Joined: Dec. 2002
|Quote (afdave @ May 11 2006,09:35)|
|Again ... IF we find the GLO gene sequences identical (or very close) in apes (I think we only have rat, human and GP currently), why does this prove common descent of apes and humans? We do not KNOW that the human (and presumable ape) manifestation is in fact an "error" because we don't know the genetic language well enough yet. All we know is that BOTH apes and humans cannot synthesize Vitamin C. It is and ASSUMPTION to say that "see it's because their GLO gene is broken." How can you say that? Maybe that's was never intended to BE a GLO gene in the first place. You don't know because you don't know the language well enough yet.|
My bet is that when we DO learn the language well enough, we will see it has a purpose far different that Vitamin C production.
Here's another analogy ...
Do you think that "The dog is barking" and "The dog is barfing" means that the second sentence is somehow "broken"?? Of course not. They are both valid sentences but they mean ENTIRELY different things.
Also, in our language, the same words can mean two different things in different contexts, i.e. "bark" (dog) and "bark" (on a tree).
I really think Dr. Max is making a bad analogy and assuming too many things.
Can you tell me what a "frameshift mutation" is?
Can you tell me the significance of a frameshift mutation?