I refuted that statement to you some 500 posts back. Here's the answer again since it seems you have forgotten it:
However, there is a problem with it. When we mapped the human genome, two companies did it. Only 1/5 of the genes they identified were the same. I am not sure that the chimp genome has been studied even better than man. So first of all, I am very suspicious of that statement. Secondly, that would be an example of devolution - making a species less fit. Mutations seem to do that. Thirdly, I do not know how large that gene is, but if is like most genes 500 or some base pairs long, that one mutation made it unworkable in both man and chimp is not to be wondered at. It is a slim chance, but not an impossible coincidence. Lastly, the genes of different species are never the same even if they code for the same function. That is why the sperm of one species will not impregnate another species, why the blood of one species cannot be used on another species, why the legs of one species are not the same as those of another species, etc.
I refuted that statement to you some 500 posts back. Here's the answer again since it seems you have forgotten it:
However, there is a problem with it. When we mapped the human genome, two companies did it. Only 1/5 of the genes they identified were the same. I am not sure that the chimp genome has been studied even better than man. So first of all, I am very suspicious of that statement. Secondly, that would be an example of devolution - making a species less fit. Mutations seem to do that. Thirdly, I do not know how large that gene is, but if is like most genes 500 or some base pairs long, that one mutation made it unworkable in both man and chimp is not to be wondered at. It is a slim chance, but not an impossible coincidence
What you're attempting here is not a refutation, it's more like an attempt to show that your doubt is somewhat reasonable. I'm accepting the basic result until someone actually refutes it, eg by showing that the inability to make ascorbic acid is caused by a *different* mutation in the different species (which is the case between people, etc and guinea pigs, the only other mammal that needs ascorbic acid). That stuff about the genome projects, and the sequencing of chimpanzee genes is irrelevent to the claim I'm making;
A quotation from this biochemistry lecture
Humans, chimps, gorillas, orangutans, bonobos (the "great apes") share certain genetic diseases. For example, all of the great apes have the same defect in a gene for an enzyme necessary to make vitamin C. Thus, all need to get vitamin C from plants in their diet. Monkeys ("lesser apes") don't have this disease. Thus, this mutation occurred in a common ancestor of the great apes after diverging from monkeys, but, prior to diverging into the different species of great apes.
Thus, even if the same mutation independently occured in people and chimps, you have to find a way to explain away the *fact* that it occurs in the other great apes. That's five species, so the probability has to be raised to the fifth power. Finally, it's not just this one mutation that we have in common with the other great apes (and no other known species.)
Are you seriously claiming this is all coincidence? That the alleged Designer just happened to create genomes that are consistent with the evolution of primates that was deduced from anatomy before DNA was even discovered?
The reasoning employed here is exactly the same as that used to find the original text of ancient manuscripts and to deduce which ones are copies of others, the scribes introducing "mutations" into texts that are then copied by other scribes.
Oh, BTW, what about the whale's birth defect; where *did* the genes for legs come from? Why are they there but usually suppressed?