From: bivalve (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Tue May 13 2003 - 20:02:18 EDT
>Dr. Campbell Wrote:...several other possible mechanisms for regulating gene expression are known...
>"Possible mechansims" is quite different than actual discovery of their function. You might read the work, if you think pseudogenes aren't essential for gene regulation. In at least one case, that statement is false.<
My wording was evidently ambiguous. Several other mechanisms used in organisms for regulating gene expression are known. As far as I know, there is no known reason for this particular gene to be regulated in this way. In the present case, the pseudogene performs an essential function, but I doubt that it is essential that a pseudogene perform said function. Thus, I do not find it especially credible to claim that this proves that pseudogenes are all or even generally indispensible.
I would expect that a check of pseudogene sequences would reveal whether they have appropriate transcription signals so as to potentially function in this manner.
Note also that the idea that most pseudogenes serve no function and are merely relicts of molecular evolution is fully compatible with the idea that intervention-style design occurred at some points. Behe’s letter that you reference at http://www.discovery.org/viewDB/index.php3?command=view&id=1448&program=CRSC accepts the premise that a designer could not have used evolutionary processes. It is thus denying the presence of design in ordinary processes. Of course, as a short letter, it does not necessarily present a fully thought-out argument.
Dr. David Campbell
University of Alabama
Biodiversity & Systematics
Dept. Biological Sciences
Tuscaloosa, AL 35487-0345 USA
That is Uncle Joe, taken in the masonic regalia of a Grand Exalted Periwinkle of the Mystic Order of Whelks-P.G. Wodehouse, Romance at Droitgate Spa
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Tue May 13 2003 - 19:56:18 EDT