Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 46 (9216 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: KING IYK
Post Volume: Total: 920,624 Year: 946/6,935 Month: 227/719 Week: 15/204 Day: 15/46 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Archetypes
Rrhain
Member (Idle past 325 days)
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 9 of 9 (39075)
05-06-2003 7:53 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by dinoflagulates
05-05-2003 9:58 AM


dinofalgulates responds to schrafinator:
quote:
quote:
Well, some primates including humans have lost the ability (through genetic mutation) to synthesize vitamin C, while almost all other mammals can.
-This could be explained in the archetype model by stating that the blueprint contained the vitamin c synthesizing enzyme but God just decided not to use it for creating humans.
Except that the gene for synthesizing ascorbic acid does exist in humans (and guinea pigs and other primates)...it's just broken. The GLO gene in other mammals exists creates the enzyme L-gulono-gamma-lactone oxidase (GLO) and ascorbate is produced in the liver from blood sugar. Humans, since our GLO gene is broken, cannot produce ascorbate and thus we must consume vitamin C. Fortunately, our diets can provide enough.
In fact, the reason why the primate GLO gene is non-functional is because there has been a point deletion causing a frame shift. In humans, chimpanzees, macaques, and orangutans, the error is identical. Guinea pigs, on the other hand, have their GLO genes broken in a different way.
One would have to wonder: Why would god create primates with a broken GLO gene if the intent was for them to require to consume vitamin C? And then, why would this god break the GLO gene in different ways for primates and guinea pigs?
quote:
quote:
Not all vertebrates reproduce the same way; marsupials versus placentals
. this might indeed be a good point, but couldn't these different reproduction mechanisms be explained by shortening/lengthening some bones, tissue or something like that?
No, not really. In placentals, the embryo doesn't emerge from the placenta until it is ready to leave the womb. Marsupials, on the other hand, have the embryo leave the womb and then go into a secondary incubator, as it were. A kangaroo fetus literally has to climb up its mother's body from the vagina to the pouch.
How about these: Why does a baleen whale fetus have teeth? The adult form doesn't have teeth and there is nothing for the fetus to chew upon. Instead, the fetus develops teeth and then has them regress. What is the point of going through all that trouble? If the baleen whale was designed to eat through the baleen, why bother with teeth at any stage? Why not simply delete the teeth?
And a baleen is not congruent with any other structure in any other mammal.
On a finer scale: Why do male mammals have mammary glands? They will never have the hormones required to have them develop, so why do males have them at all? Do guys have nipples simply so that a few of them can die of breast cancer every year (about 400 in the US this year, according to the American Cancer Society).
I think the problem with this reasoning is that it is essentially unfalsifiable: If you find a structure that only exists on one but not the other, you can simply say that the "master" includes both but that none of the current animals use both.
------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by dinoflagulates, posted 05-05-2003 9:58 AM dinoflagulates has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2025