[Diamond]

What kind of designer makes a number of different species with the same damaged gene, damaged at the same spot? Why is the gene there at all?

There are a number of possible answers. The question of what kind of designer makes a number of different species with the same damaged gene, assumes that the gene sequence has no function, which as I've tried to say, is unknown at the present time, and which is a claim that assumes full knowledge of the organisms history. How can one be certain that an apparently functionless structure is really functionless? It may be that we lack the knowledge necessary to appreciate its function. Alternatively, if the gene really is a psuedogene, it still says nothing about about whether it descended from a universal common ancestor, or not. It could have just as easily descended from one of many independently created organisms which had the same propensity for as a yet unknown reason for this defect.

Why is the gene there at all? I don't know. That's like asking how you get anything as fantastic as genes in the first place. Why must God fulfill my expectations of universal, optimal engineering design? Or, how do I know that these defective genes are not remmants of some earlier optimal Design that has been damaged? Why do some primates have the ability to synthesize ascorbic acid and some birds, bats and fish don't? Why doesn't the fact the some species can and some can't mitigate against the hypothesis of universal common descent? Darwinian explanation of common ancestry does not really depend on this line of evidence because it can accommodative either the evidence or the lack of it. It is therefore not, imho, conclusive proof of universal common descent.

Cordially,

[js1138]

Why must God fulfill my expectations of universal, optimal engineering design?

The designer must have some attributes or methods or goals, or it's a completely empty hypothesis. Fine for your belief system, but completely outside the purview of science.

[Thatcherite]

Or, how do I know that these defective genes are not remmants of some earlier optimal Design that has been damaged?

What do you make of the fact that the spread of the damage in this gene and others matches the expectations of common descent? This earlier optimal design damaged identically across several species implies common ancestory of all primates. That's the whole point. Again and again such molecular evidence meets the expectations of common descent, and were common descent not true there would be no reason for it to.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"The question of what kind of designer makes a number of different species with the same damaged gene, assumes that the gene sequence has no function, which as I've tried to say, is unknown at the present time, and which is a claim that assumes full knowledge of the organisms history."

It's unprovable. That doesn't mean that the evidence doesn't logically point to a certain conclusion.

"How can one be certain that an apparently functionless structure is really functionless?"

Irrelevant. But for a tiny defect, it would have been able to produce vitamin C. That was the obvious function before the defect.

"Why is the gene there at all? I don't know. That's like asking how you get anything as fantastic as genes in the first place. Why must God fulfill my expectations of universal, optimal engineering design?"

Not only is the presence of the defective gene suite not optimal, it's inexplicable under a designed hypothesis. What you are saying is that when something seems really well designed, it's God design, and when it's poorly designed, it's just how God wanted it and who are we to know the mysteries of God.

"Why do some primates have the ability to synthesize ascorbic acid and some birds, bats and fish don't?"

Because most mammals do have the ability. And the primates who can't have the same defective gene, defective at the same spot.

"Darwinian explanation of common ancestry does not really depend on this line of evidence because it can accommodative either the evidence or the lack of it."

Common descent cannot accommodate just any old line of evidence. If we had the defective gene, and no other primate did, but pigs had it at the same spot, that would be a problem. If there were many of these irregularities, the theory of common descent would crumble.

ID on the other hand is impervious to any observation.

[RightWingNilla]

The question of what kind of designer makes a number of different species with the same damaged gene, assumes that the gene sequence has no function, which as I've tried to say, is unknown at the present time,

(Intelligent?) Designer: "Hmmmm. The gorillas and chimps could use a tiny bit more useless nuclear RNA. Ill just take out a nucleotide here in this gene. They arent going to miss that one anyway, plenty of citrus in the jungle! OK there. Looks like s**t, but who cares! I am the designer dammit!!!!!"

"*Whew* this designing business is making me hungry! OK, mankind, the pizzashop closes in an hour, so youll just have to make due with 99% of the chimpanzee genome. D'OH! I forgot about all of this retroviral DNA still left to clean up. Ahh screw it, Ill just fuse these two chimp chromosomes together and call it a day."

Maybe the designer was Homer Simpson!