Is the vitamin C-making pseudogene evidence of shared ancestry?

[Tristen]

18 hours ago, one.opinion said:

Sounds like a really good project for an AiG scientist.

Sure, but it's only those peddling the secular evolution story who who are making claims based on the assumed non-functionality of GULOP.

[one.opinion]

4 minutes ago, Tristen said:

Sure, but it's only those peddling the secular evolution story who who are making claims based on the assumed non-functionality of GULOP.

I'm unclear on the point of your observation. If researchers assume that there really must be a function, then I think it is a good avenue of some research. This would also be a good idea for a Discovery Institute research team, since they routinely do lab work (I'm not sure if AiG does). Otherwise, it would be just peddling a story based on the lack of research. 

[Tristen]

1 hour ago, one.opinion said:

I'm unclear on the point of your observation. If researchers assume that there really must be a function, then I think it is a good avenue of some research. This would also be a good idea for a Discovery Institute research team, since they routinely do lab work (I'm not sure if AiG does). Otherwise, it would be just peddling a story based on the lack of research. 

You were suggesting that creationists should do the research, but the creationist perspective doesn't need the GULOP to be either functional or non-functional. The demonstrated existence of shared exons among disparate genes, the fact that GULOP only contains half the exons in GULO, the demonstrated existence of multiple functions for multi-exon genes, and the fact that higher primates have never needed to synthesise vitamin C (regardless of the paradigm) is more than enough information to undermine the assumption that GULOP is a broken version of GULO inherited through a shared ancestor. So whether or not GULOP has a function has little relevance to the overall creationist perspective.

But the shared primate ancestor argument needs GULOP to be non-functional to support the case you presented. So you were essentially suggesting that creationists do the work required to support the shared ancestry argument. Ultimately, finding a function would undermine the GULOP argument for shared primate ancestry, but if no function is found, it would remain a matter of no known function - regardless of who does the research.

I also wonder if a study had a 'we found no function' result, if anyone would bother publishing the paper - because, from a secular perspective, 'we already know' it's a broken gene with no function.

[one.opinion]

30 minutes ago, Tristen said:

You were suggesting that creationists should do the research, but the creationist perspective doesn't need the GULOP to be either functional or non-functional. The demonstrated existence of shared exons among disparate genes, the fact that GULOP only contains half the exons in GULO, the demonstrated existence of multiple functions for multi-exon genes, and the fact that higher primates have never needed to synthesise vitamin C (regardless of the paradigm) is more than enough information to undermine the assumption that GULOP is a broken version of GULO inherited through a shared ancestor

Apparently not, since this is not an accepted interpretation of the available information. Of course they don't HAVE to do the research, only if they wish to challenge the currently-accepted interpretation.

31 minutes ago, Tristen said:

I also wonder if a study had a 'we found no function' result, if anyone would bother publishing the paper - because, from a secular perspective, 'we already know' it's a broken gene with no function.

I doubt anyone would bother, because the results would fit with the existing interpretation. That's why I would suggest that a group interested in challenging the current interpretation should look for a reason to do so.

[Tristen]

16 minutes ago, one.opinion said:

Apparently not, since this is not an accepted interpretation of the available information. Of course they don't HAVE to do the research, only if they wish to challenge the currently-accepted interpretation.

I doubt anyone would bother, because the results would fit with the existing interpretation. That's why I would suggest that a group interested in challenging the current interpretation should look for a reason to do so.

So we no longer base conclusions on fact and argument, we instead just revert to "an accepted interpretation"? The scientific process is supposed to incorporate critical reasoning, not "accepted interpretations". No one is ever obligated to simply "accept" any scientific claim beyond the existence of the facts (even those require accepting the trustworthiness of observation - itself a faith proposition). The "accepted interpretation" is based on secular faith presuppositions. So it is not "accepted" by me. And I have provided both reason and fact demonstrating why the "accepted interpretation" employs exaggerating what can be logically justified by the facts.

How do we find new knowledge if we never challenge "accepted" knowledge?

How do you know what "the results would fit" without investigation?

I did challenge the "current interpretation" using both logic and established facts (i.e. I found several reasons to challenge the "accepted interpretation" in both logic and the available facts).

The secular argument relies on claims that can't be verified, but then simply asks everyone to "accept" their "interpretation" as truth. That is the antithesis of scientific reasoning.

[one.opinion]

54 minutes ago, Tristen said:

How do we find new knowledge if we never challenge "accepted" knowledge?

How do you know what "the results would fit" without investigation?

This is exactly what I’m saying. You may have noticed that I’m not arguing with your interpretation. Whether or not you agree with the standard interpretation, it will take more than “my interpretation makes better sense to me” for anyone to accept an alternative interpretation. If your hypothesis is to be accepted, it will take some data to support it.

I’m not saying it requires data support for others to agree it makes sense. I’m saying it requires supporting data for the hypothesis to replace the predominant one.

[Tristen]

33 minutes ago, one.opinion said:

This is exactly what I’m saying. You may have noticed that I’m not arguing with your interpretation. Whether or not you agree with the standard interpretation, it will take more than “my interpretation makes better sense to me” for anyone to accept an alternative interpretation. If your hypothesis is to be accepted, it will take some data to support it.

I’m not saying it requires data support for others to agree it makes sense. I’m saying it requires supporting data for the hypothesis to replace the predominant one.

Right, and what I'm saying is that there is no objective reason justifying one interpretation being "predominant" over the other (aside from adherence to a certain faith presupposition). Both stories reconcile the available facts to the presupposed model. Both interpretations are historical (and therefore unfalsifiable) claims. Even if a creationist found a function for GULOP, the secularist could just claim it's a fortunate benefit of evolution - i.e. that it has "lost the same function as the original counterpart gene". It would undermine the specific 'shared ancestry' argument you presented (which gets most of its weight from the assumed non-functionality), but it wouldn't necessitate changing the interpretation of GULOP being a broken GULO gene.

I did support my "hypothesis" with fact; several facts, in fact. The problem is that those telling the "accepted interpretation" commonly claim presupposition to be fact, and thereby overplay how much confidence can be legitimately placed in their interpretation.

You started this thread by telling a story about how shared patterns of mutations in GULO between higher primates is suggestive of "our common biological ancestry". I told a different story accounting for the same facts, but interpreted from a creationist perspective. In-so-doing, I have demonstrated that the facts are not objectively suggestive of either story, until interpreted to be so.

[one.opinion]

30 minutes ago, Tristen said:

I did support my "hypothesis" with fact; several facts, in fact. The problem is that those telling the "accepted interpretation" commonly claim presupposition to be fact, and thereby overplay how much confidence can be legitimately placed in their interpretation.

The point I’ve been attempting to make for several posts is that if the accepted interpretation is to be overturned, it will require experimentation, and not merely hypothesis, to do so.

That is why I said it would be a good experiment for AiG or DI to undertake.

Do you agree or disagree?

[Tristen]

2 hours ago, one.opinion said:

The point I’ve been attempting to make for several posts is that if the accepted interpretation is to be overturned, it will require experimentation, and not merely hypothesis, to do so.

That is why I said it would be a good experiment for AiG or DI to undertake.

Do you agree or disagree?

I think it would be an interesting investigation, regardless of who performs it (I'll have to look up who DI is) - but largely irrelevant to the competing stories we are discussing.

The "accepted interpretation" is only "accepted" because of a predisposed preference towards the secular story, not because the facts speak more to one story over another. Finding a function for GULOP won't change that. Such a find would neither elevate one story, or dismantle the other. I would still be inclined to interpret it as a unique gene designed by God for primates and you'd still be inclined to interpret it as having a re-purposed function due to a mutation of the GULO gene in a primate ancestor.

The "accepted interpretation" is based in faith presupposition. No new fact can "overturn" faith presupposition. Ergo, neither will discovering a function for GULOP "overturn" the "accepted interpretation".

[one.opinion]

5 hours ago, Tristen said:

Ergo, neither will discovering a function for GULOP "overturn" the "accepted interpretation".

That’s certainly the most likely outcome, but if the existing paradigm is to be challenged, it will take scientific evidence to do so. Hypothesis will not have much effect on its own.

AiG is often criticized for its lack of its experimental work, and this would be an opportunity to do so. I’m sure the funds could be made available to test something like this.

DI is Discovery Institute, that I mentioned earlier. It’s a US-based research group that works on supporting Intelligent Design. They could also “gain traction” with experiments that could show a unitary pseudogene with activity, as their world view would suggest.

As you say, a single experiment would not shake the foundations of evolutionary thought, but it would be a step towards being taken more seriously by the scientific establishment.