Caveat emptor, cave canem, cave perfidia.
I noted a Vitamin C DNA segment that did not change.
I noted in my post #1969 that this was highly misleading, since the Vitamin C synthesis psuedogene actually changed significantly. The fact that one can pick an arbitrarily small "segment" within it which wasn't among the portions which changed is a red herring. A fixation on "but not *all* of it has changed" is a failure to see the forest for the trees, or an attempt to distract attention from the actually significant regions (i.e., those which *did* change, and in what manner).
Guinea Pigs are not primates.
DittoJed2, notice that this is a red herring -- I never said that they were, nor does this obvious fact in any way change my points or the study I cited.
Of course there is no telling when they no longer could make Vitamin C.
Actually, there are several ways to tell, including: Guinea pigs possess a highly mutated gene for L-gulono-gamma-lactone oxidase, the key enzyme for L-ascorbic acid biosynthesis missing in this species , which used the amount of mutation in the guinea pig GLO pseudogene relative to the rat GLO gene to conclude, "...the date of the loss of L-gulono-gamma-lactone oxidase in the ancestors of the guinea pig was roughly calculated to be less than 20 million years ago."
Furthermore, DittoJed2, notice that the nature of the guinea pig mutations in the GLO pseudogene also fulfill the predictions of evolution and common descent. If the guinea pig GLO pseudogene were "broken" in the same way as the primate GLO pseudogene, this would pose a large problem for evolutionary theory, as it would strongly imply that guinea pigs were more closely related to primates (and vice versa) than any other lineage. So evolutionary theory predicts that although guinea pigs can't synthesize their own Vitamin C either, it must have arisen as an independent mutation from the one which occurred in the primate lineage, and that therefore it would be expected to be almost certainly a different set of mutations. And that is exactly what we find when we examine the DNA of guinea pigs, primates, and mammals with working GLO genes. Remember from my prior post, the human GLO pseudogene exhibits a missing Intron VIII, and a missing or highly damaged Exon XI. Meanwhile, the guinea pig GLO pseudogene is missing Exons I and V, while VIII and XI are present. It's "broken" in a different manner, and shares no statistical mutational similarities to the human/primate GLO pseudogenes. Evolution is, again, confirmed.
So if anyone hoped to imply a problem for evolutionary theory by pointing out that guinea pigs are not primates, they were mistaken.
Another prediction that turned out to be true.