Gap Theory

[flaja]

To be honest, we can, in fact, test evolutionary hypotheses.

Explain to me how you would test the effects of a new fertilizer so I can judge whether or you understand the scientific method. If you can show that you do understand the scientific method, I will then ask you explain how we would test a hypothesis that explains the origin of life and then I’ll ask you to explain how we would test a hypothesis that says Australopithecus evolved into human beings.

 

[flaja]

Wow, oh wow! If God didn't create the world the way you think he should he is not worth worshipping? First you say if he didn't inspire scripture the way you think he should he is a liar, now if he did not create the world your way, you won't worship him?

You’d really worship a god that kills things just to be killing them?

BTW: If you think I am a Young Earth Creationist, you really haven’t been paying attention. I am a no death before sin Creationists. The Bible doesn’t expressly tell us how old the earth is and science is incapable of telling us (since no scientific method works without relying on assumptions). I refuse to be dogmatic regarding the age of the earth.

 

[shernren]

First of all your tone is uncalled for; it shows a belligerence that is all too common among Darwinists.

You mean, when I tell you this to your face?

Quite honestly, questions like these tell me that you haven't even checked the argument online (although to be fair I haven't given you much information to get started with).

All I did was say that "you haven't even checked the argument online", how is that belligerent? Does a belligerent person take on part of the blame for this on himself (by admitting that I didn't give you much information to start with)? I can show that you haven't been looking around online (or at least, not very closely) by a very simple observation: you haven't cited any creationist sites about the GULO pseudogene. If you had entered "GULO pseudogene" (which was a phrase I used in #18, one post before you posted at #19) into Google, there were more creationist than non-creationist articles about it in the first 10 links. The fact that you haven't posted even one, any of which would have required considerably longer and more involved explanation from me, clearly shows that you haven't done your research.

Second, I am aware that even when species are supposedly very closely related, their genes and their proteins are not always (if ever) identical. Hemoglobin, for example, may not be interchangeable between species. I was just asking whether or not it is certainly known that the product of this inoperative gene is actually vitamin c because I do not know right off if vitamin c in one species is also vitamin c in another.

I don't normally scold people for not doing their research unless a page with answers they need is in the top ten links of Google with an easy-to-guess keyword or on the Wikipedia site with that keyword. So should I scold you when Wikipedia's entry on hemoglobin has:

Hemoglobin is by no means unique to vertebrates; there are a variety of oxygen transport and binding proteins throughout the animal (and plant) kingdom. Other organisms including bacteria, protozoans and fungi all have hemoglobin-like proteins whose known and predicted roles include the reversible binding of gaseous ligands. Since many of these proteins contain globins, and also the heme moiety (iron in a flat porphyrin support), these substances are often simply referred to as hemoglobins, even if their overall tertiary structure is very different from that of vertebrate hemoglobin.

... The structure of hemoglobins varies across species. Hemoglobin occurs in all kingdoms of organisms, but not in all organisms. Single-globin hemoglobins tend to be found in primitive species such as bacteria, protozoa, algae, and plants. Nematode worms, molluscs and crustaceans, however, many contain very large multisubunit molecules much larger than those in vertebrates.​

Or when Wikipedia's entry on Vitamin C has:

The presence of ascorbate is required for a range of essential metabolic reactions in all animals and in plants and is made internally by almost all organisms, humans being one notable exception.​

- both of which directly answer your questions: yes, hemoglobin varies across different species; no, Vitamin C doesn't.

In fact there's a misunderstanding at a far deeper level: the gene in question doesn't actually produce Vitamin C. It produces an enzyme that forms the last link in a chain of enzymes that convert glucose to Vitamin C. And yes, that same gene and protein is also found across a wide range of animals.

And when I'm reduced to being a HTTP proxy for Wikipedia / Google in a discussion, that kinda irritates me. (If you don't understand what I just said, Google / Wiki it. )

Can you document that susceptibility to scurvy is genetic? Isn’t everyone more or less susceptible to it with survivability being determined by other factors? When all else is equal, can a human be deprived of vitamin c and not end up with scurvy?

You're absolutely right. It was an old claim I had made here based on this source, but taking a second look at it, and after much Googling and looking around, I have to agree with Dr. Tazimus Maximus (a forumer's screen name) from here who says he hasn't found any further evidence for this lactonase mutation in humans.

My sincerest apologies for being wrong.

Yet, it doesn't change what I said right after:

But nature doesn't need a reason for mutations. Mutations happen. Populations either adapt to live with them or die. It's that simple.

which answers directly to what you said:

Some reason that has yet to be discovered. Now tell me why nature would ever deactivate it.

Nature doesn't need a reason for a mutation to happen. An intelligent designer does. So the lack of a reason is your problem ... not mine.

The passages you refer to (assuming the NIV is an accurate translation for them) pertain to a world where sin already exists. The shedding of blood in a sinful world is justifiable as punishment for sin. It would not be appropriate in a world that is not yet sinful.

Firstly, the easiest way to check if a translation is accurate is to compare it with other translations. I trust that you can do that yourself and verify that the carnivory is not an artifact introduced in the NIV.

Secondly, note that the animal death in these passages are not about punishment for sin. In all three instances God is being glorified by reference to carnivorous creatures. How does that fit into your theology?

 

[Mallon]

Explain to me how you would test the effects of a new fertilizer so I can judge whether or you understand the scientific method.

You're speaking to a grad student of the evolutionary sciences with several years of university level science courses (including philosophy of science) under his belt. I should hope by this point that I understand the scientific method.
How would one test the effects of a new fertilizer? That's a pretty ambiguous question, but if we're interested in comparing the effects relative to some 'old' fertilizer, we would stage an experiment whereby we fertilize a lawn with the new fertilizer, the old fertilizer, and no fertilizer (control). All factors remain the same with the exception of the fertilizer used.
Did I pass your test?

If you can show that you do understand the scientific method, I will then ask you explain how we would test a hypothesis that explains the origin of life and then I’ll ask you to explain how we would test a hypothesis that says Australopithecus evolved into human beings.

(1) Evolution does not explain the origin of life, it explains the origin of species. You're barking up the wrong tree.
(2) We can test the idea that humans evolved from Australopithecus in a number of ways:
a. The fossil record. Do humans and Australopithecus overlap in the fossil record? If so, then one obviously could not have evolved from the other.
b. Phylogenetics. Do humans share more traits in common with Australopithecus than with other apes? If so, then this suggests a strong case for ancestry.
c. Biogeography. Fossil australopithecines are known strictly from Africa. Does human ancestry trace back to Africa, on the basis of both genetics and comparative anatomy? Yes.
See? We can falsify evolutionary hypotheses all along the way. If the evidence doesn't match up as we would expect it to, then our hypothesis has been falsified, and it must then either be modified or discarded completely. No, we cannot replay the tape of evolution and see if we were right. But we can make predictions based on our hypotheses and falsify them on the basis of new fossil or genetic evidence. That's still science at work.

 

[GenemZ]

[/size]

Let’s see: in your view your god created Satan and Satan turned evil. But instead of destroying Satan your god went on to create human beings knowing full well that Satan was evil.

That's is exactly one of the reasons God created man. The be evidence AGAINST evil and what it stands for.

And then your god set Satan upon these human whereby he turned them evil as well,

They did not turn evil. They turned sinful. Sin and evil are not the same. If Jesus died for evil on the cross, demons could get saved.

and then your god says that human beings are unworthy of him and therefore human beings must be destroyed. Sounds unjust and malicious to me.

You are lacking understanding as to what is being said.

Men who CHOSE evil were to be destroyed. Noah and his family were SINNERS, but they were saved. Sin and evil are not the same things.

If someone intentionally kills an innocent person, they are evil.

If someone accidentally kills an innocent person, they are not evil.



If someone sins, he is not evil just because he sins.

If someone justifies his sin, he is evil.

 

[flaja]

You mean, when I tell you this to your face?

No. I mean when you take my honest questions (as a biologist) and try to make it seem as if I am a fool or ignorant.

I don't normally scold people for not doing their research unless a page with answers they need is in the top ten links of Google with an easy-to-guess keyword or on the Wikipedia site with that keyword. So should I scold you when Wikipedia's entry on hemoglobin has:

Hemoglobin is by no means unique to vertebrates; there are a variety of oxygen transport and binding proteins throughout the animal (and plant) kingdom. Other organisms including bacteria, protozoans and fungi all have hemoglobin-like proteins whose known and predicted roles include the reversible binding of gaseous ligands. Since many of these proteins contain globins, and also the heme moiety (iron in a flat porphyrin support), these substances are often simply referred to as hemoglobins, even if their overall tertiary structure is very different from that of vertebrate hemoglobin.

So it is like I said: proteins (and the genes that code for and build them) are not always (if ever) interchangeable between species. The product of this inoperative vitamin c gene may not be a protein that can help make vitamin c (genes can code only for proteins; enzymes are proteins, but vitamin c is not so no gene can make vitamin c). I am not saying that this is the case with the vitamin c gene, but based on how biology works, I would not be a bit surprised to find that this is the case.

- both of which directly answer your questions: yes, hemoglobin varies across different species; no, Vitamin C doesn't.

Your interpretation of this Wikipedia article may very well be wrong:

http://lpi.oregonstate.edu/ss01/bioavailability.html

There are different forms of vitamin c depending on what cation is involved. These variant forms of vitamin c do not all behave the same way; they vary in how they are absorbed and how they behave once absorbed.


http://www.pdrhealth.com/drug_info/nmdrugprofiles/nutsupdrugs/vit_0264.shtml

The chemical compound that functions as vitamin c does in humans is not identical throughout the biosphere.

“Molecules similar to ascorbic acid are made by some fungi but not by bacteria.” This means that the gene that makes the enzyme that helps make vitamin c in the organisms that have it may not be able to produce the molecule that serves the vitamin c function in fungi.

Also consider: “All vitamin C requiring animals lack the enzyme L-gulano-gamma-lactone oxidase, the final step in the synthesis of ascorbic acid from glucose.”

Isn’t this the enzyme that you said the vitamin c gene produces? Do animals have this gene or not?

You're absolutely right. It was an old claim I had made

here based on this source, but taking a second look at it, and after much Googling and looking around, I have to agree with Dr. Tazimus Maximus (a forumer's screen name) from here who says he hasn't found any further evidence for this lactonase mutation in humans.

Since we are all susceptible to scurvy and thus all need vitamin c, why did nature deactivate the vitamin c gene is humans?
From what I can find on the net the gene is not active in humans because of a mutation. God could have created the gene in man and then let nature take its course in a sinful world where God doesn’t intervene to prevent mutations.
Now suppose the gene once existed in all organisms (I’m not saying it did, but for the sake of discussion let’s say it did). You would have to assume that the gene was necessary since producing the products of this gene would have been a drain on the gene’s bearer if the product wasn’t needed. Now, suppose that a mutation deactivated the gene. The gene’s needed product is no longer available, but otherwise still needed. So how did bearers of the mutated and deactivated gene survive its loss?

Firstly, the easiest way to check if a translation is accurate is to compare it with other translations. I trust that you can do that yourself and verify that the carnivory is not an artifact introduced in the NIV.

Nope. If a translation is made from faulty documents, or by incompetent linguists or ungodly linguists, the translation is worthless.

Secondly, note that the animal death in these passages are not about punishment for sin.

The first death recorded in the Bible was the result of sin- the animals whom God killed to make clothing for Adam and Eve.

 

[flaja]

How would one test the effects of a new fertilizer? That's a pretty ambiguous question, but if we're interested in comparing the effects relative to some 'old' fertilizer, we would stage an experiment whereby we fertilize a lawn with the new fertilizer, the old fertilizer, and no fertilizer (control). All factors remain the same with the exception of the fertilizer used.
Did I pass your test?

Now tell me how you would test an origin of life hypothesis with an experiment that has both an experimental and a control group.

Then tell me how you would use an experiment with an experimental and a control group to test the hypothesis that Australopithecus evolved into man.

 

[flaja]

That's is exactly one of the reasons God created man.

So God created man because He screwed up when He created Satan?

 

[Mallon]

Now tell me how you would test an origin of life hypothesis with an experiment that has both an experimental and a control group.

I think you missed the part above where I said abiogenesis =/= evolution. I do not advocate abiogenesis. I do advocate evolution.
(That said, ruling out abiogenesis on the basis of what we do not know is poor science... and a logical fallacy.)

Then tell me how you would use an experiment with an experimental and a control group to test the hypothesis that Australopithecus evolved into man.

We can't. No control exists. Controlled experiments are not the only way of doing science, however. Natural experiments are just as applicable, as in your proposed scenario. See here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experiment#Natural_experiments
Regardless, your earlier statement was that evolution is not a testable hypothesis. I have shown you to be wrong. Evolution is tested with every new fossil find. Please don't move the goalposts.

 

[shernren]

No. I mean when you take my honest questions (as a biologist) and try to make it seem as if I am a fool or ignorant.

I didn't say you were a fool or ignorant. I said you were lazy. At least now it seems like you've done some Googling. Like I said, I only consider people lazy when they are not using information that could have helped them or answered their questions which can be found on the Wikipedia article directly located by their keyword or within the first ten links of Google. It's really that simple. If an evolutionist ignored that kind of information I'd call them lazy too. If I ignored that kind of information, I'd be willing to be chastised as lazy too. Really. It's nothing personal ... lazy bum.

So it is like I said: proteins (and the genes that code for and build them) are not always (if ever) interchangeable between species. The product of this inoperative vitamin c gene may not be a protein that can help make vitamin c (genes can code only for proteins; enzymes are proteins, but vitamin c is not so no gene can make vitamin c). I am not saying that this is the case with the vitamin c gene, but based on how biology works, I would not be a bit surprised to find that this is the case.

I can't find good information that covers all life, but here's a journal article documenting the fact that the same protein GLO is found across the mammals except in primates and guinea pigs:

http://www.ihop-net.org/UniPub/iHOP/pm/2645596.html?nr=7&pmid=819930

Attempts were made to determine if a protein immunologically crossreactive with L-gulono-gamma-lactone oxidase is present in these animals. Detergent-solubilized microsomal preparations from guinea pig and African green monkey liver did not precipitate the antisera directed to either rat or goat enzyme, nor did any of the other cell fractions obtained from guinea pig liver react with either antiserum. No crossreactive protein was detectable in guinea pig microsomes even with the sensitive procedure or micro-complement fixation. On the other hand, extracts of all 10 other mammalian (4 orders) liver microsomes tested were shown to contain L-gulono-gamma-lactone oxidase activity that did crossreact with antibodies to the rat and goat enzymes.​

(emphases in original)

Your interpretation of this Wikipedia article may very well be wrong:

http://lpi.oregonstate.edu/ss01/bioavailability.html

There are different forms of vitamin c depending on what cation is involved. These variant forms of vitamin c do not all behave the same way; they vary in how they are absorbed and how they behave once absorbed.

Nopes, all the different forms have practically the same chemical structure. The molecule itself is the same, and it isn't synthesized in vivo with any cations attached. The chemical changes you're thinking about (between ascorbic acid and ascorbate) look like this:

and they only affect solubility in water (ions vs. polar molecules - basic chemistry) and hence rate of uptake by the body, not bioactivity.

http://www.pdrhealth.com/drug_info/nmdrugprofiles/nutsupdrugs/vit_0264.shtml

The chemical compound that functions as vitamin c does in humans is not identical throughout the biosphere.

“Molecules similar to ascorbic acid are made by some fungi but not by bacteria.” This means that the gene that makes the enzyme that helps make vitamin c in the organisms that have it may not be able to produce the molecule that serves the vitamin c function in fungi.

Selective quoting! The very sentence before states:

Most other animals, all higher plant species and probably all algal classes can synthesize vitamin C from glucose or other sugars.
​

In any case, it's not essential to the GULO pseudogene argument that vitamin C be synthesized across all life; I have already shown journals up there that demonstrate that the enzymatic pathway is essentially identical across all mammals.

Also consider: “All vitamin C requiring animals lack the enzyme L-gulano-gamma-lactone oxidase, the final step in the synthesis of ascorbic acid from glucose.”

Isn’t this the enzyme that you said the vitamin c gene produces? Do animals have this gene or not?

Well, that depends on the definition of "require", and this article isn't very transparent about what that means. All animals need Vitamin C; however, most animals can synthesize it, so that only a few animals need Vitamin C as a nutrient. (A nutrient is something you consume from food; if you can make it yourself, that doesn't count.) In other words, all animals that need to ingest Vitamin C (because they can't make it), need to because they don't have the enzyme GLO that they need to make it.

Since we are all susceptible to scurvy and thus all need vitamin c, why did nature deactivate the vitamin c gene is humans?

Mutations happen.

From what I can find on the net the gene is not active in humans because of a mutation. God could have created the gene in man and then let nature take its course in a sinful world where God doesn’t intervene to prevent mutations.

In other words, you don't actually know why God would do such a thing, do you?

The real question is, why has the GULO pseudogene been disabled in the exact same way in other primates? (The exact sequences are available online - I've done the comparison right here on foru.ms before.) If God created all primates with working GLO genes, what are the chances that after the Fall all the primates' genes would be hit in the exact same way as man's?

Now suppose the gene once existed in all organisms (I’m not saying it did, but for the sake of discussion let’s say it did). You would have to assume that the gene was necessary since producing the products of this gene would have been a drain on the gene’s bearer if the product wasn’t needed. Now, suppose that a mutation deactivated the gene. The gene’s needed product is no longer available, but otherwise still needed. So how did bearers of the mutated and deactivated gene survive its loss?

By eating fruits. After all, that's how you and I have survived its loss. And it's precisely because we have fruits to eat that we've survived its loss and lived to tell the tale of evolution.

Nope. If a translation is made from faulty documents, or by incompetent linguists or ungodly linguists, the translation is worthless.

So which of these translations were made from faulty documents, which of them were made by incompetent linguists, and which were made by ungodly linguists?

Job 38:39

(CUV-S) 母狮子在洞中蹲伏，少壮狮子在隐密处埋伏；你能为他们抓取食物，使他们饱足吗？

(ESV) "Can you hunt the prey for the lion, or satisfy the appetite of the young lions,

(GNB) Do you find food for lions to eat, and satisfy hungry young lions

(HOT) התצוד ללביא טרף וחית כפירים תמלא׃

(KJVR) Wilt thou hunt the prey for the lion? or fill the appetite of the young lions,

(LXX) θηρεύσεις δὲ λέουσιν βοράν, ψυχὰς δὲ δρακόντων ἐμπλήσεις;

(NIV) "Do you hunt the prey for the lioness
and satisfy the hunger of the lions

(NKJV) "Can you hunt the prey for the lion, Or satisfy the appetite of the young lions,

(NLT) "Can you stalk prey for a lioness and satisfy the young lions' appetites

(RSV) "Can you hunt the prey for the lion, or satisfy the appetite of the young lions,

(TMSG) "Can you teach the lioness to stalk her prey
and satisfy the appetite of her cubs

(YLT) Dost thou hunt for a lion prey? And the desire of young lions fulfil?

So no, carnivory is not an artifact of translation.

The first death recorded in the Bible was the result of sin- the animals whom God killed to make clothing for Adam and Eve.

You are dodging the question. Why is it that God uses animal death and active carnivory in Job and Psalms to glorify Himself if these are really products of the Fall of man?

 

[flaja]

[/font][/font][/color]
I think you missed the part above where I said abiogenesis =/= evolution. I do not advocate abiogenesis. I do advocate evolution.

I didn’t ask you if you believed in abiogenesis; some Darwinists do accept that abiogenesis happened. I asked you to explain an experimental way to test an abiogenesis hypothesis. Accepting that abiogenesis happened, when you cannot test any abiogenesis hypothesis is accepting a fact on faith. This is religion, not science.

We can't. No control exists.

But you accept that Australopithecus (or some other ape-like creature) evolved into man nonetheless. You accept evolution as a matter of faith. There is no science involved.

Controlled experiments are not the only way of doing science, however. Natural experiments are just as applicable,

No they are not because they cannot eliminate all non-experimental factors. For example, you cannot eliminate the input of any supreme being that may exist from natural events.

 

[flaja]

I didn't say you were a fool or ignorant. I said you were lazy.

Meaning you were still being belligerent in typical Darwinist fashion.

I was familiar with the vitamin c gene argument before you brought it up. And quite frankly I wasn’t really interested in rehashing old arguments with yet another Darwinists that thinks he has discovered something new. And you, like every other Darwinist I have discussed it with, either cannot or will not answer my question: If this gene provides a vital product, why would nature deactivate it? If it were preserved because it was needed, how did any species that had it deactivated not go extinct? If the purpose of natural selection is to insure the survivability of living things, it doesn’t seem to work very well.

 

[flaja]

test

 

[flaja]

You are dodging the question. Why is it that God uses animal death and active carnivory in Job and Psalms to glorify Himself if these are really products of the Fall of man?

Are you certain that Job 38:39 and the following verses pertain to the pre-sin world? Note Genesis 1:29-30 And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat. And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.

In the pre-sin world there were no carnivores since animal flesh was forbidden as food for both man and beast. Animal flesh couldn’t be eaten until after the Flood: Genesis 9:2-4.

 

[shernren]

I didn't say you were a fool or ignorant. I said you were lazy.

Meaning you were still being belligerent in typical Darwinist fashion.

Way to go for quoting without context. What I actually said was:

I didn't say you were a fool or ignorant. I said you were lazy. At least now it seems like you've done some Googling. Like I said, I only consider people lazy when they are not using information that could have helped them or answered their questions which can be found on the Wikipedia article directly located by their keyword or within the first ten links of Google. It's really that simple. If an evolutionist ignored that kind of information I'd call them lazy too. If I ignored that kind of information, I'd be willing to be chastised as lazy too. Really. It's nothing personal ... lazy bum.

I gave you an objective criterion by which I would consider anyone lazy and said that anybody who fulfills that is lazy, whether it be you, any creationist, any evolutionist, or even myself. When you, on the other hand, try to show that I am being belligerent, all you can do is quote me without the context that defines exactly what I mean by lazy. (Plus I had a little winky emoticon. Winky emoticons by definition can never accompany belligerent statements. Because I said so. )

If you really want to focus on character instead of facts, it would be worth reminding you that you have explicitly stated (or heavily implied) that you consider "Darwinists" to be servants of Satan. You really don't want to call me belligerent if you can't stand up to the same accusation yourself.

Let's look at what you said here:

I was familiar with the vitamin c gene argument before you brought it up. And quite frankly I wasn’t really interested in rehashing old arguments with yet another Darwinists that thinks he has discovered something new.

Seriously. The fact that you're still calling it "the Vitamin C gene" shows that you still don't really get the argument; the gene is called the GULO pseudogene, and it doesn't code for Vitamin C: it codes for a protein which finalizes its synthesis. As it is, just over 24 hours ago you were saying:

I was just asking whether or not it is certainly known that the product of this inoperative gene is actually vitamin c because I do not know right off if vitamin c in one species is also vitamin c in another.

Look at that. Yesterday you "don't know right off if Vitamin C in one species is also Vitamin C in another" (which it is, since Vitamin C is just the chemical ascorbic acid); today you are "familiar with the Vitamin C gene argument before you brought it up". As it is, I still don't think you're familiar with the GULO pseudogene argument, and once I'm done replying to this post I'll show you with an analogy what is meant.

And you, like every other Darwinist I have discussed it with, either cannot or will not answer my question: If this gene provides a vital product, why would nature deactivate it? If it were preserved because it was needed, how did any species that had it deactivated not go extinct? If the purpose of natural selection is to insure the survivability of living things, it doesn’t seem to work very well.

The answer is very simple. How do you not get scurvy? You eat fruits. Simple as that. Because this mutation occurred in individuals which had access to readily available Vitamin C in their diet (remember, they're surrounded by life-forms which are perfectly capable of producing and storing Vitamin C), the mutation didn't affect them badly. It's hardly optimal by any measure, but it's hardly lethal either; it was probably neutral on the grand scale of things and that's why there has been no significant selective pressure against it.

Here's a slightly different perspective on things:

Thus a conditional lethal mutation (Gluecksohn-Waelsch15) happened to this primitive primate. The destruction of so vital a biochemical process would have had lethal consequences were it not for the fact that it occurred to an arboreal animal living in a tropical or semi-tropical environment where plenty of foodstuffs containing ascorbic acid were available throughout the entire year. The diet of the mutated primate may not have supplied as much ascorbic acid as its previous liver synthesis, but it was sufficient for survival. Bourne in 1944 showed that a modern gorilla, living in its natural habitat, would obtain 4.5 grams of ascorbic acid per day from its foodstuffs.

Pauling in 1970, basing his calculations on the caloric content and ascorbic acid levels in raw plant foods, concluded that the range of the optimum intake is about 2.3 to 9.5 grams per day. He also pointed out, while the range of the B vitamins in 110 raw plant foods supplying 2,500 calories was only two to four times the recommended dietary allowances, the corresponding ratio for ascorbic acid was 35 times that recommended, 2,300 milligrams versus 60 milligrams a day.

Pauling indicated in 1968 that this mutation may have had survival value at the time because it freed the biochemical machinery for other purposes and conserved energy. This survival value was lost as soon as the progeny of this mutated animal, evolving into the future genus, Homo, left the trees, moved into temperate climes and changed its diet to one where high levels of ascorbic acid were not dominate the year round.

Man still carries this defective gene and it has no survival value for modern Man. In fact, in the course of prehistory and during historical times, it has been a severe handicap and the side effects of this defective gene have resulted in the deaths of more individuals, caused more sickness and suffering and have changed the course of history more than any other single factor.
​

http://www.seanet.com/~alexs/ascorbate/197x/stone-i-orthomol_psych-1972-v1-n2-3-p82.htm

And here's why it's good evidence for evolution.

There are plenty of atheists here at foru.ms, and some of them will occasionally make reference to a philosophical problem for theism called "Euthyphro dilemma". Now, Wikipedia states it succinctly as follows:

(1) "The Euthyphro dilemma is: Is what is moral commanded by God because it is moral, or is it moral because it is commanded by God?"

Over the next few months, it picks up some popularity. However, the Internet being what it is, the statement of the dilemma picks up typos, and half a year later when a few different atheists A, B, and C are asked to state the Euthyphro dilemma they get the name wrong!

A: "The Eurythyphro dilemma is: Is what is moral commanded by God because it is moral, or is it moral because it is commanded by God?"
B: "The Eurythyphro dilemma is: Is what is moral commanded by God because it is moral, or is it moral because it is commanded by God"
C: "Eurythyphro's dilemma is: Is what is moral commanded by God because it is moral, or is it moral because it is commanded by God?"

When we look around online, we find site 2 saying:

(2) "The Eurythyphro dilemma is, is what is moral commanded by God because it is moral, or is it moral because it is commanded by God?"

Now, here are two possible scenarios for how the typos in A, B, and C's statements came about:

1. A, B, and C all read statement (1). However, the three of them independently made the typo that changed "Euthyphro" to "Eurythyphro" all by themselves.

2. A, B, and C all read statement (2). Thus all three of them inherited the typo from the same source.

Don't you agree that theory 2 is both far more probable and far more simple?

Now consider the analogue in the situation we have. All primates have the same "typo" in our GULO pseudogenes; all non-primates don't have that typo at all (although a few other animals have different typos). If you believe that all primates and man were created separately, then there are two possible choices:

1. No animal had a GULO pseudogene defect initially; they all picked them up later and the knockout "typo" happened to be in the same position for all of them.

2. God created the primates and man with GULO pseudogenes initially.

Scenario 1 is utterly improbable; scenario 2 is dysteleological. Choose your poison.

 

[shernren]

Are you certain that Job 38:39 and the following verses pertain to the pre-sin world? Note Genesis 1:29-30 And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat. And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.

In the pre-sin world there were no carnivores since animal flesh was forbidden as food for both man and beast. Animal flesh couldn’t be eaten until after the Flood: Genesis 9:2-4.

Methinks you're assuming the point you're trying to prove. In any case, I'm not arguing so much about the historical location of the precedent of carnivory as its theological significance. You said:

You’d really worship a god that kills things just to be killing them?

and I showed you passages where either people actually did worship God or God Himself demanded to be worshiped on precisely the grounds of supplying kill to predators. How does your abhorrence of animal death square with the Bible's texts?

And here's an interesting one: why call Jesus the Lion of Judah if the lion is a product of sin and the Fall?

 

[GenemZ]

[/size]

So God created man because He screwed up when He created Satan?

It seems you see God as being a man. A super man, maybe. But a man just the same.

God does not make mistakes.

 

[Assyrian]

You’d really worship a god that kills things just to be killing them?

Yet you believe God sentenced all the animals on earth to death because two creatures of a completely different species stole some fruit?

What makes you think the only reason God would have for animals dying is simply because he wants to kill them? The bible says it is because he wants to feed ravens and lion cubs. If that was morally wrong when he was feeding velociraptors and plesiosaurs, it is morally wrong now. Yet the bible says this is what God does.

BTW: If you think I am a Young Earth Creationist, you really haven’t been paying attention.

Sorry for the mistake, it is the company you have been hanging around with.

I am a no death before sin Creationists. The Bible doesn’t expressly tell us how old the earth is...

The bible doesn't say anything about animal death before the fall either. It talks of human death being the result of the fall, and even this is not clear whether it is spiritual or physical death, but this is human death, it does not say animal death came from the fall.

...The Bible doesn’t expressly tell us how old the earth is and science is incapable of telling us (since no scientific method works without relying on assumptions). I refuse to be dogmatic regarding the age of the earth.

If you are not a YEC and take umbrage at being called one, if the bible does not say how old the earth is, why do you swallow YEC arguments about science's 'assumptions'?

 

[Mallon]

I didn’t ask you if you believed in abiogenesis; some Darwinists do accept that abiogenesis happened. I asked you to explain an experimental way to test an abiogenesis hypothesis. Accepting that abiogenesis happened, when you cannot test any abiogenesis hypothesis is accepting a fact on faith. This is religion, not science.

If you're truly interested in learning about abiogenesis experiments, then I suggest you check out the scientific literature on the subject. It is not a subject I am particularly interested, admittedly, and I have not done a lot of reading about it (which is why I'm not interested in discussing it).
Regardless, I would highly advise against ruling out abiogenesis as a possibility because (a) it is not contrary to God and (b) to do so would be an argument from ignorance. What makes abiogenesis a scientific hypothesis is the fact that it surmises natural occurrences under natural conditions. No miracles (notice I didn't say "no God") necessary. For this reason, can we test hypotheses stemming from the notion of abiogenesis. But once you say "God poofed everything into existence", there's nothing more you can test. THAT'S a position based on faith.

But you accept that Australopithecus (or some other ape-like creature) evolved into man nonetheless. You accept evolution as a matter of faith. There is no science involved.

Am I talking to a brick wall? I just finished explaining above why the evolution of man from australopithecines does not require faith. Faith is believing something despite a lack of evidence. And there is no shortage of evidence supporting the evolution of man from australopithecines.

No they are not because they cannot eliminate all non-experimental factors. For example, you cannot eliminate the input of any supreme being that may exist from natural events.

One cannot eliminate the possibility of divine input in ANY science, not just evolution. Science, whether it be chemistry, biology, geology, physics, or palaeontology, has no way of accounting for the actions of God even in controlled situations, so your argument is moot. Can you point to one scientific experiment that has definitively excluded the actions of God?
Besides, as a Christian, I believe God is involved with all things, whether it is a naturally occurring phenomenon or not.

 

[flaja]

Methinks you're assuming the point you're trying to prove.

How so? Didn’t the events of Genesis predate the events of Job? If God was relishing in death to demonstrate his glory to Job, why was God using animals that Job would have known in his day if God weren’t talking about Job’s day? If God was using pre-sin death to show his Glory to Job, why didn’t God ask “Were you there when I told the T. Rex it is OK to eat the brontosaurus?”

God isn’t relishing in death during this conversation with Job; He was talking about a situation that is necessary in a sinful world.

Furthermore, if death without sin was OK during the gap, why did God prohibit the eating of flesh after he had completed His second round of creative acts? If an animal’s death didn’t bother God in the beginning, why did it bother Him after he had created man?