Just for final clarification yes, we evolved from monkeys.

[TagliatelliMonster]

Nope it's all assumption.

No, it's not. Want to keep playing this game?
Before you do, I advice you to learn about what ERV's are. It's clear that you don't know.

Especially when it comes to chimps and humans.

ERV's in humans and chimps aren't any different from ERV's in any other host creature.

Similarity leads to ERV insertions.

No. Viral DNA in host cells, lead to ERV insertions. Inheritable insertions, if it happens in sex cells.

Particularly when you consider the vast difference between chimps and humans.

Humans and chimps are more alike then different by any possible measure.

Evolution is assumed

to be true

No, it's not.

therefore ERV is evidence of common ancestor.

No. Evolution is concluded from all the data.
ERV data only further confirms it. It didn't have to confirm it. If evolution was wrong, ERV data wouldn't fit into the model. It wouldn't reflect nested hierarchies. But it does.

And yes I assume intelligent design.

Finally, you got something correct.

ERV insertions are evidence of common design.

No, they aren't.
Unless you wish to submit that a god, oeps sorry "designer", is running around injecting identical inheritable viral DNA into host cells of plenty of creatures, to make it look as if it is inherited from a common ancestor.

But why one would believe such outlandish, unsupportable, unfalsifiable nonsense while there is perfectly reasonable, observable, verifiable and demonstrable known mechanism, is absurd to the highest degree.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The ID proponents were utterly humiliated in the Dover case and had to admit under oath that ID is unscientific.

And the icing on the cake, off course, is that they had to change the definition of "scientific model" in order to be able to call ID such a model, which resulted in them having to admit that under that "new" definition, astrology also becomes a valid scientific model.

Yes, horoscopes. If ID is science, then so is a horoscope.

How people cannot see the obvious here, is mindblowing.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Explain how identical ERV insertion locations are an example of "similarity in design".

Ow that's easy...

First, you start with the "truth" that "life is designed"
Then, you point at 2 similar ERV's
Finally you say "see? similar design".
And to end with, you suddenly stop speaking about "designer" and start using the word "god" instead, hoping nobody will notice.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Yakety Yakety yakety yak yak!

Please make your point in your own words, instead of such drive-by posting which adds nothing to the conversation.

 

[Jimmy D]

The differences between the too are far greater than the similarities. It just goes to show that ERVs really prove nothing.

ERVs right now show similarity in design.

LOL

 

[loveofourlord]

Yakety Yakety yakety yak yak!

More utter nonsense and don't respond to anything I said...good job :> Real intelectual honesty, i never directly said vestigal organs, and you obviously don't have a clue what vestigial means, but how about the OTHER things, like vestigial genes, why do whales that don't smell in the air have 4% or so of their DNA devoted to useless scents? It's almost as if they evolved from animals that once used to smell on land.

 

[loveofourlord]

Are we descended from bats?
Bats have the same Gulo characteristic as humans.
To remain consistent you would need to claim human ancestry from bats.

Is it? Pigs also have that issue, but their break is unique to them.simular issue, but completly different reasons, LEARN SOME THING.

 

[USincognito]

Well you,can't really falsify common,ancestor...

I chalk this assertion up to your lack of understanding of science in general and evolution in particular so here's a gift.

- Humans sharing 70% of DNA with armadillos but only 30% with chimpanzees.
- Birds with wings and forelimbs (or arms).
- Lizards with mammary glands.
- Shrimp with backbones.
- A human with a chitinous exoskeleton.
- Mollusks with cell walls.
- A Cretaceous elephant.
- A Devonian T-Rex
- A Silurian Great White or Mako shark

The list of potential falsifications for common ancestry are endless.

either because you can't prove

It exists in the evolutionist mind because they believe there was one.

Your vacuous rhetoric might make you feel better, but it doesn't make the evidence go away.

 

[loveofourlord]

Evolutionists will go to any extreme to fit the findings to the predictions to make then seem as if evolution has predictive power.
Look what they did with Lucy!

You mean...lucy ONE example of around a dozen? Your ingorance is palable, you do realize she's not the only member we've found, and if that was about the knee? You do realize that wasn't lucies that was a second or previous one forget if lucy was found first or not, but creationists have lied and made up stories about it being the same fossil, it was two different fossils of the same species, you guys need to actually up date your information.

 

[USincognito]

That's irrelevant because your grandparents are human. Just like a moth is still a moth no,matter how long a time passes.

By Jove! I think you finally might be starting to understand evolution. Whatever moths evolve into in the future, they will never stop being moths. Just like they'll never stop being Lepidopterans, Insects, Arthropods, Protostomes, Bilaterians or Animals.

Their ancestors, however weren't moths. They were basal Lepidopterans, Insects, Arthropods, Protostomes, Bilaterians and Animals depending on the time frame.

 

[USincognito]

I don't know you...

I checked one of your posts. I you remember, join dates are listed in every post and you joined in 2004. The public notice for your banning was 2010. I joined JREF forums in 2001 and am a member to this day. I don't know how much we interacted, if at all, but I remember your user ID and posting style.

and don't understand what it is you are referring to.
I direct my replies at the argument and concepts not at the person.
As for debunked? That is a matter of opinion and nothing more.


As for my methodology here being identical to the one at Randi many years ago?
I beg to differ. Judging by the reactions, I am far more efficiently devastating now than I was then at pointing out the inane, evolutionist atheistic inanities and illogical inconsistencies than I was then.

That's nice.

 

[USincognito]

Like slowly morph from a bird to a lizard or vice versa.

I spoke too soon. The fact that you think evolution is "morphing" and that birds/lizards are an evolutionary branch tells me you have learned nothing in these last couple of weeks.

The similarities between chimps,and humans and the ERVs are still assumed to show common ancestor.

You keep using "assumed", etc. like they're magic words. I keep telling you they're not and you're not actually addressing the evidence in any way, shape or form. ERVs are inherited from your ancestors. The only way for two species to share 203,000 of them is common ancestry. If you want to claim "common design" then you need to explain why the designer inserted 203,000 ERVs into humans and chimps in a way that mimics common ancestry.

I've said this over and over.

Repeating assertions rooted in ignorance and that are incorrect does not make them germane and effective.

The differences between the too are far greater than the similarities. It just goes to show that ERVs really prove nothing. Show me a chimp who,can build a rocket or create a vaccine or design and build a deck.

You're still a very confused gentleman. You're confusing technological differences with biological ones. The biological differences between humans and chimps are virtually zero when compared with technological ones.

 

[USincognito]

4. And yes, again, if it's what I think your talking about our Y chromosone has lost some DNA, obviously it wasn't important enough and probably effects some of the dimorphism and such hardly something different.

I believe that's a reference to the male-specific region of the Y chromosome which sequencing showed was as different in humans and chimpanzees as the entire human genome is from the entire chicken genome.

Guess how the dishonest charlatans at ICR spun that finding.
http://www.icr.org/article/humans-close-chickens-they-are-chimps/
>> Are Humans as Close to Chickens as They Are to Chimps?<<

 

[USincognito]

Asumptions once,again. ERVs right now show similarity in design. They do,not prove common ancestor. Once again you assume it does.

You need to explain why the designer inserted 203,000 ERVs into the human and chimp genomes in such a way a to mimic common ancestry.

 

[loveofourlord]

I believe that's a reference to the male-specific region of the Y chromosome which sequencing showed was as different in humans and chimpanzees as the entire human genome is from the entire chicken genome.

Guess how the dishonest charlatans at ICR spun that finding.
http://www.icr.org/article/humans-close-chickens-they-are-chimps/
>> Are Humans as Close to Chickens as They Are to Chimps?<<

hmmmm ahhhh I was thinking about a report a while ago that the Y chromosone was slowly shrinking with humans or something like that.

 

[loveofourlord]

Untrue! I never receive a direct reply to my requests for a rebuttal to my claims.
All I get is what you are doing.

BTW
Here is a very relevant video which illustrates my points:

You see, you folks evade such things. You never respond directly to any of them. You simply respond with irrelevant claims.

Congradulations you just shot all credability you had....wich wasn't really much with those two videos :> Do you even bother to vet these things? All information I can find online was a joke sight that made up the original article, and then someone changed the article to be from harvard on another joke site. Seriously if this is your level of fact checking no reason to trust anything you say.

 

[AV1611VET]

Congradulations you just shot all credability you had....wich wasn't really much with those two videos :> Do you even bother to vet these things? All information I can find online was a joke sight that made up the original article, and then someone changed the article to be from harvard on another joke site. Seriously if this is your level of fact checking no reason to trust anything you say.

I'm sure that just breaks his heart.

When the day comes that we Christians owe you guys a scientific explanation for our beliefs, then I'd say we missed the Rapture somehow.

 

[loveofourlord]

Nope it's all assumption. Especially when it comes to chimps and humans. Similarity leads to ERV insertions. Particularly when you consider the vast difference between chimps and humans. Evolution is assumed to be true therefore ERV is evidence of common ancestor.

And yes I assume intelligent design. ERV insertions are evidence of common design.

explain how that works? When you consider that the old junk yard analogy of a 747 appearing has more likley hood then even 1% of the ERV's being the same, your just making up stuff, show how they can be the in the exact same spots, and if it's due to simularities, show why tehre are many we've since acumulated, heck there are erv's that are unique within the human population probably, explain that? It's pretty pathetic ho creationists like magick words, like assumption but obviously are clueless about what they are talking about.

 

[Subduction Zone]

explain how that works? When you consider that the old junk yard analogy of a 747 appearing has more likley hood then even 1% of the ERV's being the same, your just making up stuff, show how they can be the in the exact same spots, and if it's due to simularities, show why tehre are many we've since acumulated, heck there are erv's that are unique within the human population probably, explain that? It's pretty pathetic ho creationists like magick words, like assumption but obviously are clueless about what they are talking about.

I have noticed when creationists do not understand the scientific method that was used to come to a conclusion they will often claim that a concept is "assumed". When a creationist claims that something is assumed I read it as meaning that they do not understand how a conclusion was reached.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I have noticed when creationists do not understand the scientific method that was used to come to a conclusion they will often claim that a concept is "assumed". When a creationist claims that something is assumed I read it as meaning that they do not understand how a conclusion was reached.

And they never say WHY it's an assumption, either. They just keep repeating it ad nauseum.