Booboocruise's Dissolvable Best Evidence

I succumbed to Boobootroll's challenge to provide the "most irrefutable, powerful evidence" for evolution bu posting the following message;

quote:

---

Thus boasts the creation scientist Booboo:

​

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Send me, (here at THIS forum) the most irrefutable, powerful evidence YOU have for evolution and I'd be glad to dissolve it in a few minutes. I read Ernst Mayr's book on evolution (he is a Harvard professor of zoology) and ALL the arguments he seems to be using against creation is out-dated and unreliable logic.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

​

Perhaps you could provide an alternative explanation for the pattern of occurance of the GLO pseudogene in primates. Humans, chimpanzees, macaque and orangutan all share an identical crippling deletion mutation in their GLO gene which renders it useless and therefore they are dependent on dietary vitamin C. Prosimians, conventionally classified as a more distantly related group of primates, apparently have functional GLO genes. Most mammals have functional functional GLO genes.

​

The postulation from evolutionary science is that humans, chimpanzees, macaque and orangutans are descended from a common ancestor which had the mutated GLO gene in its genome and passed it down to its descendant species. In turn that common ancestor was descended from an earlier ancestor which it shared with prosimians, but that ancestor has a functional GLO gene.

​

Obviously humans, chimpanzees etc are different species but the pattern of GLO pseudogene distribution supports the existence of a previous common ancestor and subsequent macroevolution has resulted in the extant species.

​

So, the creationist explanation for this pattern is......?

---

To avoid further diverting the Why Literal? thread I've challenged Booboocruise to come here and give a substantive rebuttal. Time will tell.

Booboo, your response to my message #76 in the Why Literal? thread regarding the pattern of distribution of the GLO pseudogene in mammals as evidence for the theory of evolution (and reproduced as message #13 in this thread) was irrelevent and illogical. It indicated that you were not knowledgeable on the topic of pseudogenes, or even vitamin C. Therefore you may wish to read this article by Edward E. Max from Talk.Origins Archive.So the challenge still remains for you to provide a creation scientist explanation for the observed pattern of GLO pseudogene distribution in mammals.

Booboo, you issued the challenge to provide evidence for evolution. I have provided you with the details of the pattern of distribution of GLO pseudogenes in mammals which is consistent with, and supportive of, evolution in the form of common ancestry of primates (including humans).On two occassions now you have purported to respond but have provided no substance in your posts. I challenge you to go to your creationist sources and read up to your heart's content on pseudogenes. I'm sure they won't have a credible explanation for the distribution of GLO pseudogenes in mammals either. And perhaps, before casting aspertions of bias against someone like Dr Max, you can expound your qualifications and expertise to judge bias. Better still, provide evidence of bias instead of libelling others.Is this another one of those debates which you have had with evolutionists which you have never lost?

^bump^Message #30, Booboo?

Booboo, do you want me to copy the reply which Theobold has given to Camp's "argument" which you have copied?But let us concentrate on GLO pseudogenes. Where is your explanation for the observation that humans, chimpanzees, macaque and orangutans all have non-functional GLO genes and that they share an identical cripling mutation in their respective GLO pseudogenes?

Another inconvenient fact for the creationist "explanation" of the distribution of GLO pseudogenes in mammals: the prosimian primates have functional GLO genes. So, why do prosimians have functional GLO genes whilst the remaining primates do not?And you seem to have overlooked the fact that the GLO pseudogene shared by humans, chimpanzees, macaques and orangutans has the SAME crippling mutation. Do you simply put your trust in the god of co-incidences?

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".

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?

^bump^Message #49, Booboo.

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".

Percy, I think your post constitutes a "just so" story. It is completely unscientific in that the explanation can be condensed to "goddunit". Explanation is sacrificed for faith.I'm sure Occam's razor would be badly blunted on such stories which might be necessary to preserve IDists' faith.BTW, this is just intellectual thumb twiddling whilst we await the return of that self-proclaimed undefeated debater for creationism.[This message has been edited by wj, 05-14-2003]

Anything further to contribute, Booboo, or have your already claimed victory? Your credibility as a creation scientists is being tested.

I think my dubbing of the self-proclaimed creation scientist as boobootroll has been vindicated.