Jump to content


Photo

Gulo Gene


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
276 replies to this topic

#1 falcone

falcone

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 497 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 36
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Scotland

Posted 08 April 2009 - 07:09 AM

The GULO gene is responsible for processing ascorbic acid (vitamin C), but is broken in humans, many old world monkeys (Africa), hamsters, and fruitbats. This doesn't cause a problem since we, monkeys, hamsters and fruitbats can get vitamin C from our diets.

Most other animals have a functioning GULO gene, so they don't need vitamin C in their diets.

The interesting thing is that humans have a very similar genetic code to old world monkeys, and our GULO genes are broken in pretty much the same way. Hamsters have their GULO gene broken in a different way, and fruitbats in yet another.

New world monkeys (South America) do not have a broken GULO gene. Nor do all old world monkeys. We appear to be more distantly related to those primates with functioning GULO genes than to those with the broken gene.

Why would God create this defect the same way for humans and our most closely related species, but create the same defect in a different way in (at least) two other species? Especially since this particular defect goes unnoticed unless the availabilty of dietary vitamin C changes.

#2 scott

scott

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1749 posts
  • Age: 21
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • mississippi

Posted 08 April 2009 - 07:24 AM

Why would God create this gene??? Is it a defect??? No, it works how it is supposed to for the design that it was applied to by God. Therefore, since Animals of similar design, should most likely have the similar genetic structure given that God is using the same template for all life.

Whats the problem??? What are the other animals that just naturally absorb vitamin C? What type of environment do the animals that just naturally absorb Vitamin C live in? Is the automatic absorbtion of vitamin C required by these other animals, because their environment demands it. I believe there is more to this than just... a gene viewed as a mistake.

#3 falcone

falcone

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 497 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 36
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Scotland

Posted 08 April 2009 - 07:37 AM

Why would God create this gene???

No idea. That's why I'm asking.

Is it a defect???

Yes. Google it, you'll find hundreds of independent references

...it works how it is supposed to for the design that it was applied to by God.

Ok, lets assume that those hundreds of independent references are wrong. Can you tell me more about how the GULO gene works in humans, old world monkeys, hamsters and fruitbats, as per God's design?

Whats the problem???

If it was designed, then makes no sense. I don't understand it.

#4 performedge

performedge

    Don - a Child of the King

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 400 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Carolina
  • Interests:Being a logician. Debating the origins controversy. Going to heaven. Taking others with me. Seeing the creator.
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Rock Hill, SC

Posted 08 April 2009 - 07:53 AM

Why would God create two almost identical genomes, yet vastly different creatures? I am not talking about humans and apes, because their genomes are very dissimilar. I am talking about male and female humans. The same species.

I am talking about totally different organs, bone structures, genetic expressions etc. Why would God do that? Oh, we already have that answer.

Maybe the question ought to be, why would nature do that?

#5 falcone

falcone

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 497 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 36
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Scotland

Posted 08 April 2009 - 08:13 AM

Maybe the question ought to be, why would nature do that?

View Post

No, the question should not be 'why would nature do that'. For the purposes of this conversation, I'm only interested in the creationist explanation.

#6 de_skudd

de_skudd

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1518 posts
  • Location:North Augusta, SC
  • Interests:reading, learning, talking and stuff
  • Age: 41
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • North Augusta, SC

Posted 08 April 2009 - 11:20 AM

No, the question should not be 'why would nature do that'. For the purposes of this conversation, I'm only interested in the creationist explanation.

View Post


Well nature IS the god of atheists and evolutionists (yes, I'm talking about theistic evolutionists as well). So, for the purposes of this conversation, you need to consider “why would nature do that?” as a valid question as well. And don’t attempt to just dismiss it out of hand, because in doing so, you must use circular reasoning.

#7 scott

scott

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1749 posts
  • Age: 21
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • mississippi

Posted 08 April 2009 - 11:26 AM

It is evident that through proper actual testing... through me eating an orange and consuming vitamin C that the gene is clearly not a defect... Evolutionist on the other hand are clearly flabbergasted that they actually have to eat to get their vitamins.... Again, whats the problem???

I'm thinking someone has a problem with eating food.

#8 CTD

CTD

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2059 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 08 April 2009 - 12:02 PM

Being left to do our own research here, there is an opportunity to make a few predictions before we begin. If patterns hold, this "defect" (and true defects do exist) will have been discovered first in humans, then linked to apes, then eventually it came out that it existed in other animals. Even more animals will be discovered to have it as time goes on.

One also predicts a metabolic cost will be associated with production of vitamin C from raw materials. Generally nothing is free.

In the long term, one predicts a mix of two outcomes among species that don't produce their own vitamin C. 1. The "GULO" gene will be found to have other functions and not be defective. 2. Some "GULO" genes may actually be defective and provide evidence of the historic population bottleneck (this will be "adjusted" way back into evotime in order to continue the strict policy of flood denial).

Finally, if genetic tampering experiments are conducted on hamsters or whatever, attempts to "repair" the gene will have side-effects, which will be "surprising" to the know-it-alls performing the experiments.

#9 CTD

CTD

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2059 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 08 April 2009 - 01:11 PM

Even more animals will be discovered to have it as time goes on.

View Post

That was quick - pigs share the trait also.

http://www.ncbi.nlm....pubmed/10467707

Finally, if genetic tampering experiments are conducted on hamsters or whatever, attempts to "repair" the gene will have side-effects, which will be "surprising" to the know-it-alls performing the experiments.

View Post

Experiments are already underway with human cells, and there appear to be side-effects.

http://www.ncbi.nlm....pubmed/14962674

Low rescue efficiency of Gulo-expressing adenoviral constructs and reduced viral growth in HEK293 cells were observed, suggesting that overexpression of Gulo may be inhibitory to cell growth. Placement of a removable stuffer fragment flanked by lox sites between the MCMV promoter and the Gulo gene resulted in efficient vector rescue and normal viral replication in parental HEK293 cells and high-level expression of Gulo in HEK293 cells expressing Cre recombinase. Cells infected with Gulo-expressing vectors overexpressed an FAD-containing protein that corresponded in size to that predicted for recombinant GULO protein and expressed a functional enzyme as measured by the conversion of l-gulono-gamma-lactone to ascorbic acid in cell-free extracts.



#10 CTD

CTD

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2059 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 08 April 2009 - 01:20 PM

Plus
Some passerine birds, guinea pigs, and the rest of the bats.

http://en.wikipedia....lactone_oxidase

#11 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 08 April 2009 - 01:45 PM

That was quick - pigs share the trait also.

http://www.ncbi.nlm....pubmed/10467707
Experiments are already underway with human cells, and there appear to be side-effects.

http://www.ncbi.nlm....pubmed/14962674

View Post



Yup.Creation always makes the best and most accurate predictions.

#12 CTD

CTD

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2059 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 08 April 2009 - 02:01 PM

Yup.Creation always makes the best and most accurate predictions.

View Post

Actually, credit must be shared between creation theory and evolutionology. Evolutionism always tries to find areas where knowledge is incomplete, and wedge in a claim before the facts are known. That way they can get their dogma entrenched & we're supposed to have difficulty dislodging it.

I'm confident everyone's familiar with at least some of the history.

#13 falcone

falcone

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 497 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 36
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Scotland

Posted 08 April 2009 - 02:34 PM

All great stuff, but why did God put a non-functional GULO gene in humans, guinea pigs, and hamsters in the first place? Was it a mistake? He didn't give it to lemurs, rats and mice.

Also, you appear not to have picked up on the two key points:
1. Human kind and chip kind have obvious similarities. One of them is that they have their GULO genes broken in almost the same way. Other kinds of animals, which are less similar to humans, chimps and to each other, have their GULO genes broken in very different ways.

2. Having a broken GULO gene for the most part doesn't matter. As Scott pointed out, we can get our vitamin C by eating oranges.

#14 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7048 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 08 April 2009 - 03:03 PM

falcone,

Don't forget, that as Christians, we would expect things to be going wrong and deteriorating because of the fall, things like death for starters. Things falling apart and breaking down, is a huge problem for evolutionists because they expect detectable deterioration to magically prove diversification into a plethora of new body plans with unique features. Just close your eyes and believe.

Adam

#15 falcone

falcone

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 497 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 36
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Scotland

Posted 08 April 2009 - 03:22 PM

Don't forget, that as Christians, we would expect things to be going wrong and deteriorating because of the fall, things like death for starters.

View Post

Okay, I'm with you so far. Do you think the way in which things go wrong and deteriorate is in any way directed or influenced by God? If not, then what is the directing process? I'm ruling out evolution, of course.

I don't understand why the GULO gene would go wrong in the same way for humans and chimps, but in different ways for hamsters, pigs and so on. The end result is the same - the gene stops functioning.

#16 CTD

CTD

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2059 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 08 April 2009 - 03:36 PM

This pseudogene is functional in humans.

In the pentose phosphate pathway, five-carbon sugars are made from glucose (a six-carbon sugar) to be used in the synthesis of DNA, RNA, and many energy producing substances such as ATP and NADPH (Garrett 1999). Animals that synthesize vitamin C can use both pathways illustrated in the simplified diagram below. Humans and the other animals "less fortunate" than rats only use the pentose phosphate pathway.

Posted Image

http://www.icr.org/a...-c-pseudogenes/

Even if there was no known function, it's not like all functions of all genes are known.

#17 falcone

falcone

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 497 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 36
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Scotland

Posted 08 April 2009 - 04:46 PM

This pseudogene is functional in humans.

View Post


It's broken. The human version of it doesn't synthesize ascorbic acid. An extract from the wiki entry you yourself referenced in this thread reads:

The non-functional gulonolactone oxidase pseudogene (GULOP) was mapped to human chromosome 8p21


Here's a definition of a pseudogene, also from wiki:

Pseudogenes are defunct relatives of known genes that have lost their protein-coding ability or are otherwise no longer expressed in the cell.[1] Although some do not have introns or promoters (these pseudogenes are copied from mRNA and incorporated into the chromosome and are called processed pseudogenes)[2], most have some gene-like features (such as promoters CpG islands, and splice sites), they are nonetheless considered nonfunctional, due to their lack of protein-coding ability resulting from various genetic disablements (stop codons, frameshifts, or a lack of transcription) or their inability to encode RNA (such as with rRNA pseudogenes). Thus the term, coined in 1977 by Jacq, et al.,[3] is composed of the prefix pseudo, which means false, and the root gene, which is the central unit of molecular genetics.


Here are some other references to it being non-functional:

The whole structure of the human nonfunctional L-gulono-gamma-lactone oxidase gene

Cloning and chromosomal mapping of the human nonfunctional gene for L- gulono-gamma-lactone oxidase, the enzyme for L-ascorbic acid biosynthesis missing in man

The GULO Gene - Where did our ability to synthesize Vitamin C get lost?


I'd like to get back to the question firstly of why it's broken at all (Adam has started answering that), and secondly, why it's broken in such a similar way for humans and chimps, but in a completely different way for other animals.

#18 CTD

CTD

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2059 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 08 April 2009 - 05:34 PM

It's broken. The human version of it doesn't synthesize ascorbic acid. An extract from the wiki entry you yourself referenced in this thread reads:
Here are some other references to it being non-functional:



I'd like to get back to the question firstly of why it's broken at all (Adam has started answering that), and secondly, why it's broken in such a similar way for humans and chimps, but in a completely different way for other animals.

View Post

Well you may choose to gloss over the assumption that it's broken, and that the whole evostory is true, but I decline to buy into any such assumptions. I call processing that results in pentose phosphate a function.

Now if it doesn't fit the dogma they're working to establish, too bad. That's right, the spin is already being put to use, indoctrinating students. Got to pollute as many minds as possible before more facts are discovered, and the unknown becomes known.

#19 Guest_loveslife_*

Guest_loveslife_*
  • Guests

Posted 08 April 2009 - 06:19 PM

Well you may choose to gloss over the assumption that it's broken,

View Post

If the gene worked, humans would not get scurvy.
Since I 'assume' that scurvy exists, and that its not some big conspiracy like every other overwhelmingly proven thing that some people's wishful thinking would prefer wasn't true, I'm going on the assumption that the gene is broken.

Bear in mind that the question is not why the gene is broken, the question is why is the gene broken in the same manner as chimps, and broken in a different manner than other species.

When you compare this gene between human, chimpanzee, macaque, and orangutan you find that this gene is broken (deletion mutation) in the exact same spot in all 4 creatures. Out of 165 base pairs, the odds of having a mutation randomly delete the same base pair out of all 4 species is extremely remote.

Evolution explains this perfectly well - they had a common ancestor that passed the broken gene trait on to its predecessors - but this thread is about figuring out how this could have happened if evolution is false. Did God decide to break the same gene in the same spot in all 4 creatures that just so happen to be considered close ancestors? And why - so they would suffer from scurvy? We seek a creationist understanding of this phenomena.

#20 scott

scott

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1749 posts
  • Age: 21
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • mississippi

Posted 08 April 2009 - 06:42 PM

If the gene worked, humans would not get scurvy.
Since I 'assume' that scurvy exists, and that its not some big conspiracy like every other overwhelmingly proven thing that some people's wishful thinking would prefer wasn't true, I'm going on the assumption that the gene is broken.

Bear in mind that the question is not why the gene is broken, the question is why is the gene broken in the same manner as chimps, and broken in a different manner than other species.

When you compare this gene between human, chimpanzee, macaque, and orangutan you find that this gene is broken (deletion mutation) in the exact same spot in all 4 creatures. Out of 165 base pairs, the odds of having a mutation randomly delete the same base pair out of all 4 species is extremely remote.

Evolution explains this perfectly well - they had a common ancestor that passed the broken gene trait on to its predecessors - but this thread is about figuring out how this could have happened if evolution is false. Did God decide to break the same gene in the same spot in all 4 creatures that just so happen to be considered close ancestors? And why - so they would suffer from scurvy? We seek a creationist understanding of this phenomena.

View Post



Wait, Wait, Wait,... stop right there... moment of silence... You say that the gene MUST BE BROKEN because people have Vitamin C deficiency????? Well, understand that scurvey is a lack of not actually eating your fruits.

One must consume vitamins to be healthy... I guess since I'm hungry... that my Vitamin A, and K gene is broken also... I also guess that my entire body is just one pile of broken junk because It still relies on the ole fashioned intestines to digest food.

This gene is NOT broken... You have not eatin your orange today... now sit down or I'll make you eat a whole lemon... and make your dentist cry.

How is evolution true??? I mean lemurs don't have this deffect, but chimps do??? While I'm at it then why in the WORLD do chimpanzees have the weirdest looking rear ends... They don't resemble humans at all... Just look at the bonobo.

How does nature explain this??? I mean why???

No, the gene is not broken... no, no, no, and no again. I'm sorry if you don't like eating fruits, but claiming to your nutritionist that you can't absorb vitamin C won't pass as a legitamate excuse...

Also, one more thing... it is also quite obvious that these apes have extreme similarities to humans... Except their rear ends, but It all comes down to:

Drum role please -------->>>>>> SAME DESIGNER <<<<<<--------

While we are at it, lets also ask the question: Why did God make the Platypus??? I mean who would do such a thing??? I mean really???




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users