Coming soon: our next stage, ? evolutus.
Options
Comments
-
We're talking about, a pseudogene, which is non functional
Exactly.........
By definition, pseudogenes lack a function. However, the classification of pseudogenes generally relies on computational analysis of genomic sequences using complex algorithms.[22] This has led to the incorrect identification of pseudogenes. Examples include:
1) The Drosophila jingwei gene, a functional, chimeric gene which was once thought to be a processed pseudogene.[23]
2) Makorin1 (MKRN1). In 2003, Hirotsune et al. identified a.......
Do I really need to continue?.?.?.?
-
Yes, please continue because you have yet to mention L-gulonolactone oxidase as a pseudogene that was mistakenly classified.
L-gulonolactone oxidase is what we're talking about, not any of the other examples you've named.
Just because some pseudogenes have been incorrectly identified does not mean that pseudogenes do not exist. -
They exist.......
Only until they are "incorrectly identified"...............
Your precious L-gulonolactone oxidase will also be included on the list..........
With more and more papers coming out documenting a myriad of functions associated with pseudogenes, such a future finding should not come as a surprise.......
-
They exist.......
RightYour precious L-gulonolactone oxidase will also be included on the list..........
Until then, you have no argument -
The problem I have with you Drew is you are stunningly intellectually dishonest. You claim to use Dictionary.com for your definition but here is the definition from that site.
"
ves·tige
[ves-tij] Show IPA
noun
1.
a mark, trace, or visible evidence of something that is no longer present or in existence: A few columns were the last vestiges of a Greek temple.
2.
a surviving evidence or remainder of some condition, practice, etc.: These superstitions are vestiges of an ancient religion.
3.
a very slight trace or amount of something: Not a vestige remains of the former elegance of the house.
4.
Biology . a degenerate or imperfectly developed ? or structure that has little or no utility, but that in an earlier stage of the individual or in preceding evolutionary forms of the organism performed a useful function.
5.
Archaic. a footprint; track."
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/vestige
Your "debunking" is only valid with people willing to lie to themselves.
-
No......
You have no argument..............
There is enough evidence already available to conclusivly illustrate that psudogenes are bogus..........
By definition, pseudogenes lack a function. However, the classification of pseudogenes generally relies on computational analysis of genomic sequences using complex algorithms.[22] This has led to the incorrect identification of pseudogenes. Examples include:
1) The Drosophila jingwei gene, a functional, chimeric gene which was once thought to be a processed pseudogene.[23]
2) Makorin1 (MKRN1). In 2003, Hirotsune et al. identified a.......
3) Phosphoglycerate mutase 3 (PGAM3P). A processed pseudogene called phosphoglycerate mutase 3 (PGAM3P) actually produces a functional protein.[28]
4) siRNAs. Some endogenous siRNAs appear to be derived from pseudogenes, and thus some pseudogenes play a role in regulating protein-coding transcripts.[29][30]
5) PTENP1 and KRAS1P. In June 2010, Nature published an article showing the mRNA levels of tumour suppressor PTEN and oncogenicKRAS is affected by their pseudogenes PTENP1 and KRAS1P. This discovery demonstrated an miRNA decoy function for pseudogenes and identified their transcripts as biologically active units in tumor biology; thus attributing a novel biological role to expressed pseudogenes, as they can regulate coding gene expression, and reveal a non-coding function for mRNAs in disease progression.[31]
-
The problem I have with you Drew is you are stunningly intellectually dishonest. You claim to use Dictionary.com for your definition but here is the definition from that site.
"
ves·tige
[ves-tij] Show IPA
noun
1.
a mark, trace, or visible evidence of something that is no longer present or in existence: A few columns were the last vestiges of a Greek temple.
2.
a surviving evidence or remainder of some condition, practice, etc.: These superstitions are vestiges of an ancient religion.
3.
a very slight trace or amount of something: Not a vestige remains of the former elegance of the house.
4.
Biology . a degenerate or imperfectly developed ? or structure that has little or no utility, but that in an earlier stage of the individual or in preceding evolutionary forms of the organism performed a useful function.
5.
Archaic. a footprint; track."
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/vestige
Your "debunking" is only valid with people willing to lie to themselves.Lol.......
When you copy and paste from Oxford etymology, you get that generic statement about dictionary.com.....
I am the most academically honest person on this site......
Try it yourself..........
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=vestige&allowed_in_frame=0
Etymology is the study of the history of words, their origins, and how their form and meaning have changed over time.
-
-
LOL......
Whatever ? ......
Where is your argument?.?.?.?
As usual.....
? resort to posting silly gifs when they have no legs to stand on...............
-
My argument has been standing on your throat for the last couple pages. Where is it? You're already familiar with it.
-
1. A vestigial structure/? does not necessarily need to lack any sort of function or be counted as 100% useless to be called a vestige.
2. Vestigial structures/organs exist within humans, e.g. L-gulonolactone oxidase; and animals, e.g. skeletal structures of whales, snakes, etc. etc. -
1. So what makes up a vestigial structure/? ?.?.?.?
2. You have no valid evidence for these claims.................
-
What a load of horseshit. You want to invent a definition based on the etymology when the word has a definition? So what is your definition of the word? The etymology includes 'trace' so it has the within it the meaning of a residual effect or function. But I am sure you can invent a new straw-man to deal with that.
-
What a load of horseshit. You want to invent a definition based on the etymology when the word has a definition? So what is your definition of the word? The etymology includes 'trace' so it has the within it the meaning of a residual effect or function. But I am sure you can invent a new straw-man to deal with that.
I am not inventing ? .......
I merely pointed this out........
I have been following the biological definition for vestigial the entire discussion............
Biology . a degenerate or imperfectly developed ? or structure that has little or no utility, but that in an earlier stage of the individual or in preceding evolutionary forms of the organism performed a useful function.
-
Biology . a degenerate or imperfectly developed ? or structure that has little or no utility, but that in an earlier stage of the individual or in preceding evolutionary forms of the organism performed a useful function.
So now that you're willing to accept the biological definition of the word, maybe you can now admit that you were wrong in assuming an ? or structure is NOT vestigial once it has been found to serve a purpose (which was your argument)
-
Just to reiterate ...
"Biology . a degenerate or imperfectly developed ? or structure that has little or no utility, but that in an earlier stage of the individual or in preceding evolutionary forms of the organism performed a useful function."
That part as Oceanic points out means it can have some function. It is reduced compare to the ? in other creatures.
Our tailbone is vestigial. Even though muscle may attach to it, it used to be a fully functioning tail.
Our appendix may provide protection against loss of bacteria due to diarrhea but it used to digest plant life. -
Biology . a degenerate or imperfectly developed ? or structure that has little or no utility, but that in an earlier stage of the individual or in preceding evolutionary forms of the organism performed a useful function.
So now that you're willing to accept the biological definition of the word, maybe you can now admit that you were wrong in assuming an ? or structure is NOT vestigial once it has been found to serve a purpose (which was your argument)
I was talking about the "usefulness" of the organs in question......
You had to get past the first sentence in the definition...............
Check the underlined...........Biology . a degenerate or imperfectly developed ? or structure that has little or no utility, but that in an earlier stage of the individual or in preceding evolutionary forms of the organism performed a useful function.
-
Just to reiterate ...
Our tailbone is vestigial. Even though muscle may attach to it, it used to be a fully functioning tail.
Proof?.?.?.?.?
-
I was talking about the "usefulness" of the organs in question......
What do you think the definition of "utility" is??
util·i·ty noun \yü-ˈti-lə-tē\
plural util·i·ties
Definition of UTILITY
1: fitness for some purpose or worth to some end
2: something useful or designed for use
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/utilityCheck the underlined...........
Biology . a degenerate or imperfectly developed ? or structure that has little or no utility, but that in an earlier stage of the individual or in preceding evolutionary forms of the organism performed a useful function.
^^^ So this definition, in other words, is:
A degenerate or imperfectly developed ? or structure that has little or no [usefulness or purpose], but that in an earlier stage of the individual or in preceding evolutionary forms of the organism performed a[nother] useful function.
-
Most mammals have tails; those who don't have a tail have a coccyx, which is the remnant of a lost tail, visible in the skeletal structure of the animal. The human tail is most visible during embryogenesis.
While the tail is vestigial, the coccyx remains because it serves secondary functions.
-
I was talking about the "usefulness" of the organs in question......
What do you think the definition of "utility" is??
util·i·ty noun \yü-ˈti-lə-tē\
plural util·i·ties
Definition of UTILITY
1: fitness for some purpose or worth to some end
2: something useful or designed for use
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/utilityCheck the underlined...........
Biology . a degenerate or imperfectly developed ? or structure that has little or no utility, but that in an earlier stage of the individual or in preceding evolutionary forms of the organism performed a useful function.
^^^ So this definition, in other words, is:
A degenerate or imperfectly developed ? or structure that has little or no [usefulness or purpose], but that in an earlier stage of the individual or in preceding evolutionary forms of the organism performed a[nother] useful function.
Exactly..........
None of the examples provided illustrates that the organs in question "has little or no [usefulness or purpose]"....
-
None of the examples provided illustrates that the organs in question "has little or no [usefulness or purpose]"....
Your argument is that "vestigial structures do serve purposes so they cannot be vestigial", when contrary to what you think, vestigiality does not entail uselessness of an ? or structure. Actually, these functions are secondary to what was originally primary. The primary function was lost, which is why the ? /structure is vestigial. So, the structures may have little or no usefulness or purpose. -
Most mammals have tails; those who don't have a tail have a coccyx, which is the remnant of a lost tail, visible in the skeletal structure of the animal. The human tail is most visible during embryogenesis.
While the tail is vestigial, the coccyx remains because it serves secondary functions.
lol......
The coccyx remains because it serves its primary purpose.......
To provide an attachment for our pelvic organs so that they will not collapse.......
-
None of the examples provided illustrates that the organs in question "has little or no [usefulness or purpose]"....
Your argument is that "vestigial structures do serve purposes so they cannot be vestigial", when contrary to what you think, vestigiality does not entail uselessness of an ? or structure. Actually, these functions are secondary to what was originally primary. The primary function was lost, which is why the ? /structure is vestigial. So, the structures may have little or no usefulness or purpose.
You have no evidence, other than your vivid infantile imagination to support the claim that humans had "functioning" tails.......
