Newly-identified cat pseudogene (for tasting sweets)

WinAce · Jul 25, 2005

Genetics Leaves Felines Without Sweet Tooth

Researchers at the Monell Chemical Senses Center in Philadelphia and their collaborators said Sunday they found a dysfunctional feline gene that probably prevents cats from tasting sweets, a sensation nearly every other mammal on the planet experiences to varying degrees.

Researchers took saliva and blood samples from six cats, including a tiger and a cheetah and found each had a useless gene that other mammals use to create a "sweet receptor" on their tongues. The gene in question does not produce one of the two vital proteins needed to form the receptors.

So, any creationists willing to explain this one? Did God take the "basic cat" template, decide they didn't need the ability to taste sugar, and then crippled the gene for it across all cats in the same way (which eerily resembles how it could get crippled by a mutation)? Or did this gene become broken, with mutations observable in the here-and-now, somewhere in cats' common ancestor, resulting in all of them lacking it in the same way nowadays?

Also, using evolution, I could predict--before even reading the paper--that the dysfunctional pseudogene was crippled the same way in all of the felines they examined. What would creationism predict about these felines' genetics?

LOGICQUIZDUMMY · Jul 25, 2005

It was the fall. After the fall, genetic mutations began occuring. One of the two (or maybe 7? I don't really care) cat KIND templates that Noah brought with him was missing it's sweet tooth. So, as a result of sin, the future generations of all cats were sweet-toofweth.

z3ro · Jul 25, 2005

They would balk, and say it's a harmful mutation, that it didn't add information, and that since the cheetah didn't give birth to a squirell, it's not evolution.

WinAce · Jul 25, 2005

This mutation demonstrates that cats share a common ancestor, not that mutations can be useful, so trying to object on that basis would totally miss the point, z3ro. But to be fair, that wouldn't be the first time creationists missed one.

Jimmy The Hand · Jul 25, 2005

Still a cat

LOGICQUIZDUMMY · Jul 25, 2005

Jimmy The Hand said:
Still a cat

Bingo!

In fact, every time a cat is born that is not a pineapple it's another HUGE point against macroevolution! (BUT MICROEVOLUTION IS OKAY!!!)

Mystman · Jul 25, 2005

WinAce said:
..

Only 1 kind of feline got on the arc of Noah, all modern cat-species come from that. No that is not evolution. That explains the pseudegene across all cats.

Our Creator in his infinite wisdom obviously knew that cats didn't NEED to taste sweets, and thus disabled the ability. </Hovind>

edit: I'm way too slow.

WinAce · Jul 25, 2005

That's some pretty impressive hopped-up ultra-evolution, capable of modifying your "basic cat" into lions, tigers, cheetahs, panthers, and wild cats alike, and in just the few hundred years that written history leaves for such modification after the Flood before all those species are recorded as existing.

Lord Emsworth · Jul 25, 2005

WinAce said:
That's some pretty impressive hopped-up ultra-evolution, capable of modifying your "basic cat" into lions, tigers, cheetahs, panthers, and wild cats alike, and in just the few hundred years that written history leaves for such modification after the Flood before all those species are recorded as existing.

You are not expecting a sensible reply, are you?

Split Rock · Jul 25, 2005

You evos are so silly. This mutation is clearly the result of THE FALL! It is not even "Evolution" because it is a LOSS of information (the cat can't taste sweets anymore) and is therefore DEVOLUTION. Evolution requires an INCREASE in information and therefore any loss of information is by definition, Devolution. In addition, natural selection means survival of the fittest, and a cat that can't taste sweet stuff is LESS fit, therefore it is not natural selection.

Grengor · Jul 25, 2005

That was extremely....... life like.

Split Rock · Jul 25, 2005

Grengor said:
That was extremely....... life like.

Thank You!

GodsSamus · Jul 25, 2005

WinAce said:
So, any creationists willing to explain this one? Did God take the "basic cat" template, decide they didn't need the ability to taste sugar, and then crippled the gene for it across all cats in the same way (which eerily resembles how it could get crippled by a mutation)? Or did this gene become broken, with mutations observable in the here-and-now, somewhere in cats' common ancestor, resulting in all of them lacking it in the same way nowadays?

Also, using evolution, I could predict--before even reading the paper--that the dysfunctional pseudogene was crippled the same way in all of the felines they examined. What would creationism predict about these felines' genetics?

I would think that the reason for this omission is not because of Evolution, but because cats don't need to eat sugar, therefore eating some might be harmful. That's just my interpretation. You have yours and I have mine. No need to argue.

Pete Harcoff · Jul 25, 2005

GodsSamus said:
I would think that the reason for this omission is not because of Evolution, but because cats don't need to eat sugar, therefore eating some might be harmful. That's just my interpretation. You have yours and I have mine. No need to argue.

Then why include a crippled gene? Why not remove the gene altogether?

GodsSamus · Jul 25, 2005

Pete Harcoff said:
Then why include a crippled gene? Why not remove the gene altogether?

Maybe the gene has another purpose. Maybe the first cat loved sugar (there was no high cholestoral in Eden), but since then, sugar became bad for cats.

Heather S. · Jul 25, 2005

Maybe the first cat loved sugar (there was no high cholestoral in Eden), but since then, sugar became bad for cats.

But the ability to taste sugar does not affect whether or not the cat eats sugar. Sure, if a cat can't taste sugar he is less likely to eat sugary foods, but just because a cat can't taste sugar doesn't mean he'll avoid it altogether. A better salution to this problem would be for god to alter the cat's diet and remove the gene completely.

Pete Harcoff · Jul 25, 2005

GodsSamus said:
Maybe the gene has another purpose. Maybe the first cat loved sugar (there was no high cholestoral in Eden), but since then, sugar became bad for cats.

Then why does one of my cats like to eat ice cream? And why just cats? Why not other mammals? Sugar is bad for people. Why don't people have a crippled "sugar tasting" gene?

Grengor · Jul 25, 2005

The fall.

nvxplorer · Jul 25, 2005

Cats don't shave!

sidiousmax225 · Jul 25, 2005

nvxplorer said:
Cats don't shave!

LIES!!!!

Newly-identified cat pseudogene (for tasting sweets)

Just an old legend...

LOGICQUIZDUMMY

Guest

Veteran

Just an old legend...

I Have Been Complexified!

LOGICQUIZDUMMY

Guest

Atheist with a Reason

Just an old legend...

Je ne suis pas une de vos élèves.

Conflation of Blathers

GrenAce

Conflation of Blathers

Well-Known Member

PeteAce - In memory of WinAce

Well-Known Member

Active Member

PeteAce - In memory of WinAce

GrenAce

Senior Contributor

Well-Known Member

Similar threads