Endogenous retroviruses

dad · #**521** 27th October 2006, 07:06 PM

Originally Posted by Chalnoth

Fantasy world. Check.

You still haven't explained how this mechanism results in a nested hierarchy without common ancestry. Every attempt you've made to provide an explanation wouldn't result in a nested hierarchy.

I gave the elephant tree. Is that not part of the NH?

Ondoher · #**522** 27th October 2006, 07:06 PM

Originally Posted by dad

You can't test the past at all, let's be honest! The predictions you make are based on the present, extrapolated backward, and so they have to fit here, where they were spawned!

You really need to do a little research on the hypothetico-deductive method of science. I'm getting tired of trying to educate the unwilling on how science works.

Ondoher · #**523** 27th October 2006, 07:08 PM

Originally Posted by dad

I gave the elephant tree. Is that not part of the NH?

You've not explained how we arrived at a nested hierarchy that includes ALL species.

dad · #**524** 27th October 2006, 07:43 PM

Originally Posted by Ondoher

You really need to do a little research on the hypothetico-deductive method of science. I'm getting tired of trying to educate the unwilling on how science works.

I am getting tired of you pretending to know what you are talking about, when you can't put something on the table.
You can deduct all you want about the past, but it is based on the hypothetical, assumed same past that is based on the presnet. Before we deduct too much, better check what you actually know.

dad · #**525** 27th October 2006, 07:53 PM

Originally Posted by Ondoher

You've not explained how we arrived at a nested hierarchy that includes ALL species.

Well, I gave an example there where the created elephant evolved into the various kinds.

The kinds seem simple and clear enough, it is your desperate attempts to connect it to the worm, that is the question mark!!!!
The bible talks of wolves in heaven, and lookie here, this tree has a wolf as the kind that gave us other dogs.

Ondoher · #**526** 27th October 2006, 07:57 PM

Originally Posted by dad

Well, I gave an example there where the created elephant evolved into the various kinds.

The kinds seem simple and clear enough, it is your desperate attempts to connect it to the worm, that is the question mark!!!!

Before discussing science it helps to understand how science works. Before discussing evolution it helps to understand what scientists have to say about it. You've not met either of these prerequisites.

Loudmouth · #**527** 27th October 2006, 07:58 PM

Originally Posted by dad

Well, I gave an example there where the created elephant evolved into the various kinds.

The kinds seem simple and clear enough, it is your desperate attempts to connect it to the worm, that is the question mark!!!!

Umm, are you saying that the giraffe and whale are in the same kind?

dad · #**528** 27th October 2006, 08:05 PM

Originally Posted by Loudmouth

Umm, are you saying that the giraffe and whale are in the same kind?

No, I was looking at how the question mark was there, as it got toward the worm!!
The lines are just evo assumptions other than a created kind.
Look at almost any "kind" of animal you want, they came from something similar in the past.

Loudmouth · #**529** 27th October 2006, 08:15 PM

Originally Posted by dad

No, I was looking at how the question mark was there, as it got toward the worm!!

I was looking at how all of these different mammals were rooted by synapomorphies. Whether or not THE common ancestor is found this does not put common ancestry in doubt. In fact, it is impossible to judge whether any one species is the common ancestor of two other species without DNA comparisons.

Of course, that is the whole point of this ERV discussion. ERV's are evidence of common ancestry.

Look at almost any "kind" of animal you want, they came from something similar in the past.

Yes, including common ancestry for chimps and humans as evidenced by fossils species and ERV's.

dad · #**530** 27th October 2006, 08:46 PM

Originally Posted by Loudmouth

I was looking at how all of these different mammals were rooted by synapomorphies.

A synapomorphy is a derived character-state shared by two or more terminal groups (taxa included in a cladistic analysis as further indivisible units) and inherited from their most recent common ancestor.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synapomorphy
So, the idea is that the traits came from the most recent ancestor, or, generally, created kind. Beyond that is purest speculation.

Whether or not THE common ancestor is found this does not put common ancestry in doubt.

Where the created kind is the common ancestor, no!

In fact, it is impossible to judge whether any one species is the common ancestor of two other species without DNA comparisons.

And how many of these do we actually have that relate to the worm that made the elephant?

Of course, that is the whole point of this ERV discussion. ERV's are evidence of common ancestry.

The whole idea of ERVs is that they are found in traces as having been in life in the past. No, 'common ancestory' is possiblr to deduce here, beyong the created ancestors.

Yes, including common ancestry for chimps and humans as evidenced by fossils species and ERV's.

Well, in that particular instance, if you want to talk more than ERVs, and bring in fossils, what is it that says we had some past hokey pokey to where men and chimps are related?