The gist of what I'm seeing is that these defective genes present an open question in terms of their suffusion amidst the known universe. And yet I would posit that they manifest themselves only within a small range of the bios. For example, if one were looking for these defective genes one would not expect to find them in a slab of granite, and one could easily predict that 1,000 years from now one would still not expect to find them in a slab of granite.
So already this phenomenon demonstrates a fundamental attribute of design: a degree of consistency as to where it manifests itself throughout time and space. I would imagine there is also some consistency in how it behaves, maybe not much at all, but some.
I believe you when you pass along the information that these genes are considered defective. Obviously I do not have an answer for every case where a substance behaves unpredictably or manifests an apparent defect, but I don't think I would instinctively attribute raw "nothingness" or "chance" to the fact of their occurrence. The question may also be asked whether the presence of defects overrides what appears to be a far greater suffusion of design, purpose, etc. throughout the known universe.
I've been told the Netherlands is boycotting US Grain because we have introduced genetic consistencies to the detriment of biological inconsistencies which, by all appearances are flawed, and yet contribute to the health value of grain. There may be a good reason we do not live in an anti-septic universe.
Back to a quick question: Do you believe pseudogenes to be altogether void of any characteristsics that might apply to design?
I dispute this is an element of design. Water is found in substantial quantity on the earth, but not on Mercury. Design? No, Mercury's so hot water would have ben lost to space eons ago.
Do you believe pseudogenes to be altogether void of any characteristsics that might apply to design?
Their existence certainly is inconsistent with design. Their structure is largely explained by random point mutations acting on a retrotransposed gene. If one insisted the original gene were designed, whic hI don't believe, then the pseudogene would carry whatever residual evidence of design that mutation had not destroyed. But pseudogenes qua pseudogenes are antithetical to the idea of design; they're apparentluy functionless, the result of an accident, and corrupted by further random genetic drift.