The "common creator" myth

But it seems odd that, in the case of the GLO and urate oxidase pseudogenes at least, the great apes were the ones standing next to Eve when the Big Guy aimed the Curse at her.

I agree, that would be quite odd. However, I am saying that the curse was aimed not just at Adam and Eve but at all of nature.Again, here what Romans 8 says about the curse on nature:

For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the glorious freedom of the children of God. We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time. (Emphasis added)

So if one part of God's curse was to destroy the ability of some animals and humans to produce vitamin C, it makes sense he would do it the same way in both of their DNA.

---

If you say there are no absolutes, I ask you, are you absolutely sure about that?

Guinea pigs have a vitamin C-making mechanism with a completely different monkey wrench in its works than the one we primates have. I'll look up what I have on their pseudogene vs. ours at home this evening - it's on paper, not in a 'puter(!!!).

ned THiS sI just not true. That was. If you admit the existence of a Gladyshevian THERMOSTAT..t...hen the difference of an alleomorph series and a sequence of alleomophrs per homozygote exhauseted selection (no matter the quantity assigned to wild type vs heterozygotes etc) (I am using "abstraction" to do this kind of selection in the math in the mind etc etc etc) then we humans STILL do not know the difference of possible information transit from the DNA to the proteins via microtuble dynamics of guanosine attachment in the mitotic machine(see Georgi Gladyshev on reasons people still think we dont understand its gearing)in a differential use metabolically of ATP AND GTP in the same sense the RESEARCH LANGUAGE (@SUNYFREDONIA.edu) on a posteriori information on heat shock proteins as to the KINETICS of changes in concentration due to proteins *sitting* ON DNA vs. proteins sitting** WITH other anti-geneic protein moites or other proteins.It is possible that by using bacteria sex one might figure out the physical parameters from biological research in the different "crystalizations" of magnetosome deviations populationally from the equator of the Earth but then you would have admited that inserting DNA into a cell %DOES% indicate an experimental philosophy of PERTURBING the parameters of this thermostat. There are theoretical reasonings which might suggest different turnings with respect to our Earth and that is why I need more time to think of Os color change in the case of full differential that sans limit can approach either from right or left but in the empircal data need not.The research at http://ww1.fredonia.edu/fweb/default.aspx indicates in the linguistic ambiguity that the bacteria (B.subtilans) can &trasform& to a higher than 50 strain (unkown for the species itself) by DNA added but Gladyshev's truth of the existence of any ISOLATION of a strong inequality relies on a straight line thru the data up to 40 degrees temp. Page Not Found | Fredonia.eduSo both the language and the data are silent up to this point. Please advise. If you look thru some of my eariler posts on Tensors and Quaternions I have indicated that any ORTHOGONALITY (I name today) is on this line but there I have been discussin RNA from for historical reasons which if one understood the condition in Wright Provine DID NOT then this might as well apply to any nano level supramolecular strucutre in the lack of symmetry between temporal and space (Aggasiz's Florida CORAL for instance) hierarchies. Salthe in his hierachy BOOK relates back to Russell as I have done over the past few days but the most discussion I ever did with scientists (notably Simon Levin) was over the fractal Mandelbrot reference which in Wright IS a leptokurtic curve for any of the layers of kinetics that Gladyshev correctly depreciated by reference to the on-line ENTROPY Journal. I am only saying that I DO think there is a compLetable process here and it has been my constant posting to this effect that would affect your understanding that is a ink blot. It IS not no matter what it was.This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 08-02-2004 11:52 AM

It did make sense. You must read some of the threads on Gladsyhev.You might start here http://EvC Forum: Supporting Assertions - A Primer -->EvC Forum: Supporting Assertions - A Primer
& know that Will Provine said, R.Fisher,S.Wright&P.Johnson ^changed^ their minds. I have not. If you think that something opaque changes yours then there is nothing I can do for it was transparent enough in more than one language.This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 08-02-2004 11:36 AM

I'm eager to continue this discussion, waiting for promised posts from Ooook and Coragyps.

---

If you say there are no absolutes, I ask you, are you absolutely sure about that?

So based on this... you are saying that a sign of design is the consistent solutions to similar issues?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

What the hell is bacteria sex?

---

The Laminator
For goodness's sake, please vote Democrat this November!

quote:

---

What the hell is bacteria sex?

---

Some bacteria form a "sex pilli". These bacteria are able to construct a bridge between their cytoplasms and exchange DNA.

quote:

---

So if one part of God's curse was to destroy the ability of some animals and humans to produce vitamin C, it makes sense he would do it the same way in both of their DNA.

---

So since the break in the GLO gene is different in humans/apes and guinea pigs, is this evidence that it wasn't God that did it?

Sorry for promising to reply promptly and not doing so, I've been a bit busier than I expected to be - but that is no excuse. I'll try and be more punctual in future.I've got a few problems with your theory, but don't think I'm laying into you. The following text might sound like I'm having a bit of a rant - I'm not, I just think that there are too many questions that crop up.I don't think that your third alternative is really any different to my second one. Take a good look at the weight of the molecular evidence discussed so far for common ancestry - its' pretty heavy, so you may think you've come up with a logical alternative for pseudogenes (you haven't - but we'll get to that), but you still have to explain away the evidence that so obviously favours a series of common ancestors. I have seen attempts at this knocking around the web but they tend to stretch credibility to breaking point. It has been suggested that the reason we share pseudogenes with the great apes is that similar species were cursed equally - to make it fair! Isn't that just pushing it a bit?The logic behind the whole 'cursing' thing doesn't really stand up to inspection either. Why on earth did an omnipotent being decide to rid us (and our relatives) of the ability to vitamin C? What really brought on this "Thou shall eat citrus fruit" moment? And what has he got against guinea pigs? Isn't it more likely that both sets of Vit C deficient species lost the gene because their diets meant that it wasn't needed? If we are looking a loss of genes after the fall explaining pseudogenes, why did God create man with multiple copies of cytochrome C in the first place, when they are totally surplus to requirement?On top of this, why did God 'curse' us with a set of neutral mutations to share with similar species? It just doesn't add up.2) On the origin of pseudognes:Why do we need to replace a mechanism (duplication, followed by mutation), which is logical, testable, and based on observed evidence with one which is supernatural, non-testable, and thought up after the evidence presents itself. The processes involved in gene duplication eg retroviral insertion and replication error have been shown to occur, and it is clear to see that most pseudogenes are mutated versions of other genes, already present in the genome.So I'll stick to my original statement - molecular data can't be used as evidence of a common ancestor without ignoring large sections of it, and coming up a set of ad hoc hypotheses which add up to "God made it that way".This message has been edited by Ooook!, 08-06-2004 09:18 AM

Not neccesarily, he might have done it differently in each for some reason for if he really wanted to. But I thought the break was in the same place in all of them? That was why you all were talking about the extremely small probablity of a break occuring in the exact same place earlier in posts 26 and around there? If guinea pig DNA is broken in a different way, isn't that support against common ancestry?

---

If you say there are no absolutes, I ask you, are you absolutely sure about that?

GNCan I get an answer to Message 96?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Ooook: thanks for the post. Don't worry - everyone gets busy I wouldn't say we share pseudogenes to make it "equal," per se, I would just say that ALL of nature has been cursed, and some members are cursed in similar ways. See Romans 8 about how all of nature has been cursed and is groaning under the terribleness of the curse. Probably, the reason for this particular pseudogene is so that man is forced to become more dependent on growing things and will have to work harder to survive. Here is why I say this: If man could produce his own vitamin C, he would be a lot more dependent - he would not have to raise fruit trees in orchards and work hard to take care of them. Poor little piggies
Probably nothing in particular, he just had it in for the whole creation. Maybe. Aren't there lots of other animals that eat fruit but can still produce vitamin c? Do you mean that man would not have needed to produce vitamin c even before the fall becuase he already had lots of fruit? Hmmm... that is a good question. Maybe God created man as very self-sufficient even though he didn't need to. Maybe (I admit this is really stretching things) fruit in the Garden of Eden did not contain vitamin c until after the fall. Hmm. Probably the best answer is that God designed nature super super well - he said it was "good." Humans could produce vitamin C just because that made them more well-designed, regardless of their diet. Kinda like we have machines that run off both electricity and batteries - electricity is like the vitamin c in fruit, but the batteries are there just in case Do humans have the ability to produce other vitamins that we get from our diet anyway? What is a neutral mutation? Good question. My theory is logical too, though
"Thought up after the evidence presents itself" - nah. This theory has been around a lot longer than yours, its been in the Bible all along - the whole curse on all of nature thing. We just didn't know exactly how it was done until recently (with DNA, genes, and all that) Yes. Mutated versions of genes we had before the fall.

---

If you say there are no absolutes, I ask you, are you absolutely sure about that?

Jar: Not really, I'm just saying if God was gonna screw up the function of genes, he would probably do it the same way in each species. What similar issued did you have in mind?

---

If you say there are no absolutes, I ask you, are you absolutely sure about that?

I heard this from trueorigins.org... is this true?

---

If you say there are no absolutes, I ask you, are you absolutely sure about that?