Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
==============================================
(or were you trying to make the case that we descend from guinea pigs ??)
The vitamin C gene in guinea pigs is broken via a completely different mutation than are those of humans and primates...which is, again, exactly what we would predict based on evolution.
Now here I thought this mutation stuff was suppose to help the animal worlds. It appears information was removed, not increased.
Now here I thought this mutation stuff was suppose to help the animal worlds. It appears information was removed, not increased.
L-gulonolactone oxidase (EC 1.1.3.8) is an enzyme that produces vitamin C, but is non-functional in Haplorrhini (including humans), in some bats, and in guinea pigs
The vitamin C gene in guinea pigs is broken via a completely different mutation than are those of humans and primates...which is, again, exactly what we would predict based on evolution.
Now here I thought this mutation stuff was suppose to help the animal worlds. It appears information was removed, not increased.
The theory of evolution is not blind faith, rather it is evidence based. For example, you yourself have, in your body, a broken vitamin c gene, that is broken in the same way in other primates. That shared break is overwhelmingly improbable except as explained by the notion of common ancestry.
The loss of activity of the gene for L-gulonolactone oxidase (GULO) has occurred separately in the history of several species. GULO activity has been lost in some species of bats, but others retain it.[4][5] The loss of this enzyme activity is responsible for the inability of guinea pigs to enzymatically synthesize vitamin C. Both these events happened independently of the loss in the haplorrhini suborder of primates, including humans.
The remains of this non-functional gene with many mutations is, however, still present in the genomes of guinea pigs and humans.[6] It is unknown if remains of the gene exist in the bats who lack GULO activity. The function of GULO appears to have been lost several times, and possibly re-acquired, in several lines of passerine birds, where ability to make vitamin C varies from species to species.[7]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L-gulonolactone_oxidase
You seem to be a bit confused about the shape of the tree of life. Of course we don't come from Dolphins. Dolphins did come from the first, early mammals, as did we.
I am not saying that we should ignore inconvenient details by any means. Not in the slightest
, I find the iffy bits of evolution to be the most interesting aspects of it.
I frankly could not care less what any evolutionary scientist has to say on the matter.
Furthermore, I find the cessation of existence I believe death to be far more terrifying than any lake of fire.
I would be. Complete nonexistence terrifies me more than any negative afterlife could. Not that all atheists don't believe in an afterlife, but that is the case with me. You have no idea, the dread I feel, as I crawl closer to nonexistence with every fraction of a second that passes. That I will live to see many of the people I love and care about cease to be, before I follow them into oblivion.
Here's the problem: I don't believe that will happen for anyone, regardless of belief. I would very much like to believe that, but as of yet, seeking belief has not lead to me obtaining it.
Ron, when you copy and paste quote mines from lying sources you are sadly lying by proxy. You may not understand that you told a lie. You are like a little child that trusts the bad kid and repeats a lie as if it were the truth. Did the little kid know that he was lying? Probably not. How do you keep him from doing this again?
Seriously Bob, you should know better by now.
I told you a non flattering detail myself. How is this not expressing awareness that evolution as a theory is not perfect? No theory is perfect. Arguably, it is impossible for any theory to be perfect. But, the fact that it isn't perfect, doesn't make every aspect, or even the majority of aspects, garbage.You have free will - if the lake of fire is so wonderful - so enticing that not even the "revelations" from your own atheist evolutionists are sufficient wake-up calls. Far be it from me to dissuade you from your free will choice. I respect your right to make that choice. But I would hate to have you do so - totally uniformed about the fact that even your own atheist scientists are known to admit to a few 'non-flattering details' -
Nope, they definitely would not be eager for that. I wouldn't be either, I just said it would be preferable to the nonexistence that I think will happen when I do die. Ironically, if I believed in hell (a requirement to fear it), then I would most certainly also believe in god, and thus, if Christianity were true, would be saved from it, and have no reason to fear it. In fact, unless you are a person that believes that going to hell relates to some degree your actions beyond worship, you don't have anything to fear in regards to hell, be you a believer or not. NonChristians do not believe in the Christian idea of hell; why would anyone fear something they think doesn't exist?And I think you will agree with me - the the guy posting in the OP -- may not be all that excited about also leaping into the Rev 20 lake of fire.
Oh, I assure you, I would much rather believe that my existence will continue in some way after I die. But, I don't believe that is the case. I can't make myself believe it on a whim, that isn't how belief works, and if you think that is how it works, demonstrate it for me. Make yourself believe that the sun is purple. If belief is a complete conscious choice, then you should be able to do it without knowing the whole time that you are lying to yourself.But a great many on this board - prefer eternal life that comes with acceptance of the Bible.
You have adopted a mythology that leads you to only one certain end - oblivion by Both your beliefs and that of the Bible.
How have I combined two views exactly? Most agnostic atheists do not believe in an afterlife. I would say that it is probably even less common to believe in one amongst gnostic atheists. Are you talking about the afterlife shenanigans?You have chosen a mythology that combines the worst outcome in both views and makes it a certainty for yourself - no matter which model is correct yours or the Word of God.
If it is true that this is the very outcome you least prefer - why not be warned away from a strategy that merely serves to guarantee that very outcome EVEN in the case where the myth you have selected for yourself is pure error and the Bible is correct?
Personal preference is unrelated to ability to believe, or truth for that matter. I would much rather think I was immortal than live in fear of death at all, but I could never force myself to think I was, because evidence points to the contrary. As for deities, there really isn't evidence for or against them, but the chances of any specific one existing are pretty small. Furthermore, their existence is in no way tied to whether or not there is an afterlife.Given two options --
A. has 100% failure == oblivion. And will get you this same outcome EVEN if B is the right model.
B. has a decision point where failure can be avoided -- even if only 10% of the time.
How in the world is B not preferable to A?
Nothing at all about "DIFFERENT break" in bats vs guinea pigs vs humans.
Rather it is common to haplorhines or the "dry-nosed" primates,
Feel free to show the mutation in action creating a "different break".
MarkT, you asked, "how do you know [haplorrhines] are related," and, "how do you know [the polymorphism is] a deletion?" Well, let's look at all the data, without any presuppositions:
- Not only do haplorrhines (a primate suborder) and guinea pigs have inactive copies of L-ascorbic acid-producing L-gulono-γ-lactone oxidase (well technically, it produces 2-keto-gulono-γ-lactone, witch spontaneously converts into L-ascorbic acid), but they also posses the genes for all the remaining enzymes in the metabolic pathway, such as UDP-glucose dehydrogenase (4p15.1) and glucuronic acid epimerase (15q23).
- Haplorrhine GULO is inactive due to a missing base pair in the amino acid coding region of exon 10, which shifts its reading frame. This shift forms a stop codon that is is prior to that of active GULOs. Not only is this stop codon present, and is this base pair missing in all haplorrhine GULOPs, but it is not found in the guinea pig GULOP; which was inactivated by one its 3 stop codons in exons 2, 3, and 6.
- There are many shared single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) among haplorrhine GULOPs, but not with the guinea pig GULOP. And the shared haplorrhine SNPs fall in a hierarchical grouping, where each set falls within another set (a nested hierarchy).
Notice how I've intentionally worded this to make no assumptions about ancestry or mutation? So now let's look at the models of GULO deactivation and of common ancestry and see how well they fit the data:
- If haplorrhines and guinea pigs once biosynthesized L-ascorbic acid, we should find the genes for the rest of the pathway. And we do.
- Deactivation
- We should also find deactivating mutations in the GULOPs (which manifest themselves as deviation from active GULO sequences in other animals, such that the GULO enzyme is not expressed). And we do.
- If the deactivation occurred in an ancestor common to the haplorrhines, we should expect to find the same deactivating mutation in all haplorrhine GULOPs. And we do.
- Since there are many other species genetically closer to haplorrhines than guinea pigs, and since those species have active GULOs, the guinea pig GULOP deactivation should be lineage-specific; so we should expect to find its deactivating mutation in a different location. And we do.
- Since deactivated genes (pseudogenes) accumulate mutations from generation to generation, and since the haplorrhine GULOP would have to have been in pseudogene form across many speciation events (and in turn, many common ancestors), we should find shared mutations (again, manifesting as shared SNPs), and we should find that they are arranged in such a way that they give an unbroken line of inheritance for every species (a nested hierarchy). And we do.
As you can see, the only model that parsimoniously fits all the data is that of common ancestry; where the shared SNPs are shared mutations.
Here are some publications on the topic (you can find them on PubMed):
Nishikimi, M., T. Kawai, and K. Yagi. "Guinea pigs possess a highly mutated gene for L-gulono-γ-lactone oxidase, the key enzyme for L-ascorbic acid biosynthesis missing in this species." Journal of Biological Chemistry 267.30 (1992): 21967-1972.
Ohta, Y., and M. Nishikimi. "Random nucleotide substitutions in primate nonfunctional gene for L-gulono-γ-lactone oxidase, the missing enzyme in L-ascorbic acid biosynthesis." Biochimica et Biophysica Acta 1472.1-2 (1999): 408-11.
And if you can't access the publication by Ohta and Nishikimi to see the nested hierarchy, here's a phylogenetic tree I made with the NCBI's BLAST program, using nucleotide sequences of GULO/GULOP exon 10, and a multiple sequence alignment I made with the ClustalW2 program on the EMBL-EBI's website:
Just type in evolutionarymodel dot com slash GULOP_NH.jpg
But, why have you not responded to my post, #1539?these little fictional stories fit in quite well with blind-faith-evolutionism because the model for a true devotee to evolutionism is "fact-optional" - they simply "say it" so it must be so. Thus with their factless accusations "they say it -- so it must be so" no facts needed.
Sad.
Come on, we just want your sources. You could easily defend your good name by providing some source for them. These quotes would have to exist for more than 50 years to fall into the realm of "common knowledge" in any regard.So then rather than having that false-accusation story-telling continue on in to next month -- let's talk about the actual OP
I think you have been given some marvelous help from your fellow evolutionist-atheists as of late as they try to demonstrate just where this is going.
Feel free to show the mutation in action creating a "different break".
Come on, we just want your sources. You could easily defend your good name by providing some source for them. These quotes would have to exist for more than 50 years to fall into the realm of "common knowledge" in any regard.
The more you try to avoid giving sources, however, the more suspicious you look, and the worse you will end up being treated... .
You have adopted a mythology that leads you to only one certain end - oblivion by Both your beliefs and that of the Bible.
You have chosen a mythology that combines the worst outcome in both views and makes it a certainty for yourself - no matter which model is correct yours or the Word of God.
If it is true that this is the very outcome you least prefer - why not be warned away from a strategy that merely serves to guarantee that very outcome EVEN in the case where the myth you have selected for yourself is pure error and the Bible is correct?
Given two options --
A. has 100% failure == oblivion. And will get you this same outcome EVEN if B is the right model.
B. has a decision point where failure can be avoided -- even if only 10% of the time.
How in the world is B not preferable to A?
I told you a non flattering detail myself. How is this not expressing awareness that evolution as a theory is not perfect? No theory is perfect. Arguably, it is impossible for any theory to be perfect. But, the fact that it isn't perfect, doesn't make every aspect, or even the majority of aspects, garbage.
Nope, they definitely would not be eager for that. I wouldn't be either, I just said it would be preferable to the nonexistence that I think will happen when I do die. Ironically, if I believed in hell (a requirement to fear it), then I would most certainly also believe in god, and thus, if Christianity were true, would be saved from it, and have no reason to fear it.
In fact, unless you are a person that believes that going to hell relates to some degree your actions beyond worship, you don't have anything to fear in regards to hell, be you a believer or not.
NonChristians do not believe in the Christian idea of hell; why would anyone fear something they think doesn't exist?
Oh, I assure you, I would much rather believe that my existence will continue in some way after I die. But, I don't believe that is the case.
I can't make myself believe it on a whim, that isn't how belief works, and if you think that is how it works, demonstrate it for me. Make yourself believe that the sun is purple. If belief is a complete conscious choice, then you should be able to do it without knowing the whole time that you are lying to yourself.
The truth isn't always nice, it isn't always preferable, and it isn't always comforting. I am well aware that, from your perspective, there is no winning with being an agnostic atheist. I am not one because of some perceived benefit; I am one because of a lack of evidence for deities.
I honestly think I would be personally better off if I was a believer; that's why I am a seeker. But, I cannot just choose to be one; without my personal standard of evidence being satisfied
Also, supporting evolution is completely independent from being an atheist.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?