I must say that I can agree with you. I could accept Progressive Creation in either form as well as Theistic Evolution. As my friend the Rev. Billy Graham, God could have created by any means. I find Progressive Creation with common ancestry not far from evolutionary creation. I must say that I like Dr. Hugh Ross also; however, the Drs. Haarsmas’ book on Origins to be very informative. I met through the internet a Biology professor at Wheaton College. His first name was Ray; however, I forget his last name. He sent me a great deal of information,but I cannot remember what I did with it.
@AMWolfe, thankyou so much - again. This is wonderful - a lot for me to read about, presented eloquently and directly enough for me to understand. I sincerely appreciate the time you’ve taken 
Wonderful, thankyou @Christy. I am loving Biologos and reading through the extraordinary amount of interesting information presented. I now have a whole lot more to look at! Thankyou for your kindness, I have felt thoroughly welcome when I do post, and I sincerely appreciate that people are willing to engage in respectful dialogue about potentially controversial subjects
Hi @dcscccc,
You seem to be intent on disproving evolution and I find your posts interesting, but I’m not sure what alternative theory you propose?
hey amwolfw. if you dont want to continue its fine. but at least see that we again have a counter evidence for evolution prediction.
peace…
hey staceyinaus.my alternative is a design without evolution. i think its the best scientific explanation.
hey christy. its not me that start to talk about gulo and cavia:)
So far you’ve successfully shown that the section of the guinea pig’s messed-up section of the GULO gene is a subset of the human’s messed-up section of the GULO gene. This is interesting! But it’s hardly unable to be accounted for within evolutionary theory.
What you would need to show is that those messed-up sections are messed up in the same way. So spell out the A/C/T/G base pairs for me and show that guinea pig and human GLO genes are closer, not just in what parts of the gene are messed up but in the specific mutations that messed them up, and then we have something to talk about.
When you’ve found that, be sure to link to a new topic you create entitled, “Do GLO mutations disprove evolution?” and you’ll get lots of traffic with a clickbait title like that. Then you can debate with other people to your heart’s content. 
Meanwhile, merry Christmas!
i have showed that this is indeed the case amwolfe. here it again:
"A comparison of the remaining human exon sequences with the corresponding sequences of the guinea pig nonfunctional GULO gene revealed that the same substitutions from rats to both species occurred at a large number of nucleotide positions. "-
and even the same exons loss (1,5 and half of 6).
Are you able to get the actual article? I’m not convinced based on the abstract that this means what you think it means.
To reply again, please start a new topic. 
I won’t be replying again on this topic.
in short- they found that the same bp appear in both guinea pig and human but not rat. its mean that its the result of convergent mutations because the cavia is more close to the rat then human from phylogeny prespective.
That paper was simply wrong. Not the sequence of the gene, which was right as far as I know, but in the interpretation of what they found. The authors assumed that any sites where the guinea pig sequence and the human sequence agreed, and both disagreed with the rat sequence, represented convergent mutations in human and guinea pig. It seems not to have occurred to them that the gene was also mutating in the rat lineage; almost all of these sites represent those mutations. If you compare with a fourth species (I used cow, I think, when I looked quite a few years ago), you’ll find that that species agrees with human and guinea pig too.
That’s what happens when you publish conclusions about molecular evolution in a nutrition journal: the reviewers are not going to spot obvious problems.
3 Likes
4 points:
1)the evolutionists also assume that the rat sequence is the sequence that changed. but if we not assume that the evolution is true- then the rat sequence represent the original one.
2)mouse also share this mutations. so according to this logic we can never know when is the result of convergent and when it isnt.
3)the exon loss is the same.
4)we have cases with real convergent even according to any evolutionists. so even if we ignore the gulo case we have a lot other.
Your goal was to test a prediction of evolution. That means you have to test the actual test of evolution, not an incorrect prediction made by a nutritionist who didn’t understand evolution adequately.
What mutations are also shared by mouse? What study are you looking at? Which mutations are convergent is generally quite clear when you’ve densely sampled the phylogenetic tree.
The exon loss isn’t at all the same. Guinea pigs have lost exons 1, 5 and part of 6. Humans have lost all of 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 8 and 11 (and parts of other exons). Since humans are missing most of the gene, it’s not very surprising that another species’ lost exons will overlap those of humans.
In order to really test the evolutionary prediction, you have to look at the specific mutations present in humans and guinea pigs. You can find a helpful list in this paper: "Inactivation dates of human and guinea pig vitamin C genes, Genetica, 139:199-207 (2011). Looking just at nonsynonymous mutations, I count 37 mutations in guinea pigs and 44 in humans. Of these, a total of 3 are seen in both species. I’d say the evolutionary prediction – that different mutations would be seen in the two species – is fulfilled quite well, wouldn’t you?
If you agree that your argument about GULO was wrong, we can certainly move on to other arguments.
3 Likes
what is “actual test of evolution”? what evolution actually predict if it isnt true? (i mean not in this case but in general)
from what i know all the mutaions that appear in the rat sequence also appear in the mouse one. so if you will claim that its the result of mutations in the rat genome you need to deal with this, because in this way you can never know when is convergent and when it isnt (one way to find a convnergent is to find the same mutations in several genomes that are not close from phylogenetic prespective).
not realy. half of the human gulo is missing. it mean that the chance to get the same exon loss in other group is near 50% for any exon. so the chance to get the same 3 exon loss is very low. its mean that its not random at all.
now-you claim that evolution predict that the mutations will be different? its not true because we have a lot of cases of convergent. for example: the uox pseudogene share convergent mutations between gorila and orangutan. the prestin gene share 14 mutations between bat and a dolphin and so on.
A test of the prediction of evolutionary theory – the kind of test you said you were doing.
You didn’t answer the question: where are you getting this information from? In any case, it’s wrong.
7 out of 12 exons are missing. That means the chance of 3 missing guinea pig exons also being missing in humans is 20%, which is hardly low at all – it’s something that could easily happen by chance. In fact, it’s unlikely that they represent the same events, since one of the missing human exons is partially present in guinea pigs, suggesting two different mutations that deleted different portions of the gene.
You claimed that the mutations in humans and guinea pigs were the same. That’s wrong. Do you understand that or not? I don’t want to change to a new subject until we’re clear on this one.
3 Likes
hey glipsnort. we already discuss it before. so here it again my comment from the original “nested hierarchies” topic:
so we both agree that its more then just a chance. its actually “hot spots”.
bottom line: the gulo case isnt evidence for a commondescent.
[
In a word, no. You’ve looked at the data, picked one similarity, and then calculated the probability that that similarity would occur. That’s statistically meaningless. You’re also proposing something that has no biological mechanism, and you’re looking at the least informative part of the data. Why focus on the exons, when there are dozens of other mutations to compare? The great majority of those mutations follow the phylogenetic tree.
Also, you still haven’t answered the question: do you recognize that your original claim about shared mutations between guinea pigs and humans, taken from the GULO sequence paper, was wrong? Note what’s happened here: a creationist saw that paper, thought the shared mutations were a good argument against evolution and played them up. But if the paper misinterpreted them, suddenly they’re no longer evidence that has to be considered. That’s not how you do science – looking around for evidence that supports your premise and ignoring evidence that doesn’t.
No, we don’t agree on that. When did I say that hot spots were involved in exon loss? It’s possible, but I’ve seen no evidence for it in this case.
2 Likes
placental mammals inherited the earth
I think @Relates, Roger, should appreciate this quote from Patrick’s linked article!!!
"Senior author, Dr Anjali Goswami (UCL Genetics, Evolution & Environment), said: "When dinosaurs went extinct, a lot of competitors and predators of mammals disappeared, meaning that a great deal of the pressure limiting what mammals could do ecologically was removed."
" They clearly took advantage of that opportunity, as we can see by their rapid increases in body size and ecological diversity. Mammals evolved a greater variety of forms in the first few million years after the dinosaurs went extinct than in the previous 160 million years of mammal evolution under the rule of dinosaurs."
1 Like