Jump to content


Photo

Gulo Gene


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

#41 falcone

falcone

    Member

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

Posted 18 May 2009 - 01:35 AM

The way GULO is broken is almost identical in old world monkeys as it is in humans, but completely different for hamsters and so on. But that discussion is really to do specifically with common ancestry.

As I feared, we seem to be drifting towards discussing how the GULO gene evolved - that's not the purpose of this thread. I want to understand the creation of GULO.

So far, there has been no explanation at all, just some unsubstantiated speculation.

#42 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 18 May 2009 - 01:44 AM

The way GULO is broken is almost identical in old world monkeys as it is in humans, but completely different for hamsters and so on. But that discussion is really to do specifically with common ancestry.

As I feared, we seem to be drifting towards discussing how the GULO gene evolved - that's not the purpose of this thread. I want to understand the creation of GULO.

So far, there has been no explanation at all, just some unsubstantiated speculation.

View Post


Double standard?

Show us an old world monkey without an alleged "broken gulo" and then you wont be speculating yourself.



Thanks.

#43 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 18 May 2009 - 02:14 AM

This should work better.  Sorry
http://www.ncbi.nlm....pubmed/15112110

My point was that the GULO gene in pigs has not mutated. 
Some pigs do have a GULO mutation which prevents vitamin C synthesis when two copies are present.
Incidentally, this mutation is different from the mutations in the human pseudogene.

View Post


But the microsomal enzyme is still an enzyme correct? It didn't evolve into anything else?

#44 CTD

CTD

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,059 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 18 May 2009 - 09:20 AM

As I feared, we seem to be drifting towards discussing how the GULO gene evolved - that's not the purpose of this thread. I want to understand the creation of GULO.

So far, there has been no explanation at all, just some unsubstantiated speculation.

View Post

Apparently you've been reading too much propaganda about creationists. Where knowledge is lacking, we're supposed to insert "the god of the gaps" and say "don't look any further".

That ain't reality. It's evolutionism that will suffer as more facts come in. We have speculated, and we have been up front about it. We haven't said "this is a fact you must accept or fail your class/lose your job/etc." We don't need to say more than we have reason to believe.

But I did venture more. I made predictions when I didn't have to. And if you can manage to understand the basis of my predictions you'll come away from this thread with a little profit.

I really don't see that you have anything to complain about. Why shouldn't creationists be fairly indifferent to evidence that does not appear to have much potential for spinmeistering. 1. You don't have convincing evidence anything is "broken" (except maybe the pig mutation). 2. If you did, it would be totally consistent with every major creation model.

#45 de_skudd

de_skudd

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,518 posts
  • Location:North Augusta, SC
  • Interests:reading, learning, talking and stuff
  • Age: 41
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • North Augusta, SC

Posted 18 May 2009 - 10:57 AM

I want to understand the creation of GULO.

View Post


The first thing we have to understand is that it couldn't have come from nothing. So the whole evolving thingy is out the window. Then we have to realize that we have no proof that it was anything other than a GULO. Then we are resigned to the fact that it was created until we can prove otherwise.

#46 Guest_Keith C_*

Guest_Keith C_*
  • Guests

Posted 18 May 2009 - 02:50 PM

But the microsomal enzyme is still an enzyme correct? It didn't evolve into anything else?

The GULO gene remains in human DNA, but with mutations which prevent it functioning to produce vitamin C.
I have not searched to find out whether part of the gene is still copied to RNA, and whether that RNA or any resulting protein performs some useful function.
Even if there is some function, it is quite likely that it has not been discovered yet. I see no reason to be concerned even if it is now a real pseudogene with absolutely no function.

What I do think is interesting is this report:-
"How Humans Make Up For An 'Inborn' Vitamin C Deficiency
ScienceDaily (Mar. 21, 2008) — A new study appears to explain how humans, along with other higher primates, guinea pigs and fruit bats, get by with what some have called an "inborn metabolic error": an inability to produce vitamin C from glucose.
Unlike the more than 4,000 other species of mammals who manufacture vitamin C, and lots of it, the red blood cells of the handful of vitamin C-defective species are specially equipped to suck up the vitamin's oxidized form, so-called L-dehydroascorbic acid (DHA), the researchers report in the March21st issue of Cell, a publication of Cell Press. Once inside the blood cells, that DHA--which is immediately transformed back into ascorbic acid (a.k.a. vitamin C)--can be efficiently carried through the bloodstream to the rest of the body, the researchers suggest."
I think it is possible that the ability to recycle vitamin C developed before the GULO gene was deactivated. It may have been this recycling which made it possible for our monkey ancestors to get by by eating fruit as a source of vitamin C
http://www.scienceda...80320120726.htm

#47 CTD

CTD

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,059 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 18 May 2009 - 09:26 PM

The GULO gene remains in human DNA, but with mutations which prevent it functioning to produce vitamin C.
I have not searched to find out whether part of the gene is still copied to RNA, and whether that RNA or any resulting protein performs some useful function.
Even if there is some function, it is quite likely that it has not been discovered yet.  I see no reason to be concerned even if it is now a real pseudogene with absolutely no function.

What I do think is interesting is this report:-
"How Humans Make Up For An 'Inborn' Vitamin C Deficiency
ScienceDaily (Mar. 21, 2008) — A new study appears to explain how humans, along with other higher primates, guinea pigs and fruit bats, get by with what some have called an "inborn metabolic error": an inability to produce vitamin C from glucose.
Unlike the more than 4,000 other species of mammals who manufacture vitamin C, and lots of it, the red blood cells of the handful of vitamin C-defective species are specially equipped to suck up the vitamin's oxidized form, so-called L-dehydroascorbic acid (DHA), the researchers report in the March21st issue of Cell, a publication of Cell Press. Once inside the blood cells, that DHA--which is immediately transformed back into ascorbic acid (a.k.a. vitamin C)--can be efficiently carried through the bloodstream to the rest of the body, the researchers suggest."
I think it is possible that the ability to recycle vitamin C developed before the GULO gene was deactivated.  It may have been this recycling which made it possible for our monkey ancestors to get by by eating fruit as a source of vitamin C
http://www.scienceda...80320120726.htm

View Post

Thanks for bringing that to our attention. If one overlooks the evohype and just considers the facts, it confirms the creationist position quite nicely.

We see an alternative engineered right in, so that no "GULO gene" is practically needed. Was it originally that way, or was it foresight? That seems to be the only remaining mystery.

And it's yet another case where evolutionism must invoke the ad-hoc "parallel evolution" stories, and pretend their "nested hierarchy" is in tact.

#48 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 19 May 2009 - 02:26 AM

The GULO gene remains in human DNA, but with mutations which prevent it functioning to produce vitamin C.
I have not searched to find out whether part of the gene is still copied to RNA, and whether that RNA or any resulting protein performs some useful function.
Even if there is some function, it is quite likely that it has not been discovered yet.  I see no reason to be concerned even if it is now a real pseudogene with absolutely no function.

What I do think is interesting is this report:-
"How Humans Make Up For An 'Inborn' Vitamin C Deficiency
ScienceDaily (Mar. 21, 2008) — A new study appears to explain how humans, along with other higher primates, guinea pigs and fruit bats, get by with what some have called an "inborn metabolic error": an inability to produce vitamin C from glucose.
Unlike the more than 4,000 other species of mammals who manufacture vitamin C, and lots of it, the red blood cells of the handful of vitamin C-defective species are specially equipped to suck up the vitamin's oxidized form, so-called L-dehydroascorbic acid (DHA), the researchers report in the March21st issue of Cell, a publication of Cell Press. Once inside the blood cells, that DHA--which is immediately transformed back into ascorbic acid (a.k.a. vitamin C)--can be efficiently carried through the bloodstream to the rest of the body, the researchers suggest."
I think it is possible that the ability to recycle vitamin C developed before the GULO gene was deactivated.  It may have been this recycling which made it possible for our monkey ancestors to get by by eating fruit as a source of vitamin C
http://www.scienceda...80320120726.htm

View Post


So, then, the microsomal enzyme is still an enzyme correct? It didn't evolve into anything else? Say like a pig, a dog, a dinosaur?

#49 Guest_Keith C_*

Guest_Keith C_*
  • Guests

Posted 19 May 2009 - 09:26 AM

Thanks for bringing that to our attention. If one overlooks the evohype and just considers the facts, it confirms the creationist position quite nicely.

[b]We see an alternative engineered right in, so that no "GULO gene" is practically needed.[\b] Was it originally that way, or was it foresight? That seems to be the only remaining mystery.

And it's yet another case where evolutionism must invoke the ad-hoc "parallel evolution" stories, and pretend their "nested hierarchy" is in tact.

If that is all you see, then you are not thinking about what you read.
First, there is the need to explain all those earlier ancestors who did have an active GULO gene without the ability to recycle vitamin C. Why use this design when a better alternative was available?

These facts fit with evolution quite well. We do not claim any design, just inheritance of favorable changes, without any foresight. There is no timetable or plan in the sequence of changes.
If this system was engineered in, why did it take so long to get it working?

#50 CTD

CTD

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,059 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 19 May 2009 - 02:56 PM

If that is all you see, then you are not thinking about what you read.
First, there is the need to explain all those earlier ancestors who did have an active GULO gene without the ability to recycle vitamin C.  Why use this design when a better alternative was available?

These facts fit with evolution quite well.  We do not claim any design, just inheritance of favorable changes, without any foresight.  There is no timetable or plan in the sequence of changes.
If this system was engineered in, why did it take so long to get it working?

View Post

It seems your evogoggles are permanently implanted. Creationists don't need to account for that which you choose to imagine. Only actual evidence is in play.

Better skill next time...

Oh, and evolutionism does make claims about "homology", by the way. That was a pretty ineffective dodge.

#51 de_skudd

de_skudd

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,518 posts
  • Location:North Augusta, SC
  • Interests:reading, learning, talking and stuff
  • Age: 41
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • North Augusta, SC

Posted 20 May 2009 - 10:29 AM

So, then,  the microsomal enzyme is still an enzyme correct? It didn't evolve into anything else? Say like a pig, a dog, a dinosaur?

View Post


That is correct. And that is why some here won't answer your questions directly...

#52 de_skudd

de_skudd

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,518 posts
  • Location:North Augusta, SC
  • Interests:reading, learning, talking and stuff
  • Age: 41
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • North Augusta, SC

Posted 22 May 2009 - 09:46 AM

We do not claim any design, just inheritance of favorable changes, without any foresight. 

View Post


Then from where did they inherit the design of those favorable changes?

#53 Guest_Keith C_*

Guest_Keith C_*
  • Guests

Posted 22 May 2009 - 08:35 PM

Then from where did they inherit the design of those favorable changes?


The important point to grasp is that there is no design in the changes produced by evolution, and none is needed.

It is a little like the short version of the instructions when a trainee sculptor is given his first piece of marble - Knock off each bit which does not look like a Greek goddess!

For evolution it is natural selection which does the knocking off (intended), and it is only natural selection which is concerned with distinguishing between useful and detrimental change.

#54 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 22 May 2009 - 08:36 PM

If that is all you see, then you are not thinking about what you read.
First, there is the need to explain all those earlier ancestors who did have an active GULO gene without the ability to recycle vitamin C.  Why use this design when a better alternative was available?

View Post



Hmmm, so, then, the microsomal enzyme is still an enzyme correct? It didn't evolve into anything else? Say like a pig, a dog, or a dinosaur?

#55 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 22 May 2009 - 08:40 PM

The important point to grasp is that there is no design in the changes produced by evolution, and none is needed.

It is a little like the short version of the instructions when a trainee sculptor is given his first piece of marble - Knock off each bit which does not look like a Greek goddess!

For evolution it is natural selection which does the knocking off (intended), and it is only natural selection which is concerned with distinguishing between useful and detrimental change.

View Post


I see, so its this natural selection person that does all the decision making then? Its this natural selection person who is concerned with all the distinguishing between useful and detrimental change.

I’d like to meet this guy and ask him a few questions.

#56 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 22 May 2009 - 08:42 PM

That is correct. And that is why some here won't answer your questions directly...

View Post


Thanks for the advice Skudd, that’s the way its looking.

#57 Guest_Keith C_*

Guest_Keith C_*
  • Guests

Posted 23 May 2009 - 11:11 AM

I see, so its this natural selection person that does all the decision making then? Its this natural selection person who is concerned with all the distinguishing between useful and detrimental change.

I’d like to meet this guy and ask him a few questions.

If you have to believe that there must be an intelligence making that distinction, then I suggest you start a new religion, to be called evolutionism, and learn how to worship this nature god (or goddess).

You could 'prove' your god exists from the observations that adaptation requires information and information does not come from nothing.

#58 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 23 May 2009 - 11:40 AM

If you have to believe that there must be an intelligence making that distinction, then I suggest you start a new religion, to be called evolutionism, and learn how to worship this nature god (or goddess).

You could 'prove' your god exists from the observations that adaptation requires information and information does not come from nothing.

View Post


Can you show me evidence of something other than an intellect that makes distinctions and decisions? Can you show me evidence something other than a being with at least a modicum of cognitive ability that can make distinctions and decisions?

Other than “evolution” or “nature” that is, because you seem to think this is the exception.

And a rock rolling down a hill, or a river following the path of least resistance to the sea aren't examples.

#59 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 23 May 2009 - 11:44 AM

Then from where did they inherit the design of those favorable changes?

View Post


Obviously it just happens :huh:

#60 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 23 May 2009 - 11:45 AM

It seems your evogoggles are permanently implanted. Creationists don't need to account for that which you choose to imagine. Only actual evidence is in play.

Better skill next time...

Oh, and evolutionism does make claims about "homology", by the way. That was a pretty ineffective dodge.

View Post


Careful CTD, stuff just happens :huh:




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users