So what design principle do the 49 defective copies of the cytochrome c gene present in the human genome demonstrate?
Mockery
O blasphemous skeptic! Have you never heard of the precautionary practice used by of publishers of roadmaps? They deliberately create some tiny error in each map they publish. That way they can prove, if needed, that someone has illegally copied their work, because no one designing an original roadmap would include the identical (and erroneous) feature.
Clearly, the Great Intelligent Designer (GID) is using such errors to protect his work from being ripped off by some Slime-Ball Designer (SBD). But now that I think of it, how can we be sure that we're products of the GID? We could be a second-rate planet full of cheap knock-offs.
Without a more solid knowledge of the phenomenon you've iterated I can only make a few guesses. Let me start by noting that a certain observer has rendered the judgement, or conclusion, that these genes represent a "defect." Since I am not that observer I have no way or knowing whether the judgment is true.
Let me ask a couple questions so I can learn a little about this phenomenon, and then I may be in a better position to judge whether this phenomenon fits into the Beauregard Table of Winged Anomalies.
1.) Out of the whole spectrum of genetic phenomena, how often (just a shoot-from-the hip percentage will do) does this defect manifest itself?
2.) What are the characteristics of this phenomenon that would cause the observer to conclude it is defective?
Remember the part about the thorns and thistles?
The PERFECT creation NOW messed up by sin??
Remember the part about the thorns and thistles?
The PERFECT creation NOW messed up by sin??
Are we sure they are defective?
Researchers in Japan and UCSD Discover Novel Role For Pseudogenes