Endogenous retroviruses

Loudmouth · #31 19th March 2004, 08:58 PM

It looks like the creationists here are suffering from Morton's Demon.

Can't help it. A little excerpt from the site above.

Originally Posted by Glenn Morton

Thus was born the realization that there is a dangerous demon on the loose. When I was a YEC, I had a demon that did similar things for me that Maxwell's demon did for thermodynamics. Morton's demon was a demon who sat at the gate of my sensory input apparatus and if and when he saw supportive evidence coming in, he opened the gate. But if he saw contradictory data coming in, he closed the gate. In this way, the demon allowed me to believe that I was right and to avoid any nasty contradictory data. Fortunately, I eventually realized that the demon was there and began to open the gate when he wasn't looking.

Dracil · #32 19th March 2004, 09:58 PM

Isn't that just cognitive dissonance?

DaSpEcSter · #33 19th March 2004, 11:35 PM

I have to ask a favor!
Could some people summarize what the "endigenous retroviruse" is?
I didn't really understand the article or win-ace's post.
So I would really appreciate someone explaining it to me in simpler terms!

WinAce · #34 20th March 2004, 12:42 AM

It's pretty simple. Here's the Cliffs' Notes version.

Egg or sperm cell.
That cell gets attacked by a virus.
Virus injects genetic fingerprint, but botches the hijacking.
Cell survives.
Cell now contains easily identifiable and unique viral fingerprint in DNA.
Cell is fertilized and becomes a new creature.
That creature contains easily identifiable and unique viral fingerprint in all of its individual cells.
All descendants of said creature are the same.
Thus, finding two creatures with identical viral fingerprint in their DNA indicates they're related.
Humans and chimps have identical viral fingerprints in all of their cells.
All creationist hypotheses thus far proposed that try to explain this fail awfully.
Thus, humans and chimps are related.

The longer post above is just all of these points with longer summaries, arguments and supporting references.

Dracil · #35 20th March 2004, 04:57 PM

I'm surprised at least one creationist didn't simply try to copy those refuted arguments from near the beginning of the thread and use it as an argument.

Alternate Carpark · #36 20th March 2004, 06:13 PM

It's pretty simple. Here's the Cliffs' Notes version.

Egg or sperm cell.

That cell gets attacked by a virus.

Virus injects genetic fingerprint, but botches the hijacking.

Cell survives.

Cell now contains easily identifiable and unique viral fingerprint in DNA.

Cell is fertilized and becomes a new creature.

That creature contains easily identifiable and unique viral fingerprint in all of its individual cells.

All descendants of said creature are the same.

Thus, finding two creatures with identical viral fingerprint in their DNA indicates they're related.

Humans and chimps have identical viral fingerprints in all of their cells.

All creationist hypotheses thus far proposed that try to explain this fail awfully.

Thus, humans and chimps are related.

As Sergeant Pinback said so eloquently as the planet destroying bomb just sat there stuck in the bomb bay door, "DROP DROP DROP"
So to I must say, "NO NO NO"

Thus, finding two creatures with identical viral fingerprint in their DNA INDICATES they're related.

HUH ??? DOES IT ???
It can ALSO be said that finding two creatures with identical viral footprints in their DNA indicates they are two UNRELATED creatures
who were both infected with the same virus.
I mean if a human has virus X and a monkey has virus X, how does this even remotely indicate that they are related ?

Unless of course you are looking for any kind of information to back up a theory that needs backing up *giggles*

Nice to see you use the word INDICATE and not PROOF.
But sad to see that you regard INDICATION as absolute proof.
( OBTW--Sorry , I am not a creationist so you can still proudly stand there in your best superman pose
with your fists on your hips and declare that the creationist still haven't responded )
And *giggles* you can now make up a theory as to why they haven't. Then believe that theory because it reinforces your initial belief in man's theory of evolution.

To be fair to the creationists though. The hugely complicated posts at the start, explaining this new theory to plug yet another hole in the evolution theory was intimidating. Which was the whole point of using it wasn't it.

"Look we scared them off with our big words and complex formulas etc, we win."
It's the same when creationists blurt out tons of scripture at you. It is incomprehensable to you and a waste of time saying it.

Both camps sit there and say, "You can't refute or challenge what I said so I must be right "
If you're going to debate the issue at least communicate so everyone understands the topic.

It's like debating with a politician or a high flying lawyer.
Big words and lots of techno babble does not constitute truth or being right.

PhantomLlama · #37 20th March 2004, 06:27 PM

At last! Someone responds! Pity it's an Ark Guy.

As I am not knowledgeable in the subject, I will only pick up on one part of your post:

Nice to see you use the word INDICATE and not PROOF.
But sad to see that you regard INDICATION as absolute proof.

No-one is claiming there is absolute proof. There is no absolute proof of a theory in science.

Alternate Carpark · #38 20th March 2004, 06:37 PM

There is no absolute proof of a theory in science.

HUH ???

And what kind of people are you wanting to respond ....evolutionists ???
Ark guy... *giggles*

PhantomLlama · #39 20th March 2004, 06:47 PM

Originally Posted by Alternate Carpark

[/font]
HUH ???

It's true. No theory in science, not the theory of gravity, or the big bang theory , or even the (much older and better supported than the previous two) theory of evolution has been proven.

And what kind of people are you wanting to respond ....evolutionists ???

Ark guy... *giggles*

Ark Guy doesn't mean creationist. It's a reference to a person who used to post in these forums a few months ago.

Data · #40 20th March 2004, 06:48 PM

HUH ??? DOES IT ???
It can ALSO be said that finding two creatures with identical viral footprints in their DNA indicates they are two UNRELATED creatures
who were both infected with the same virus.
I mean if a human has virus X and a monkey has virus X, how does this even remotely indicate that they are related ?

Incorrect. The viral imprint is never in the same place on our DNA strand, which is very, very, very long. If a human has virus X and a monkey has virus X, then the imprint will be in different places. However if ancestor has virux X, and human has exactly the same imprint, then they are related.