Replies

By the way, it doesn't do any good to shuffle them around because no matter which two you assume you have two unknowns for assumptions.

What are you talking about? That the populations had access to vitamin C in their food sources is a given; if they didn't have it, they would have died out and they would not exist today. You're the one trying to turn it into an assumption because you are either totally ignorant of biology or you're a shameless liar trying to play semantic games.

You cannot solve two unknowns in one equation.

Who said that it was an unknown? If the populations didn't have access to vitamin C in their food sources, they would be dead. It's a given that if humans and apes share a common ancestor with a broken vitamin C synthesis gene, all divergent populations would have either had access to vitamin C through their food supply or they would have died out. This is not an assumption, it is a consequence of vitamin C deficiency. If you can't see that, even if you don't accept evolution, then you are either not terribly bright or you are being deliberately dishonest.

And since natural selection has not been proven to cause macro-evolution, you cannot use it as an independent assumption.

I'm not making an assumption. I'm pointing out lines of evidence that have led biologists to a conclusion. Is the conclusion proven? Well, no, but then nothing in science is ever proven.

C'mon, you pulled elementary tricks in both your responses:

In 153 you said, " I'm merely pointing out that the event of humans and apes sharing a common ancestor in which the vitamin C synthesis gene became broken is not impossible as you seem to want to assert."

That is not at all what I assert. In fact, it is closer to the formulation of what you claim, which is that in the absence of direct observational evidence it is impossible or unlikely for the same single gene to have appeared with the same function in two similar species, which share 98% of their genetic code anyway, by design. That is at once counter-intuitive. Nevertheless it does not distinguish between creationism and evolution. That is my point.

In 154 you change the criteria from "plentiful food sources that provided vitamin C" to merely "access to vitamin C in their food sources" over thousands or millions of years. The argument I was making was that in times of scarcity, the individuals in the originating species who could generate their own vitamin C would have been at a competitive advantage. So one wonders how our line became dominant, not that it is impossible, just less likely.

You still haven't responded to #148.

Back to your semantic return...