Death Knell Of Creationism Or A Flawed Watchmaker?: L-Gulonolactone Oxidase

[bu11fr0g]

Multiple stories have been developed for the creation of mankind. Even church leaders have proffered a variety of stories. The board members here have offered even more. The ideas share the concept that humans were created only from other humans or from gods and not from animals.

As most people are aware, humans need vitamin C or we develop scurvy. This was a major cause of death and disease for sailors and Mormon pioneers. The ability to cure scurvy with citrus was a boon to navies and one of the reasons for British sailing might.

What many may not know is that most animals cannot develop vitamin C deficiency. The animals bodies are capable of synthesizing vitamin C intrinsically. Chimpanzees and humans are exceptions. The exact chemical process by which animals can make vitamin C has been identified chemically. Humans and chimpanzees are missing only one enzyme. With this enzyme, we would be able to make our own vitamin C and would not get scurvy. Unfortunately, we cannot make the enzyme. The necessary enzyme is L-gulonolactone oxidase.

But humans do have DNA in the location of L-gulonolactone oxidase. And this DNA is extremely similar to a functional gene. However, the gene is mutated and unable to function. Chimpanzees have the same mutated gene, mutated in the same way.

It is evidence like this along with evidence of viral DNA being present at the exact same place in humans and chimpanzees that makes an evolution-independent creationism seem ridiculous.

Would an all-powerful watchmaker purposefully put nonfunctional pseudogenes in the exact same place in chimpanzees and humans?

[ERayR]

Multiple stories have been developed for the creation of mankind. Even church leaders have proffered a variety of stories. The board members here have offered even more. The ideas share the concept that humans were created only from other humans or from gods and not from animals.

As most people are aware, humans need vitamin C or we develop scurvy. This was a major cause of death and disease for sailors and Mormon pioneers. The ability to cure scurvy with citrus was a boon to navies and one of the reasons for British sailing might.

What many may not know is that most animals cannot develop vitamin C deficiency. The animals bodies are capable of synthesizing vitamin C intrinsically. Chimpanzees and humans are exceptions. The exact chemical process by which animals can make vitamin C has been identified chemically. Humans and chimpanzees are missing only one enzyme. With this enzyme, we would be able to make our own vitamin C and would not get scurvy. Unfortunately, we cannot make the enzyme. The necessary enzyme is L-gulonolactone oxidase.

But humans do have DNA in the location of L-gulonolactone oxidase. And this DNA is extremely similar to a functional gene. However, the gene is mutated and unable to function. Chimpanzees have the same mutated gene, mutated in the same way.

It is evidence like this along with evidence of viral DNA being present at the exact same place in humans and chimpanzees that makes an evolution-independent creationism seem ridiculous.

Would an all-powerful watchmaker purposefully put nonfunctional pseudogenes in the exact same place in chimpanzees and humans?

If we are going to wonder why an all-powerful watchmaker did things the way he did there are a number of things we can wonder about. What about the common cold, cancer or any number of a myriad of diseases? What about mental instability and disease? What about accidents that are allowed to happen? What about wars? I think I could go on for quite some time but this is enough to illustrate that your conclusion may not be as solid as you thought. And if that isn't enough why did he create mosquitoes?

[thesometimesaint]

Other animals get colds, cancers, and myriads of other diseases. Some specific to certain animals, others not so much.

Other animals have mental instabilities and diseases.

Other animals have accidents.

Chimps fight wars.

Mosquitoes have their place. A great many plants are pollinated by mosquitoes flying from flower to flower. It is only the female that bites to draw blood to nourish their young.

Even Tribbles have their place.

SEE http://www.ask.com/wiki/The_Trouble_With_Tribbles?o=2800&qsrc=999

Edited March 29, 2013 by thesometimesaint

[cinepro]

Would an all-powerful watchmaker purposefully put nonfunctional pseudogenes in the exact same place in chimpanzees and humans?

Yes. Yes he would. The answer is obvious if you think about it.

[bu11fr0g]

Yes. Yes he would. The answer is obvious if you think about it.

I have thought about it a lot for a long time. No reason other than deliberate subterfuge in anticipation of future discoveries springs to mind. I have found this answer to be increasingly inadequate. I had put this on a shelf for a long time. I now find the answer completely inadequate. How can I trust a prophet if God deliberately deceives?

I am hoping there are answers i don't know.

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

Something I wrote on the topic awhile back, for whatever it's worth ...

Also a really good video from biological anthropologist and neuroscientist Terrence Deacon:

Edited March 29, 2013 by JeremyOrbe-Smith

[bu11fr0g]

If we are going to wonder why an all-powerful watchmaker did things the way he did there are a number of things we can wonder about. What about the common cold, cancer or any number of a myriad of diseases? What about mental instability and disease? What about accidents that are allowed to happen? What about wars? I think I could go on for quite some time but this is enough to illustrate that your conclusion may not be as solid as you thought. And if that isn't enough why did he create mosquitoes?

This question isn't the same kind of why: it is not the why is there evil or pain or bad things.

This is the question of how does God create? and does God deliberately hide his method of creation or properties of the Universe?

[oremites]

If God needs something done, the pattern is to give direction and guidance to his servants and then let us do the best we can. He seems content to allow us the freedom to make mistakes and errors on the way. We are also often given a wide latitude as to exactly how to accomplish things. Our talents and abilities dictate our exact approach.

I don't see why the creation of the earth would have worked any differently. That is, the shop owner might be a master watchmaker, but the apprentice watchmakers working in the shop were flawed. In fact, I believe we were the watchmaker.

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

If God could not create Himself or any other Intelligence, then we don't have to assume that He created every last speck of the universe in the first place. If one Uncreated being like God can exist, why not many? The idea that the only Intelligence worthy of being named as a 'God' is one who literally created all material objects from nothing is basically a product of the Hellenization of Christianity. So too are the attributes we seem eternally desperate to attribute to "real" Gods, such as the usual "omnis" -- omniscience, omnipresence, etc., which don't actually show up in scripture. ("Omnipotent" only shows up a single time, in Revelation, as as translation of Pantokrator, which doesn't necessarily imply the Ground Of All Being type of God rather than simply someone with all the social power it is possible to possess, ie a King, a Ruler, a Governor, etc.. "All things" in scripture is often a translation of the Hebrew dâbâr, the 'speech', or the Greek pás, meaning 'all people'; in which case, why not say that God "creates" fellow Intelligences socially, that He "creates all things" -- the speech, the people -- by giving us a good purpose by teaching us a Plan in which the fundamental point is to take part in the work of ending the death of all conscious entities? He is a Good Teacher who gives us the Word, the Gospel, the Good Story, the Tao, the Way, the Path, etc.. In this view, He is a Gardener trying to teach His apprentices, harnessing preexisting evolutionary processes that He did not create (and that He is a product of Himself!) and shaping them so they will flourish even better. We don't have to create seeds from nothing in order to create a Garden; if God tames the Chaos by organizing us until we become like a single Body capable of accomplishing good works, that doesn't imply that our physical bodies were not shaped by evolution.

(Hey, if these things can evolve, why not Gods? )

[Rivers]

If God could not create Himself or any other Intelligence, then we don't have to assume that He created every last speck of the universe in the first place. If one Uncreated being like God can exist, why not many? The idea that the only Intelligence worthy of being named as a 'God' is one who literally created all material objects from nothing is basically a product of the Hellenization of Christianity. So too are the attributes we seem eternally desperate to attribute to "real" Gods, such as the usual "omnis" -- omniscience, omnipresence, etc., which don't actually show up in scripture. ("Omnipotent" only shows up a single time, in Revelation, as as translation of Pantokrator, which doesn't necessarily imply the Ground Of All Being type of God rather than simply someone with all the social power it is possible to possess, ie a King, a Ruler, a Governor, etc.. "All things" in scripture is often a translation of the Hebrew dâbâr, the 'speech', or the Greek pás, meaning 'all people'; in which case, why not say that God "creates" fellow Intelligences socially, that He "creates all things" -- the speech, the people -- by giving us a good purpose by teaching us a Plan in which the fundamental point is to take part in the work of ending the death of all conscious entities? He is a Good Teacher who gives us the Word, the Gospel, the Good Story, the Tao, the Way, the Path, etc.. In this view, He is a Gardener trying to teach His apprentices, harnessing preexisting evolutionary processes that He did not create (and that He is a product of Himself!) and shaping them so they will flourish even better. We don't have to create seeds from nothing in order to create a Garden; if God tames the Chaos by organizing us until we become like a single Body capable of accomplishing good works, that doesn't imply that our physical bodies were not shaped by evolution.

(Hey, if these things can evolve, why not Gods? )

So if evolutionary mechanisms were harnessed in order to bring about mankind, how are we in the image and likeness of God. Is God just really good at guiding the selection process? I'm curious about your thoughts on that.

[Mark Beesley]

I am hoping there are answers i don't know.

I can assure you, without reservation, that there is a myriad of answers that you do not know. I can also assure you, with equal certainty, that there are just as many questions that you have not even conceived of.

As for why God does what He does in the way He does it, I hope someday to understand why we were created with organs that serve the dual purpose of waste elimination and procreation. If that isn't a puzzlement I don't know what is.

Incidentally, God does not so much deceive as create opportunities to develop faith since faith is the great power by which worlds are created and governed. We, at present, have only a glimpse of what faith is because we don't need more.

Edited March 29, 2013 by Mark Beesley

[CASteinman]

Would an all-powerful watchmaker purposefully put nonfunctional pseudogenes in the exact same place in chimpanzees and humans?

Maybe. Maybe He works with what He has left.

[CASteinman]

I get the feeling Bullfrog has developed an argument that is the equivalent of a nuclear bomb to the idea of Adam and Eve. It seems like warmed over mush from last century's debates to me.

[Danzo]

If you find a watch on the ground, and it doesn't keep good time, I guess you can safely assume that there is no watchmaker.

[blackstrap]

I know that many here see the Bible as flawed/metaphorical. However, Genesis states that after the flood , the age of men was reduced from the many hundreds of years down to 3 score and 10. It took a few generations to do it. I wonder how that was accomplished? Maybe by a little gene adjustment .

The definition of evolution by Darwin and most evolutionists contains the concept of an unguided random process. If evolution is guided then it is part of a design process.

[thesometimesaint]

If you find a watch on the ground, and it doesn't keep good time, I guess you can safely assume that there is no watchmaker.

Watches/clocks are not living, and don't reproduce. They by definition are outside of Evolution.

[thesometimesaint]

I know that many here see the Bible as flawed/metaphorical. However, Genesis states that after the flood , the age of men was reduced from the many hundreds of years down to 3 score and 10. It took a few generations to do it. I wonder how that was accomplished? Maybe by a little gene adjustment .

The definition of evolution by Darwin and most evolutionists contains the concept of an unguided random process. If evolution is guided then it is part of a design process.

No; Evolution doesn't posit or deny any God(s).

SEE

[blackstrap]

It does posit and deny that said possible gods had anything to do with evolution.

For those that like dueling opinions : http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1090921-3,00.html

Edited March 30, 2013 by blackstrap

[ERayR]

This question isn't the same kind of why: it is not the why is there evil or pain or bad things.

This is the question of how does God create? and does God deliberately hide his method of creation or properties of the Universe?

Wrong question. The question is why are there so many things seemingly beyond our current understanding?

[ERayR]

No; Evolution doesn't posit or deny any God(s).

SEE [media=]

If you look carefully it was done in half-lives. Does that suggest anything?

[ERayR]

Watches/clocks are not living, and don't reproduce. They by definition are outside of Evolution.

OP used a watchmaker metaphor. If you are going to use a metaphor one place ...

[thesometimesaint]

OP used a watchmaker metaphor. If you are going to use a metaphor one place ...

I just don't see the usefulness of that metaphor in this case. It's a heads I win, tails you loose argument.

[ERayR]

I just don't see the usefulness of that metaphor in this case. It's a heads I win, tails you loose argument.

I didn't think much of the metaphor from the start.

[Questing Beast]

Is a watch biological? Only on the subatomic level, perhaps. I heard a quote yesterday but I can only paraphrase and I don't know who said it: "We need mystery more than we need answers." I think that applies to all those who are not seeking pat/dogmatic answers to anything. This would be most human beings, but not, probably, those who are satisfied with the "answers" provided by religious, exclusive dogmatic assertions....

[ERayR]

Is a watch biological? Only on the subatomic level, perhaps. I heard a quote yesterday but I can only paraphrase and I don't know who said it: "We need mystery more than we need answers." I think that applies to all those who are not seeking pat/dogmatic answers to anything. This would be most human beings, but not, probably, those who are satisfied with the "answers" provided by religious, exclusive dogmatic assertions....

I wouldn't limit that to just religious, exclusive dogmatic assertions....