It merely obfuscates a clear point. The genes and pseudogenes for vitamin C show clear evidence for evolution from common ancestry.
McCluskey finds a few additional data points from the literature from 1969 to 1980--he's writing in 1985--and announces "It's much more complicated than most people think."
Most things are, but the differences between the simplified version most people know and the McCluskey version are things like "some animals synthesize vitamin C in their livers, others in their kidneys, some in both." Perhaps some other animal lineages have lost vitamin C synthesis, more than are usually reported. (But are the pseudogenes in these other cases the same as the primate pseudogenes, or different as in the case of the guinea pig? As RightWingNilla correctly points out, it does matter.)
Well, wow! I guess Genesis is literally true now, huh? We're invited to think so.
Would original design plus degenerative loss serve to explain the present-day diversity?That might have been an interesting thing to show, but it would involve presenting an alternate history of life on Earth. That wouldn't do. It would be too obviously already falsified by what we know already. The author does not dare answer his own question.
An old paper trying to dazzle with detail. It's been ignored even by creationists. A Yahoo! shows that one of the five hits is an "article" by your compadre at DesUni, gore3000. (Guess we know where you got it, huh?) Two of the others are vitamin C faddist sites. One is the article itself.
What is ‘your’ problem? Or problem with the article?
I am not trying to prove creationism. What are you trying to prove?
Would original design plus degenerative loss serve to explain the present-day diversity?
OK?… So this statement means all must adhere to a literal interpretation of Genesis and ‘all’ biological science is wrong?
Look, I have linked to this article at least a year ago, found it on my own, posted it on this forum, and provided it only to this forum.
Apparently Vade is only allowed to draw conclusions and all others should rely on… – you for conclusions and guilt?
Vade is the source of knowledge and judgment?
Vade, by saying you are the source of knowledge and judgment, am I implying that you are; a pixie, fairy, or an imaginary being? I must mean that only a literal interpretation of Genesis is true.
Maybe I am just saying you are being ridiculous…