Another poor response to ERV evidence for common ancestry by a creationist.

[mzungu]

So your saying life and healing, trains, planes and computers are all gifts from God. Because none of them would work apart from the laws of science and God is the one that Creates those laws.

No they are the result of man's endeavours. Sorry but not a single one of them was given to us by God.

 

[Jazer]

No they are the result of man's endeavours. Sorry but not a single one of them was given to us by God.

What do you think was given to us by God?

 

[mzungu]

It would help, all of us, if you could provide a quote or link the a CMI article or statement that advocates a flat earth.

Also, wonderful job of refuting Astridhere's comments on ERV's. Instead, you chose to lie about a website she referenced. Nice going, how about addressing the actual content in her post instead?

Creation ministries are not qualified to dismiss science! There is no more to say apart from; Would you trust a Nazi party website to give an accurate description of Jews and Judaism?

Creation ministries are warping scientific facts to meet their interpretation of the Bible. Sorry but I will not try to refute what amounts to wanton ignorance served as facts.

Also There are biologists here better able to refute Astridhere's comments.
As for your Christians discovering the Earth to be spherical here is a wake up call; Some Greek Philosophers not only believed the earth to be spherical but that the sun was the centre of our solar system too: http://www.crystalinks.com/greekscience.html

 

[mzungu]

What do you think was given to us by God?

Nothing! How can something that does not exist give you anything

 

[Nostromo]

Also, wonderful job of refuting Astridhere's comments on ERV's. Instead, you chose to lie about a website she referenced. Nice going, how about addressing the actual content in her post instead?

Because after months of reading the same drivel repeated over and over, and the lack of any change in her stance after her arguments are refuted time and time again, people very often can't be bothered with her.

As a moustachioed gentleman once said:
"Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again but expecting different results."

 

[Loudmouth]

Loudmouth you forgot to paste up the most important bit of the abstract

Some of the deleted sequences might encode for functions unidentified in our screen; nonetheless, these studies further support the existence of potentially 'disposable DNA' in the genomes of mammals.

Notice the word 'nonetheless'. This means that although your researcher have not provided comprehensive results they'll straw grab, limit the experiment before anything that refutes it shows up then use the hand wave of assumption as evidence.

Yes, they are trying to be fair. Nonetheless, in every test they used the mice with the deletion were indistinguishable from the mice without the deletion. You claim that this DNA has function. Where is your evidence?

In the analysis reported here, we found significant differences between individual human ERV families in their prevalence within genes and degree of antisense bias and show that, regardless of orientation, ERVs of most families are less likely to be found in introns than in intergenic regions.

Multiple effects govern endogenous retrovirus survival patterns in human gene introns

The reason for this is extremely obvious. If you put a big ERV (which contains ORF's) into the middle of a gene you can not reconstruct the gene after transcription. Therefore, ERV's in introns, and especially in exons, will have a higher probability of being selected against.

If I weren't such a nice person, I may call you a liar that does not know what they are talking about or are trying to be deceptive.

If you were a nice person you would reference the peer reviewed paper where they compared 30,000 human and chimp ERV's and only found 7 that were orthologous. Or were you lying when you made this claim?

Seriously you are providing nonsense based on ridiculous algorithms invented in desperation.

Please demonstrate that they are nonsense. That is what a nice person would do.

 

[Jazer]

No they are the result of man's endeavours. Sorry but not a single one of them was given to us by God.

Without gravity you would fly off the planet and we would not be able to have this conversation. I have a theory for where gravity comes from: God. What is your theory for where gravity comes from and why it works so well?

 

[Loudmouth]

The researchers also admitted they did not screen for affects very well

You cited longevity as the test they should have run. They ran it. There was no difference in longevity or a long list of other tests. So what function does this DNA have? Please name it.

Any algorithm is only as good as the assumption it is based on. Here is some contradictory research.

"Here we show that deletion of the orthologous 70-kb non-coding interval on mouse chromosome4 affects cardiac expression of neighbouring
genes, as well as proliferation properties of vascular cells."
​

What algorithm was used in the study? Please cite it.

Secondly, citing another piece of DNA that does have function in no way evidences function in a different piece of DNA. This is simple logic.

Your own well credentialed researcher have no idea what is neutral or advantageous, and neither do you.

Based on what? This is another accusation that you have zero evidence for.

As I said the great drosophila experiment failed to fix one lousy allele in the population for accelerated development and the flys that did show accelerated development had deleterios affects such as smaller weight and less resistence to hunger. That was your great experiment when your researchers actually tried to find some solid evidence for evolution..but failed. The excuse as usual...not enough time.

That's strange, because I have personally ran D. melanogaster experiments in my Genetics 301 class where I was able to evidence negative, neutral, and positive selection through linkage disequilibriums of genes located close to each other on the same chromosome. I have actually done these experiments. Have you? Do you even understand what I am talking about?

I, and other creationists, have more than adequately demonstrated that all the woffle on ERVs is just that, 'woffle'. We have also demonstrated that there are many wofflers here and I call the clade 'pollywoffles'.

What waffling? Be specific.

However ERV's are found in introns.

Most introns have no ERV's. Intron is not a synonym for ERV.

“In short, the notion that molecules of germ cells … are in states of perpetual change is not, in our present understanding of cell biology, tenable. This doesn’t mean that “molecular change” does not occur; only that mechanisms provoking such change in germ cells are likely instantaneous and stochastic and probably often lethal (Maresca and Schwartz 2006) – which will preclude their persistence into future generations.”

MIT Press Journals - Biological Theory - Abstract

So here again you lot have to use a lethal system to explain what your algorithms denote, then no doubt come up with rhemes of blarney to wiggle out of the dilemma.

Where did they say that ALL changes were lethal?

And then of course there is this....

"Thus, ERVs may serve as a variable pool from which exogenous viruses may diversify. Exogenous retroviruses may have originated from ERVs and ERV-Ls in particular may represent an intermediate between retrotransposons and exogenous viruses"
Characterization of an endogenous retrovirus class in elephants and their relatives

How is this a problem? ERV's derived from other endogenous retroviruses will insert randomly amongst millions of insertion sites. An ERV produced in humans through this route will insert into one base while the same process in chimps will insert into a different region. This will produce non-orthologous ERV's. However, if this occurs in a common ancestor of humans and chimps then it will produce an orthologous ERV between the two species. Since we find hundreds of thousands of orthologous ERV's between humans and chimps this is evidence of common ancestry. Nothing you have cited changes these facts.

See above, this lot also love to play with algorithms and have invented one that suggests some other thinking. Below is a credentialed evolutionist that does not have the same strong faith in mankinds reasonings as most of you do.[/quote

Introns are not ERV's. They are not synonyms.

Do Molecular Clocks Run at All? A Critique of​

Molecular Systematics - 2006

​

​

​

Abstract
Although molecular systematists may use the terminology of
cladism, claiming that the reconstruction of phylogenetic relationships
is based on shared derived states (synapomorphies),
the latter is not the case. Rather, molecular systematics is
(largely) based on the assumption, first clearly articulated by
Zuckerkandl and Pauling (1962), that degree of overall similarity
reflects degree of relatedness. This assumption derives
from interpreting molecular similarity (or dissimilarity) between
taxa in the context of a Darwinian model of continual
and gradual change. Review of the history of molecular systematics
and its claims in the context of molecular biology​

reveals that there is no basis for the “molecular assumption.”
An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie

You lot have turned organisms into a virus.

What?

It is about time you evos woke up and realised ERV's really cannot be the remnants of past viral infections at all. They are much more likely to be functional genomic matter placed where they need to be to perform the function they were designed to do.

Why can't ERV's have function and still be the result of viral insertion? You have yet to explain this. Also, please cite a single observation of a supernatural deity inserting ERV's into genomes. Either provide the evidence or retract the claim.

You can quote as much of this nonsense as you like and it still will be no more valid than presenting myth based on assumptions as evidence. Having tizzey fits and insulting us because creationists don't swallow it is not going to make any of it any more palatable, believable or credible.

I already get that you will never accept this evidence. The problem is that you are lying about the facts. You claim that scientists compared 30,000 ERV's and only found 7 out of those 30,000 that were orthologous between chimps and humans. This is a lie. It is simply not true. I'm sorry, but you do not get to have your own personal set of facts.

 

[Loudmouth]

Your trees are evo dream trees.

When you are ready to deal with the evidence instead of ignoring it then get back to me. Obviously, you are still unwilling to deal with the evidence.

 

[Loudmouth]

Plus eScholarship: Megabase deletions of gene deserts result in viable mice

Finding no differences in any of the whole organism phenotypes tested, we subsequently explored the impact of the deletions at a molecular level. The expression levels of multiple genes flanking the boundaries of the two deletions were determined in 12-week old mice. We assayed four genes bracketing the Mm19 deletion and five genes bracketing the Mm3 deletion by real-time quantitative PCR, in a panel of 12 tissues representing the overall expression patterns of each assayed gene. The tissue specificity of expression for all the genes tested was similar in homozygous deletion mice compared to their wild-type littermates (Fig.3). Out of the 108 quantitative expression assays (12 tissues for 9 genes), only 2 revealed detectable alterations in levels of expression. The expression of Prkacb was reduced in the heart of delMm3 / delMm3 mice and Rpp30 was reduced in intestine of delMm19 / delMm19 mice, compared to wild-type littermates (Fig. 3).​

​

And of the 2 differences in expression, did either change correlate with a change in function? Obviously, not one that affected the mice in any tangible way. This is disposable DNA.

 

[Loudmouth]

Let's get these arguments focused on the task at hand. I would like to focus on just one thing at the moment so that we can move on with other discussions.

In the human genome paper they found ~200,000 ERV's. In the chimp genome paper they compared the chimp ERV's to the ERV's in the human genome. That comparison demonstrated that only ~300 ERV's in chimps could not found at an orthologous location in humans, and only ~100 ERV's in humans could not be found at an orthologous position in chimps.

Does anyone have any peer reviewed studies (not creationist sites) that challenge these findings? If not, then these are the facts that everyone must use when discussing ERV's.

 

[Astridhere]

[/color]

Yes, they are trying to be fair. Nonetheless, in every test they used the mice with the deletion were indistinguishable from the mice without the deletion. You claim that this DNA has function. Where is your evidence?
I suppose you are claiming DNA has no function now. That's great. If DNA has no function then nothing will 'evolve'. End of debate. I win.


If you mean ervs, all I can say is you have got to be kidding. You should know this stuff or you shouldn't be here playing with the big kids. Here is one example of many.

Viral legacy may make pregnancy possible. - Free Online Library

I will restate the article you posted itself said it was not screening for many things.

"Knowles cautions that the study doesn't prove that non-coding DNA has no function. "Those mice were alive, that's what we know about them," she says. "We don't know if they have abnormalities that we don't test for."

Yours, Loudnouth, is a great example of assumption overtaking intelligence in desperation. You straw grab this research, regardeless of its disclosure that it is in no way comprehensive and try to shove that down my throat. I am glad you have as it demonstrates the pitifull depths of straw grabbing that evolutionists are prepared to back rather than concede any point.

Subtle-But Important-Functions of Junk-DNA - Evolution News & Views

Here is one applauding the vital and little understood role of, non coding or 'junk' dna.
Saved By Junk DNA: Vital Role In The Evolution Of Human Genome

Additionally I posted research that spoke to mice loosing much less genomic material with deleterious effect and there is heaps of research to back this claim. But OH NO, Loudmouth will back some flimsy incomprehensive research as support. Seriously you will need to do better than that.

Further to that, this is not about defending or refuting any particular paper. It is about highlighting that any evidence you use that is based on algorithms is faulty and non credible. That goes for the nonsense I use to refute you. It is all based on ridiculously complicaterd models that can never account for the complexity of genomic systems.


The reason for this is extremely obvious. If you put a big ERV (which contains ORF's) into the middle of a gene you can not reconstruct the gene after transcription. Therefore, ERV's in introns, and especially in exons, will have a higher probability of being selected against.

Again what you say is based on algorithmic nonsense that could demonstrate our closest living relative is a turtle or anything else if they needed to.

"The scientists say introns are inserted into the genome far more frequently than current models predict."
Introns -- nonsense DNA -- may be more important to evolution of genomes than thought


SEE THIS LITTLE PHRASE. It agian demonstrates that researchers are using erraneous methods and these guys reckon they have it sorted. Yeah right...until tomorrow when flavour of the month gives way to anouther flavour.


"The thinking has been that these insertion events are very rare because they always have bad effects,"


SEE THIS LITTLE PHRASE...It is not about who is right or wrong, It is about the point being your researchers are gropping in the dark with endless flavours of the month

Again you are defending research that is based on assumptions, probabilities and nonsense algorithms. Your evidence bites the dust before it is even published.

If you were a nice person you would reference the peer reviewed paper where they compared 30,000 human and chimp ERV's and only found 7 that were orthologous. Or were you lying when you made this claim?

No, not so long ago that was the fact. Then off went your researchers looking for more so called ervs, by inventing useless algorithms that could demonstrate we are related to Teletubbies if required to save TOE. You can harp on asides forever and still your algorithms will be rubbish and storytelling.

Please demonstrate that they are nonsense. That is what a nice person would do.

I have already. It is obvious in nearly every research paper when some brain thinks he has it right while other researchers were simplistic or just plain wrong.

I have posted the research on introns and itself cites research that speaks contradictory research. Do you need me to spell it out again for you. This was just an example not the complete case. I am on post space and not writing a novel.

I have posted research that poohies your 'major sweeps'. I have stacks of this stuff that demonstrates the unstable nature of evolutionary science that is built on nonsense algorithms.

Here is more...
Genetic algorithms—do they show that evolution works?
Can Evolution be Tested on Computers?

You are going to go around in circles endlessly, proffering false and misleading evidence based on algorithms as evidence.

You can post this and that research, and I can post a challenge to just about anything you put up as all your evidence for evolution is debated, changing and unstable. I believe there are two reasons for this 1. You begin with a faulty assumption, common descent 2. Your evolutionary and genetic algorithms are virtually useless.

All this has already been falsified in that it was the finding of 'junk' in similar loci that was initially the support for evolution. That has been falsified adequately. Will this assertion that ervs demonstrate common ancestry die. No..these evolutionary researchers will just invent more evolutionary mysteries to justify their existence.

Darwin is liked by evolutionists because he liberated science from the straitjacket of observation and opened the door to storytellers. This gave professional evolutionists job security so they can wander through biology labs as if they belong there.​

--- David CoppedgeSpeaking of Science, Creation Matters, May/June 2003​

Debunking Evolution - problems, errors, and lies of evolution exposed as false and wrong


Not only have you lot turned mankind into a virus you are now bowing down to the God of fake maths.

None of the supports you provide have any basis in reality. It is more like saying Alice in wonderland is credible because you can prove rabbits are real and you can invent algorithms to show the Tin man is likely, possible and might be. Therefore Alice in Wonderland is an established fact. Of course this is rubbish along with your algorithms.

.

 

[Astridhere]

Let's get these arguments focused on the task at hand. I would like to focus on just one thing at the moment so that we can move on with other discussions.

In the human genome paper they found ~200,000 ERV's. In the chimp genome paper they compared the chimp ERV's to the ERV's in the human genome. That comparison demonstrated that only ~300 ERV's in chimps could not found at an orthologous location in humans, and only ~100 ERV's in humans could not be found at an orthologous position in chimps.
The comparisons are biased rubbish. These researchers can't even agree on the percentage of the genome that is composed of ervs and remnants. These so called ervs are likely nothing to do with virus. They are more likely to be functioning parts of a designed system and have nothing to do with viral remnants at all.
Does anyone have any peer reviewed studies (not creationist sites)

Why? are you threatened by real science. that challenge these findings? If not, then these are the facts that everyone must use when discussing ERV's.
Again, you are confusing fact with myth and assumption. These algorithms do not provide facts. If they did data would not be continuously challenged, which it is....GET IT?????? Obviously not!.

Any algorithm is only as good as the assumption it is based on. All this garbage you keep speaking to is real Alice in Wonderland stuff.
Can Evolution be Tested on Computers?
Genetic algorithms—do they show that evolution works?

Introns in the so called same places in various species does not prove anything re common ancestry as introns can transfer into the same location via parallel transmission.
Introns -- nonsense DNA -- may be more important to evolution of genomes than thought


Algorithms are not observations. They are mythical magic constructed to give evolutionists headaches, contradictions and unstable science.

 

[dad]

Let's get these arguments focused on the task at hand. I would like to focus on just one thing at the moment so that we can move on with other discussions.

In the human genome paper they found ~200,000 ERV's. In the chimp genome paper they compared the chimp ERV's to the ERV's in the human genome. That comparison demonstrated that only ~300 ERV's in chimps could not found at an orthologous location in humans, and only ~100 ERV's in humans could not be found at an orthologous position in chimps.

Does anyone have any peer reviewed studies (not creationist sites) that challenge these findings? If not, then these are the facts that everyone must use when discussing ERV's.

In Astridhere's link, I see this

"Their study of the model organism Daphnia pulex (water flea) is the first to demonstrate the colonization of a single lineage by "introns," as the interrupting sequences are known. The scientists say introns are inserted into the genome far more frequently than current models predict."
Introns -- nonsense DNA -- may be more important to evolution of genomes than thought


The question becomes merely how did the transfer take place long ago!? Now, whether some evil men had some sort of perverse contact with chimps that perhaps resulted in some transfers, or whether they kept them as pets, and a lot of tranfer of viruses took place however the nature of that day allowed...etc. We don't know. What is known is that you may NOT assign present state reasons! Not unless you know and can prove one existed in the early earth times.

Nothing else matters. No way to skirt around it, and avoid it.

 

[Loudmouth]

I suppose you are claiming DNA has no function now. That's great. If DNA has no function then nothing will 'evolve'. End of debate. I win.

I said "THIS DNA" did not have function. The THIS was in reference to the two deletions. How you can misinterpret my response is beyond me.

If you mean ervs, all I can say is you have got to be kidding. You should know this stuff or you shouldn't be here playing with the big kids. Here is one example of many.

You should know that showing that one ERV has function does not mean that all ERV's have function. Also, you have yet to show how function in ERV's refutes their viral origin or usefullness as evidence of common ancestry.

Here is one applauding the vital and little understood role of, non coding or 'junk' dna.
Saved By Junk DNA: Vital Role In The Evolution Of Human Genome

Citing non-coding DNA that does have function does not indicate that ALL non-coding DNA has function. Again, this is simple logic.

Additionally I posted research that spoke to mice loosing much less genomic material with deleterious effect and there is heaps of research to back this claim.

I pointed to research where over 2 million bases were deleted from the mouse genome and they were indistinguishable from mice without the deletions. You claim, contrary to the findings, that this DNA has function. You can't even tell me what that function is, nor cite any paper that shows what this function is for the DNA that they deleted. Still, you claim it has function. Why is that?

I have already. It is obvious in nearly every research paper when some brain thinks he has it right while other researchers were simplistic or just plain wrong.

I have posted the research on introns and itself cites research that speaks contradictory research. Do you need me to spell it out again for you. This was just an example not the complete case. I am on post space and not writing a novel.

Me: The reason for this is extremely obvious. If you put a big ERV (which contains ORF's) into the middle of a gene you can not reconstruct the gene after transcription. Therefore, ERV's in introns, and especially in exons, will have a higher probability of being selected against.

You:Again what you say is based on algorithmic nonsense that could demonstrate our closest living relative is a turtle or anything else if they needed to.

Name the algorithm that my argument it is based on. I dare you. Name it. Either support your claims or retract them.

SEE THIS LITTLE PHRASE. It agian demonstrates that researchers are using erraneous methods and these guys reckon they have it sorted. Yeah right...until tomorrow when flavour of the month gives way to anouther flavour.

What erroneous methods are they using? Name them. How does finding function in a few introns evidence function in all introns?

Again you are defending research that is based on assumptions, probabilities and nonsense algorithms.

Please list the algorithms the research is using, the assumptions that they are based on, and why they are nonsense. It is time to back your claims with something other than bluster.

I have posted research that poohies your 'major sweeps'.

What does this have to do with ERV's?

I have posted the research on introns and itself cites research that speaks contradictory research.

How does the research on introns refute the viral origin of ERV's, their shared position between chimps and humans, or their usefulness as phylogenetic markers?

I have stacks of this stuff that demonstrates the unstable nature of evolutionary science that is built on nonsense algorithms.

What algorithms are being used to determine if ERV's are orthologous between chimps and humans? Name them.

Me: If you were a nice person you would reference the peer reviewed paper where they compared 30,000 human and chimp ERV's and only found 7 that were orthologous. Or were you lying when you made this claim?

You: No, not so long ago that was the fact.

It was never a fact. It is a lie that is being propogated by a creationist site and you are now repeating it. You have failed at every opportunity to supply the peer reviewed citation for this claim. You have failed because it doesn't exist.

Here is more...
Genetic algorithms—do they show that evolution works?
Can Evolution be Tested on Computers?

Those are not peer reviewed papers. Try again. Creationist sites lie.

What algorithms are used to determine if a human and chimp ERV are at the same position in each genome?

You are going to go around in circles endlessly, proffering false and misleading evidence based on algorithms as evidence.

What algorithms are being used to determine if human and chimp ERV's are at orthologous positions, and why are they nonsense.

I believe there are two reasons for this 1. You begin with a faulty assumption, common descent

False. Common ancestry is the hypothesis that I am testing. You don't even understand the basics of the argument, and it is showing.

If the vast majority of ERV's are orthologous between chimps and humans then they share a common ancestor. If the vast majority of ERV's are non-orthologous between chimps and humans then they do not share a common ancestor. See how that works? Common ancestry is not assumed. IT IS BEING TESTED.

You can post this and that research, and I can post a challenge to just about anything you put up as all your evidence for evolution is debated, changing and unstable.

You are not challenging the research. You are calling it nonsense with zero evidence to back you up.

You don't even understand the research I am posting. Your posts show it.

All this has already been falsified in that it was the finding of 'junk' in similar loci that was initially the support for evolution.

It was the discover of ERV's at the same location in both genomes regardless of whether ERV's have function or not. Function has nothing to do with it. None.

Will this assertion that ervs demonstrate common ancestry die.

Since you have not refuted a single part of the argument, yes it will. The function or lack of function in ERV's was never part of the argument. What is being argued is that finding the same ERV, regardless of function, at orthologous positions in two genomes is the result of a single insertion in a common ancestor. This is supported by the observation of randomly inserting retroviruses. You have not refuted a single piece of this argument. None of it.

​

Debunking Evolution - problems, errors, and lies of evolution exposed as false and wrong

Not a peer reviewed paper.

Not only have you lot turned mankind into a virus you are now bowing down to the God of fake maths.

Two lies in one sentence. You are getting good at it.

None of the supports you provide have any basis in reality.

Facts:

1. Genomes contain endogenized retroviruses.

2. Retroviruses insert randomly amongst millions of possible insertion sites.

3. There are over 200,000 ERV's at the same location in both humans and chimps with only a few hundred not found at the same position.

These are the facts. This is what the argument is based on.

It is more like saying Alice in wonderland is credible because you can prove rabbits are real and you can invent algorithms to show the Tin man is likely, possible and might be. Therefore Alice in Wonderland is an established fact. Of course this is rubbish along with your algorithms.

.

Are you saying that we have never observed a retrovirus inserting into a genome? Are you saying that we can not determine if two ERV's are at the same location in two genomes? You have your head in the sand.

 

[Loudmouth]

In Astridhere's link, I see this

"Their study of the model organism Daphnia pulex (water flea) is the first to demonstrate the colonization of a single lineage by "introns," as the interrupting sequences are known. The scientists say introns are inserted into the genome far more frequently than current models predict."
Introns -- nonsense DNA -- may be more important to evolution of genomes than thought

What does this have to do with determining whether or not ERV's are at orthologous positions between humans and chimps? Intron is not a synonym for ERV. Daphnia pulex is neither a chimp nor a human. Please stay on topic.

The question becomes merely how did the transfer take place long ago!?

For right now we are only looking to see if the ERV's are orthologous or not. If we can't even agree on this then there is no reason to even discuss their origin.

Astrid claims that a scientist compared 30,000 ERV's and only found 7 that were orthologous. That isn't true. That research does not exist. I have cited research that does exist, namely the chimp genome and human genome papers. These papers clearly demonstrate that there are over 200,000 ERV's in the human genome, and when compared to the chimp genome there are only ~100 human ERV's not found in chimps at an orthologous location, and only ~300 chimp ERV's that are not found at an orthologous location in humans.

None of these facts require you to accept the idea that they are viral in origin. It is a simple matter of comparing the flanking DNA on either side of the ERV. That's it.

Now, whether some evil men had some sort of perverse contact with chimps that perhaps resulted in some transfers, or whether they kept them as pets, and a lot of tranfer of viruses took place however the nature of that day allowed...etc. We don't know.

Please explain how this would produce orthologous ERV's, and cite evidence to support your argument.

What is known is that you may NOT assign present state reasons!

Already refuted. Every hydrogen line in every distant star refutes your argument.

 

[Jazer]

Sorry but not a single one of them was given to us by God.

Funny, I hear Creationists say the same thing about what you call EVR's.
So it looks like Denyal is more then just a river in Egypt.

 

[Loudmouth]

The comparisons are biased rubbish.

I am going to need more than your say so. Please describe the method that they used, and then explain why it is rubbish.

Any algorithm is only as good as the assumption it is based on.

Then please cite the algorithm they are using and why the assumptions used in the algorithm are bad.

Why? are you threatened by real science.

No, I am not. That is why I asked for peer reviewed citations. If I was afraid of science I would quote creationist cites.

Introns in the so called same places in various species does not prove anything re common ancestry as introns can transfer into the same location via parallel transmission.

We are discussing ERV's, not introns. Why is this so hard to understand?

 

[Doveaman]

Yes, the theoscientific method where beliefs are treated as facts. Your method is also not a valid concept.

The beliefs are based on the facts observed in Scripture. Not the other way around.

And that is why common design is a meaningless concept. It is no different than Last Thursdayism.

If God designed all life (and He did), then all life would have been designed by a common Designer. This common Designer would also be capable of designing two different species in common, rendering evolution theory unnecessary to explain their similarities.

You can stick with common descent if you like. I'll stick with common design.

You have seen common ancestry produce two organisms with orthologous ERV's.

Two humans sharing ERVs is not the same as a human and a chimpanzee sharing ERVs. Your assumption is unnecessary.

You have not seen a single instance of a supernatural deity producing two organisms with orthologous ERV's. Yes, it is a double standard.

The facts are observed in Scripture: God said it, therefore it is. Case closed.

“The LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground...From one man He made every nation of men, that they should inhabit the whole earth.” (Gen 2:7, Acts 17:26).

There is no need for me to make such a huge leap of faith in a common ancestor in light of the fact that all life is designed by a common Designer. Common design explains those similarities perfectly well.

So when you read Harry Potter is that an observation of wizards? When you read the Iliad is that an observation of the Greek gods?

No. God did not say it, therefore it is not. Case closed.

 

[Loudmouth]

The beliefs are based on the facts observed in Scripture. Not the other way around.

Scriptures are not facts. They are beliefs.

If God designed all life (and He did), then all life would have been designed by a common Designer. This common Designer would also be capable of designing two different species in common, rendering evolution theory unnecessary to explain their similarities.

A common designer who is omniscient and omnipotent with unlimited resources and time would also be capable of designing two organisms completely different. In fact, such a designer would be capable of producing billions of species that do not share a single thing. Therefore, shared characteristics are not evidence of a common designer. The entire concept is invalid because it is unfalsifiable.

Even more, we know from observations of limited designers like us that a nested hierarchy is not an expected outcome from common design. However, it is the only pattern of similarity that evolution can produce. What do we observe? A nested hierarchy. Therefore, the pattern of homology is evidence of evolution and common descent.

Two humans sharing ERVs is not the same as a human and a chimpanzee sharing ERVs.

Why not?

Your assumption is unnecessary.

It is not an assumption. It is an observation. Common ancestry produces organisms that share orthologous ERV's.

The facts are observed in Scripture:

Writing something down does not make it a fact.

There is no need for me to make such a huge leap of faith in a common ancestor . . .

I agree. No need for faith when there is ample evidence.

. . .in light of the fact that all life is designed by a common Designer. Common design explains those similarities perfectly well.

Common design can explain any pattern of similarity or disssimilarity. Therefore, it explains none of them.

No. God did not say it, therefore it is not.

Last I checked the Bible was written by men.