booboocruise writes:
quote:
All in all, the GLO pseudogenes are neither good evidence for evolution OR creation. 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).
Um, if god wanted primates to be required to consume fruit in order to obtain vitamin C, then why provide primates with a
broken GLO gene?
Why not simply put nothing there?
And if god wanted some animals to be required to consume fruit in order to obtain vitamin C, then why provide
different broken GLO genes such as those in guinea pigs compared to those in primates?
Why not use the same broken gene?
Thus, the GLO pseudogenes are actually strong evidence against creation and for evolution: An "intelligent designer" wouldn't include a gene that doesn't get used. An "intelligent designer" wouldn't use different pieces to achieve the same effect...especially when that effect is to do nothing.
quote:
Truly, I DO agree that the GLO-gene argument is scientifically-based, the similarity does not demonstrate that we share a common ancestor with apes
Yes, it does...and it is precisely because the single point-mutation that causes the GLO gene to be broken in primates is identical in
all the primates but
not in guinea pigs.
Why would god use different broken parts?
quote:
we simply share a defective gene.
Why would an "intelligent designer" give an organism a defective gene?
And why would all the primates get one defect while the guinea pigs get a different defect?
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.
Irrelevant. The question is not why humans need to eat fruit to obtain vitamin C.
The question is why primates have a broken GLO gene at all. If this "intelligent designer" didn't want humans to synthesize vitamin C, why give them a
broken gene that would allow synthesis of ascorbate? Wouldn't an "intelligent designer" simply leave that gene out?
And why would guinea pigs have a different broken gene? Since all the primates share the same defect, why would this "intelligent designer" break the gene in a different way and then stick it in the guinea pig?
quote:
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.
Correct. And wj's evidence is not explained at all by the Bible. In fact, the evidence directly contradicts the claim that the Bible could possibly be accurate.
Why would an "intelligent designer" give an organism a
broken gene rather than simply removing the gene completely?
Sorry.
Try again.
------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!
™ Version 4.2
