You are still on this after I reminded you a few hundred posts ago that the claim had been disproven and the author had been dishonest as we had discussed months ago. The whole argument on this by evolutionists is very dishonest. First of all, it is not just men and monkeys that do not have the ability to produce vitamin c, it also does not work on guinea pigs. Evolution is about descent, are you claiming we descended from guinea pigs now?????????
Here is the post where I completely destroyed this vitamin c nonsense - it was addressed to you:
I have never denied that chimps and humans cannot produce vitamin c. However, the devil is in the details:
It is interesting to note that most animals produce their own vitamin C. Man, primates (apes, chimps, etc.) and guinea pigs have lost this ability.
From: How Stuff Works
Hmm, your sources did not mention the guinea pigs did they? Guess man and chimp descended from guinea pigs? Are guinea pigs the missing link? Seems evo 'scientists' are very selective. They only 'remember' what serves their purposes. But wait, it gets better:
Actually, the LGGLO pseudogene (an inactivated Vitamin C synthesis gene) has been found in one human so far and no apes, according to Edward Max, but in his essay he predicts that it should be found in apes, too.
From: Shared Errors in DNA
So, it seems someone claims that this is not true, and cites an evolutionist as saying that this claim is an assumption not fact. So while to me, this might be credible enough, to you an assertion by a Christian alone would not be. So, we must dig a little deeper:
if primates closely related to humans have the SAME crippling mutations in their LGGLO pseudogenes as we see in the human pseudogenes, this finding would support the evolutionary model. As I pointed out, the data on this question are not yet available for the LGGLO pseudogenes, but in other shared pseudogenes identical crippling mutations clearly favor evolution
From: Response to Plaisted
So it seems that the evolutionists have been found lying again (and by this I do not mean you Virginia, or Jennyp or anyone else here - this garbage is all over the internet). Max in his original article, while not outright saying that men and chimps shared the exact same mutation in the exact same pseudogene went into a long and very contrived discussion which to most laymen would indicate that such was a proven fact. In other words, he clearly was trying to deceive and clearly deceived many. (the original article is here ). So much for vitamin c. Another evolutionist snow job disproven.
BTW this whole nonsense started - as usual - in that fountain of evolutionist disinformation - TalkOrigins
And they do. They share the same frameshift mutation (the mutation that makes the gene non-functional) at position 97 compared to the functional rat gene. The guinea pig, on the other hand, has different mutations. This indicates a separate lineage. Just as evolution predicts!
Yes of course I mentioned it. The guinea pig has a different mutation than we and the other apes do. Christian discussion of this issue See section 5. or other studies or another discussion that mentions guinea pigs and primates
Guess man and chimp descended from guinea pigs? Are guinea pigs the missing link?
Mocking it won't make it go away
First of all, it is not just men and monkeys
Monkeys can; it's the great apes, including people, that can't.
(an inactivated Vitamin C synthesis gene) has been found in one human so far and no apes
The claim here is that one person has been found who doesn't require vitamin C?
4. Maybe the Lord inserted those similarities for a reason we do not understand. They could even have been inserted as tests of our faith. The Lord does not force any to believe, but gives opportunity to doubt for those who are seeking it.
5. Another possibility is that the Lord, when he cursed Adam and Eve after the fall, also cursed all life by introducing errors into the DNA. One could expect that similar species were cursed in a similar way, out of fairness.
OK, similar species were cursed in the same way out of a sense of fairness: did some chimp taste the forbidden fruit? This has to be the silliest thing I've seen in a while.
if primates closely related to humans have the SAME crippling mutations in their LGGLO pseudogenes as we see in the human pseudogenes, this finding would support the evolutionary model. As I pointed out, the data on this question are not yet available for the LGGLO pseudogenes, but in other shared pseudogenes identical crippling mutations clearly favor evolution
OK, so the other genetic details, DO favor evolution?!
Somehow, I had a feeling that you would bring this up again. Evolutionists have a way of continuing to use 'evidence' which has already been disproven
Where exactly was what disproven? The claim is that there is a shared mutation in the great apes, specifically a missing base pair in the LGGLO gene necessary for ascorbic acid synthesis. Is there or not?
...the moth fraud ...
What fraud? Was there or was there not a change in the colour of moths in industrialized Britain? The claim that mounting light and dark moth specimems on bark, to show the difference that the bird predators saw, somehow amounts to fraud is ludicrous - the original science was done by counting the number of light and dark insects, and by releasing light and dark insects, and seeing how many were eaten.
Where exactly is the fraud?
are still claimed as proof of evolution
Proof? No, just confirmation. There is a difference.