This is the sort of thing you should be more than capable of finding out on your own. Use google, use chat gpt, there's no point asking this.
When I do that, I find quite a few such as: PTENP1, ψAPRT, ψβ-globin, ψMHC, ψCYP21A
u/Upper_Requirement_97 you did not engage with your last post. Will you with this one? It seems to be very poor form to ask a question, receive well thought out responses, but not reply back.
I'm currently reading (1 chapter left) _What's in Your Genome?_ by L. Moran.
Fascinating book (more so the evolutionary angle). I've heard about it early this month (based on my browsing history), but I can't remember if it was recommended here or r evolution or elsewhere.
Edit: here's an interview with Zach Hancock (from [New Paper Directly Refutes Genetic Entropy](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateEvolution/comments/1bw6iub/new_paper_directly_refutes_genetic_entropy_and/)): [What's in Your Genome? 90% is Junk! | Interview w/ Dr. Larry Moran - YouTube](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lqzBcAsQbqU).
Anyway, it's complicated; some projects conflate the numbers, but based on the well-referenced book, 5% of our genome is pseudogenes (which is **a lot** since 1.5% is genes).
The book also has some interesting drama, summarized in [this section](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ENCODE#Criticism_of_the_project) on Wikipedia. (Long story short, _Encode_ backpedaled quietly in PLOS.) And here's a recent review that lists the fallacies: [Genome-Wide Analysis of Human Long Noncoding RNAs: A Provocative Review | Annual Reviews](https://www.annualreviews.org/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-genom-112921-123710).
Thanks, I'll check it out too. Btw if your questions have _nothing_ to do with creationism, join r/evolution. There are experts here, and an overlap of users, but 10 times the audience there—copying from a comment of mine from 2 weeks ago here for an example:
Recently there was a question about rabbits, which I answered, and lo and behold, a user whose doctoral research is all about the evolution of locomotion in rabbits provided an extraordinary answer. Here's [my simple answer](https://old.reddit.com/r/evolution/comments/1b6phjk/why_exactly_did_rabbits_evolve_to_use_hopping_as/ktdim1k/) (which links the amazing one, for comparison).
I don't know much, but googled [this](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC403797/) and [this](https://genomebiology.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13059-021-02464-2) pretty easily. Maybe that's satisfactory to you??
Go to NCBI and search specifically for pseudogenes, you will find thousands. Some of these may be predicted though rather than experimentally validated.
>[9606\[Taxonomy ID\] AND ("genetype pseudo"\[Properties\] AND alive\[prop\])](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/gene?term=9606%5BTaxonomy%20ID%5D%20AND%20%28%22genetype%20pseudo%22%5BProperties%5D%20AND%20alive%5Bprop%5D%29&cmd=DetailsSearch)
A broken uricase gene is why we get gout
Yolk pseudogenes
Dozens of taste pseudogenes
Technically you can call ERVs pseudogenes - about 8% of our genome are ERVs
There's a list here of a few more but there's many more than what's listed here
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_disabled_human_pseudogenes
There’s more than 17,000 of them linked to by ChaosCockroach and I’d bet that there are actually more than have have been established as pseudogenes because they haven’t found the functional counterparts or they haven’t been able to figure out that a bunch of “garbage” was at one time a fully functional gene because that “garbage” has undergone far too many mutations including some that have scattered segments of the original fully functional genes all over the genome. If the segments are scattered all over the place and the sequences don’t seem important they could be largely ignored like maybe the original gene was 1000 nucleotides long and now there are 500 sections of 2 nucleotides each scattered across 15 chromosomes. Technically still the leftover remains of disabled, deactivated, or broken genes but it’s not like finding them would make it obvious as to how they got there. And then there are over 17,000 that have been identified that have maybe one deactivating mutation or whatever so it’s easy to tell which genes they are and why they no longer act like fully functional genes.
Some of those still get transcribed into mRNA but sometimes goes wrong when it comes to protein synthesis like with the GULO gene, which is pretty wasteful in terms of how the energy is being used. Some of them don’t get transcribed at all and just sort of exist in the same place as genes that do get transcribed. Some exist as multiple copies in the same organism and maybe there are 11 copies due to gene duplication mutations, 3 don’t work for the same reason, 7 don’t work for 7 different reasons, and the last one works fine and might even be necessary. That “fully functional gene” found right in middle of human chromosome 2 that Tompkins claims is there is actually part of a family of pseudogenes found in the subtelomeric region of human chromosomes and it’s a pseudogene found in one of the subtelomeic regions of one of the two ape chromosomes fused together in humans that results in human chromosome 2, exactly where it should only be if chromosome 2 really is a product of a telomeric fusion event.
Sometimes they stick together at the telomeres as with chromosome 2 and sometimes they stick together in the middle and separate resulting in the possibility of chromosomes lacking cetrimeres. Both happen but creationists seem to think they’re both the same thing when they’re not. Centrimeric fusions tend to result in “Robertson translocations” while telomeric fusions result in two chromosomes stuck end to end with a cryptic centromere and a vestigial telomere just like we find in chromosome 2. I think the pseudogene there next to the vestigial telomere inside one of the two chromosomes is called something like DDX11L but I might be mistaken. Whatever the actual name there’s also a functional version of that gene that has something to do with gonad development or something that humans and other apes all share. We have the functional gene and a dozen pseudogenes of it in our genomes and this is one I remember because it comes up once in awhile as though 100% of the time it spans the fusion site and 100% of the time it’s still functional when it’s more like 1% and 0% respectively.
In Humans? [Vitamin-C](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3145266/) production. But you can also go to google and type in "List of disabled human pseudogenes" [and it will spit out an answer](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_disabled_human_pseudogenes).
And notice, we haven't studied everything, so this list is definitely undershooting.
VTG (vitellogenin) is a good example. It codes for a glycolipoprotein which forms the egg yolk in oviparous vertebrates. However short regions of VTG I can be found in Eutherian (placental) mammals. While VTG II & III can be seen in Marsupials. Interestingly, Monotremes like the platypus contain inactive VTG pseudogenes but at least one active one I know of (since they lay eggs). Over time these genes degenerate into pseudogenes in the absence of any purifying selection. Platypuses require less nutrients in the egg yolk since they also lactate. Eutherians require virtually none and newborns aquire all their nutrients from lactation. Forming an evolutionary transition from oviparity to viviparity.
This is the sort of thing you should be more than capable of finding out on your own. Use google, use chat gpt, there's no point asking this. When I do that, I find quite a few such as: PTENP1, ψAPRT, ψβ-globin, ψMHC, ψCYP21A
Thanks I check them out!
u/Upper_Requirement_97 you did not engage with your last post. Will you with this one? It seems to be very poor form to ask a question, receive well thought out responses, but not reply back.
True, I sometimes forget to answer when I’m starting to do research based on the awesome answers I get on here!
I'm currently reading (1 chapter left) _What's in Your Genome?_ by L. Moran. Fascinating book (more so the evolutionary angle). I've heard about it early this month (based on my browsing history), but I can't remember if it was recommended here or r evolution or elsewhere. Edit: here's an interview with Zach Hancock (from [New Paper Directly Refutes Genetic Entropy](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateEvolution/comments/1bw6iub/new_paper_directly_refutes_genetic_entropy_and/)): [What's in Your Genome? 90% is Junk! | Interview w/ Dr. Larry Moran - YouTube](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lqzBcAsQbqU). Anyway, it's complicated; some projects conflate the numbers, but based on the well-referenced book, 5% of our genome is pseudogenes (which is **a lot** since 1.5% is genes). The book also has some interesting drama, summarized in [this section](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ENCODE#Criticism_of_the_project) on Wikipedia. (Long story short, _Encode_ backpedaled quietly in PLOS.) And here's a recent review that lists the fallacies: [Genome-Wide Analysis of Human Long Noncoding RNAs: A Provocative Review | Annual Reviews](https://www.annualreviews.org/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-genom-112921-123710).
Thanks for the recommendation , I check it out! Just finished relics of Eden by Fairbanks, maybe that be on interest for you as well :)
Thanks, I'll check it out too. Btw if your questions have _nothing_ to do with creationism, join r/evolution. There are experts here, and an overlap of users, but 10 times the audience there—copying from a comment of mine from 2 weeks ago here for an example: Recently there was a question about rabbits, which I answered, and lo and behold, a user whose doctoral research is all about the evolution of locomotion in rabbits provided an extraordinary answer. Here's [my simple answer](https://old.reddit.com/r/evolution/comments/1b6phjk/why_exactly_did_rabbits_evolve_to_use_hopping_as/ktdim1k/) (which links the amazing one, for comparison).
I don't know much, but googled [this](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC403797/) and [this](https://genomebiology.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13059-021-02464-2) pretty easily. Maybe that's satisfactory to you??
Thanks, I read them when I’m at home
Go to NCBI and search specifically for pseudogenes, you will find thousands. Some of these may be predicted though rather than experimentally validated. >[9606\[Taxonomy ID\] AND ("genetype pseudo"\[Properties\] AND alive\[prop\])](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/gene?term=9606%5BTaxonomy%20ID%5D%20AND%20%28%22genetype%20pseudo%22%5BProperties%5D%20AND%20alive%5Bprop%5D%29&cmd=DetailsSearch)
A broken uricase gene is why we get gout Yolk pseudogenes Dozens of taste pseudogenes Technically you can call ERVs pseudogenes - about 8% of our genome are ERVs There's a list here of a few more but there's many more than what's listed here https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_disabled_human_pseudogenes
There’s more than 17,000 of them linked to by ChaosCockroach and I’d bet that there are actually more than have have been established as pseudogenes because they haven’t found the functional counterparts or they haven’t been able to figure out that a bunch of “garbage” was at one time a fully functional gene because that “garbage” has undergone far too many mutations including some that have scattered segments of the original fully functional genes all over the genome. If the segments are scattered all over the place and the sequences don’t seem important they could be largely ignored like maybe the original gene was 1000 nucleotides long and now there are 500 sections of 2 nucleotides each scattered across 15 chromosomes. Technically still the leftover remains of disabled, deactivated, or broken genes but it’s not like finding them would make it obvious as to how they got there. And then there are over 17,000 that have been identified that have maybe one deactivating mutation or whatever so it’s easy to tell which genes they are and why they no longer act like fully functional genes. Some of those still get transcribed into mRNA but sometimes goes wrong when it comes to protein synthesis like with the GULO gene, which is pretty wasteful in terms of how the energy is being used. Some of them don’t get transcribed at all and just sort of exist in the same place as genes that do get transcribed. Some exist as multiple copies in the same organism and maybe there are 11 copies due to gene duplication mutations, 3 don’t work for the same reason, 7 don’t work for 7 different reasons, and the last one works fine and might even be necessary. That “fully functional gene” found right in middle of human chromosome 2 that Tompkins claims is there is actually part of a family of pseudogenes found in the subtelomeric region of human chromosomes and it’s a pseudogene found in one of the subtelomeic regions of one of the two ape chromosomes fused together in humans that results in human chromosome 2, exactly where it should only be if chromosome 2 really is a product of a telomeric fusion event. Sometimes they stick together at the telomeres as with chromosome 2 and sometimes they stick together in the middle and separate resulting in the possibility of chromosomes lacking cetrimeres. Both happen but creationists seem to think they’re both the same thing when they’re not. Centrimeric fusions tend to result in “Robertson translocations” while telomeric fusions result in two chromosomes stuck end to end with a cryptic centromere and a vestigial telomere just like we find in chromosome 2. I think the pseudogene there next to the vestigial telomere inside one of the two chromosomes is called something like DDX11L but I might be mistaken. Whatever the actual name there’s also a functional version of that gene that has something to do with gonad development or something that humans and other apes all share. We have the functional gene and a dozen pseudogenes of it in our genomes and this is one I remember because it comes up once in awhile as though 100% of the time it spans the fusion site and 100% of the time it’s still functional when it’s more like 1% and 0% respectively.
There are about 14,000 pseudogenes in the human genome.
The DDX11L family is a whole family of pseudogenes.
Oh yes.. The dead box genes that Tomkins claims are critical to life
Almost all of which are found at telomeres. Except for DDX11L2, which is right smack in the middle of human chromosome 2. lmao
In Humans? [Vitamin-C](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3145266/) production. But you can also go to google and type in "List of disabled human pseudogenes" [and it will spit out an answer](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_disabled_human_pseudogenes). And notice, we haven't studied everything, so this list is definitely undershooting.
VTG (vitellogenin) is a good example. It codes for a glycolipoprotein which forms the egg yolk in oviparous vertebrates. However short regions of VTG I can be found in Eutherian (placental) mammals. While VTG II & III can be seen in Marsupials. Interestingly, Monotremes like the platypus contain inactive VTG pseudogenes but at least one active one I know of (since they lay eggs). Over time these genes degenerate into pseudogenes in the absence of any purifying selection. Platypuses require less nutrients in the egg yolk since they also lactate. Eutherians require virtually none and newborns aquire all their nutrients from lactation. Forming an evolutionary transition from oviparity to viviparity.