Endogenous retroviruses

[Chalnoth]

All of your speculations on how a different past might somehow 'fix' this issue are totally pointless unless you can explain what this different past was that causes this to be explained. Until you supply such an explanation, there is absolutely no reason to listen to you.

 

[dad]

All of your speculations on how a different past might somehow 'fix' this issue are totally pointless unless you can explain what this different past was that causes this to be explained. Until you supply such an explanation, there is absolutely no reason to listen to you.

Just as there is no need to listen to things based on an unsupported past you believe in. But the issue at hand is the ervs.
Sounds like, from your reply, you really have no ammo against the approach I take on the issue.
The thing needs no fixing. What needs fixing is the load of present based, evolution from a speck philosophy assumptions that have lobotmized man's true knowedge of the past. And where's that?

 

[Chalnoth]

Sounds like, from your reply, you really have no ammo against the approach I take on the issue.

Sure I do. You don't even known what your approach means. How can it be right if the one proposing it doesn't even know what it means?

 

[dad]

Sure I do. You don't even known what your approach means. How can it be right if the one proposing it doesn't even know what it means?

I always know it is a good sign when old agers resort to this defensive mode stuff. It means they have nothing to shoot, or fight back with, so want to sound as dignified as possible.
I have not been mean here, I simply wanted to look at the big, scary, erv issue that is oft raised, in hushed tones as something strong for the evo side.
In the digging into it, so far, I have asked whether the traces we see could be known to mean that it was exactly the virus as we know it, in a process as we know it that left the traces, as has been assumed. The answer, apparently is no!
Come on, Mark, and some of you guys, up on biology and such, here, finish them off, deal the death blow here, it is set up for you.

 

[Chalnoth]

So your problem with me is that I'm making the simplest possible assumption that one can make: the present is the same as the past. Your problem with me is that I'm making an assumption so simple that it one would never expect the past to make any sense whatsoever if it were not true.

And my problem with you is that you haven't defined what your different past is. You haven't explained why your different past doesn't look any different. You haven't explained why your different past allows for some incredibly different correlations. You've only said, "Oh, well, maybe it was different! Then your argument falls to pieces if it was different!" And the problem with what you're saying is that my argument doesn't fall to pieces. The argument doesn't fall to pieces because assuming a same past allows us to explain the universe. Stating that the past was different doesn't allow us to explain anything. So going with the assumption of a same past is infinitely better.

Unless, of course, you can come up with a modification of physical laws past some date that matches all experimental data that man has ever collected. If you can do that, you would be very deserving of a nobel prize. But you're not going to ever do that, because you don't even have an understanding of current physical law, let alone how current physical law might be modified.

 

[dad]

So your problem with me is that I'm making the simplest possible assumption that one can make: the present is the same as the past.

Unless you can prove that claim, of course it is a problem claim.

Your problem with me is that I'm making an assumption so simple that it one would never expect the past to make any sense whatsoever if it were not true.

No, I think the past makes a lot of sense despite that not being true.

And my problem with you is that you haven't defined what your different past is. You haven't explained why your different past doesn't look any different.

You mean why the present looks like it does, coming from a different past. But this is precisely how it should look, coming from a bible past.

You haven't explained why your different past allows for some incredibly different correlations. You've only said, "Oh, well, maybe it was different! Then your argument falls to pieces if it was different!" And the problem with what you're saying is that my argument doesn't fall to pieces. The argument doesn't fall to pieces because assuming a same past allows us to explain the universe.

Right, either way we can come up with an explanation, I never said a fantasy explanation was not possible of some same past! I simply note that there was no such thing, and we can see the glaring lack of any evidence for the claim.

Stating that the past was different doesn't allow us to explain anything. So going with the assumption of a same past is infinitely better.

On the contrary, it allows us to explain everything, and not even have to ignore the bible, or man's knowledge there is a spiritual. Why be in denial?????!!!!

Unless, of course, you can come up with a modification of physical laws past some date that matches all experimental data that man has ever collected. If you can do that, you would be very deserving of a nobel prize. But you're not going to ever do that, because you don't even have an understanding of current physical law, let alone how current physical law might be modified.

I don't need that, because it was not the physical that was modified! It was the merged that was left as this PO.
Anyhow, we are straying from the topic here, which is about ervs.
As it stands, I guess, if there was a different past, the ervs are now explained. No? Try to focus.

 

[Chalnoth]

So you're asking me to prove my supposition that explains tremendous amounts about the world around us, but you're not worried about proving your own position that explains nothing. Gotta love it.

 

[dad]

So you're asking me to prove my supposition that explains tremendous amounts about the world around us, but you're not worried about proving your own position that explains nothing. Gotta love it.

God's different future and past explain all things, and bettter than anything you can dream of.
I think, then, a new look at the traces of what are now viruses is called for.

 

[Chalnoth]

God's different future and past explain all things, and bettter than anything you can dream of.

Okay, explain why humans have two arms and two legs.

 

[dad]

Okay, explain why humans have two arms and two legs.

So we can make love, cook, pick fruit, wash up, walk, and etc. Is that supposed to be a tough one???

 

[Chalnoth]

So we can make love, cook, pick fruit, wash up, walk, and etc. Is that supposed to be a tough one???

Might we not do all of those things better with two legs and four arms?

 

[dad]

Might we not do all of those things better with two legs and four arms?

God didn't seem to think so. Why would I trouble my mind with wanting to go on all fours like an animal???

 

[Chalnoth]

God didn't seem to think so.

Why didn't God want to give us four arms? It would certainly nice to have some extra arms to work with sometimes!

 

[Schroeder]

i am perfectly willing to do that. now please show me an alternate theory that predicts that the nested hierarchy of ERV insertions should match the one predicted by morphology. if you can't then there's nothing "outside the box" for me to look at. as i mentioned above, common descent predicts the nested hierarchy. it is because of the prediction that this is evidence for common ancestry. if you can show me another theory that makes the same prediction, then that would be evidence for that theory too. can you?

creation but creation doesnt claim a nested hierarchy from ome ansector. SO you will not except it. which is my point.

yes it could be, and if we found out that it was, then evolution would be falsified. no one has ever been able to find a species that does not fit in to the nested hierarchy (a horse with bird wings would do, or any other chimera), or a sharing of ERV insertions that violates the nested hierarchy. if they find one of these things, then it will falsify evolution. that's what makes it a scientific theory, it's falsifiable. since no one has been able to falsify it, that makes it good science.

why would we find a speciea that doesnt fit in it. all it is is showing how all the animals share similiar things or traits or whatever. GOd would not make a world that DIDNT do this. we all live on the same planet with the same laws to govern us. none of you seem to be content with that though. like God would have created a fantisy world or something. good science is not coming up with something so simple it cant be falsifiable. the hierarchy just arranges them in a way to help us THINK the theory was plausible.

 

[Knowledge3]

JohnR7. bevets. napajohn, orange? Nothing?

I'll answer.

You expect the diagram and the development of retroviruses to be an example for ToE? If so, how? and in what way?

 

[rmwilliamsll]

creation but creation doesnt claim a nested hierarchy from ome ansector. SO you will not except it. which is my point.


the evidence is that living creatures do form several independent nested hierarchies, the conclusion from this and lots of other evidence is common descent.

You are right, YECism does not claim a nested hierarchy, nor does it make the claim of a single ancestor. therefore the fact that life forms a nested hierarchy is evidence of evolution. just as a violation of this NH, like chimeras, would falsify the TofE.

i assume you mean ACCEPT not EXCEPT here, but the claim that someone will not accept evidence since it goes against high level conclusions is not true, nor does it follow from the earlier statement. Science is constantly looking for chimeras, looking for organisms that can not be placed into a single common ancestor model, such as smoky h2s vents in the deep undersea cracks. a place that may have a different LCA then life on the surface.

my favorite two examples of overturning scientific consensus is priors and ulcers as infections.

 

[Knowledge3]

I found an interesting quote:

•The leading mathematicians in the century met with some evolutionary biologists and confronted them with the fact that according to mathematical statistics, the probabilities of a cell or a protein molecule coming into existence were nil. They even constructed a model of a large computer and tried to figure out the possibilities of a cell ever happening. The result was zero possibility! - Wistar Institute, 1966[60]

 

[Chalnoth]

why would we find a speciea that doesnt fit in it. all it is is showing how all the animals share similiar things or traits or whatever. GOd would not make a world that DIDNT do this.

Who are you to say what God would or wouldn't do? How do you know? What properties does this God have that get him to make these decisions?

 

[Schroeder]

When you require evidence for a proposed mechanism all you are left with is common ancestry. Occam's Razor cuts off unevidenced deities from the explanation. As soon as you offer observed instances of a deity inserting ERV's into the genomes of living species I will grant that explanation plausibility.

being we are from the ape family or which ever and that we and one other chimp family can only have sex faceing each other should we not be most closely related to that one family of chimps. if so should then these ervs be very very similiar or how ever it works. Or is this one family of chimps a different line slowly evolving into another human line.

Actually, it's straight Mendellian genetics. It has nothing to do with the ToE. It just so happens that the ToE predicts the pattern observed.

i wish i was more science smart but im not and this erv thing i think is a bit over me.

If there is another OBSERVED MECHANISM (Mendellian genetics) that is MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MORE likely, then that is the better explanation. Again, you and your siblings (if you have any) share hundreds and hundreds of ERV's at the same position in your genomes. If you sequenced your parents genomes those same ERV's would be found at the same spot in their genomes. The chances that all of those shared ERV's are due to separate infections between your parents, your siblings, and you is frighteningly small. The best explanation is simple Mendellian genetics. The same logic is applied to individuals from different species.

i was more speaking the odds of what the other side is saying how they got there, your side will take the high odds because it can happen once so i was thinking if that is true then the other side creationist idea of how or why they are there could be right with the same type odds, since it only needs to happen once.

We are talking about more than one occurrence, we are talking about multiple occurrences.

as above

Why does one side (evolution) have to provide evidence while the other side (creationists) have no other evidence than their faith in a literal interpretation of a holy book? If you were truly being fair you would supply us with observations of this deity inserting ERV's into the genomes of living species. If you can't, then there is no reason why we should consider it given the ample observations of viral insertion in the field and lab.

we have evidence it is just not considered. and as i have said a lot of evidence for the theory is ONLY evidence for evolution which is a bit different. or it is evidence for micro evolution. ect ect. there is a ton of evidence for these but they do not show the theory. show it plausible but it doesnt take much to make a plausible case. we may LATER( as you like to say) but later evidence may show your thinking incorrect, which has happened a lot of times in science. So to use it to say we are wrong doesnt work. i think maybe it does come down to FAITH on both sides. Faith our God is real Faith on your side that your inteligence and study of science is right. and again MOST ALL of it is right. but MOST all of it doesnt truelly show the theory.

 

[Chalnoth]

therefore the fact that life forms a nested hierarchy is evidence of evolution. just as a violation of this NH, like chimeras, would falsify the TofE.

Just as a side comment, I think we should expect to see chimeras relatively frequently at the level of simple life and pre-life.