P T D T I K N T V H V L A K F K E I K S I E A F G V N I C E H F L S S F N H V I R A Q V Y Met E E I P W K H L G K N G V K H V H A F I H T P T G T H F C E V E Q L R S G P Q V I H S G I K D L K V L K T T Q S G F E G F I K D Q F T T L P E V K D Stop C F A T Q V Y C K W R Y H Q C R D V D F K A T W D T I R D L V Met E K S A G P Y D K G E Y L T S V Q K T L C D I Q V L S L S R V P A I E D Met E I S L P N I H Y F N I D Met S K Met G L I N K E E V L L P L D N P Y G K I T G T V K R K L S S R L Stop
This is what the actual translation will look like
Met A H Y H N N Y K K N D E V E F V R T G Y G K E Met V K V L H I Q Stop
thats a polypeptide which is only 32 amino acids long (does anybody know what the smallest functional polypeptide sequence is?)
32 amino acids only, out of a gene which originally contained 305 amino acids.
Furthermore, what is the function of the of the other 819 nucleotides, which don't in effect, code for anything.
You might think its unreasonable to assume that this sequence has no function. If you knew anything about genetics you'd realise that this assumption is the only reasonable one.
We know that genes in other organisms similar to this one code for a functional protein, called urate oxidase, which is involved in purine metabolism. We know primates no longer have this function. We have found a pseudogene which prematurely terminate translation after only 32 amino acids.
The stop codons preclude it from being a functional urate oxidase gene. So , if common design is correct, it must have another function. The question is, if it does have another function, why is the sequence nearly identical to functional urate oxidase? Would you have us believe that when god creates a new function he breaks genes in precise places to give it a new function? Why wouldn't god simply code a new sequence for a new function? Is he lazy?
The fact is, chimpanzees and humans have this same pseudogene, which is identical at 905 of its 915 nucleotides.
You have two options.
1) its the result of the fall, originally god created humans and chimps with urate oxidase gene, and then genes mutated separately in two different organisms to produce the same crippling mutations. (if you choose this option, don't ever expect us to listen to the "improbability of abiogenesis" argument, because the probability of these same mutations arising independantly in two different primate species is astronomical)
2) God originally created urate oxidase in other mammals. Then he needed some new function (one which apparently doesn't need 816 nucleotides to even be translated) So instead of writing new code for this new function, he took the urate oxidase gene, broke it in several places by introducing premature stop codons (two of which are redundant), and this gave the sequence some new function.
Until you demonstrate this function, my default position (and that of anybody who understands the basics of genetics), is that this is a broken gene, which once had a function, but which is now functionless. It arose in a common ancestor of chimpanzees and humans, and was passed on to those species via common descent.
Common design is an untenable position unless you can show the function in the shared pseudogenes. You can claim all you want that it has an "undiscovered" function. Just don't complain when I tell you that any transitional fossil you request to see photos of is merely "undiscovered". And please don't ever use the word imagination in a derogatory way again, because imagination is the only thing that will give this sequence function.
