Nested Biological Hierarchies

It appears to me that a consistent misapplication or a misunderstanding of macroevolution is ever present amongst some dissenters and iconoclasts. On numerous occasions I have requested information that might serve as some actual evidence for any macroevolutionary process. Typically, what I recieve in return is some asinine example or I get the much coveted '29 evidences for macroevolution', hosted by TalkOrigins, thrown at me.29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common DescentSo, since this site has served so many pro evolutionists as demonstrable evidence, I thought it was time to interject with a contrasting view.I have decided to accomodate Chiroptera's request to go over his favorite example provided by TalkOrigins first, which is, nested hierarchy of species. From there, perhaps we'll go in sequential order down the line. I presume this thread will deteriorate, but perhaps the Mods wil be able to steer it back on course whenever we start to deviate.Read over the information and present your own opnion. We'l pick it up from there.29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Part 1 Edited by AdminNosy, : To change Thread title and focus on one line of thought.

In this topic, I will be going over the alleged instances of macroevolution. As per request, I have accomodated Chiroptera in starting the "29 evidences for macroevolution" hosted by the popular pro-evolution usernet, TalkOrigins, by beginning with Nested Hierarchies.

quote:

---

"As seen from the phylogeny in Figure 1, the predicted pattern of organisms at any given point in time can be described as "groups within groups", otherwise known as a nested hierarchy. The only known processes that specifically generate unique, nested, hierarchical patterns are branching evolutionary processes. "

---

-Theobald TheobaldHere, the writer describes that the predictable pattern for any organisms that 'groups within groups' will emerge all on their own. I happen to agree with this as it is perfectly compatible with micro-adaptations and we are able to witness these events quite clearly. He also goes on to say that its the known process within the evolutionary model. I happen to agree because the rest is based on interpretation.

quote:

---

"Mere similarity between organisms is not enough to support macroevolution; the nested classification pattern produced by a branching evolutionary process, such as common descent, is much more specific than simple similarity. Real world examples that cannot be objectively classified in nested hierarchies..."

---

I happen to agree with this as well, but most unfortunately, this is an all to common way for many evolutionists to determine lineage."

quote:

---

Although it is trivial to classify anything subjectively in a hierarchical manner, only certain things can be classified objectively in a consistent, unique nested hierarchy. The difference drawn here between "subjective" and "objective" is crucial and requires some elaboration, and it is best illustrated by example. Different models of cars certainly could be classified hierarchically ”perhaps one could classify cars first by color, then within each color by number of wheels, then within each wheel number by manufacturer, etc. However, another individual may classify the same cars first by manufacturer, then by size, then by year, then by color, etc."

---

Theobald gives a great example on how interpretation can lead some of us to draw unempiricle conclusions that are based more on our predelictions rather than simply making an objective claim.

quote:

---

"cladistic analysis of cars will not produce a unique, consistent, well-supported tree that displays nested hierarchies. A cladistic analysis of cars (or, alternatively, a cladistic analysis of imaginary organisms with randomly assigned characters) will of course result in a phylogeny, but there will be a very large number of other phylogenies, many of them with very different topologies, that are as well-supported by the same data. In contrast, a cladistic analysis of organisms or languages will generally result in a well-supported nested hierarchy, without arbitrarily weighting certain characters (Ringe 1999). Cladistic analysis of a true genealogical process produces one or relatively few phylogenetic trees that are much more well-supported by the data than the other possible trees."

---

Here, I feel that Theobald is being honest, but I get the feeling that he is beginning to lean toward punctuated equilibrium in that if the phylogenic data represented does not show a clear and concise stepwise trend, instead of question whether or not such a broad evolution took place, they make an appeal that we just might not be able to see it as clearly as one would desire."

quote:

---

There is one caveat to consider with this prediction: if rates of evolution are fast, then cladistic information can be lost over time since it would be essentially randomized. The faster the rate, the less time needed to obliterate information about the historical branching pattern of evolution. Slowly evolving characters let us see farther back into time; faster evolving characters restrict that view to more recent events. If the rate of evolution for a certain character is extremely slow, a nested hierarchy will be observed for that character only for very distantly related taxa. However, "rate of evolution" vs. "time since divergence" is relative; if common descent is true, then in some time frame we will always be able to observe a nested hierarchy for any given character. Furthermore, we know empirically that different characters evolve at different rates (e.g. some genes have higher background mutation rates than others). Thus, if common descent is true, we should observe nested hierarchies over a broad range of time at various biological levels."

---

And here, I feel my suspicions are confirmed. While he does not outright mention PE, his description spells it out quite nicely. In other words, he is giving us abstract reasons for why macroevolution should be actual rather than present some actual evidence.Here, AiG gives us a trait matrix as a mock chart that describes how similarities within any given specie can often share similarities that mean very little as far as it would relate in a biological sense. In this chart, the writer uses a simliar diagram that Theobald uses in his description of cars.Heavy truck---Light truck---Automobile---3-wheel motorcycle--- 2-wheel motorcycle---Bicycle---Unicycle
Horn 1 1 1 1 1 1 0
Manual steering 1 1 1 1 1 1 0
Multiple wheels 1 1 1 1 1 1 0
3 ln number wheels 9 7 4 3 2 2 0
Thick tires 1 1 1 1 1 0 0
Motorization 1 1 1 1 1 0 0
Self stability 1 1 1 1 0 0 0
Backrest seating 1 1 1 1 0 0 0
Ln cargo capacity 5 3 1 0 0 0 0
Enclosed cabin 1 1 1 0 0 0 0
Steering wheel 1 1 1 0 0 0 0
Upward exhaust 1 1 0 0 0 0 0
Double wheels 1 1 0 0 0 0 0
Interior partition 1 1 0 0 0 0 0
Detachable units 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
Table 1. Mock character-trait matrix of wheeled vehicles. Most traits are polarized: 0-Absent and 1-Present. The number of wheels is indicated by three times the natural logarithm of the actual number of wheels, rounded off to the nearest whole number. The cargo space is denoted by the ratios of natural logarithms of the cargo volume relative to that of the automobile, based on a guesstimate. Walking Whales, Nested Hierarchies, and Chimeras: Do They Exist? | Answers in Genesis Back to the issue at hand, Theobald goes on to write:"

quote:

---

If it were impossible, or very problematic, to place species in an objective nested classification scheme (as it is for the car, chair, book, atomic element, and elementary particle examples mentioned above), macroevolution would be effectively disproven. More precisely, if the phylogenetic tree of all life gave statistically significant low values of phylogenetic signal (hierarchical structure), common descent would be resolutely falsified."

---

Since we can break things down to its simplest elements, there is always a level of similarity. For instance, all things material, living and non-living are composed of atoms, but to arrive at the conclusion that since we all share similarities on the atomic level, somehow justifies lineage, is suspect."

quote:

---

Keep in mind that about 1.5 million species are known currently, and that the majority of these species has been discovered since Darwin first stated his hypothesis of common ancestry. Even so, they all have fit the correct hierarchical pattern within the error of our methods. Furthermore, it is estimated that only 1 to 10% of all living species has even been catalogued, let alone studied in detail. New species discoveries pour in daily, and each one is a test of the theory of common descent."

---

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Part 1Lastly, Theobald provides no actual evidence for anything, about anything, and simply retreates into the hazy cloud that is ToE with its inability to clearly define the theory or even its subtheories and retreats into the plea that moast organisms have yet to be studied thoroughly. This, of course, should make us wonder why he clings to theory so strongly if its basis is on theoretical biology.All in all, the opening segment of '29 evidences' failed to report even one evidence of a macroevolutionary process. Instead, it simply rehashes on certain microadaptations that we already know about and then gives us some abstract reasons for why it theoretically is possible. Edited by nemesis_juggernaut, : Forgot to add sourcesEdited by nemesis_juggernaut, : Trying to reconfigure a chart.... To no avail. Eh, whatever, you get the idea

---

“Always be ready to give a defense to
everyone who asks you a reason for the
hope that is in you.” -1st Peter 3:15

Yeah, I guess so. The only reason I didn't want to entitle it as such was because I'd be going over all 29 evidences. Nested Hierarchies was just one piece provided.But if you really want to change the title then I guess it isn't critical.Eh, anyway, you're the Mod. Its your site. Do as you please.

Surface criticism for a surface paper. Theobald describes nothing that we don't already know, then he goes on to describe theoretical aspects using mathematical analysis. Nowhere does he provide an iota of evidence for macroevolution, which is consequently, the entire premise of the paper. Did you even read the italicized print I provided? Its clear what he was arriving at. He practically spells it out. As far as me not liking PE, no, I don't like it. For one reason only. Providing reasons why we don't find transitional forms is as baseless as you could get. Isn't that the ultimate argument from incredulity? I commended him on not arriving at that conclusion. I was merely mentioning how some of the people on EvC apparently have an inherent agreement on that point. What example does he give us? He simply gave an abstract outline for why we should believe as he does. No, I believe in an evolution of sorts. What I don't believe is the mainstream ToE. I believe that it arrives to some pretty fanciful conclusions holistically. If evolution simply meant, change, I doubt anyone would have a problem with it. Unfortunately, it doesn't stop at a simple genetic change. Instead, it aspires to ask a much broader question that it isn't ready to give. The whole underlying tone within the prevailing theory is highly suspect. Read it again, because he gave no referrences to any studies or conclusive findings. All he says is what you all say, "There is ample evidence of macroevolution." Sorry, but repeating the thing doesn't make it any better or any more true. tThat doesn't cut it. And if any one of you is interested in pragmatism through scientific truisms, then you should al be questioning it. Afterall, the title was '29 evidences for macroevolution.'One down, 28 to go. Mmm, yes, next time I'll bring my A-game dog.

---

“Always be ready to give a defense to
everyone who asks you a reason for the
hope that is in you.” -1st Peter 3:15

Yes, I would agree with that. What I don't understand is how this is supposed to provide us 'evidence' for a macroevolutionary process? Furthermore, he goes on to describe how arriving at any macroevolutionary process is subjective. So, how is that supposed to prove anything? I don't have a problem with the taxonomy chart as far as relates to which animals have more traits that are similar. I mean, is a Dolphin a mammal or a fish? I'm just using this as a referrence. I don't really care if someone said that its a fish because, it has fins, it lives in the water, it has the anatomics of a fish, and so on. On the other hand, its warm-blooded, it recieves its oxygen through the air rather than H2O, etc. On some level, and apparently Theobald agrees, we have the tendency to look at certain characteristics and by human extrapolation, we get to decide what is what and where it belongs in the chain of life. Do you understand what I'm saying? Its completely subject to interpretation based on whatever humans want to call it. This pattern best describes a microadaptive process which is abundantly evident. What it fails to capture is that all living things are ultimately related. We do see some of these mix-match set of characteristics. One such is homo floresiensis, which aparently has the entire paleontological community in disagreement as to what exactly it is. Discovery had a realy good program on it the other night that allowed me to forgive them for airing the program that preceeded it. Again, that's totally subject to a percieved relationship, which Theobald discusses. If you have a group of 100 people in a room, supose that 50 of them are from the same family, and the other half is of another. Just looking at them, could you make the distinction of which ones are actually related? How many of them that weren't related bear a striking resemblance to another?I'm good friends with two brothers. As kids, people often confused me as being the brother of the youngest because we look alike. In fact, the eldest looks nothing like the youngest, and yet, he is by far more closely related to the youngest than I am. I only mention this because its easy for us to make good observations only to arrive at a bad conclusion.

---

“Always be ready to give a defense to
everyone who asks you a reason for the
hope that is in you.” -1st Peter 3:15

What I'm saying is that its completely subjective, especially when no one has never witnessed this convergence in order to verify it. Put in another context. Suppose that you agree that a Creator exists and that He created all sorts of kinds of animals, as Augustine described it being, "a manifestation of His each individual thought." Out of those millions of species, aren't some going to look more alike than others? Suppose we looked alot like what we classify as Ursine, but only because our schematic most closely resembled a bear. Would an evolutionist say that we and bears shared Ursine stock? Probably. But then suppose the resemblance just so happened to spark an interest in a percieved lineage just based off certain characteristics. This is what I mean by it being subjective and speculative to the eye of the beholder. Could we be closely related to simians? I certainly don't flame Darwin for his theory. As I've stated before, its not a stupid theory. I just believe as time goes on and as qw are acquiring better technology that we are finding a divergence not convergence. As I stated above, at some point somthing is going to look more closely related than something else, but this does not mean that we are in anyway related to one another. I think you mssed the purpose of my previous statement. It appreciate the taxanomy classification for a variety of reasons, but it really doesn't matter what we call an animal or we, as humans, decide where it goes. Cetaceans resemble fish more than it does any other mammal. I think that goes without saying. If you were to ask any child that is currently ignorant of the taxonomy classification, what a Dolphin is, their basest instinct tells them that its a fish because it lives in the water and fins (flippers). Its only on the field trip that they learn this animal breathes air from a blowhole, births live young, is endothermic, and so on.But what does the evidence spell out if the end result or the intermidate steps to take us there has never been witnessed? Its an assertion. And for however many traits we share with another organism its still speculative as to whether we diverged or converged froma common ancestor. I just think its totally subjective if we have never witnessed any macroevolutionary process. Let me give you another example. Suppose that automobiles were living and could procreate. Also suppose that they've always been here with us and that we didn't create them. Two kinds of pickup trucks look very similar because they share much of the same design. We would suppose that all pickups are related because they share so many characteristics. But actually, the innerworkings of the vehicles mean more when we look underneath the hood, than the does the frame of the vehicle. One pickup is more closely related to a Ford sedan, while the other is more closely related to a Chevy van. Does that make sense? The evidence is subjective because its humans that get to classify where things go. And if a Creator did in fact create all life, then at some point, some things are going to look more alike than others, even if they weren't related at all. And as I shared earlier, as technology increases, we are shifting further and further away from the typical ToE. For instance, chimps don't have as closely related DNA to humans that was once previously believed. As it turns out, we just didn't know as much about DNA or their markers in the past that we do now.

---

“Always be ready to give a defense to
everyone who asks you a reason for the
hope that is in you.” -1st Peter 3:15

[i][quote]"The often-quoted statement that we share over 98% of our genes with apes (chimpanzees, gorillas, and orangutans) actually should be put another way. That is, there is more than 95% to 98% similarity between related genes in humans and apes in general. (Just as in the mouse, quite a few genes probably are not common to humans and apes, and these may influence uniquely human or ape traits.) Similarities between mouse and human genes range from about 70% to 90%, with an average of 85% similarity but a lot of variation from gene to gene (e.g., some mouse and human gene products are almost identical, while others are nearly unrecognizable as close relatives). Some nucleotide changes are “neutral” and do not yield a significantly altered protein. Others, but probably only a relatively small percentage, would introduce changes that could substantially alter what the protein does.[/i][/quote]" -Lisa StubbsHuman Genome Project Information Site Has Been UpdatedThis is the crux of the argument: The traditional evolutionary phyolgenic tree of life was first based on the similarity of physical characteristics. Things that look alike must be closely related to a common ancestor, they surmise. But the basest criteria used for determining such lineage, either percieved or actual, is subjective and arbitrary. The presumption that the data should take primacy in placing a species somewhere in our minds may be welcomed by some, but it glances over the obvious point. If the answer were easily gleaned from nature nobody would have a problem with speciation. But this isn't what we see. We have yet to see any macroevolutionary process. So, again, its conjecture. Based on inference? Yes. Its not a terrible guesstimate, but at least recognize that its nowhere concrete.The endeavor for classifying speciation has intensified with the introduction of molecular research, but it just adds to the speculation. For instance, a conglomerate of DNA/RNA and Hox and such, is going to determine the morphology of any given body plan. That doesn't mean that one came from the other. It could very well mean that they are the progeny of a Creator and at some point, some organisms are going to more closely resemble another, while another one appears to look nothing alike. No they don't. They keeping digging up partial remains of different creatures and speculate that they are somehow related. These proto-whales you mention are full of anamoles. If the Mods permit us to speak about that further, I will gladly do so.Edited by nemesis_juggernaut, : Italics

---

“Always be ready to give a defense to
everyone who asks you a reason for the
hope that is in you.” -1st Peter 3:15

Sorry I haven't answered sooner. I started a new job and late days are expected of me. Anyway, lets get down to it: The fossil record is determined on superficial traits and not on DNA because we are hard pressed to find any flesh that have survived decay . And whenever flesh is present and red blood cells can be viewed underneath the microscope, it brings ToE into disrepute. (Take for example the two cases of T-Rex having soft tissue still attached to bone). So most biologists, paleontologists, and archaeologists use bone structure (skeltal frame) as a determinant in lineage. It isn't inconcievable that if Dolphins were currently extinct that some evolutionist might suppose that the Dolphin was a fish that 'experimented' with breathing air. In other words, they might have been inclined to simply believe that the Dolphin was a fish in transition from aquatic to land dwelling.This is the type of speculation that comes from looking at bone structures as a basis for determining lineage. Its little more than guesswork, and bad guesswork at that, given the fact that most fossils are partial remains. The rest is left up to the imagination. That's fine. We couldn't "see" such great transitions outright with our eyes. I understand that principle. But it should be overwhelmingly obvious by looking at the fossil record. But alas, that isn't the case. If it was, TalkOrigins would have more than '29 evidences' of a macroevolutionary process. There is no way to get around the fact that the fossil record simply does not support the assertion when it severly lacks any gradations. Take for example the alleged evolution of the elephant. The elephant has such stark features with its huge protruding tusks and pronounced proboscis. What did it evolve from? What is it evolving into? Evolutionists say that it evolved from Mastodons and Mammoths. I happen to agree that Mastodons and Mammoths are in the same family. There differences are so nominal that they are clearly elephants. But what did the Mammoth branch from? The closest they can guesstimate still has huge links missing. They've attempted to marry Sirenians, such as manatees, to modern elephants based on something as trivial as a molar. You're still making an inference that one goes into the other based on superficiality. "Prankster God"? What prank are alluding to?

---

“Always be ready to give a defense to
everyone who asks you a reason for the
hope that is in you.” -1st Peter 3:15

quote:

---

The family Elephantidae is the root from which the mammoth, Asian elephant, and African elephant came from. Interestingly, the Asian elephant is more closely related to the extinct mammoth than to the African elephant.

---

Why do evolutionists think everything evolved from the Hyrax?

quote:

---

Interestingly, based on both morphological and biochemical evidence, it is agreed that the manatees, dugongs, and hyraxes are the closest living relatives of the today's elephants. It is incredible to believe given the vastly different sizes, external appearance and the fact that they occupy completely different habitats.

---

Yup, that's incredible.

For as many similarities that any organism shares with its supposed closest ancestor, there are hundreds of more disimilarities. That's as asinine as saying, "Look, the Manatee has eyes and we have eyes, therefore, we're related." That's an interesting deduction, but it would be just likely, if not more so, that a Creator made both organisms with eyes fo which to see. Period. Its almost as if the concept is so simplistic that we feel compelled to over complicate something even to the point of absurdity in the interest of amusing our egos.

---

“Always be ready to give a defense to
everyone who asks you a reason for the
hope that is in you.” -1st Peter 3:15

You also forgot cartiledge in fish that isn't present in Dolphins. I'm not suggesting that we reclassify what a Dolphin is. But you're acting as if some of the alleged transitions aren't based on some pretty fanciful conclusions. For as much as a Hyrax has in common with a Manatee, how much more does it not share? So the large, lumbering sea cow inexplicably took to land evolving into a Hyrax, which is small and furry. It concievably must have had thousands of transitions, which had to have had some biological success in order to be the progeny of another, and another, and another, etc; none of which can be verified with any veracity. Then, the Hyrax evolved over millions of years of time to become quite large, developing very large molars and an extremely long proboscis. Again, thousands of gradations must assuredly have existed, unless of course we were to somehow explain how a Hyrax inexplicably birthed a Mastodon (i.e. Hopeful Monster).Your post makes it seem as if I'm being silly in positing that had Dolphins gone extinct, that somone might have come up with a terrible conclusion, however reasonably they might have worded it.

---

“Always be ready to give a defense to
everyone who asks you a reason for the
hope that is in you.” -1st Peter 3:15

For starters, there is nearly fifty million bases in humans that are nowhere to be found in the chimp genome. That in itself is required of nearly 40 million potential mutations in order to arrive to a human being from a chimpanzee. That means that there is a total number of DNA differences at about 125 million. And because any given insertion can be more than one nucleotide long, that brings the figure to about 40 million separate mutations in order to distinguish the two species. This brings up the question of how 40 million separate mutations, whether neutral, harmful, or beneficial could transmit through any given population in 250,000 generations. How must the geneticist maintain an obvious lineage between human and simians and still overcome this anamole?In another context, lets assume that in every generation of every organism, one male and one female received a beneficial mutation so advantageous that all the others in that group that do not possess the deletion or insertion perish. The new populace is replaced in a single generation from the progeny of the beneficial mutation. For ToE to reconcile this, we would have to assume that evolution was proliferated in this sequence of events repeatedly, generation after generation, for billions and millions of years. The question is, how many possible beneficial mutations were substituted at nearly the same pace for all ancestors in order for us to arrive to a human from a far distant relative, such as the nematode? What are the odds that evolution follows this sequence per population, per 500,000 nucleotides, when 500,000 nucleotides doesn't comprise even 0.1% of the genome?ToE explains that the supplanting of antiquated traits with new and rare traits via natural selection and beneficial mutations as its delivery method; none of which can be verified with any empiricism, because I think we'd all agree that if beneficial mutations exist, they are so rare that they'd be virtually non-existent.So lets break it down. What are the odds that even in millions of years that so many substitutions could act beneficially, especialy in light of those who favor the theory of punctuated equilibrium? If most of the biological population experiences a stasis this means that all these transitions had an even less amount of time to come to fruition.Now, how would this occur in your Vitamin C argument? We know that most mammals synthesize their own Vit-C, but humans have to seek it in order to ward off scurvy. For people who scoff at arguments of incredulity, I can't help but notice the glaring contradiction. So, because the claim is that remnants of once functional genes have been abandoned in a non-coding sequence, the fact that humans and chimps share it means nothing, especially if there is no compelling evidence to marry all mammals together in the first place. In other words, this is only an argument that 'wows' an evolutionist because it presumes that all copies of genes originated from an ancestral gene. So, to you any corresponding genes must then be indicative of ancestry. Sorry, but as i said earlier, out of billions of species, the fact that many would have similarities is obvious. In fact, the more phenotypes that one organism shares with another, the greater the genotype will correspond as well. That in no way determines lineage. That simply determines that laws governing DNA is well established.

---

“Always be ready to give a defense to
everyone who asks you a reason for the
hope that is in you.” -1st Peter 3:15

Well, I happen to believe that the non-coding DNA is not a complete waste of matter. I believe that we just know very little about psuedogenes, especially in light of recent discoverires involving junk DNA. More than a third and up to 98% of the human genome is described as being comprised of non-coding DNA. That's a huge percentage to simply dismiss it because we don't currently understand it. Part of the problem was that non-coding DNA was difficult to study because their operations didn't seem to perform any central function. But we've learned so much more about it since we've taken a more serious look into the possibilities.In other words, there is a reason why psuedogenes exist. And i s a bit presumptuous for us to dismiss such a high volume of our DNA helix as mere 'junk' when it could very well mean that we just don't know much about it yet.

That's a perfectly good question, but I can't help but noticing the level incredulity ascribed to it. By the same premise I could just as easily ask why natural selection did not choose to keep such a gene, when I think we could all agree that possessing the ability to synthesize our own vitamin C would be most beneficial. So what happened that we should lose the ability when its more than evident that vitamin C plays a significant role in our health? It would be one thing to lose a function simply because we don't need it anymore, such as the appendix, as some would suggest and yet still retain some atavistic traits reminiscent of a once fully functional gene. But this isn't the case because vitamin C is necessary in our diet.Its like another question, similar to this, that has been posed concerning sex as well. What purpose did natural selection have in going from asexual procreation to a profoundly less efficient method that most organisms adhere to, sexual reproduction? Why did natural selection choose the weaker over the superior? Consider how difficult it must have been for nature designing the penis and vagina to coexist compatibly so magnificently, and yet clearly should have evolved at separate times which makes the liklihood of it evolving less and less likely. This doesn't even take into consideration the complexity of the sex organs themselves and going down all the way towards the microscopic contrivances. But that's another argument. My only purpose for mentioning it is that natural selection, it seems, does not always choose the most efficient way of changing. So again, what purpose does it serve to stll have the need for vitamin C only to lose the ability to synthesize your own for an arguably a less efficient method of having to seek it?Aside from this, noticing the parallels of human and chimp similarity is a matter conjecture because there is not a uniformed method outside of the abstract. Its subjective because its so easy to say, "The mouse has eyes. We have eyes too. There, that proves it. We are definately related to mice." Or, "We have ears and so do Elephants. We are related." You might argue that we have so many similarites with chimps, but for everything that humans and their supposed closest ancestors share, there a millions more differences. Consider what it must have taken nature to produce such vast changes, and yet leave no discernable hard evidence of it ever happening. There are roughly 30 million single nucleotide changes, five million separate events of gene deletion or duplication that had to at some point have happened, as well as our chromosomal arrangement disimilarities. Single base pair substitutions can account for over half of the genetic disimilarities. That's a whole lot.So, lets think about this for a minute. Enzymes that produce vitamin B12 are somehow oboslete for an inexplicable reason, even though having retained the function would have been concievably far more beneficial. As well, humans have several copies of the vitamin C synthetase genes. What I'm saying is, and the reason I brought up Junk DNA, is that we currently don't know what the function(s) is/are. Could it serve a function that we simply have yet to uncover? Why not? I think its a bit presumptuous to assume that there is no functionality in this particular gene or psuedogenes as well, especially when so much of our genome is comprised of them. The fact is that it remains to be determined what the function of the genes are. But, at this point we just don't know.

---

“Always be ready to give a defense to
everyone who asks you a reason for the
hope that is in you.” -1st Peter 3:15

Your conjecture does not help us understand why natural selection would favor the weaker over the stronger. There are alot of tree-dwelling monkeys that can produce their own ascorbic acid who also eat vitamin C in the wild. They haven't lost the ability to synthesize their own. I presume you're presenting your case from the argument of toxicity, as in, if an animal already synthesizes their own ascorbic acid and also eat it out in the wild, they might recieve toxic levels. And so evolution weeds out the uneccessary gene instead of compelling the monkey to eat a particular fruit with vitamin C. But this doesn't make much sense because unlike most vitamins, one cannot overdose on vitamin C. The body simply passes the excess amounts through urine. Pretty darn slim? You think that humans evolved from bacteria via mutations. If you believe that then you'll believe that anything is possible. Aside from this, the GLO gene apparently can make jumps in between the evolutionary tree. Evidence Against Pseudogene Shared Mistakes | Answers in Genesis Edited by nemesis_juggernaut, : typos

---

“Always be ready to give a defense to
everyone who asks you a reason for the
hope that is in you.” -1st Peter 3:15