" The problem with this is that statistically the mutation is just as likely to happen twice as it is to happen once. Seeing that similar genetic design was used for humans, apes, and monkeys only makes it far more likely to have occurred under the right environmental conditions."
I don't see how you think that this helps you. The chance of a given mutation is pretty rare. Of course the chances of it happening in one case is just as rare as the same thing happening in a differnt case. This similar low probability does not make it more likely for the same thing to happen over and over.
And since this came out of Paul's vitamin C discussion...
The set of four genes for making vitamin C is widely distributed. Same sequence. So why is it that the primates ONLY have the mutation if this particular mutation really is favored for some reason? There are other animals with other mutations. Why did ALL primates only get the one while other animals with the same genes got different mutations?
"Before you scream foul... consider that evolutionists believe that evolution accounts for the eye... via 12 lines of convergent evolution whose boundaries aren't always as distinct as would be expected."
Citation?
What twelve separate lines led to the SAME eye design?
Eyes are pretty useful you know. Why did the designer come up with so many different designs and distribute them in a manner consistent with the nested heirarchies of evolution? Even if some designs are optimized for certain applications, the different designs are not distributed according to such applications.
"BTW, I caught something very interesting in UTE's last post concerning the origins of exons and introns. He even said the latter was once active but is now "junk". That sounds to me like genetic complexity, order, flexibility, and code that was lost in the past. IOW's, the answer to your question lies in the current construction of the gene itself. It isn't the same. It isn't as good perhaps. But it still functions."
Then you dod not read it right. Here is the paragraph.
I don't see how you think that this helps you. The chance of a given mutation is pretty rare. Of course the chances of it happening in one case is just as rare as the same thing happening in a differnt case. This similar low probability does not make it more likely for the same thing to happen over and over.
And since this came out of Paul's vitamin C discussion...
The set of four genes for making vitamin C is widely distributed. Same sequence. So why is it that the primates ONLY have the mutation if this particular mutation really is favored for some reason? There are other animals with other mutations. Why did ALL primates only get the one while other animals with the same genes got different mutations?
"Before you scream foul... consider that evolutionists believe that evolution accounts for the eye... via 12 lines of convergent evolution whose boundaries aren't always as distinct as would be expected."
Citation?
What twelve separate lines led to the SAME eye design?
Eyes are pretty useful you know. Why did the designer come up with so many different designs and distribute them in a manner consistent with the nested heirarchies of evolution? Even if some designs are optimized for certain applications, the different designs are not distributed according to such applications.
"BTW, I caught something very interesting in UTE's last post concerning the origins of exons and introns. He even said the latter was once active but is now "junk". That sounds to me like genetic complexity, order, flexibility, and code that was lost in the past. IOW's, the answer to your question lies in the current construction of the gene itself. It isn't the same. It isn't as good perhaps. But it still functions."
Then you dod not read it right. Here is the paragraph.
I never said anything about introns being formerly useful. They are the "junk" between the coding parts of a given gene. Some of these have been shown to be useful in regulation and some are just useless pieces to be spliced out.Now an individual gene is generally broken into pieces. The pieces are called exons and must be connected to one another to make the final gene. The bits inbetween are called introns, these must be spliced out. When looking at the clusters, it becomes obvious that the various genes were made by duplicating an existing DNA segment.