Booboocruise's Dissolvable Best Evidence

quote:

---

By stumping me or showing me that I'm incompetent you think you can make yourself look good on this forum.

---

While I do understand that you are addressing someone else I think that your assumption is in error. Namely that WJ is trying to make himself look good to others in this regard. I remember his input into this very area of discussion when PB was pushing some seriously flawed arguements concerning the ascorbic acid pathway and the real and imagined flaws within it (Peter had some very erroneous ideas concerning ascorbate chemistry and metabolism).Now, as to Camp and his statements. First off I can state that Camp understands very little about the metabolic pathways that he is discussing, and less about how the elucidation of these pathways relates to evolutionary theory. Here is one example (I will asume that your statements are a recap of Camps statements)

quote:

---

Evolution does not even predict the existence of pseudogenes, much less that they will be found at the same location in two or more species. After all, pseudogenes were not discovered until recently, the first published report being in 1977.

---

It was predicted under the Neo-Darwinian that species which appeared to be closely related would be similar genetically. And so far it has born out, with some noteable exceptions discovered recently based on wide ranging gene exchange. You appear to be mixing very old NS (pre-Mendel), with old NDS (pre-molecular biology) with modern NDS (post molecular bioplogy). Science works in part be the advent of new tools, followed by new predictions followed by confirmation or lack thereof.

quote:

---

Moreover, pseudogenes are inadequate in principle to support Dr. Theobald?s claim of universal common ancestry

---

I am not sure that anyone has claimed that a knowledgable person has said that a pseudogene will be in all organisms as your statement implies. Based on mutations that is almost statistically impossible, do you have a citation for that statement? Pseudogenes can, on the other hand, indicate relationship between more closely related (ie shorter time span since splitting) species. As is the case for pseudogenes, GLO and primates.

quote:

---

So if the same gene (or a member of the gene family) were duplicated independently in separate species, it would not be surprising to find it at the same chromosomal location.

---

Partially correct here. For SOME gene families that rate of duplication seems high, either due to the coding sequence or other physical aspects of the chromosome. That said it is relatively rare and therefor statistically unlikely for genes that do not fall within these catagories. And GLO is not one of these duplicated groups of genes so your arguement is irrelevant here.

quote:

---

Even the staunchest critics of creation theory recognize that "it is impossible to prove absence of function for any region of DNA."

---

and

quote:

---

Moreover, the ?failure to observe pseudogenes coding for a product under experimental conditions is no proof that they never do so inside an organism.

---

OK, but how does that cause a problem with the arguement that the same genetic change (disruption of the ascorbic acid biosynthetic pathway) causing the same phenotypic problem (scurvy in a poor diet) is not best explained by common descent?------------------
"Chance favors the prepared mind." L. Pasteur
Taz

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.

---

Of course it has, when I start looking at the data I, unlike most creationists, try to entertain the possibility that the data could prove either for or against my starting thesis or even do neither. Unfortunately for your position understand the data. The existence of a single gene remenant does not PROVE anything; but the existence of that rememnant coupled with all of the other data, both molecular and fossil, puts the GLO gene in context of supporting evolution.As to your alternate explaination,

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. You see, the GLO pseudogene argument is just as easily explained by the creation story as it is by evolution thinking.

---

it falls apart in the light of examination. The guinea pig also lacks a functional GLO gene through a different mutation. Here is more info on a comparison of the primate GLO and the guinea pig GLO, the data supports evolution far more than your creation story. guinea pig oneandguinea pig 2.Finally, as a little side note of interest; the lack of a GLO gene may have helped to contribute to the relatively rapid evolution of primates due to insufficient oxide quenching as described here,Primate Mutation. This may help tp explain the unusually high rate of mutational fixation in humans.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 because I spent several years in the field of nutritional biochemistry and will trounce you every time in this area.

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