Posted: Feb 26, 2014 1:30 am
questioner121 wrote:Rumraket wrote:Why would the designer put a broken vitamin-C gene into individual organisms and then subsequently mutate it, particularly such that a phylogenetic inferences produces a hierarchical arrangement congruent with the one inferred from comparative anatomy?
Why is your designer trying to make it look like evolution happened, and since that is what it looks like, why do you even infer design at all?
How do you know it's broken?
Heard of scurvy, have you? Oh, wait, this is a disease caused by deficiency of vitamin C in the human diet. It used to affect sailors on long voyages until the Royal Navy came up with the idea of supplying citrus fruits, in the form of limes, to its sailors, which is the origin of the American nickname "Limey" for British people. This is one piece of evidence that the gene is broken, because if it wasn't, vitamin C deficiency wouldn't be an issue, because we would be able to synthesise it.
As for the gene itself, we know it's broken because it has a stop codon just three nucleotides distant from the start codon, whilst working gulonolactase genes in every other vertebrate lineage don't have a stop codon until something like 1300 nucleotides from the start codon. The mouse GULO gene codes for a protein containing 440 amino acids (given in full here), as does the GULO gene from the Cloudy Catshark Scylorhinus torazame (given in full here). Indeed, every working GULO gene codes for a protein comprising around 440 amino acids. The human version isn't even expressed because of that premature stop codon.
questioner121 wrote:Have you tried fixing and seeing if it works?
Oh wait, scientists have conducted the relevant experiments, both with respect to disabling working GULO genes in other organisms, and replacing broken GULO genes with working ones. One such experiment was the subject of this Master's degree thesis, which consisted of determining if it was possible to deliver a working GULO gene to guinea pigs (which also have a broken GULO gene) via somatic integration using a transgenic retrovirus. Another paper, covering the restoration of working GULO action to transgenic mice with the GULO gene knocked out, is this one. Another paper, covering experiments aimed at recovering GULO function in cultured human cells, is this one.
Look, once and for all, drop the specious notions that [1] we haven't encountered apologetic fabrications like yours before, or [2] the scientists haven't done the work.
questioner121 wrote:It looks like evolution to you because of the way you are analysing it and thinking about it. You're not being objective and unbiased, you're filling the gaps with biased assumptions.
Wow, the fucking chutzpah on display here.
Excuse me, but the reason he considers the processes responsible to be evolutionary processes, is because huge fucking mountains of scientific evidence say so. Some of that evidence he's brought here, in the form of scientific papers you manifestly never bothered to read. On the other hand, all that you have brought here, is blind assertions to the effect that your pet magic man was responsible, without an atom of evidence for this fantasy entity. And you have the bare arsed cheek to accuse Rumraket of "not being objective and unbiased", and "filling the gaps with biased assumptions"? Your discoursive duplicity is duly noted.
questioner121 wrote:Why do I infer design?
You don't. You merely assume it, because you want your fantasy magic man to be real.
questioner121 wrote:If you look at each of the animals they have similar traits.
Oh, right, you want to peddle the duplicitous apologetic fabrication, that similiar traits can't be cited as evidence for common ancestry, despite the hard evidence for inheritance, but that similar traits can be cited as purported "evidence" that your imaginary magic man poofed things into existence, despite zero evidence for your magic man. Your discoursive dishonesty and blatant double standard is duly noted.
questioner121 wrote:Chimps have hands, feet, similar eyes, similar shape, etc. so for me it's not surprising the DNA is similar.
But despite the hard evidence for organisms inheriting traits from reproductive ancestors, you dismiss shared ancestry of humans and chimpanzees with your duplicitous "assumptions" apologetics, whilst trying to peddle a far more blatant assumption that your fantasy magic man did it all, despite zero evidence for your fantasy magic man. Double standard once again duly noted.
questioner121 wrote:The DNA is information which if you manipulate will result in predictable outcomes.
Oh wait, you tried in the past to dismiss evolutionary postulates, by asserting that nature was UNpredictable, in this post. Here are your words therefrom:
Otherwise inference from the current data is ridiculous to confirm common ancestry beyond reasonable doubt especially given the understanding of nature we have which is hugely complex and in many situations quite unpredictable.
More evidence that you're making shit up as you go along. Where have we seen this before? Oh that's right, it's standard creationist operating procedure.
questioner121 wrote:The whole world is created in such a way where we can manipulate things and see pretty predictable results.
Make your mind up. Which is it? Is nature predictable, as you're now asserting, or unpredictable, as you asserted in this previous post? Only this blatant attempt to have your apologetic cake and eat it simultaneously doesn't wash here.
questioner121 wrote:If it weren't for that life would be a headache and it would difficult.
Biology is obviously a headache for you and your attachment to mythology.
questioner121 wrote: Just because different animals have the same traits doesn't mean the design has to be exactly the same, it just has to fulfil it's purpose.
Yet according to your specious apologetics, evolutionary processes purportedly can't do the same, despite the mountains of evidence illustrating that they can. I'll deliver the killer blow to this bullshit in a moment. Have patience.
questioner121 wrote:For example if you look at all the car manufacturers who make cars. There a variety of models from different manufacturers but each component is not exactly the same design but it does fulful the same purpose to a degree.
Cars aren't self replicating entities. Therefore your analogy fails.
questioner121 wrote:Calilasseia wrote:Bullshit. First of all, even insulin doesn't exhibit "common design", because the genes are not identical in most vertebrate lineages. Second, you haven't a clue what genuine evidence for "design" consists of.
EDIT: And as others have pointed out here, why would your asserted "designer" waste effort designing broken genes? Or, for that matter, waste effort littering genomes with dead remnants of viruses, in patterns resembling exactly the patterns that would be expected to arise via evolutionary processes?
Why would the genes have to be identical?
Well since we have a large body of evidence that, for example, bovine insulin from cows works perfectly well in humans (in case you're wondering, it was harvested for many years to treat diabetics, prior to the advent of genetic engineering, and the production of transgenic bacteria that could manufacture human insulin), why shouldn't one gene be sufficient?
questioner121 wrote:The design may be different to take into account of physiological factors. However the function is the same because the living organism "works" in a similar way.
More biased assumptions on your part. Oh wait, we have zero evidence for your magic man and any tinkering on the part thereof. On the other hand, we have a large amount of evidence for genes being inherited from reproductive ancestors, then acquiring modifications later. Yet you dismiss the perfectly proper consideration of this evidence by speciously labelling it "biased assumptions", despite having ZERO evidence for YOUR assumptions. Double standard duly noted once more.
questioner121 wrote:Do you only see one type of house? One type of car? One type of mobile phone?
None of these are self replicating entites, therefore the analogy fails.
questioner121 wrote: No, they are different yet they are for the same purpose and each one is built up of components which have different designs.
Oh wait, there's a good deal more commonality between several brands of mobile phone I could mention, than there is between insulin genes. Because those mobile phones all use the same CPU chip. From here, we learn this:
According to ARM Holdings, in 2010 alone, producers of chips based on ARM architectures reported shipments of 6.1 billion ARM-based processors, representing 95% of smartphones, 35% of digital televisions and set-top boxes and 10% of mobile computers. It is the most widely used 32-bit instruction set architecture in terms of quantity produced.
Oh look, the same CPU architecture is found in iPhones, Samsung Galaxy phones, Sony Experia phones, Nokia phones ... getting the message here?
questioner121 wrote:You're putting yourself in the mind of a Creator who you don't have much knowledge about.
Ha ha ha ha ha ha. Carabid beetles with fused elytra? You want to tell me that this fucking kludge was "designed" by your magic man?
questioner121 wrote:Only the Creator can know why they do such and such thing, the creation can only wonder.
Yet in the next breath, you launch into all manner of apologetic fabrications telling us all how you know all about how your magic "creator" did this, or at least, asserting this. Once again, double standard duly noted.
But of course, what really destroys your apologetics here, is that scientists are using evolutionary processes to "design" useful entities in the laboratory. Which at a stroke destroys your assertion that they're purportedly not up to the job. It's going to be such fun watching you try and wriggle out of this with more specious apologetic gymnastics.