Creation/Evolution Non-Participant Commentary & InvitationsComment on existent debates, invite or challenge members to debates, and plan your debates here!
View Poll Results: Are you interested in debating the topic?
I disagree, I learn a lot from reading debates.
[/size][/color][/font]
I'm just curious, did you learn something from this one?
__________________
“Gärtner, by the results of these transformation experiments, was led to oppose the opinion of those naturalists who dispute the stability of plant species and believe in a continuous evolution of vegetation. He perceives in the complete transformation of one species into another an indubitable proof that species are fixed with limits beyond which they cannot change.” (G. Mendel)
I'm just curious, did you learn something from this one?
To tell you the truth though, when you and LM started talking about ERVs I got confused. You seem to be arguing that his 200,000 orthologous ERV number doesn't exist, I'm aware that the two greatest classes of ERVs are not orthologous but I was wondering if you could help me understand.
__________________ You will do me the justice to remember, that I have always strenuously supported the Right of every Man to his own opinion, however different that opinion might be to mine. He who denies to another this right, makes a slave of himself to his present opinion, because he precludes himself the right of changing it.
-- Thomas Paine
Last edited by RichardT; 24th November 2007 at 02:27 PM.
To tell you the truth though, when you and LM started talking about ERVs I got confused. You seem to be arguing that his 200,000 orthologous ERV number doesn't exist, I'm aware that the two greatest classes of ERVs are not orthologous but I was wondering if you could help me understand.
LM was using an estimate from the Human Genome Project's original paper. They did identify 200,000 but that was an early estimate. The issue that came up in the debate was the percentage of the human genome that is made up of ERVs. The latest research is saying 8% counting fragments, initially LM was saying 1%, even the HGP for 4%.
Talk Origins has some very dated and bogus information that evolutionists take as gospel. It's sad really, he never did figure it out so we didn't get to spend any real time on ERVs.
__________________
“Gärtner, by the results of these transformation experiments, was led to oppose the opinion of those naturalists who dispute the stability of plant species and believe in a continuous evolution of vegetation. He perceives in the complete transformation of one species into another an indubitable proof that species are fixed with limits beyond which they cannot change.” (G. Mendel)
LM was using an estimate from the Human Genome Project's original paper. They did identify 200,000 but that was an early estimate. The issue that came up in the debate was the percentage of the human genome that is made up of ERVs. The latest research is saying 8% counting fragments, initially LM was saying 1%, even the HGP for 4%.
Talk Origins has some very dated and bogus information that evolutionists take as gospel. It's sad really, he never did figure it out so we didn't get to spend any real time on ERVs.
Alright thank you, that makes perfect sense to me, as if Talk.Origins cared about truth.
EDIT: Anyone can look up the ERVs on the genomes, but I'm thinking that they aren't all labeled yet. Also, I can't even count close to 200,000 orthologs from this search of the chimp / human genomes. I'll try to get you the exact number.
__________________ You will do me the justice to remember, that I have always strenuously supported the Right of every Man to his own opinion, however different that opinion might be to mine. He who denies to another this right, makes a slave of himself to his present opinion, because he precludes himself the right of changing it.
-- Thomas Paine
Last edited by RichardT; 26th November 2007 at 01:34 AM.
The issue that came up in the debate was the percentage of the human genome that is made up of ERVs. The latest research is saying 8% counting fragments, initially LM was saying 1%, even the HGP for 4%.
My only reference throughout was the HGP which is the most recent estimate that I am aware of. I referenced Table 11 from the HGP several times.
Talk Origins has some very dated and bogus information that evolutionists take as gospel. It's sad really, he never did figure it out so we didn't get to spend any real time on ERVs.
Then ignore TO. Focus on the 200,000 orthologous ERV's found in the HGP and CGP.
__________________ “Because they know not the forces of nature, and in order that they may have comrades in their ignorance, they suffer not that others should search out anything, and would have us believe like rustics and ask no reason...But we ask in all things a reason must be sought.” --William of Conches (c. 1090 – after 1154)
My only reference throughout was the HGP which is the most recent estimate that I am aware of. I referenced Table 11 from the HGP several times.
It was and is dated material, that was the initial sequence.
Then ignore TO. Focus on the 200,000 orthologous ERV's found in the HGP and CGP.
The ERV argument is not going to get you what you need. Current research is important because a lot of things from the original HGP has been revised. The number of genes for instance and even the classes of ERVs are still in flux.
I'm not crazy about Talk Origins for a lot of reasons, many of the same reasons I don't like creationist websites. I like primary source material and the current research is yielding a lot of information about ERVs that was unknown when the TO stuff was first proposed.
__________________
“Gärtner, by the results of these transformation experiments, was led to oppose the opinion of those naturalists who dispute the stability of plant species and believe in a continuous evolution of vegetation. He perceives in the complete transformation of one species into another an indubitable proof that species are fixed with limits beyond which they cannot change.” (G. Mendel)
I'm not crazy about Talk Origins for a lot of reasons, many of the same reasons I don't like creationist websites. I like primary source material and the current research is yielding a lot of information about ERVs that was unknown when the TO stuff was first proposed.
What about RATE? They did some pretty cool research projects.
Check out the RATE book. A lot of the Creationist material is written for laymen who don't read as much of the scientific literature, I personally like Creationist websites.
__________________ You will do me the justice to remember, that I have always strenuously supported the Right of every Man to his own opinion, however different that opinion might be to mine. He who denies to another this right, makes a slave of himself to his present opinion, because he precludes himself the right of changing it.
-- Thomas Paine
Last edited by RichardT; 26th November 2007 at 11:48 PM.
What about RATE? They did some pretty cool research projects.
Check out the RATE book. A lot of the Creationist material is written for laymen who don't read as much of the scientific literature, I personally like Creationist websites.
Show me one research project from that document Richard. And by the way, a review of the existing literature (all experiments done and data collected by actual scientists), is not a "research project".
__________________ I hear stories from the chamber / How Christ was born into a manger
And like some ragged stranger / Died upon the cross
And might I say it seems so fitting in its way
He was a carpenter by trade / Or at least that's what I'm told
--Mercy Seat, Nick Cave and the Bad Seeds
It was and is dated material, that was the initial sequence.
Then give me a reference for the most up to date sequence comparisons that discuss ERV's.
The ERV argument is not going to get you what you need. Current research is important because a lot of things from the original HGP has been revised. The number of genes for instance and even the classes of ERVs are still in flux.
What is not in flux is that orthologous ERV's fall into a nested hierarchy, just as evolution predicts. This was known before the HGP and CGP were finished.
I'm not crazy about Talk Origins for a lot of reasons, many of the same reasons I don't like creationist websites. I like primary source material and the current research is yielding a lot of information about ERVs that was unknown when the TO stuff was first proposed.
It is unfortunate that the TO webpages are not continually updated, but all of their material is based off of the primary lit.
__________________ “Because they know not the forces of nature, and in order that they may have comrades in their ignorance, they suffer not that others should search out anything, and would have us believe like rustics and ask no reason...But we ask in all things a reason must be sought.” --William of Conches (c. 1090 – after 1154)
And by the way, a review of the existing literature (all experiments done and data collected by actual scientists), is not a "research project".
I'm aware of that. RATE has done some pretty cool research projects.
"This prompted Robert Gentry at Oak Ridge National Laboratory to ask the Los Alamos team to send him core samples from various depths in GT-2 (as well as samples from deeper boreholes nearby). Gentry and his team extracted zircons from the samples, hand-picked crystals between 50 and 75 microns long (Figure 3), and measured the total amounts of helium in them. From the amounts of radiogenic lead in the zircons, they estimated how much helium the nuclear decay should have deposited in the crystals. They found that "an almost phenomenal amount of He has been retained" in the zircons, despite them being small, hot, and allegedly old (Gentry et al., 1982a). Table I shows their results as samples 1 through 6."
__________________ You will do me the justice to remember, that I have always strenuously supported the Right of every Man to his own opinion, however different that opinion might be to mine. He who denies to another this right, makes a slave of himself to his present opinion, because he precludes himself the right of changing it.
What did you think of the debate? 
Linear Mode
