Posted: Feb 26, 2014 8:01 pm
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? Have you tried fixing and seeing if it works?
From the video you can learn that the chunk is missing because single base was missing, causing a frame shift and a premature stop-codon. It is not impossible for an insertion mutation to arise that negates this. But if it happens AFTER (i.e. downstream) the stop codon, then the frame-shift back doesn't help because the stop-codon is still there. If it happens TOO far upstream , then a major part of the gene undergoes a frame-shift before it continues with the correct remainder of the vitamin-C gene. So, it is unlikely that it will have the required activity for the synthesis of vitamin C. It will certainly possible for scientists to fix the gene correctly.
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.
It is because of the biased assumption that parents get off-spring and the off-spring inherits the genetic material of the parents (with a couple of mutations). And we assume that this is not unique to the last generation. That's ALL the assumptions. Do you question that? And with these assumptions, we find we can explain why both chimps and humans have the same broken vitamin C gene and why the guinea pig has a vitamin C gene broken in a different way. And why ERVs are distributed like they are.
.Why do I infer design? If you look at each of the animals they have similar traits. Chimps have hands, feet, similar eyes, similar shape, etc. so for me it's not surprising the DNA is similar
Right. And geneticists aren't surprised either. But if it were designed, this wouldn't necessarily have been the case. The genes for the eyes do not need to be on the same chromosome close to the genes for the nose. Chromosomes are not building plans. You can swap the location of the gene for insulin with that for blue eyes without any effect.
If you create something, you don't do everything the same way. Unless you want to be efficient; but then if you really want to be efficient you don't do repetitive work (Why create everything from scratch and then create humans from clay?) Then you let evolution take its course. Or a couple of steps back: Create a big bang, and watch it all unroll automatically, and enjoy all the religions that develop and mutate faster than any species.
When I asked the video, I did indeed quote the vitamin C video, but I should have deleted that because I was actually interested in your response to the ERV video, because Cali had given you an expose about it (and he can be a bit long in his explanations, so I thought you'd appreciate the video).
Bert