Endogenous retroviruses

[Chalnoth]

Why, and how? There was a full spectrum of creation. The adapting of the kinds filled in the gaps, so to speak, so that one could misread what really went on.

That's up to you to show. You're the one making the assertion, and you have provided no evidence that it is true. Many people on this board have posted evidence to you that provide support for their points of view. All you have said is that they are wrong, and therefore you are right.

I'm sorry, but that's not how it works. Just because Jill is wrong doesn't automatically make Jim correct. There is only one correct answer, but there are an infinite number of wrong ones. Merely stating that another is wrong doesn't automatically make you correct. So I ask again, where is your evidence that supports your position?

 

[dad]

That's up to you to show. You're the one making the assertion, and you have provided no evidence that it is true. Many people on this board have posted evidence to you that provide support for their points of view. All you have said is that they are wrong, and therefore you are right.

No, I say that the created kinds and subsequent evolution account for anything we observe! I have showed a few trees, horses, dogs, and elephants, and how they came from a single kind originally! You have not shown evidence of any kind that is not the case! You have not shown some creature or something that does not fit the model! You have not been able tsupport a past that would rule out the ERVs getting around differently! So, what have you got? Foot stomping? Pony up the goods here, or stay exposed as not having any!

 

[Chalnoth]

No, I say that the created kinds and subsequent evolution account for anything we observe! I have showed a few trees, horses, dogs, and elephants, and how they came from a single kind originally!

And you have neglected the fact that those trees don't stop going back. Just because somebody put up a pretty graphic on a webpage showing how some current life forms are related doesn't mean that those life forms aren't related with others still further back.

 

[dad]

And you have neglected the fact that those trees don't stop going back. Just because somebody put up a pretty graphic on a webpage showing how some current life forms are related doesn't mean that those life forms aren't related with others still further back.

Yes it does unless you can prove it! You can't connect the worm to the elephant, even if they both had a virus.

 

[Chalnoth]

You can't connect the worm to the elephant,

Why not? Because you say so? Worms and elephants, along with all life forms on Earth, form one single nested hierarchy. There is no evidence of multiple nested hierarchies as you would expect from special creation.

 

[dad]

Why not? Because you say so? Worms and elephants, along with all life forms on Earth, form one single nested hierarchy. There is no evidence of multiple nested hierarchies as you would expect from special creation.

No, as you would expect. I see no reason to expect that at all. You cannot give us an elephant from a worm. The similarities are limited. God made the creeping things, and the little animals, and fish, and birds, and you cannot use similarities to mean a common ancestor. Where evolution did happen, from the kinds, there would be similarities due to a common ancestor, and all this makes up the big picture. Nothing on your constructed trees can alter that! There are nested groups, and the groups are from the kinds. Thats the kind of groups they are, thats the kind of nests they are, and you have no molecular data, or dna data, or anything else that can say otherwise. Fess up. While you can still save face.

 

[Chalnoth]

You cannot give us an elephant from a worm. The similarities are limited.

How are they limited? What specific mechanism prevents evolution from going beyond a certain point?

 

[dad]

How are they limited? What specific mechanism prevents evolution from going beyond a certain point?

With a full spectrum of creation, we need not explain it that way at all, and with evolving from the kinds, all we see is explained. If you want to claim it was ALL evolution, then you had better be able to prove it.

"The parents have a right to say that no teacher paid by their money shall rob their children of faith in God and send them back to their homes skeptical, or infidels, or agnostics, or atheists.
[Testimony at the Scopes trial, July 16, 1925]

 

[Ondoher]

No, as you would expect. I see no reason to expect that at all. You cannot give us an elephant from a worm. The similarities are limited. God made the creeping things, and the little animals, and fish, and birds, and you cannot use similarities to mean a common ancestor. Where evolution did happen, from the kinds, there would be similarities due to a common ancestor, and all this makes up the big picture. Nothing on your constructed trees can alter that! There are nested groups, and the groups are from the kinds. Thats the kind of groups they are, thats the kind of nests they are, and you have no molecular data, or dna data, or anything else that can say otherwise. Fess up. While you can still save face.

Then please explain why all mammals have a single jaw bone, and three inner ear bones. Or explain why all chordates (which includes all vertebrates) develop their anus before their mouths. These seem to be rather arbitrary characters, and yet they are consistent across these groups, unifying them into taxa. How does special creation account for these facts of biology?

 

[dad]

Then please explain why all mammals have a single jaw bone, and three inner ear bones.

We need to eat, and get around, I would suspect. Are you suggesting just the one kind would need balance, and food??? You must be kidding.

Or explain why all chordates (which includes all vertebrates) develop their anus before their mouths.

How would that matter? Why would anyone care? What would that have to do with kinds? That seems to be more a feature of how babies develop? Adam had a mouth first, as did all the created kinds anyhow! Looks like it went a little downhill since then.

These seem to be rather arbitrary characters, and yet they are consistent across these groups, unifying them into taxa.

Who says those traits are so important? How about animals with souls? Do you know which ones have those? Does that rank a grouping? Or do you just care about anuses!? Get your priorities straight, man. How about eyes? How about sex? I mean who gave you the right to cherry pick anuses, and jaw bones as some great priority of biology???
Physical bodies do need to eat and dispose of waste, all of the kinds that were created.
That's it?? That is your big case?

 

[Ondoher]

We need to eat, and get around, I would suspect. Are you suggesting just the one kind would need balance, and food??? You must be kidding.

So do reptiles, which have one ear bone and three jaw bones. I'll take this as an admission creationism offers no explanation.

How would that matter? Why would anyone care? What would that have to do with kinds? That seems to be more a feature of how babies develop? Adam had a mouth first, as did all the created kinds anyhow! Looks like it went a little downhill since then.

So, you also cannot answer this one. Look, if you cannot address the simple facts of biology with your "explanation," it just isn't much use.

Who says those traits are so important? How about animals with souls? Do you know which ones have those? Does that rank a grouping? Or do you just care about anuses!? Get your priorities straight, man. How about eyes? How about sex? I mean who gave you the right to cherry pick anuses, and jaw bones as some great priority of biology???

The fact that these particular traits can be used to group species into taxa.

Physical bodies do need to eat and dispose of waste, all of the kinds that were created.
That's it?? That is your big case?

It helps if you first try to understand the topic being debated. You are very resistant to this notion however. I can lead you to knowledge, but I cannot make you think.

 

[dad]

So do reptiles, which have one ear bone and three jaw bones.

So, your point is what, that Adam should have been made also like this? To look like a croc?? That is absurd. Why would God create all creatures with the same look, and jaw, etc?? preposterous. Nothing to do with backing up any claim of Granny either.

So, you also cannot answer this one. Look, if you cannot address the simple facts of biology with your "explanation," it just isn't much use.

You look, I don't share your facination with anuses,. and they have nothing whatsoever to do with no creation.

The fact that these particular traits can be used to group species into taxa.

They can be used, yes, as anything else we may like to use. The question is why MUST they, first and foremost, and what does this have to do with the claim that Grannydidit, it could not have been created kinds???? Nothing.

 

[Ondoher]

So, your point is what, that Adam should have been made also like this? To look like a croc?? That is absurd. Why would God create all creatures with the same look, and jaw, etc?? preposterous. Nothing to do with backing up any claim of Granny either.


You look, I don't share your facination with anuses,. and they have nothing whatsoever to do with no creation.


They can be used, yes, as anything else we may like to use. The question is why MUST they, first and foremost, and what does this have to do with the claim that Grannydidit, it could not have been created kinds???? Nothing.

Don't be mad at me that you cannot explain the simple facts of biology using a creationist model. You see, evolution can explain why all chordates are deuterostomes, and why all mammals have three inner ear bones and one lower jaw bone. The only thing you can offer is "god did it." Not much of an explanation, though.

 

[dad]

.. You see, evolution can explain why all chordates are deuterostomes, and why all mammals have three inner ear bones and one lower jaw bone. The only thing you can offer is "god did it." Not much of an explanation, though.

"The mammal middle ear, and only the mammal middle ear, contains 3 bones. The Stapes or (Stirrup), Incus or (Anvil) and the Malleus or (Hammer). Once these bones were part of the lower jaw, but during the early evolution of mammals they changed jobs and became a part of our hearing apparatus instead. "
http://www.earthlife.net/mammals/mammal.html

Can you prove this? I mean, what is the point of simply trying to sound as if you know what you are talking about, when you do not know squat? If you have some nice facts, just present them, as simply as you can, and see what happens to them!

 

[Ondoher]

"The mammal middle ear, and only the mammal middle ear, contains 3 bones. The Stapes or (Stirrup), Incus or (Anvil) and the Malleus or (Hammer). Once these bones were part of the lower jaw, but during the early evolution of mammals they changed jobs and became a part of our hearing apparatus instead. "
http://www.earthlife.net/mammals/mammal.html

Can you prove this? I mean, what is the point of simply trying to sound as if you know what you are talking about, when you do not know squat? If you have some nice facts, just present them, as simply as you can, and see what happens to them!

Here's a pretty picture:

From here: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#morphological_intermediates_ex2

But that really wasn't my point. From taxonomy we know that all mammals have a single lower jaw bone and three inner ear bones. Evolution offers an explanation why this is true in all mammals, and creationism does not.

 

[Chalnoth]

But that really wasn't my point. From taxonomy we know that all mammals have a single lower jaw bone and three inner ear bones. Evolution offers an explanation why this is true in all mammals, and creationism does not.

While reptiles have two inner ear bones and two lower jaw bones. In some reptiles, the lower jaw bone that corresponds to our third ear bone even aids with hearing.

 

[dad]

While reptiles have two inner ear bones and two lower jaw bones. In some reptiles, the lower jaw bone that corresponds to our third ear bone even aids with hearing.

OK, since I already covered the ERV thing here, and no one can touch me on it, it is better to start a thread to finish you off on the other evo topics raised.
Look for 'Worm to Elephant' .

 

[Chalnoth]

OK, since I already covered the ERV thing here, and no one can touch me on it,

No you haven't. You have yet to propose a mechanism for ERV's that explains why they are found in a nested hierarchy.

 

[dad]

No you haven't. You have yet to propose a mechanism for ERV's that explains why they are found in a nested hierarchy.

You mean a mechanism still in the present, you won't find that. Only in your dreams.

 

[Chalnoth]

You mean a mechanism still in the present, you won't find that. Only in your dreams.

No, you're talking about a mechanism that existed in a different past. What mechanism would that be?