argystokes
Posts: 766
Joined: Jan. 2006
|
Hi AFDave,
Let me see if I can add something to the conversation.
You've been arguing that what appears to be a broken GLO in primates may not be in fact broken at all, but is rather a designed stretch of DNA that performs some unknown function (we'll call this "pseudo-GLO"). You haven't stated it explicitly, but I think we can infer that this putative function has nothing to do with Vitamin C synthesis (seeing as primates and guinea pigs can't do it). That is, pseudo-GLO has a function entirely distinct from regular GLO.
If pseudo-GLO has a distinct function, we could use the framework of common design (as well as common descent) to predict that pseudo-GLO would be found in organisms that have functioning GLO. This is because there is no reason to predict that a gene unrelated to Vitamin C would only be found in GLO-deficient species.
So there are two possible scenarios:
(1) Pseudo-GLO is found throughout the animal kingdom (either ubiquitously, randomly, or in nested hierarchies). This type of scenario, where a species has a functional gene and a pseudogene is not uncommon.
(2) Pseudo-GLO is only found in species unable to synthesize vitamin C.
It seems to me that a design hypothesis would only predict scenario (1), for reasons discussed above. Common descent would predict either scenario (2), or scenario (1) with nested hierarchies of Pseudo-GLO (this would be the result of a duplication of GLO followed by the inactivation of one of the copies, which still persists in the population). Seeing pseudo-GLOs (especially those that look very much alike) randomly throughout the animal kingdom would certainly be a surprise to me (I can think of a mechanism by which it might occur, but we won't get in to that). Ubiquitous pseudo-GLO would strongly imply that it has an important function, but would not really support either common descent or common design over the other.
I haven't done the research to find out which is the case, but there should be sufficient online tools to find out which is the correct scenario. With the relatively low number of genomes sequenced, it is probably not possible right now (using good ole look-it-up-online methods) to differentiate between the subscenarios of scenario (1).
I'm willing to look up the information for you (assuming you don't know how to do a BLAST search) if you're willing to concede that scenario (2) does not logically fit with a special creation model.
So how's about it, Dave? Shall we do some science?
--------------
"Why waste time learning, when ignorance is instantaneous?" -Calvin
|
