Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

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

bu11fr0g

By bu11fr0g
in General Discussions

Recommended Posts

thesometimesaint Grand Master

thesometimesaint

Posted
Posted

Nice objectives then, let me summarize it then-

Objective #1. Water, dirt, chemical, planet

Objective #2. Myriads of time so we dont have to actually prove theory

Objective #3. Thus, evolution must be true

Don't play coy. It doesn't become you.

mathonihah Proficient

mathonihah

Posted
Posted

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?

The question appears to be a lot more complex than the way you have presented it here. Humans and chimps are not the only ones who do not make vitamin C; fish and other living organisms don't either. Some primates apparently do, and some don't. From the Wikipedia article on Vitamin C:

"Ascorbic acid or vitamin C is a common enzymatic cofactor in mammals used in the synthesis of collagen. Ascorbate is a powerful reducing agent capable of rapidly scavenging a number of reactive oxygen species (ROS).
Freshwater teleost fishes also require dietary vitamin C in their diet or they will get scurvy
. The most widely recognized symptoms of vitamin C deficiency in fishes are scoliosis, lordosis and dark skin coloration. Freshwater salmonids also show impaired collagen formation, internal/fin hemorrhage, spinal curvature and increased mortality. If these fishes are housed in seawater with algae and phytoplankton, then vitamin supplementation seems to be less important, it is presumed because of the availability of other, more ancient, antioxidants in natural marine environment.

"Some scientists have suggested that loss of the vitamin C biosynthesis pathway may have played a role in rapid evolutionary changes, leading to hominids and the emergence of human beings. However, another theory is that the loss of ability to make vitamin C in simians may have occurred much farther back in evolutionary history than the emergence of humans or even apes, since it evidently occurred soon after the appearance of the first primates, yet sometime after the split of early primates into the two major suborders Haplorrhini (which cannot make vitamin C) and its sister suborder of non-tarsier prosimians, the Strepsirrhini ("wet-nosed" primates), which retained the ability to make vitamin C. According to molecular clock dating, these two suborder primate branches parted ways about 63 to 60 Mya. Approximately three to five million years later (58 Mya), only a short time afterward from an evolutionary perspective, the infraorder Tarsiiformes, whose only remaining family is that of the tarsier (Tarsiidae), branched off from the other haplorrhines. Since tarsiers also cannot make vitamin C, this implies the mutation had already occurred, and thus must have occurred between these two marker points (63 to 58 Mya).

"It has been noted that the loss of the ability to synthesize ascorbate strikingly parallels the inability to break down uric acid, also a characteristic of primates. Uric acid and ascorbate are both strong reducing agents. This has led to the suggestion that, in higher primates, uric acid has taken over some of the functions of ascorbate."

There is a lot more about it that we don't know than what we do know. You are oversimplifying and doctoring a complex subject to arrive at a favored conclusion. It is like those who try to attack Mormonism on the grounds that there are no archaeological evidence; whereas the whole of Inca and Maya civilization may be connected to the Book of Mormon, except that we haven't been able to establish the connection yet. What do you look for in a Mayan artefact? A reference to Nephi? The name Zarahemla written somewhere? Reformed Egyptian? How do you know what Reformed Egyptian looked like to be able to recognize it if you saw it?

Your claim that chimps and humans are the only exceptions in the animal kingdom that don't make vitamin C is not true. There are lots of others that don't.

1
bcuzbcuz Veteran

bcuzbcuz

Posted
Posted

I have taken that analogy one step further-

We are told that life evolved in some swampy mud goup. Slowly, over time, there was the right amount of ingredients that came to be and "poof" life regeneration began. So, what happens if we were to take already advanced pieces of organs and all kinds of cell material and throw it all in the goup? Wouldnt it be drastically so much easier for life to come drag itself from the goup? The mafia and countless other evil groups have indeed dumped this material in the form of bodies into swamps all over the world. But, science shows us that all that advanced biologic material just ends up decomposing and that no life evolves from that material. Evolutionists seem to believe if there was just the right chemical material in the goup that life must naturally arise from it. Yet, scientists know that biologic advanced material, even broken down into individual cells, has no regenerative power without it being first "alive". Evolutionists first have to explain the phenomenon of life before they can assume random chemical interactions brought it intoexistance.

"Goup", "soup"?? Not sure I understand your " maffia" analogy. Evolution does not need to explain the initial impetus for life. It is just the best theory around that explains the variation and development of species. But, for sure, if you've got something better, let's hear it. Nothing that currently exists in scripture, regardless whether we examine the first book of Genesis, that wasn't written by Moses, or the fable of Noah, written many hundreds of years after the "fact", provide any plausible explanation of the distribution and variety of species. Put together any series of events that can find verification in the material world, and not just in unverifiable scripture, that explains all or any of the observable species, as to variety, location or development, and I'll listen and critique your postulates. Give it your best shot.

bu11fr0g Community Regular

bu11fr0g

Posted
  • Author
Posted

@mathonihah

There are other animals that cant synthesize vitamin c, but they are rare. Dogs, rats, most fish, whales, horses, cats, .... all can synthesize vitamin C. Guinea pigs are an example of an animal that cannot. But the mutations that inactivate the gene in the guinea pig are entirely different than the mutations that inactivate the gene in mankind. The mutations are the same between chimp and man.

bu11fr0g Community Regular

bu11fr0g

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Any theory/account/story of the creation of man that is not fictional-allegorical must still explain the finding of pseudogene sequences.

Origin of life and goup arguments are totally irrelevant to this discussion.

mathonihah Proficient

mathonihah

Posted
Posted

@mathonihah

There are other animals that cant synthesize vitamin c, but they are rare. Dogs, rats, most fish, whales, horses, cats, .... all can synthesize vitamin C. Guinea pigs are an example of an animal that cannot. But the mutations that inactivate the gene in the guinea pig are entirely different than the mutations that inactivate the gene in mankind. The mutations are the same between chimp and man.

You are still oversimplifying a complicated situation. Chimps also have two arms, two legs, a face, and ten fingers as men do. If you want to believe in Evolution, I think that is a more compelling reason to believe than the fact that they both don't make vitamin C.

ERayR Grand Master

ERayR

Posted
Posted

For two very good reasons.

1. Time

2. Whatever crawled out wouldn't have much connection to life as it has evolved on this planet. IOW. How would we keep it alive, and what would be the consequences if we did?

How did the original stay alive?

cdowis Grand Master

cdowis

Posted
Posted (edited)

Evolution does not need to explain the initial impetus for life. It is just the best theory around that explains the variation and development of species. But, for sure, if you've got something better, let's hear it.

Panspermia, which is consistent with the LDS position. It assumes that the "templates" (ala Plato) have always existed in the universe.

There are unanswered questions on the exact mechanism, but that is also the case for evolution. If you are interested, I can give you specific examples.

Edited by cdowis
1
ERayR Grand Master

ERayR

Posted
Posted (edited)

if you've got something better, let's hear it. Nothing that currently exists in scripture, regardless whether we examine the first book of Genesis, that wasn't written by Moses, or the fable of Noah, written many hundreds of years after the "fact", provide any plausible explanation of the distribution and variety of species. Put together any series of events that can find verification in the material world, and not just in unverifiable scripture, that explains all or any of the observable species, as to variety, location or development, and I'll listen and critique your postulates. Give it your best shot.

I do but it is not "scientific" and doesn't jump all your hurdles. According to you it is unacceptable mostly because it involves this super guy named God. Before you start reading my mind it is not just a blind "God did it" but because he is involved you won't accept it so no thanks I will just back out of this and let you pontificate. Have fun.

Edited by ERayR
Stargazer Grand Master

Stargazer

Posted
Posted

You are still oversimplifying a complicated situation. Chimps also have two arms, two legs, a face, and ten fingers as men do. If you want to believe in Evolution, I think that is a more compelling reason to believe than the fact that they both don't make vitamin C.

I don't think that's his problem. I think his problem is that chimps and humans share a knockout in the DNA. The problem he has is this: he is convinced that if God were REALLY responsible for the creation of humans, for some reason he cannot explain, God wouldn't have let chimps and humans share the same knockout.

God wouldn't have? Gosh, I wish I knew that much to know what God wouldn't and would have done, if only He were as smart as me.

bu11fr0g Community Regular

bu11fr0g

Posted
  • Author
Posted

@stargazer

Not at all saying what God would do. I am just saying that God did not create man separate from the creation of chimpanzees and that many theories of creation within the church are false. (ie BRM, JFS, BY). And that rejection of evolutionary mechanisms (ie by Nelson) is very problematic.

OR that if God did that the creation was deliberately deceptive. I personally reject the deceptive God idea but I recognize that it is personal

The idea that humans have God's DNA is false. The idea that humans were created withou reference to chimpanzees is false. The idea that man came from a different planet/universe without chimps is false. These theories are false because they cannot account for similar pseudogenes without a concept of God's deliberate deception.

Evolution, drift, mutation and artificial selection are all possible.

Stargazer Grand Master

Stargazer

Posted
Posted

@stargazer

Not at all saying what God would do. I am just saying that God did not create man separate from the creation of chimpanzees and that many theories of creation within the church are false. (ie BRM, JFS, BY). And that rejection of evolutionary mechanisms (ie by Nelson) is very problematic.

Then I guess I don't really understand what the problem is. Unless you have an issue with general authorities having opinions that seem to differ from objective facts?

OR that if God did that the creation was deliberately deceptive. I personally reject the deceptive God idea but I recognize that it is personal

Well, God IS being deceptive when He gives us only watered-down versions of the truth. But that's His pre-rogative. Can we handle the truth, all the truth? Joseph Smith once said that if he were to tell who he really was, the church's leadership would turn against him. Because presumably they didn't have the basis of knowledge to receive EVERYTHING.

The idea that humans have God's DNA is false.

Where did you hear that? I've never read it or heard it. Sounds like someone's uninformed opinion.

The idea that humans were created withou reference to chimpanzees is false. The idea that man came from a different planet/universe without chimps is false. These theories are false because they cannot account for similar pseudogenes without a concept of God's deliberate deception.

Evolution, drift, mutation and artificial selection are all possible.

We could have come from a different planet/universe even if we had to had our DNA modified to exist here. For all I care, the original form of Man was an energy being. In the end, it doesn't matter.

Praise God and keep His commandments. This is the whole duty of man.

cdowis Grand Master

cdowis

Posted
Posted (edited)

Not at all saying what God would do.

You now realize that is an untenable position.

I am just saying that God did not create man separate from the creation of chimpanzees and that many theories of creation within the church are false. (ie BRM, JFS, BY). And that rejection of evolutionary mechanisms (ie by Nelson) is very problematic.

We only know what the Lord tells us, and that is not very much. We fill in the gaps with theories, which can change as we gather new facts........

Hmmmm.... that sounds very much like the scientific method, methinks. Darwin was mistaken and we make adjustments.

We know from the scriptures that there was a dramatic change in the human body within a thousand years of the Fall. For example, the normal age of man, that brother and sister could mate without serious genetic consequences. We have been told that there was a corruption in the physical nature of man.

OR that if God did that the creation was deliberately deceptive. I personally reject the deceptive God idea but I recognize that it is personal

Third alternative, you have no idea what you are talking about, which is the case with many of us when discussing this topic.

The idea that humans were created withou reference to chimpanzees is false.

Your have used a breathtaking leap of logic. May I suggest that you take a basic class in logical reasoning.

The idea that man came from a different planet/universe without chimps is false. These theories are false because they cannot account for similar pseudogenes without a concept of God's deliberate deception.

Are you aware that correlation does not prove causality? That's pretty basic. Take a look at the whale and bovines.

Edited by cdowis
mathonihah Proficient

mathonihah

Posted
Posted

@stargazer

Not at all saying what God would do. I am just saying that God did not create man separate from the creation of chimpanzees ...

Not sure what that is supposed to mean. If you mean that they were all created out of the same organic building blocs, sure, I have no problem with that. If you mean that one must have evolved from the other, the answer is no, there is no compelling reason why that should be the case.

and that many theories of creation within the church are false. (ie BRM, JFS, BY).

Which theories are those? There is only one theory that I am obliged to accept, and that is the scriptural one; which I have no problems with.

And that rejection of evolutionary mechanisms (ie by Nelson) is very problematic.

What rejection is that, and how does it related to Church doctrine?

OR that if God did that the creation was deliberately deceptive. I personally reject the deceptive God idea but I recognize that it is personal

That is funny. Another possible explanation is that God designed some creatures to make Vitamin C, and others not to; for the same reasons that he designed some creatures to fly, and others not to. Too bad I can't fly. I really feel disadvantaged that I can't.

The idea that humans have God's DNA is false.

Never heard of that before. Where did you get that idea from?

The idea that humans were created withou reference to chimpanzees is false.

No idea what that means. What kind of "reference" are you talking about? If you mean that they were made out of the same organic building blocks, I couldn't agree more. If you mean something else, you need to explain.

The idea that man came from a different planet/universe without chimps is false. ...

I haven't a clue what you are talking about.

Evolution, drift, mutation and artificial selection are all possible.

some are possible, and some are not. Mutation, drift, and artificial selection are all possible, and can be observed in nature. Evolution (i.e. lower life forms evolving into higher life forms, amoebas evolving into humans, is a statistical impossibility. The probabilities are small enough to count as impossibilities. And in fact have never been observed in nature. Mutation has been observed. Artificial selection has been observed. But the change of one species to another has never been observed. Dogs have been bred for thousands of years, and now come in all kinds of shapes and sizes; but still remain dogs. The species hasn't changed.

Hamilton Porter Mentor

Hamilton Porter

Posted
Posted

It's been known that animals suffer, long before Darwin. Probably even earlier!

I love how atheists repackage these arguments into some new discovery. Like "All thought can be explained in terms of neural processes! New discovery shows the soul doesn't exist!"

I knew that what a person is thinking can be inferred from brain waves, and that I needed a brain to function, since I was little, long before I knew anything about neuroscience.

cdowis Grand Master

cdowis

Posted
Posted (edited)

Timing and comparison of pseudogenes present across primates, for anyone interested:

http://www.ncbi.nlm....4566/figure/F5/

I'm afraid this is all meaningless for the majority of our participants, so I will have to discount it until you are willing to make some attempt to explain it.

Its been my experience with such hefty stuff, that when you look under the engine (so to speak), there are some underlying assumptions that are hidden until it is explained to the level of the educated person. Scientists sometimes hide those assumptions behind gibberish. I've been around too long to be intimidated by such stuff.

Giving us the assumptions would be a good start.

Edited by cdowis
1
Rob Osborn Grand Master

Rob Osborn

Posted
Posted

Correct. But I doubt in the way that you are using the word.

http://en.wikipedia....iki/Conjecture.

con·jec·ture

/kənˈdʒɛkthinsp.pngtʃər/ Show Spelled [kuhthinsp.pngthinsp.pngn-jek-cher] Show IPA noun, verb, con·jec·tured, con·jec·tur·ing.

noun

1.

the formation or expression of an opinion or theory without sufficient evidence for proof.

Just so the whole board knows what "conjecture" means. So yes I mean "conjecture" as the way the dictionary defines it above when stating that you "know" about how life formed in the soup goup and somehow stayed alive and reproduced. That all is "CONJECTURE", it being a theory without sufficient evidence for proof. So you can only know your conjecture, not that it actually happened that way.

1
thesometimesaint Grand Master

thesometimesaint

Posted
Posted

con·jec·ture

/kənˈdʒɛkthinsp.pngtʃər/ Show IPA noun, verb, con·jec·tured, con·jec·tur·ing.

noun

1.

the formation or expression of an opinion or theory without sufficient evidence for proof.

Just so the whole board knows what "conjecture" means. So yes I mean "conjecture" as the way the dictionary defines it above when stating that you "know" about how life formed in the soup goup and somehow stayed alive and reproduced. That all is "CONJECTURE", it being a theory without sufficient evidence for proof. So you can only know your conjecture, not that it actually happened that way.

Fair enough. However evolution doesn't concern itself with how life started. That is abiogenesis. Evolution concerns itself with how life changed AFTER it first appeared.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...