Darwinism: A Fact or a Refuted myth?

[Adel]

In my previous post ‘Is it up to us to believe in God?’ I said that logically saying that there must be a mighty creator for this universe is much closer to logic than claiming that everything randomly came out of nothing.

Many replies to the post rejected that and almost all of them rested on the Darwinism…

“But just to let you know, Darwin figured it out” replied my friend guyser and advised me to take my own advice ‘Please think...’

So the base on which replies depended is the Darwinism. All of them considered it as a fact…So let is see if it is a solid fact or just a refuted myth…

So for my ‘logical’ and ‘scientific’ friends I want them to give my “logical and scientific” answers to some very basic questions:

1- Did Darwin base his claims on any concrete evidence or finding, or just made some observations and produced some ideas while on board H.M.S Beagle ship based on some primitive understanding of science?

2- What is the origin of life?

3- How did the first protein originate?

I think since Darwin publish his book “The Origin of Species” in 1856, you guys must have had enough time to think and prove your claim….

[Canadian Blue]

I believe a large proportion of scientists believe in evolution, so I'd say it's the closest thing to fact that we have.

Either way, I don't want Canadian provinces to go down the same road as Kansas and be mocked constantly for teaching kids theories with very little support from the scientific community.

[Adel]

I believe a large proportion of scientists believe in evolution, so I'd say it's the closest thing to fact that we have.

Thanks for your reply...although I cannot consider as any answer to my questions...

Saying that I don't agree at all that 'a large proportion of scientists believe in evolution'. It is the opposite...

The French biologist Louis Pasteur put an end to this belief. As he put it: "The claim that inanimate matter can originate life is buried in history for good."

[kimmy]

The French biologist Louis Pasteur put an end to this belief. As he put it: "The claim that inanimate matter can originate life is buried in history for good."

I think he was referring to maggots growing spontaneously from meat, not speculating on issues of molecular biology that were far beyond the scope of information he had available during his lifetime.

-k

[Guthrie]

The French biologist Louis Pasteur put an end to this belief. As he put it: "The claim that inanimate matter can originate life is buried in history for good."

I think he was referring to maggots growing spontaneously from meat, not speculating on issues of molecular biology that were far beyond the scope of information he had available during his lifetime.

-k

indeed, he was refuting 'Spontaneous Generation' - the concept that rotting meat somehow a creational force for flies

[Adel]

The French biologist Louis Pasteur put an end to this belief. As he put it: "The claim that inanimate matter can originate life is buried in history for good."

I think he was referring to maggots growing spontaneously from meat, not speculating on issues of molecular biology that were far beyond the scope of information he had available during his lifetime.

-k

1- It is Lamarck and Darwin who developed their theories based on the believes that maggots growing spontaneously from meat and mice sprang naturally from wheat. Louis Pasteur – who died in 1895, 39 years after Darwin published his book - is regarded as one of the three main founders of bacteriology, among Ferdinand Cohn and Robert Koch. His findings were completely against Darwin’s theory..

2- In Darwin's time, nothing was known about the extraordinary structure of the cell. Under the primitive microscopes of the day, the cell seemed to be a murky lump. For this reason, both Darwin and other evolutionists of his time believed that a cell was a simple driblet of water that could easily originate by chance.

[August1991]

In my previous post ‘Is it up to us to believe in God?’ I said that logically saying that there must be a mighty creator for this universe is much closer to logic than claiming that everything randomly came out of nothing.

Many replies to the post rejected that and almost all of them rested on the Darwinism…

Not at all.

I have no dispute with your belief in God. God has created a wonderful existence. We should all wonder.

But Adel, you still haven't answered my question about a Prophet. I think any person who claims to be a Prophet or to report the word of God/Universe deserves circumspection, no?

I mean, the person may be a charlatan? Adel, how do you know whether someone who claims to be a Prophet is not a charlatan? Adel, how do you know?

[geoffrey]

Nothing isn't really untouchable fact. We've seen tons of stuff tossed on it's head. Even Newton's 'laws' are only applicable in SOME situations now that we've discovered various other theories that better describe certain high speed/energy events.

I'm sure there is a bazillion holes in evolution, in fact, I'm not convinced on evolution as it's described on a macro level.

But there is honest science behind it, and while debate is rather stifled, we do see some progress in some areas.

Evolution is likely generally right, we just need to work out the kinks. Would I accept it as law today? Not a chance.

[Adel]

Evolution is likely generally right, we just need to work out the kinks. Would I accept it as law today? Not a chance.

Evolution is not likely right....

Today, it is established that the cell, which has such a complex design, could not possibly originate by chance as the theory of evolution claims. It is certain that a structure too complex to be imitated even by man cannot be the work of "chance". Renowned British mathematician and astronomer Professor Fred Hoyle - died August 2001 - puts this impossibility like this: " The chance that higher life forms might have emerged in this way is comparable with the chance that a tornado sweeping through a junk-yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein". ["Hoyle on Evolution",p105]

And in another commentary, Hoyle says: "Indeed, such a theory (that life was assembled by an intelligence) is so obvious that one wonders why it is not widely accepted as being self-evident. The reasons are

psychological rather than scientific." [Evolution from Space,p130]

[geoffrey]

As far as I know, we aren't talking about a theory of origins, we're talking evolution.

I can absolutely empirically prove that the Earth is more than 8000 years old and we lived with dinosaurs.

[kimmy]

The French biologist Louis Pasteur put an end to this belief. As he put it: "The claim that inanimate matter can originate life is buried in history for good."

I think he was referring to maggots growing spontaneously from meat, not speculating on issues of molecular biology that were far beyond the scope of information he had available during his lifetime.

-k

1- It is Lamarck and Darwin who developed their theories based on the believes that maggots growing spontaneously from meat and mice sprang naturally from wheat. Louis Pasteur – who died in 1895, 39 years after Darwin published his book - is regarded as one of the three main founders of bacteriology, among Ferdinand Cohn and Robert Koch. His findings were completely against Darwin’s theory..

2- In Darwin's time, nothing was known about the extraordinary structure of the cell. Under the primitive microscopes of the day, the cell seemed to be a murky lump. For this reason, both Darwin and other evolutionists of his time believed that a cell was a simple driblet of water that could easily originate by chance.

Since discoveries central to our understanding of biochemistry, such as DNA, the Krebs cycle, and protein synthesis, were not made until a half century after Pasteur's death, it is somewhat foolish to attempt to portray Pasteur as a final authority on the subject, however groundbreaking his work might have been at the time.

There is a lot of debate on the subject of whether self-replicating molecules could have been created by chance, and you can rest assured that the phrase "Pasteur says they can't" is of absolutely zero significance in that debate.

And while the broader sense of evolution remains controversial, the narrower sense-- natural selection (which is what people generally mean when they use the term "Darwinism") has been observed first-hand and is regarded as a fact even by most creationists. One example is that prior to industrial revolution, a species of moth that lived in London was light grey in colour. The arrival of the industrial revolution turned the trees and stonework in London to a dark grey. Within a decade, there were no light grey moths left... but a lot of dark grey moths. Why? Lighter coloured moths of that species were easy prey, and darker coloured moths had a much better chance of surviving long enough to have offspring. Another example of more current interest is bacteria becoming resistant to antibiotics. As antibiotics become widely used, bacteria that are vulnerable to them have shorter lifespans and therefore have fewer descendants, while bacteria that are more resistant to antibiotics have longer lifespans and therefore produce more descendants. Withing some number of generations, statistically it becomes most likely that bacteria you encounter are descended from stock that has hereditary resistance to antibiotics.

That's Darwinism, and it's an observable fact. If you wish to discuss macroevolution, go ahead, but leave Darwin out of it. Darwin's principles have been proven to be solid.

-k

[Catchme]

Super bacteria = evolving beyond what was to gain resistance

Virus = mutation = evolving to something else.

Adel over looked on purpose perhaps, the exposing of what Pastuer was studying, apparently not convienant to her mythological beliefs.

[Adel]

That's Darwinism, and it's an observable fact. If you wish to discuss macroevolution, go ahead, but leave Darwin out of it. Darwin's principles have been proven to be solid.

-k

Not at all...

"Darwin's principles have been proven to be solid" is not sound..

The famous zoologist Pierre Grassé, the former president of the French Academy of

Sciences, makes his point about the logic of "chance", which is the backbone of Darwinism: "The opportune appearance of mutations permitting animals and plants to meet their needs seems hard to believe. Yet the Darwinian theory is even more demanding: A single plant, a single animal would require thousands and thousands of lucky, appropriate events. Thus, miracles would become the rule: events with an infinitesimal

probability could not fail to occur… There is no law against

daydreaming, but science must not indulge in it "

Grassé summarises what the concept of "coincidence" means for evolutionists: "...Chance becomes a sort of providence, which, under the cover of atheism, is not named but which is secretly worshipped."

This is the type of superstition that underlies Darwinism.

[Electric Monk]

...So for my ‘logical’ and ‘scientific’ friends I want them to give my “logical and scientific” answers to some very basic questions:

1- Did Darwin base his claims on any concrete evidence or finding, or just made some observations and produced some ideas while on board H.M.S Beagle ship based on some primitive understanding of science?

He seems to have been a very learned man, and did considerably more than jot down some offhand ideas on a napkin.

2- What is the origin of life?

That is called abiogenesis and is a separate area of study. It is currently a hypothesis, while evolution is a theory.

3- How did the first protein originate?

Proteins are classified as organic compounds, meaning they contain carbon and hydrogen bonds. I don't know enough about chemistry to say anything more, but I'm sure you can find out more if you are interested.

[Electric Monk]

Why do you think chance is the backbone of Darwinism?

[Adel]

The French biologist Louis Pasteur put an end to this belief. As he put it: "The claim that inanimate matter can originate life is buried in history for good."

I think he was referring to maggots growing spontaneously from meat, not speculating on issues of molecular biology that were far beyond the scope of information he had available during his lifetime.

-k

1- It is Lamarck and Darwin who developed their theories based on the believes that maggots growing spontaneously from meat and mice sprang naturally from wheat. Louis Pasteur – who died in 1895, 39 years after Darwin published his book - is regarded as one of the three main founders of bacteriology, among Ferdinand Cohn and Robert Koch. His findings were completely against Darwin’s theory..

2- In Darwin's time, nothing was known about the extraordinary structure of the cell. Under the primitive microscopes of the day, the cell seemed to be a murky lump. For this reason, both Darwin and other evolutionists of his time believed that a cell was a simple driblet of water that could easily originate by chance.

Since discoveries central to our understanding of biochemistry, such as DNA, the Krebs cycle, and protein synthesis, were not made until a half century after Pasteur's death, it is somewhat foolish to attempt to portray Pasteur as a final authority on the subject, however groundbreaking his work might have been at the time.

There is a lot of debate on the subject of whether self-replicating molecules could have been created by chance, and you can rest assured that the phrase "Pasteur says they can't" is of absolutely zero significance in that debate.

And while the broader sense of evolution remains controversial, the narrower sense-- natural selection (which is what people generally mean when they use the term "Darwinism") has been observed first-hand and is regarded as a fact even by most creationists. One example is that prior to industrial revolution, a species of moth that lived in London was light grey in colour. The arrival of the industrial revolution turned the trees and stonework in London to a dark grey. Within a decade, there were no light grey moths left... but a lot of dark grey moths. Why? Lighter coloured moths of that species were easy prey, and darker coloured moths had a much better chance of surviving long enough to have offspring. Another example of more current interest is bacteria becoming resistant to antibiotics. As antibiotics become widely used, bacteria that are vulnerable to them have shorter lifespans and therefore have fewer descendants, while bacteria that are more resistant to antibiotics have longer lifespans and therefore produce more descendants. Withing some number of generations, statistically it becomes most likely that bacteria you encounter are descended from stock that has hereditary resistance to antibiotics.

That's Darwinism, and it's an observable fact. If you wish to discuss macroevolution, go ahead, but leave Darwin out of it. Darwin's principles have been proven to be solid.

-k

Intestesting poitns....

The same "Moths of the Industrial Revolution" in 18th century example....

Well, This is not an example of "evolution", because natural selection did not give rise to a species that did not exist in nature earlier. Dark-coloured moths were already extant before the industrial revolution.

There is only a shift in the number of existing moth species. Moths did not acquire a new organ or feature to lead to a "change in their species".

A noted evolutionist, British paleontologist Colin Patterson confesses this fact: "No one has ever produced a species by mechanisms of natural selection. No one has ever got near it and most of the current argument in neo-Darwinism is about this question. "

Mutations are genetic accidents that occur in living things. Like all accidents, they cause harm and destruction. "Evolution" through mutation is as unlikely as the improvement of a clock by a hammer blow.

[kimmy]

Not at all...

"Darwin's principles have been proven to be solid" is not sound..

The famous zoologist Pierre Grassé, the former president of the French Academy of

Sciences, makes his point about the logic of "chance", which is the backbone of Darwinism: "The opportune appearance of mutations permitting animals and plants to meet their needs seems hard to believe. Yet the Darwinian theory is even more demanding: A single plant, a single animal would require thousands and thousands of lucky, appropriate events. Thus, miracles would become the rule: events with an infinitesimal

probability could not fail to occur… There is no law against

daydreaming, but science must not indulge in it "

Grassé summarises what the concept of "coincidence" means for evolutionists: "...Chance becomes a sort of providence, which, under the cover of atheism, is not named but which is secretly worshipped."

This is the type of superstition that underlies Darwinism.

I can't find any evidence that Pierre Grasse is a famous anything, or that his views are respected by anybody other than creationists.

In any case, the selection you've quoted make it clear that either he doesn't understand the process, or is willfully misrepresenting it to suit his own purposes.

"The opportune appearance of mutations permitting animals and plants to meet their needs seems hard to believe."

There's no requirement that mutations occur to meet specific needs.

The only requirement is that mutations occur (do either yourself, or Mr Gasse, dispute that mutations occur?)

Some mutations will provide a survival advantage. Some mutations will provide a survival disadvantage. Most mutations will provide neither.

Those mutations that provide a survival advantage (like, say, a moth with darker pigmentation than its parents) improve ones' chance of surviving and passing that trait on to its offspring, who will likewise have better chances of survival than their peers.

Mutations that are a disadvantage (say, deformed limbs, poor eyesight, mental defect, poor fashion sense, extreme halitosis, etc) will decrease one's chance of participating in the gene pool and passing that trait on to future generations.

"Yet the Darwinian theory is even more demanding: A single plant, a single animal would require thousands and thousands of lucky, appropriate events. Thus, miracles would become the rule: events with an infinitesimal probability could not fail to occur… There is no law against daydreaming, but science must not indulge in it."

And here he's not even talking about Darwinism, he's attempting to articulate the concept of "irreducible complexity", which is relevant in discussing macroevolution, not Darwinian selection.

At any rate, Adel, I get the impression that you're not actually very familiar with the field you're discussing and are probably just cutting and pasting quotes from Creationist/Intelligent Design websites. Carrying out that kind of a dialogue is a waste of everybody's time, so I'm off to bed. Let us know what sites you're quoting from, and maybe somebody will check them out and get back to you.

Goodnight, folks.

-k

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear kimmy,

Well done.

At any rate, Adel, I get the impression that you're not actually very familiar with the field you're discussing and are probably just cutting and pasting quotes from Creationist/Intelligent Design websites

Does this quote look familiar?

Mutations are genetic accidents that occur in living things. Like all accidents, they cause harm and destruction. "Evolution" through mutation is as unlikely as the improvement of a clock by a hammer blow.

It is from...

http://www.evidencesofcreation.com/tellme09.htm

And this bit...

This is not an example of "evolution", because natural selection did not give rise to a species that did not exist in nature earlier. Dark-coloured moths were already extant before the industrial revolution.

from

http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:LxUaeM...clnk&cd=1&gl=ca

(don't know if this link will work, but you get the idea. )

Plaigiarism is against forum rules.

[Charles Anthony]

Plaigiarism is against forum rules.

Thank you for reporting this for further reference.

[Adel]

Dear kimmy,

Well done.

At any rate, Adel, I get the impression that you're not actually very familiar with the field you're discussing and are probably just cutting and pasting quotes from Creationist/Intelligent Design websites

Does this quote look familiar?

Mutations are genetic accidents that occur in living things. Like all accidents, they cause harm and destruction. "Evolution" through mutation is as unlikely as the improvement of a clock by a hammer blow.

It is from...

http://www.evidencesofcreation.com/tellme09.htm

And this bit...

This is not an example of "evolution", because natural selection did not give rise to a species that did not exist in nature earlier. Dark-coloured moths were already extant before the industrial revolution.

from

http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:LxUaeM...clnk&cd=1&gl=ca

(don't know if this link will work, but you get the idea. )

Plaigiarism is against forum rules.

Thanes theloniusfleabag for your reply ….

I appreciate your efforts…

When talking about scientific matters, all people - including scientists – quote from their or other’s books and references to support their opinions…

However, I have not quoted from the mentioned websites or any other website. I am quoting from scientific references I have and for most of the quotes I mentioned, I specified the reference name and even the page number…

Probably those websites quoted from the same references…

But I think this is not the point here…

The point is that there are no scientific bases whatsoever to support Evolution…

Did Darwin or any evolutionist have any scientific proof to support their claims?

Does natural selection produce new species, new genetic information, or new organs?

It does not. Even Darwin accepted this fact, stating that "Natural selection can do nothing until favourable individual differences or variations occur.” [The Origin of Species. P127]

[Drea]

The point is that there are no scientific bases whatsoever to support Evolution…

Did Darwin or any evolutionist have any scientific proof to support their claims?

Does natural selection produce new species, new genetic information, or new organs?

It does not. Even Darwin accepted this fact, stating that "Natural selection can do nothing until favourable individual differences or variations occur.” [The Origin of Species. P127]

While MICRO evolution is occuring every day around us (the moth example) -- MACRO evolution (one species morphing into another) does not and is therefore extremely difficult to prove or measure scientifically. But if you think about it -- MACRO evolution is not really changing into a different species -- it's change within a species. For example -- how can a chiuahua and a Newfoundlander be related?

I don't believe in an omnipotent guy in the sky - but I do believe the Old Testament is a history (nonfiction) book (written from ancient Sumerian and older texts).

So yes, there was a "garden" and the first "Adamas" (humans) did work it.

We WERE created, but not by your version of an invisible all-powerful dude.

We were created by the Annunaki (the Neflim -- the sons of "gods" that came down to earth) to work for them. BTW, the word "worship" originally meant "work for".

The sons of gods were not "angels" in the sense that we think of them today -- they were simply people. Yes, the Annunaki are simply people with technology, not all powerful, not omnipotent, they are just like us.

The Annunaki needed a worker, so they took the primative human-like creatures and added their DNA. Voila! Human beings.

So yes, the old Testament, using the language of the day, tries to accurately explain the origins of humanity.

Check out this website -- it was one of the first ones I ever came across -- The Forbidden Knowledge

Or try this one -- Sumerian Culture

and another one --Planet X

... don't expect to look out your window and see Niburu heading our way -- it's not due for at least a couple hundred years.

and this one which has tons of different topics -- World Mysteries

There is no life after death -- "from dust you came, to dust you will return. "

And Adel, if you like I can explain, point by point, everything in Genesis.... ;-) Ready when you are!

[BubberMiley]

2- What is the origin of life?

There isn't one. It was always there and always will be there. It's your linear approach to time that makes this concept difficult to understand.

3- How did the first protein originate?

Once again, there wasn't a first, just as there won't be a last.

[Electric Monk]

Adel, if you are really interested in learning about evolution so that you can discuss it, you need to find some sources that will provide you with accurate information. Here are some links to get you started.

TalkOrigins FAQ

PBS Evolution video series

Otherwise you are just fighting strawmen.

Cartoon

[Adel]

2- What is the origin of life?

There isn't one. It was always there and always will be there. It's your linear approach to time that makes this concept difficult to understand.

3- How did the first protein originate?

Once again, there wasn't a first, just as there won't be a last.

I have not really got any scientific answers….

It is a fact now the universe has a beginning… again and again and again… concepts like time, place, up, down, start, end …etc have been introduced when the universe was created….

No universe, no time, no place…

To limit the discussion a little bit…..

Does diversity within a species - variation or microevolution, whatever you want to call - has anything to do with Evolution? In another way: Can “microevolution” lead to “macroevolution”?

The theory of evolution proposes that living things can develop and take on new genetic data by the mechanisms of mutation and natural selection. However, variations can never create new genetic information, and are thus unable to bring about "evolution." Giving variations the name of "microevolution" is actually an ideological preference on the part of evolutionary biologists.

The impression that evolutionary biologists have given by using the term "microevolution" is the false logic that over time variations can form brand new classes of living things.

I think many people who are not already well-informed on the subject come away with the superficial idea that "as it spreads, microevolution can turn into macroevolution."

The evolutionary biologists S.F. Gilbert, J.M. Opitz, and R.A. Raff explained the matter this way: “…Microevolution looks at adaptations that concern only the survival of the fittest, not the arrival of the fittest” [Developmental Biology, 173, Article no. 0032, 1996, p. 361]

Another revolutionist gives us the answer…

The noted author and science expert Roger Lewin describes the result of a four-day symposium held in November 1980 at the Chicago Museum of Natural History, in which 150 evolutionists participated: “The central question of the Chicago conference was whether the mechanisms underlying microevolution can be extrapolated to explain the phenomena of macroevolution. …The answer can be given as a clear, No” [R. Lewin, "Evolutionary Theory Under Fire", Science, vol. 210, 21 November, 1980, p. 883.]

Please keep in mind this has nothing to do at all with Darwin. Darwin, as a scientist who tried his best to bring about answers to the big questions in life, is really appreciated…

However, whether his theory or the so-called neo-Darwinism is true is a completely different matter…

[Slavik44]

I am going to start with four points that I want you to understand before I go any further.

1) It is somewhat irrational to suggest that because the earth is complex their must be a more complex creator, with out turning that logic around at this even more complex ccreator. Personaly I find it easier to believe that the less complex object (the earth) has no creator than the more complex object (god) not having one.

2) The term Darwinism is a bit of an abusrd term tossed around by YEC, Darwin was one of the early theororists who came up with a mechanism for Evolution, natural selection.

3) Natural selection is not random, so when individuals describe evolution as random, they are being so ignorant it is not even funny.

4) Evolution is not persay dealing with where the first life forms came from, but how these life forms have changed over time.

-------------------------------

On to the other stuff....

1) Mutations

When someone tells you that mutations are like hitting a clock with a hammer, you should refer to this person as a dip shit who doesn't know what they are talking about.

Mutations do infact happen, most mutations tend to be fairly neutral. Wether they are harmful or helpful is generally a factor of the environment, not the what the brain of some dimwitted moron thinks.

ex. We can see mutations all the time in bacteria and the development of anti-biotic resistances, these are mutations.

2) Microevolution to Macroevolution

This is agian another one of those false dillema's there is no reason why micro-evolutionary changes cannot eventually lead to speciation through divergence of the gene pool and sperated breeding.

Huh?

Okay so if we start with mutations (which happen, and are observed)

All that is truly neccessary is time and reproductive drift/barriers to reproduction

We have prooven that we have the time, and a hell of a long time we have.

Bariers?

Can a chihauaha naturally breed with a wolf? (can't happen in nature)

Can a wolf breed with a Coyote (Cannot happen period)

That would be drift

Macro-evolution is not two fishes having sex and boom an elaphant popped out. It is just as simple as two fishes having sex and a fish popping out.

After all how many species of fish do we have? I will give you a clue, more than one.

So when you say that you don't believe in Macro-evolution because fish only give birth to fish, you are ignoring the fundemental point that there are more than one species of fish. Macro-evolution can be just that a fish giving birth to a fish.

3) Traces

So what we want to look for is traces of such ancestry

- We might raise a question like why do humans have latent tails, or have you ever fell on your tail bone?

A modern manifestation of a different past.

- We might look at the present and see snakes with a pelvis, or latent claws, and then look in the past and see fossil snakes with legs

A modern manifestation of a different past

4) Vestigal organs

- Vestigal does not mean useless, instead it is a secondary use to their original use...so if someone says, "it has a use it cannot be a vestigal"...take that hammer you were hitting your radio with and smash them in the head, don't worry it cannot possibley make them any dumber.

- Appendix, it has a different use than just giving us a appendicites, instead it would stand as a modern manifestation of a different past, a past in which our diet was different from what it now could be.

-wings on an ostrich

No not useless but overly complex for the task they are being used for by ostriches.

5) Non-functional DNA

i.e The existance of parts of left over genes that corresponds to the biosynthesis of Vitamin C

The Exon 10 for Gulo

This is a shared charachteristic of not just humans but other primates, species in which we see a relative recent divergence of our lineage.

English?

We have a mutation that exists in humans, and the Human Lineage

Within that lineage we find that the Human sequence most closely correpsonds to chimpanzees, the primate in which are lineage most recently split from.

It is not simply a case that this function has been lost,

But that our closest relatives have also lost that function, and amongst our relative primates, those primates that share the most recent ancestor with us (Chimps) have the most similar sequence to us.

This same phenomenon can be witnessed with the Guinea Pig, which has also lost the same function. Of course between Humans And guinea pigs there are species that are capable of vitamin C biosynthesis. Therefore we should not expect similarities between the Primate sequence and Guinea Pig sequence. The Guinea Pig sequence should be closely related to its family members.

Although they are both non-functional, the actual sequence of the guinea pig and the primate are vastly different. Instead the guinea pig's non-functional sequence is most similar to that of its family members (Rats and mice) not primates. just as would be suggested by evolution.