[Ahban]

You maintain steadfastly that evolution ISN't merely the loss if information. I wonder how you know this? What I see of evolution IS a loss from an original larger gene-set. Examples : Blind cave fish. Frogs that could mate from May to Spetember speciating into a group that mates from July-Sept, and one that mates from May to June.

The evolution we see seems to proceeed in one direction only, the loss of info. It may lead to a more specialized critter, but it is still through loss of info.

Is it fair to say that your position is that all of the changes required for Humans and apes to evolve from a common ancestor DID occur, but that the reactivation of the C vitamin gene did NOT occur?

I must say that is a rather extraordinary set of claims. All of those changes from before Austrialapithicus to man happened, yet one tiny mutation never got undone. THis despite the fact that it would be enormously useful for major groups of homo sapiens for much of our species history.

I am not talking about evolution as an intelligent agent. I am merely refering to the typical mechansims suggested by evolution. It seems unlikely to me that these agents could make all of the changes required to turn Lucy into Lucille Ball. Especially since those same forces can't seem to turn back on one tiny gene that would be enourmously useful.

I emphasize again that I am not ascribing anything but the powers of chance and selection pressure to evolution- not intellect. And I note that those powers cannot seem to make this tiny useful change. Against that backdrop, I conclude that it is unreasonable to maintain that they are responsible for the much greater change observed in the biological record.