[UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide]

The real question is why the "broken" (in that it does not work as it does in most creatures that have it) GLO gene seems to be the same in all primates, including humans, and different in guinea pigs. If the "designer" really wanted to copy over that "feature" across species, why wouldn't it be the same? Moreover, why include such a detrimental trait? We'd do a lot better without that little inability; ever hear of scurvy? Why would the "designer" decide to include the same type of non-functional gene in all primates?

That would require reading the mind of the Creator (if there is one.) I'll offer a suggestion in the form of an analogy from the Bible however:

2 Corinthians 12:7-9
7 And lest I should be exalted above measure through the abundance of the revelations, there was given to me a thorn in the flesh, the messenger of Satan to buffet me, lest I should be exalted above measure.
8 For this thing I besought the Lord thrice, that it might depart from me.
9 And he said unto me, My grace is sufficient for thee: for my strength is made perfect in weakness. Most gladly therefore will I rather glory in my infirmities, that the power of Christ may rest upon me.

I'll return the questions: Why would such a "defect" survive in preference to a functioning gene if natural selection were operative? That seems to be a much more difficult question than answering from a design perspective.


Out of curiosity, did you not read my last post or did you simply dismiss it?

[Dimensio]

I'll return the questions: Why would such a "defect" survive in preference to a functioning gene if natural selection were operative?

It wouldn't be a detriment if it occured in a population that was already making use of plentiful food sources that provided vitamin C.