Reasons To Believe and the Vitamin C Pseudogene

The Pixie

Well-known member
Discussing this elsewhere, I was directed to this web page.

I was surprised to find an article that does at least make some attempt to address the issue.

The author summaries the situation well:

Humans and primates (including chimps) share many of the same mutations in the GLO pseudogene. Evolutionary biologists argue that these shared errors evince common descent and the shared ancestry of humans and the great apes. But if this defect arose before humans and chimp lineages diverged from a common ancestor, it would explain why both organisms share the same GLO pseudogene. Why would a Creator introduce exactly the same defective, nonfunctional DNA in both humans and chimpanzees?

The "RTB Creation Model for Genomics" is explain, to some degree here.

The assumption that undergirds our model is that a Creator is responsible for life’s origin and history. As such, the genomes of organisms have been created via God’s direct intervention. But once created, genomes are subjected to physical, chemical, and biochemical events that can induce changes in their structure.

RTB are an old earth creationism group. On that basis I think they believe in special creation - each "kind" was created in isolation - but that this happened over billions of years, so, for example, God created humans a couple of million years ago. The salient point here is that they reject common descent; they believe chimps and humans are not genetically related, and so reject the evolutionary theory noted above.

With regards to the Vitamin C Pseudogene, they say:

The RTB genomics model offers a different explanation for the similarities in the primate DNA sequences. The shared features are interpreted as the outworking of nonrandom, reproducible changes that happened independently in humans, chimpanzees, and orangutans.

That is to say, they are claiming the same mutations happened to occur in these three species.

That is not completely unreasonable; some mutation are indeed more likely than others. They point to a mutation in guinea pigs that is identical to one of those in the primate vitamin C pseudogene, and evolutionary biologists agree with RTB that this was due to an independent event.

However the problem is that it still fails to explain the full pattern of mutations seen. For one thing, we are not just talking about humans, chimpanzees, and orangutans. This same pattern of mutations is see in gibbons, macaques, marmosets and owl monkeys, as this article discusses.

In particular look at this figure, which shows the pattern of mutations that break the gene. It is the same for the primates, and quite different for guinea pigs.


While RTB have at least made a stab at the Vitamin C Pseudogene - I am not aware of any other creationists trying to - I think their hypothesis fails to give anything more than a façade of an explanation.
 

Authentic Nouveau

Well-known member
Eighty percent of proteins are different between humans and chimpanzee.

Apparently the dishonest evo pushers are leaning on shaky "consensus" and not on data.
 

Gus Bovona

Well-known member

The Pixie

Well-known member
Eighty percent of proteins are different between humans and chimpanzee.

Apparently the dishonest evo pushers are leaning on shaky "consensus" and not on data.
So in fact 20% of the protein amino acid sequences are identical, a higher figure than between chimp and gorilla, I would guess.

Amino acid sequences are an important way in which the "tree of life" is confirmed. For example, cytochrome-c, which is identical between chimp and man, but has around a dozen differences to other mammals - depending on how closely related they are.

So in fact the figure supports the view that evolution is true and chimps are closely related to man.
 

The Pixie

Well-known member
Her article is from 2011 and there was plenty of back and forth on this from AIG and Evolution News.

GLO pseudogene.
I took a look at the top result.

Before I discuss it, I will quote from the real science in the peer-reviewed journal I linked to in the OP (Curr Genomics. 2011 Aug; 12(5): 371–378):

The GLO gene of anthropoid primates has lost seven of the twelve exons found in functional vertebrate GLO genes, whereas the guinea pig has lost its first and fifth exon as well as part of its sixth exon (references [29, 30], Fig. 44). Using comparison between functional and non-functional sequences, the inactivation dates have been calculated to be about 61 MYA in anthropoid primates and 14 MYA in guinea pigs [28]. Given current knowledge of vertebrate species divergence times, these estimates are consistent with those obtained based on the phylogenetic distribution of functional and non-functional GLO genes [29-34]

Here is Evolution News

When scientists compared the human GULO pseudogene to its functional counterpart in the rat genome, they found that regions equivalent to exons I to VI, as well as exon XI, were absent (Inai et al., 2003). This means that the human GULO pseudogene has only five exons out of the twelve found in the functional rat GULO gene. Other features of note associated with the human GULO pseudogene included one single nucleotide insertion, two single nucleotide deletions, and one triple nucleotide deletion. Researchers also identified additional stop codons. Similar mutations have been identified in the genome of chimpanzees, orangutans and macaques (Ohta and Nishikimi, 1999).

So far so good; they both agree.

The GULO pseudogene — particularly the identical base deletion in exon X at position 97 — has long been used as an argument for establishing the validity of common descent.

Since 2003, ID proponents have been citing the claim of Inai et al. that parallel substitutious have occurred in the human and guinea-pig lineages. Inai et al. calculated the probability of attaining identical substitutions in those two lineages at the number of sites observed to be 1.83 x 10^-12, hypothesizing the phenomenon of mutational hotspots to account for this occurrence.

However that is not what is seen. The same "parallel substitutions" are seen across the primates - but not in the guinea pig, as the earlier quote makes clear. This is shown graphically here:


The mutations in the guinea pig is really vey different to that in the primate - as expected of course.
 

CrowCross

Well-known member
Eighty percent of proteins are different between humans and chimpanzee.

Apparently the dishonest evo pushers are leaning on shaky "consensus" and not on data.
*0% may be to high.

He has also discovered that the actual overall genetic similarity between humans and chimpanzees is not 98-99% as is frequently claimed but rather only 70%, a genetic gap far too large to be bridged even in the six million years of evolution that secular scientists commonly invoke. article
 

The Pixie

Well-known member
*0% may be to high.

He has also discovered that the actual overall genetic similarity between humans and chimpanzees is not 98-99% as is frequently claimed but rather only 70%, a genetic gap far too large to be bridged even in the six million years of evolution that secular scientists commonly invoke. article
The problem is that there are different ways to measure the differences. Obviously creationists only use the one that makes us appear especially dissimilar.

What is interesting is comparing the differences with other animals. Turns out chimp DNA is closer to human DNA than it is to gorilla DNA.

How does ICR explain that? It does not. It knows there is no creationist answer, so just ignore it.
 

rossum

Well-known member
Amino acid sequences are an important way in which the "tree of life" is confirmed. For example, cytochrome-c, which is identical between chimp and man, but has around a dozen differences to other mammals - depending on how closely related they are.
There is only one difference in between the amino acid sequences for humans/chimps and Rhesus monkeys

EDIT posting image a privilige reserved for super members only

Differences from human marked with capital letters.

Rhesus monkeys are another primate, so closer to humans than mice, which as expected have more differences.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

CrowCross

Well-known member
Obviously creationists only use the one that makes us appear especially dissimilar.
Oh...and you don't use the one that make us look similar?

The creationist win this argument presented because if we were so similiar you would see the dissimilarities the creationist present as fact.
 

The Pixie

Well-known member
Oh...and you don't use the one that make us look similar?
No. If you doubt that, see if you can find a post where I do that.

The creationist win this argument presented because if we were so similiar you would see the dissimilarities the creationist present as fact.
What does that mean?

It is a fact that chimp DNA is closer to human DNA than it is to gorilla DNA. It is a fact that evolution can explain why that is.

It is a fact that creationism cannot.
 

CrowCross

Well-known member
No. If you doubt that, see if you can find a post where I do that.


What does that mean?

It is a fact that chimp DNA is closer to human DNA than it is to gorilla DNA. It is a fact that evolution can explain why that is.

It is a fact that creationism cannot.
No, creationism simply says God made them with similiar DNA....how close is the voice box and larynx?
 

The Pixie

Well-known member
Deleted earlier
You admitted "creationism simply says God made them with similiar DNA". That seemed to me you admitting it has no explanation.

Was I wrong? Are you saying that is an explanation? Seriously?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

CrowCross

Well-known member
You admitted "creationism simply says God made them with similiar DNA". That seemed to me you admitting it has no explanation.

Was I wrong? Are you saying that is an explanation? Seriously?
I find nothing wrong with that explanation.

i also find it hard to believe...impossible...to think a process of random, rare mutations and natural selection could create all the sophisticated variations we see today. That is create a genetic code, increase of information... that does what it does.

I'll stick with Genesis.
 

The Pixie

Well-known member
I find nothing wrong with that explanation.
You actually think it is an explanation? Okay...

i also find it hard to believe...impossible...to think a process of random, rare mutations and natural selection could create all the sophisticated variations we see today. That is create a genetic code, increase of information... that does what it does.
Argument from personal incredulity; okay, fair enough.

I'll stick with Genesis.
I find it hard to believe... impossible... to think there is a solid dome over the flat earth and the sun and moon are just lights that travel across it, but each to his own I guess.
 
Top