Booboocruise's Dissolvable Best Evidence

In particular, AP, there are a bunch of pseudogenes for the receptors for the vomeronasal organ, a sort of "smeller" that humans and other great apes don't apparently use. Mice do use their VNO's to sniff out mates, and the human/ape pseudogenes are broken versions of the functional mouse ones.
Humans and apes also share an identically broken gene for urate oxidase - so we can all get gout. But I've seen it speculated that the uric acid that we can't destroy also acts as a radical scavenger, letting us live longer that comparable-sized mammals that DO have urate oxidase.
My references are at home, and I'll be gone tonight, but I can post much more if anyone has an interest. It'll just be a day or two.

Taz Max says:

quote:

---

And BooBoo, next time you should try to learn more about a topic before the snarky "Sorry try again". I would also suggest that you pick another series of genes or pathways...

---

A small point of correction. I picked the example of GLO pseudogenes, not Booboo. This was in response to his challenge for evidence of evolution which he promised to dissolve. Others, including yourself, have beaten me to the punch in demolishing Booboo's "explanation".

quote:

---

A small point of correction. I picked the example of GLO pseudogenes, not Booboo. This was in response to his challenge for evidence of evolution which he promised to dissolve.

---

I stand, or sit , corrected.------------------
"Chance favors the prepared mind." L. Pasteur
Taz

Booboo says:

quote:

---

You see, just because the GLO genes are not working in primates like they are in other mammals, that would easily be explained by the notion that God made us this way so that we would rely on other areas of creation for certain vitamins (Genesis 1:29).

---

You seem to be reading a great deal into that verse. Surely dependence on "seed-bearing plants and every tree that has fruit with seed in it" as food would have been sufficient reliance on "other areas of creation". Why would it have been necessary for a god to also create the necessity for certain types of fruit to supply vitamin C as well? Was there some alternative source of food for man?And there seems to be no specific mention of other primates, guinea pigs and some bats. They also need dietary vitamin C. But they are just lumped in with all the other beasts of the earth and birds of the air (bats are birds, aren't they?) and given green plants for food. No product warning for the poor old primates that they need their vitamin C sources whilst other mammals need not be so constrained?

quote:

---

Hasn't it ever occured to you that your argument using GLO pseudogenes, no matter how scientifically-true, would not prove ANY aspect of evolution.

---

I contend that it is strong evidence for a common ancestry of humans and other primates. The existence of a common ancestor (evidenced by the shared GLO pseudogene) and extant descendent species spanning different genera can only be explained by a process of evolution, in the absence of an alternative credible explanation. And it is your responsibility to provide a credible alternative explanation, which you have failed to do so far.I'll leave the "proof in science" issue alone.

quote:

---

--we simply share a defective gene.

---

You try to belittle the evidence. The theory of evolution postulates that humans and other primates are closely related, more closely related to eachother than to any other living organisms. The GLO pseudogene which has been analysed in humans, chimpanzees, macaques and orangutans even has the same crippling mutation in each species. This shows significant similarites between the pseudogenes and inductively between the primates. This contrasts with the guinea pig GLO pseudogene which is very different to the primate GLO pseudogene and, one can inductively reason, shows no close relationship between guinea pig and primates.

quote:

---

Also note that, in the fall of man, in Genesis chapter 3, The LORD God commanded that man was to rely on the land and to eat bread. Genesis 1:29 says that man are to eat herbs, fruit, and seeds.

---

No mention of bread in chapter 3. Good thing too, bread's not a source of vitamin C. And where exactly is the fall of chimpanzee and other primates (excluding prosimians) mentioned?

quote:

---

You see, the GLO pseudogene argument is just as easily explained by the creation story as it is by evolution thinking.
I'm sorry, but if wj is going to place evidence to support evolution in this forum, it should not be easily explained by creationism as recorded in the Bible.

---

LOL . Your bible explains nothing more than man needs to eat plant produce for food. Hardly a startling revelation, even for ancient semites. So, where exactly is the explanation for the GLO pseudogenes in other primates? Or the different pseudogene in guinea pigs? And why is their different dietary requirement not mentioned but included in the general statement which applies to all beasts of the earth (ie. including all mammals with functional GLO genes) and birds of the air?

quote:

---

That is because the fact that man and primates are to rely on sources of food for many vitamins, and the Bible says that man are commanded by God to eat fruit and seeds!

---

Your bible fails to explain why the GLO pseudogene is even present in humans and other primates. Wouldn't the same result be achieved by removing the GLO gene from human and primate genomes? And guinea pigs? Much simpler to believe that humans and primates share a common ancestor with all other primates and have inherited that ancestral genome, even if part is no longer functional or necessary.

quote:

---

Sorry, try again.

---

I think I'll persist with this one a little longer. There seems to be a number of questions still unanswered about the creationist "explanation".Can we expect your response any time soon?

booboocruise writes:

quote:

---

Genesis 1:29 says that man are to eat herbs, fruit, and seeds.

---

Then why do humans need to eat animal products lest they contract pernicious anemia?Yes, that's right. Vitamin B12 is an animal-based vitamin. People who eat solely plants (no dairy, no eggs) are at risk of developing a B12 deficiency unless they manage to get enough cobalt in their diets so that their intestinal flora can convert it into cobalumin for them.Humans are not herbivores. They're omnivores.------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

If we are intended to be able to eat every kind of plant, then there is the question of why we can't digest a major constituent of plants -- cellulose. It would be a useful source of nutrients, but we can't use it.

^bump^Message #49, Booboo.

You didn't reply to a specific message. Where did you think that we are intended to be able to eat every kind of plant? Why would this be the case under any body's idea of how we came to be the way we are?

Genesis 1:29, mentioned above:Then God said, "I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food." (NIV)

booboocruise:I am beginning to come to the conclusion that you are uninterested in actual discussion. Your message #14 was, I believe, addressed to me. I provided responses which you have utterly ignored, specifically messages 27, 29 and 33. I will assume from your deafening silence that your points have been adequately refuted.

quote:

---

I will assume from your deafening silence that your points have been adequately refuted.

---

lol... I was assuming he'd gone elsewhere to defeat some more evilutionists. He's never lost, you know.------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

You haven't been around in a week or so, so I'll keep this short since there's no guarantee you'll see this, plus your message drew lots of other responses.Some of the responses raised questions about why God would have created in such a way. My view of God is that he is a deep mystery, and that not only is there no way to tell why He creates the way He does, it isn't even possible to tell what He created through miracle and what He allowed to happen naturally through the physical laws He put in place in the beginning. Therefore, the presence of identical broken genes in various primate species cannot be interpreted as evidence against God - it is simply one more of his mysteries.But it important to recognize that you are not doing science when arguing that God rather than natural processes did something, at least not until you establish the existence and nature of God on an objectively scientific basis. In other words, you cannot resort to God as an actor on the scientific stage until you produce scientific evidence of God.Hence, from a scientific perspective the presence of identical broken genes in primate species is evidence (not proof) of common descent. And from a faith-based perspective, whether they are present or absent makes no difference since God explains whatever we find. But a scientific approach is required if you're going to argue against the presence of evolution in science classrooms. Replacement of "evolution did it" with "God did it" wouldn't be accepted in our secular public schools.--Percy

Replacement of "evolution did it" with "God did it" wouldn't be accepted in our secular public schools.M: I would like to add something to this which you did not directly state but was implicit in your argument. It is conceivable to replace evolution or an aspect of it if the theory is falsified. As an extreme example, if the complete genome sequence of a kangaroo was closest to Homo sapiens as opposed to other marsupials, and other similar examples i.e. teleost fish being more genomically similar to C. elegans than other fish a major foundation of evolution would be destroyed and the entire theory would have to be re-evaluated (assuming the sequences were accurate or not fraudulent). So it is not merely replacing evolution did it with goddidit. How would one falsify god? More importantly what is the hypothesis that could be falsified in saying goddidit?cheers,
M

Percy

quote:

---

Therefore, the presence of identical broken genes in various primate species cannot be interpreted as evidence against God - it is simply one more of his mysteries.

---

Many creationists and IDists attribute certain properties to their supposed supernatural creator, the most common such property being "intelligence". Thereafter they claim any biological feature which seems to have features which make it efficient within the constrains of known physical laws as evidence for an "intelligent" designer.The example of the GLO pseudogene distribution im mammals is consistent with common descent within mammalian groups. It also is inconsistent with any form of intelligent design in that the effect of dietary vitamin C dependence could be most efficiently achieved by the removal of the gene entirely from the genome rather than breaking it and leaving the junk in place. Also, the distribution of GLO pseudogenes in mammals (most primates, guinea pigs, some bats) displays no logical or intelligent pattern other than the explanation offered by evolutionary theory. If there was a design to make Homo sapiens dependent on dietary viatmin C then the plan has not been implemented intelligently if most primates suffer as collateral damage.Therefore the GLO pseudogene distribution in mammals is evidence against the existence of an intelligent supernatural entity which has intervened directly in the creation of human and other mammalian genomes. This still leaves a number of alternative versions of a supernatural entity available for claiming by creationists. However I suspect that the IDists are stymied because they probably feel no great attraction to supporting the concept of a "dumb designer" or "ham-fisted designer".

Hi wj,I may have a different take on how the postulated IDer operates. For the IDer, taking life from its starting point to its ultimate destination is a mammoth puzzle, one with many twists and turns that yield non-obvious solutions. A possible scenario for the GLO gene fully consistent with an IDer is that the GLO gene was necessary to take life up to the point where a certain branch of primates that would eventually lead to us was possible. After that he didn't need the GLO gene anymore, and breaking it was far simpler than removing it. And it is possible that his future plans for us may call for reactivation of the GLO gene.--Percy