Faith and science together

[Guest Ehud]

Hello All,

I’m quite new here and while I certainly do not wish to kick a dead horse, I did want to weigh in on this topic. I don’t like people sneaking up on me, so I will state up front that I completely support biological evolution defined as “a change in genome of time,” or more technically as “a change in the distribution of alleles over generations.” I believe biological evolution is much like gravity in that allele frequencies are going to change whether one believes in it or not, just like you will fall to your death if you jump off a sky scraper whether you believe in gravity or not. Most of what is termed as evolutionary biology deals with understanding how allele frequencies change, not if they do…in this regard, I believe evolution is a scientific fact. The question under debate here is that of common descent. With regards to where did man come from and how did organisms arise, I am one of the “ignorant, stupid or insane” Biblical Creationists.

So with that aside I would like to examine one of the points raised by D-9 regarding evidence for common descent, namely:

But that is hardly all there is, the pseudogene cytochrome c is another example. It is important to understand that the cytochrome c genes are present in a variety of organisms and has a fairly stable structure allowing redundant mutations and the great ape (including ours) is very similar in DNA sequence which indicates common ancestry by itself. We cannot make vitamin C on our own, and neither can any of the other great apes, despite that all of us have the 3 genes necessary to do so. The problem is with the last gene, it has a mutation that makes the whole process useless - although it doesn't really matter to us or our ape friends as we eat enough vitamin c through diet which also explains our color vision range and contrast.

Later D-9 said:

I don't feel like continually repeating myself without a due response, so please go back and re-read my posts if you don't understand something. Why do humans and the great apes have the exact same mutation in the last gene responsible for the development of cytochrome c that makes the whole process useless forcing us to eat vitamin c or we die?

This quote confuses the issue, so let’s be clear. Cytochrome C (CYCS) is a conserved gene found in nearly all eukaryotes, from humans to yeast (it is probably safe to say all eukaryotes). It is NOT a psuedogene but is fully functional and plays an essential role in the electron transport chain as an intermediate carrier of electrons from cytochrome b to the cytochrome c oxidase complex. Most importantly, CYCS has no direct role in vitamin C biosynthesis. I believe the gene D-9 is speaking of here is the GULO gene which codes for L-gulonolactone oxidase enzyme, the final step of converting l-gulono-g-lactone into ascorbic acid (vitamin C) The part about humans not having a functional form of this gene resulting in the need for vitamin C in our diet is TRUE. However, based on:

I would not call a three gene system that was rendered useless by a defective nucleotide halting the production of an essential vitamin a "successful design" by any meaningful standard.

…one is left with the impression that humans (and great apes) have a fully functional GULO gene with a single nucleotide mutation in it that renders it functionless. In fact, when our non-functional psuedogene was analyzed, it was found that we only contain exons 4, 7, 9, 10, and 12 of the GULO gene compared to rat and most other animals which have all 12 exons (and a functional protein) Somewhere in the past something did happen which rendered this gene useless and it has since been slowly disappearing into the massive background of non-coding DNA, but to call this a “defective nucleotide” is not quite accurate.

Finally, from reading the posts one is left with the impression that animals in general have a functional GULO enzyme, but great apes and humans do not. It turns out that many other animals also do not have a functional GULO enzyme such as guinea pigs, some fishes, some perching birds, and it has recently been discovered to be lost in some bats Yet nobody, creationist, common descenter’s, or otherwise, would argue that these organisms derived the deficiency from a common ancestor, but that it was independently lost several times. Why D-9 did not mention this, I cannot say, but I believe it is an important consideration.

In conclusion, maybe there is evidence for common descent in the GULO pseudogene, maybe there’s not. The problem is that this evidence has not been accurately presented so we are left bickering about things that aren’t true to begin with! I am not afraid to delve into the issue, because if the Bible is true then there should be nothing upon thorough review that cannot be sufficiently explained from the Creationist model. If D-9 thinks that the GULO pseudogene is evidence for common descent then he should present accurate information to back this up, perhaps a human-chimp DNA sequence alignment along with an explanation as to why such a deficiency could not have arrived from two independent losses. Whatever the case, can you (D-9) expound on why you believe the GULO pseudogene is evidence for common descent.

We can discuss the other evidence in turn, although I think waldoz has sufficiently dealt with the fusion chromosome already.

Hold the Fort,

Tsentralka

De Tullio, M. C. (2010) The Mystery of Vitamin C. Nature Education 3(9):48

The Whole Structure of the Human Nonfunctional L-Gulono-ƒÁ Lactone Oxidase Gene-the Gene Responsible for Scurvy-and the Evolution of Repetitive Sequences. ThereonYoko INAI. Nutr Sci Vitaminol, 49, 315-319, 2003

Cui J, Yuan X, Wang L, Jones G, Zhang S (2011)Recent Loss of Vitamin C Biosynthesis Ability in Bats.PLoS ONE 6(11):e27114.doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0027114

Edited October 19, 2012 by Ehud

[Guest HisG]

Yes Ehud,

Welcome!

[chloe_fantastic]

Hello All,

I’m quite new here and while I certainly do not wish to kick a dead horse, I did want to weigh in on this topic. I don’t like people sneaking up on me, so I will state up front that I completely support biological evolution defined as “a change in genome of time,” or more technically as “a change in the distribution of alleles over generations.” I believe biological evolution is much like gravity in that allele frequencies are going to change whether one believes in it or not, just like you will fall to your death if you jump off a sky scraper whether you believe in gravity or not. Most of what is termed as evolutionary biology deals with understanding how allele frequencies change, not if they do…in this regard, I believe evolution is a scientific fact. The question under debate here is that of common descent. With regards to where did man come from and how did organisms arise, I am one of the “ignorant, stupid or insane” Biblical Creationists.

So with that aside I would like to examine one of the points raised by D-9 regarding evidence for common descent, namely:

But that is hardly all there is, the pseudogene cytochrome c is another example. It is important to understand that the cytochrome c genes are present in a variety of organisms and has a fairly stable structure allowing redundant mutations and the great ape (including ours) is very similar in DNA sequence which indicates common ancestry by itself. We cannot make vitamin C on our own, and neither can any of the other great apes, despite that all of us have the 3 genes necessary to do so. The problem is with the last gene, it has a mutation that makes the whole process useless - although it doesn't really matter to us or our ape friends as we eat enough vitamin c through diet which also explains our color vision range and contrast.

Later D-9 said:

I don't feel like continually repeating myself without a due response, so please go back and re-read my posts if you don't understand something. Why do humans and the great apes have the exact same mutation in the last gene responsible for the development of cytochrome c that makes the whole process useless forcing us to eat vitamin c or we die?

This quote confuses the issue, so let’s be clear. Cytochrome C (CYCS) is a conserved gene found in nearly all eukaryotes, from humans to yeast (it is probably safe to say all eukaryotes). It is NOT a psuedogene but is fully functional and plays an essential role in the electron transport chain as an intermediate carrier of electrons from cytochrome b to the cytochrome c oxidase complex. Most importantly, CYCS has no direct role in vitamin C biosynthesis. I believe the gene D-9 is speaking of here is the GULO gene which codes for L-gulonolactone oxidase enzyme, the final step of converting l-gulono-g-lactone into ascorbic acid (vitamin C) The part about humans not having a functional form of this gene resulting in the need for vitamin C in our diet is TRUE. However, based on:

I would not call a three gene system that was rendered useless by a defective nucleotide halting the production of an essential vitamin a "successful design" by any meaningful standard.

…one is left with the impression that humans (and great apes) have a fully functional GULO gene with a single nucleotide mutation in it that renders it functionless. In fact, when our non-functional psuedogene was analyzed, it was found that we only contain exons 4, 7, 9, 10, and 12 of the GULO gene compared to rat and most other animals which have all 12 exons (and a functional protein) Somewhere in the past something did happen which rendered this gene useless and it has since been slowly disappearing into the massive background of non-coding DNA, but to call this a “defective nucleotide” is not quite accurate.

Finally, from reading the posts one is left with the impression that animals in general have a functional GULO enzyme, but great apes and humans do not. It turns out that many other animals also do not have a functional GULO enzyme such as guinea pigs, some fishes, some perching birds, and it has recently been discovered to be lost in some bats Yet nobody, creationist, common descenter’s, or otherwise, would argue that these organisms derived the deficiency from a common ancestor, but that it was independently lost several times. Why D-9 did not mention this, I cannot say, but I believe it is an important consideration.

In conclusion, maybe there is evidence for common descent in the GULO pseudogene, maybe there’s not. The problem is that this evidence has not been accurately presented so we are left bickering about things that aren’t true to begin with! I am not afraid to delve into the issue, because if the Bible is true then there should be nothing upon thorough review that cannot be sufficiently explained from the Creationist model. If D-9 thinks that the GULO pseudogene is evidence for common descent then he should present accurate information to back this up, perhaps a human-chimp DNA sequence alignment along with an explanation as to why such a deficiency could not have arrived from two independent losses. Whatever the case, can you (D-9) expound on why you believe the GULO pseudogene is evidence for common descent.

We can discuss the other evidence in turn, although I think waldoz has sufficiently dealt with the fusion chromosome already.

Hold the Fort,

Tsentralka

De Tullio, M. C. (2010) The Mystery of Vitamin C. Nature Education 3(9):48

The Whole Structure of the Human Nonfunctional L-Gulono-ƒÁ Lactone Oxidase Gene-the Gene Responsible for Scurvy-and the Evolution of Repetitive Sequences. ThereonYoko INAI. Nutr Sci Vitaminol, 49, 315-319, 2003

Cui J, Yuan X, Wang L, Jones G, Zhang S (2011)Recent Loss of Vitamin C Biosynthesis Ability in Bats.PLoS ONE 6(11):e27114.doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0027114

I am an avid reader here on the forums, however I very rarely post.

I have to say, spectacular first post, sir, and I look forward to reading more from you. Welcome.

[Guest Ehud]

Thank you, D-9, for acknowledging the error…no harm done. I believe this serves as an important example as to why I will never take one’s word for something on a forum, nor would I expect someone to believe what I say simply because I say it. Creationists are especially well known for repeating things they’ve heard without having substantive evidence to support it; however, let’s not forget that atheists, CDers (common descenters), or otherwise are not immune to the same problem.

We can tell we didn't derive this defectiveness from a guinea pig or some fish because the mutations that make the gulo defective are different.

This would be a powerful argument if it were true, and if there were no other plausible means to explain the similarities. Maybe it is true; unfortunately, we are still left taking D-9’s word for it that common mutations between humans and great apes in the GULO gene actually exist and that they are only explained by common descent. The facts have not been presented, only the conclusions. In other words, the so-called shared mutations have not been presented for scrutiny, just the conclusion that shared mutations = common descent. In order for this to be considered evidence we need some sort of explanation of the research that led to this conclusion, or at the very least a reference to the original research.

It is important to note that I am not saying common mutations do not exist between apes and humans. I am saying that I would love to examine this evidence to see for myself; however, it is not my responsibility to go find the facts which you are using to support your conclusions.

In light of a previous comment:

Again, you boast about all of this evidence but you produce little of it. Present your “hours and hours” of evidence and let's see what you really have. Remember, the burden is yours to support your creation myth as science.

Let us know if/when you can find some real “extraordinary evidence” for man-chimp common ancestry.

Not too much I can do when the argument in full is never addressed, but so it goes. Let us known whenever you want to fully address an argument.

While I agree that the argument was never fully addressed, perhaps this was because the argument was never fully presented.

Hold the Fort,

Tsentralka

Edited October 20, 2012 by Ehud

[Volvanic]

I am a computer scientist now studying battery technology and bio-fuels. I changed my world-view in 2010 when I expected Jesus as my lord and savior. I always knew there was a God. I like to say: God is science. He gave us a super computer our brain.

[UK Michael]

One of the most frustrating things that human civilization has done to our perception of God and science is forming a barrier between the two in today's skeptic age.

Hi Spero,

I agree. My career has been (and continues to be) in science. There was a time I looked to science to answer everything and bought into the myth that science and faith must be opposing. Of course in time I realised there is much outside of the purview of science, and there is much to be said for allowing science and faith to flourish together.

God bless, and may you continue to enjoy both faith and science.