RE: [asa] Cameron- question of Adam (footprints)

From: Dehler, Bernie <>
Date: Fri Jun 26 2009 - 11:57:29 EDT

I think it is irrelevant if there is another use for the retarded genes in humans (supposedly there's 1,000's of them). The question is, why do we have it now, and where did it come from? If the gene is fully functioning in lower life-forms, and our copy is hacked-up, then obviously the bad version came from the good one.

If organisms 1 has genes a,b,c,d
Organisms 2 has genes b,c,d,e,f,g,h,I (gene a present but hacked)
Organism 3 has c,d,e,f,g,h,I,j,k,l (and retarded copies of a,b)

Then obviously you can see the decent. If the retarded copy in organism 3 has other uses, it is irrelevant. Where it came from and it's purpose is obvious.

If someone can't see this proof, then they would never, ever, convict someone (a murderer) in court based on DNA evidence for the same reasons.


From: dfsiemensjr []
Sent: Thursday, June 25, 2009 8:06 PM
To: Dehler, Bernie
Subject: Re: [asa] Cameron- question of Adam (footprints)

Can you prove \that the only purpose for the gene that is part of the ascorbic acid synthesis in most mammals is the production of ascorbic acid? Note my communication is PSCF, 58:239 (Sept. 2006). A different purpose was found for a "defective" gene. I'll grant that pseudogenes are evidence in a broader theory, but they are not proof. Remember that the /cogito/ gives me direct proof that I exist, but I cannot prove that there are other similar entities around. Everybody who is attempting to communicate holds to the existence of their fellows, to be sure, but it is an assumption. It is also recognized that talk of scientific proof is going too far, and this is what Don is talking about.
Dave (ASA)

On Thu, 25 Jun 2009 15:01:38 -0700 "Dehler, Bernie" <<>> writes:
Don said:
"As to whether segments of DNA "have no use," it's far too early in the process of DNA analysis to jump to such conclusion, partly because it's strictly impossible to prove that a thing has no use. "

If you look at the gene for the enzyme of asorbic acid in a lower life-form, you can see it has a definite use. When you see a retarded copy in the human genome, the implication is obvious. First, the gene has a function in lower life-forms. Second, the function doesn't work as intended for us (since it is retarded, truncated, or otherwise destroyed), so we need an external source of Vitamin C. People can refuse to see the obvious implications if they want, but I don't think they should be tolerated because it is illogical and just plain ignorant to ignore the plain consequences.

Asorbic acid is supposedly one of 1,000's of pseudogenes in the human genome. That's why the DNA evidence is overwhelming for evolution.

It is like seeing footprints leading to the cookie jar. If the footprint matches my kid's foot, I don't care what excuse they have- they did it. Some parents will refuse to see the evidence because they want to believe junior is a little angel. People can be very creative in brushing-off the obvious implications of the data.


Click now to find a divorce attorney near you!<>

To unsubscribe, send a message to with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Fri Jun 26 11:58:27 2009

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Fri Jun 26 2009 - 11:58:28 EDT