This article completely misses the point.
The mutation which destroys the L-GLO (Vit C metabolic) gene is exactly the same in higher primates. Guinea pigs cannot make Vitamin C either, but they have a completely different mutation than the one found in humans, chimps and gorillas.
TABLE 2. Number of families of mammals having at least 1 species with site of vitamin C synthesis indicated.
Order Kidney synthesis Liver synthesis Neither Monotremata 2 Marsupicarnivora (marsupials) 2 Peramelina (marsupials)* 1 1 Diprotodontia (marsupials) (trace in 1 of the 5) 5 Insectivora 2 Chiroptera (bats) (trace in 1 of the 7) 7 Primates (prosimians) 2 (anthropoids) 5 Carnivora 5 Lagomorpha (rabbits) 1 Rodentia 9 1 Artiodactyla 3 (low) *The 1 family reported is represented under both Liver and Kidney.
…In conclusion, what has the study of many more taxa done? 1) It has greatly enriched our picture: rather than the long-held view that vitamin C is required in the diet of guinea pig, monkeys and man, we now see that it is required also by bats, at least some fish, and many birds; and on the other hand, not by all primates. Further, animals which make their own do so in different organs: the kidney, especially reptiles and birds; or the liver, especially mammals and perching birds. 2) There is evidence for a taxonomic explanation of part of the diversity between classes and between orders, but hardly data at lower taxonomic levels even to carry out a common statistical test. 3) It appears to provide more support for change by loss than by gain of capability.Were all animals once able to make their own vitamin C? or were they all dependent on their food for it? or some of both? Would original design plus degenerative loss serve to explain the present-day diversity? In any case, we see here a current example of how more research can greatly change our understanding of diversity. This should make us slow to conclude that scientific and revealed information on origins actually conflict.