• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

  • CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.

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

Naraoia

Apprentice Biologist
Sep 30, 2007
6,682
313
On edge
Visit site
✟23,498.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Allwood, Abigail C.; Malcolm R. Walter, Balz S. Kamber, Craig P. Marshall, Ian W. Burch (2006). "Stromatolite reef from the Early Archaean era of Australia". Nature 441: 714–8.
Ah, that looks to be one of the less disputed ones!

You have responded with so much nonsense and half truths that it is hardly worth replying at all to the rest of your post. You have totally gone off into orbit by yourself.
And here I slowly lift my eyebrows. Right into orbit.

And please, for the love of everything you hold dear, stop typing inside quote tags. It makes quoting you a whole lot more bother.

That's correct... I have produced research that strongly suggests introns located in similar loci does not necessarily suggest common descent....and this is just one more example of how your algorithms are erraneous.
Fine, now would you please quote where I talked about that? You quoted me pointing out that two statements about ERVs were not equivalent... and then started going off about porkies. Let's at least try to maintain an appearance of coherence, shall we?

ALL THE EVIDENCE YOU PUT FORWARD FOR ERVS IS PRESUMPTIVE FLAWED ALGORITHMIC NONSENSE BACKED BY OTHER RESEARCH, BASED ON THE SAME ASSUMPTIONS AND OFFERED AS EVIDENCE. IT ISN'T.
You are barking up the wrong person here. I don't remember putting forward any "evidence for ERVs" in this discussion. I do remember dissecting your logic, though.

You and Loudmouth said ERV's have nothing to do with introns...A LIE.
Now that is a lie. Neither of us said such a thing. In fact, it was my trying to explain that to you that got labelled as a lie.

He wasn't!
And why should your thinking so make me comment on stuff I didn't intend to comment on?

I did. I posted research that suggests LTR/ervs are found in introns and research that suggests ervs are less likely to be found in introns. Are you silly enough to place your credibility on one of them beoing correct. It is more likely that both are nonsense and neither are correct...as erv's are functional, where they are meant to be to provide gthe function they were designed for,
:sigh:

When you respond to something I wrote, try to actually respond to it. To recap, here is the conversation from posts 408 and 411.

you said:
It is easy for you to put forward claims of evidence that are not evidence at all.
me said:
Care to quote the particular claim of evidence you are referring to?

You may have noticed I wasn't asking about your claims of evidence. You seemed to be under the impression that I made one, but you didn't indicate which claim you meant. You just went off about something completely unrelated.

You said erv's have nothing to do with introns...a lie.
Quote where I did so or retract.

I'd say it was a head shot to your head, but you still can't see it!
The stuff you quoted in the post I was responding to were a shot to your foot. Neither of them said that ERVs are useful, and in fact they presented evidence to the contrary.

Neither did I. You are so confused I do not think you have any idea where you are going.
Hard not to get confused when you jump all over the place like you do, and your replies are not actually replies to anything you quote...

But speaking of introns, I didn't say you did... in fact, if memory serves, you were trying to shoot down the claim that ERVs are mostly junk with evidence that introns have a function. But nobody was saying that introns didn't have functions, and ERVs and introns are not the same thing. Ergo, the function of introns is irrelevant to the discussion you were having about ERVs.

The point is the research demonstrates that the very reason you lot suggest identical loci is suggestive of common descent is now challenged.
"We lot" suggest homologous viruses in identical loci are evidence of common descent. Do these parallel intron insertions share recognisable sequence homology? Not from what I saw in the Daphnia study.

Loudmouths assertion and yours that ervs have nothing to do with introns is funnier coming from folk that pretend to know what they are talking about.
Neither of us made that assertion. How hard it is to understand that "is not the same as" is a different assertion from "has nothing to do with"?

This is pointless. You'll go on for years about nothing thaat has has anything to do with the point I am making. See below..now woffling on about the reasearch which was quoted to demonstrate the erraneous nature of your algorithms. You appear to be confusing yourself!
I summarised the research you quoted.

(Claims of irrelevance and waffling are funny as heck coming from you...)

Oh wow.....you have less idea than I thought really! Read above, erv's can be both advantageous and deleterious. Really, the truth be known, your researchers have no clue....You have made a false assumption then...Why am I not surprised. As I said, with what is observed rather than speculated, your researchers have no idea what is advantageous or not....
Honey, I was working on your evidence. You posted ERV location preferences as if they were evidence for the functionality of ERVs.

I came up with an alternative explanation to demonstrate that this is not the case. Is there anything wrong with my alternative hypothesis, based on the evidence I was discussing and not something you posted later in response to it?

Oh boy!!!!
Is that a "no", then?

How about you go do BIO101, again and stop wasting my time.
I've done a bit more than BIO101, and did rather well at it. In any case, if you feel I'm wasting your time, you are perfectly within your rights to put me on ignore. No one forces you to talk to me.

I am giving one demonstration of how erraneous your algorithms can be. They are based on probabilities, population sizes you have no clue about, require mythical bottlenecks to get them to add up, give conflicting and contradictory results that change like the wind, provide data that is no more than flavour of the month, basically will reflect the assumptions they are based on, and most importantly are basically useless.
Now that we have this nice summary, can you deconstruct a particular example of this mysterios "algorithm"?

Creationists have always maintained there is no junk dna.
Would you mind posting a creationist reference from the time when "junk" DNA was discovered that makes that prediction?

"If a protein in an ape or a human has to be an almost exact sequence for it to function at all (and there are a number like this), then the similarity in DNA sequence that codes for that protein cannot be held up as evidence for evolution as opposed to creation.
If. How many genes is that actually true for?

Your evolutionists are assuming a priori what they are claiming to prove: that all DNA sequences in humans came from common ancestry with apes, so any similarity must be due to common ancestry (aka evolution).
O RLY? Then what are those handful of human lineage-specific (i.e. NOT SHARED WITH OTHER APES) ERVs Loudmouth keeps talking about? What are the millions of indels that might represent gains of DNA in the human lineage?

This is circular reasoning, which is not logical reasoning at all. Evolutionists held up the ERV argument as “proof” of evolution precisely because they considered the “ERV inserts” to be random insertions of “junk” (useless DNA sequences).
The usefulness of ERVs as evidence for common descent doesn't depend on their lacking a function. It depends on the fact that they are sequences of foreign origin that insert randomly.

(And it's not like they are the only evidence we have of common ancestry... it's just that creationists keep trotting out the common design, common designer argument. Which makes no sense, but after enough futile attempts at explaining that you just go "well, damn, then here's something with no purpose at all".)


Because such junk DNA would have no function to constrain the sequence and location, the occurrence of the same sequences in the same locations in humans and chimps would indeed be strong evidence for evolution, as against creation. Why would an intelligent creator place useless bits of DNA with the same sequence at the same location in both humans and chimps? This would not seem to make sense.

However, the whole argument depends on the correctness of the assumption that the sequences have no function. If they have a function, then their sequence and location have to be what they are for them to have the function and they would now be evidence for design. Well, the evidence is mounting that these ERVs are not junk but are in fact functional. The sequences and their locations are not accidental. So the ERV argument evaporates."
Fine, let's go with that. How do their known or suspected functions necessitate that ERVs should be where we find them? We more or less know why Hox genes are found in clusters, why bacteria have functionally related genes in operons, and why the ends of eukaryotic chromosomes have telomeres. So why are ERVs where they are, aside from "they'd be harmful anywhere else"?
 
Upvote 0

Doveaman

Re-Created, Not Evolved.
Mar 4, 2009
8,464
597
✟87,895.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Scriptures are not facts. They are beliefs.
The Scripture is a record of facts which we believe.
A common designer who is omniscient and omnipotent with unlimited resources and time would also be capable of designing two organisms completely different.
He would also be capable of designing two organisms that are similar.
In fact, such a designer would be capable of producing billions of species that do not share a single thing.
Such a designer would also be capable of producing billions of species that do share many things.
Therefore, shared characteristics are not evidence of a common designer.
If life-forms were designed by a common Designer, then their shared characteristics would be evidence of that common Designer.
The entire concept is invalid because it is unfalsifiable.
That's because the scientific method is myopic. It does not, and cannot, allow for a common Designer (God). Everything must have a natural explanation even if the explanation is unnecessary or false. This myopic approach to reality then leads people to express gratitude to the creation rather than to the Creator for what He did, just as predicted.

“Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles...They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator”. (Rom 1:22-25).
Even more, we know from observations of limited designers like us that a nested hierarchy is not an expected outcome from common design.
Comparing God to man is not wise.

"For My thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways My ways," declares the LORD. (Isa 55:8).
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.
The individual pieces of a puzzle are all separate designs, and the individual pieces of the puzzle are all related, but some pieces of the puzzle are more closely related than others. This is all done by intelligent design.

Life on earth is like a puzzle created by the Intelligent Designer. The Intelligent Designer would have done it this way, not to deceive evolutionists, but He would have done it this way to demonstrate His creative ability as an Intelligent Designer.
Human siblings are observed to be produced by humans, but humans and chimps are not observed to be produced by apes. This is only inferred.
It is not an assumption. It is an observation. Common ancestry produces organisms that share orthologous ERV's.
Common Designer design organisms that share common ERVs.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

mzungu

INVICTUS
Dec 17, 2010
7,162
250
Earth!
✟32,475.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
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?
Without science we would not be able to have this conversation. What you have is a hypothesis and not a theory. Anyone can hypothesise but if you have a theory then give us the evidence and show us how this theory of yours explains those evidences and also make predictions that others can confirm! The rules of science are not for myth makers not for the faint hearted! You make a claim then the onus is on you to show us the evidence!

Your call!:wave:
 
Upvote 0

mzungu

INVICTUS
Dec 17, 2010
7,162
250
Earth!
✟32,475.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Human siblings are observed to be produced by humans, but humans and chimps are not observed to be produced by apes. This is only inferred.
So does a common Designer.
Hasn't anyone told you that humans belong to the Ape family? WE ARE APES by definition (Excerpt: wiki):

For other uses, see Ape (disambiguation).
Class: Mammalia Subclass: Theria Infraclass: Eutheria Order: Primates Suborder: Haplorrhini Infraorder: Simiiformes Parvorder: Catarrhini Superfamily: Hominoidea
Gray, 1825 Families Hylobatidae
Hominidae
†Proconsulidae
†Dryopithecidae
†Oreopithecidae
†Pliopithecidae
†Parapithecidae

Apes are animals, members of the biological superfamily Hominoidea, part of the order Primates. Hominoidea contains two families of living (extant) species:

 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

dad

Undefeated!
Site Supporter
Jan 17, 2005
44,905
1,259
✟25,524.00
Country
Canada
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
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 issue is how tranfer took place. Jumping around like a flea can't help you.

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.
How would you know if transfer was from evolving or not back then?? If you can't make a clear case, how indeed can you discuss squat?




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.
So what do you think an orthologous location means, in relation to the far past????

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.
DNA on either side? In what way do you think that helps your case, when we are talking about the unknown far past?? ..Specifically?


Please explain how this would produce orthologous ERV's, and cite evidence to support your argument.
You do not know, that is the point! If transfer took place some other way than evolving, or even possibly offspring, etc....how would you know??


Already refuted. Every hydrogen line in every distant star refutes your argument.
False! The distance is not known after all, and the meaning of the lines is anything but earth state law bound.
 
Upvote 0

Loudmouth

Contributor
Aug 26, 2003
51,417
6,143
Visit site
✟98,025.00
Faith
Agnostic
The issue is how tranfer took place. Jumping around like a flea can't help you.

I already covered this as well. Reconstructed HERV-K ERV's produce viable retroviruses that act just like modern retroviruses.

How would you know if transfer was from evolving or not back then??

There are two modes of transfer. Heredity and infection. If you find the same ERV at the same location in two organisms then you can know that this ERV was the product of a single infection and inherited from the common ancestor in which this insertion occurred. If they are not at the same location in each genome then these ERV's were the product of two independent infections in separate ancestors (or on the rare occasion, the insertion has occurred in that organism).

If humans and chimps do not share a common ancestor then we should not find ERV's at the same location in each genome, or at least just a handful as the probability of an ERV inserting at the same location is very low but finite. If humans and chimps do share a recent common ancestor then the bulk of ERV's in each genome should be found at the same location in each genome, and they are to the tune of >200,000 of them.

If you have siblings you will find that you share the same ERV's at the same location in your genomes. This is not because each of you was infected independently in the womb by 200,000 independent infections. Rather, you inherited those ERV's from your common ancestor, your parents. We directly observe that orthologous ERV's are produced by common ancestry. We also directly observe that retroviruses insert randomly amongst millions of insertion sites, including those that are shared by humans and chimps.

So what do you think an orthologous location means, in relation to the far past????

I will quote from the Jonhson and Coffin (1999) paper:

"Given the size of vertebrate genomes (>1 × 109 bp) and the random nature of retroviral integration (22, 23), multiple integrations (and subsequent fixation) of ERV loci at precisely the same location are highly unlikely (24). Therefore, an ERV locus shared by two or more species is descended from a single integration event and is proof that the species share a common ancestor into whose germ line the original integration took place (14)."

In what way do you think that helps your case, when we are talking about the unknown far past??

It is not unknown. Evidence in the present allows us to reconstruct the past.

You do not know, that is the point! If transfer took place some other way than evolving, or even possibly offspring, etc....how would you know??

We can can directly observe the way in which these retroviruses insert.

Identification of an infectious progenitor for the multiple-copy HERV-K human endogenous retroelements

False! The distance is not known after all, and the meaning of the lines is anything but earth state law bound.

There is no such thing as "earth state law bound". That is your fantasy. In distant stars we can see the same gap between the spectrograph lines produced by hydrogen. This tells us that the laws were the same in the past as they are now. Any change in the laws would produce a different pattern in spectrographs due to the laws which govern energy and atoms. For example, a shift in the speed of light would produce hydrogen lines at higher wavelengths due to the increase in energy (E=mc^2). The distance is known through the use of standard candles and stellar parallax.

Of course, none of this matters to you. You don't care about the evidence. No evidence will ever convince you. You are blinded by your own dogmas and fantasies.
 
Upvote 0

Loudmouth

Contributor
Aug 26, 2003
51,417
6,143
Visit site
✟98,025.00
Faith
Agnostic
The Scripture is a record of facts which we believe.

You believe that they are facts. Believing that they are facts does not make them into facts. They are beliefs.

He would also be capable of designing two organisms that are similar.

So God would be able to produce anything. Therefore, "God did it" does not explain anything. When an explanation can explain anything it explains nothing.

If life-forms were designed by a common Designer, then their shared characteristics would be evidence of that common Designer.

If species did not share a single characteristic this would also be evidence of a common designer, by your very own admission. If every conceivable observation could be evidence then none of it is evidence.

That's because the scientific method is myopic. It does not, and cannot, allow for a common Designer (God).

The scientific method requires falsifiable and testable hypotheses. It is not I who is making God unfalsifiable and untestable. That would be you. You are the one keeping God out of science, not I.

Everything must have a natural explanation even if the explanation is unnecessary or false.

Every hypothesis must be testable and falsifiable. That is the requirement.

This myopic approach to reality then leads people to express gratitude to the creation rather than to the Creator for what He did, just as predicted.

I am not the one keeping God out of science. That would be you.

The individual pieces of a puzzle are all separate designs, and the individual pieces of the puzzle are all related, but some pieces of the puzzle are more closely related than others. This is all done by intelligent design.

You have already shown that you don't care what the pieces are. No matter what the evidence is you will claim that it was created, by your own admission. If species share characteristics? God did it. If species do not share characteristics? God did it. Just be honest and admit that your beliefs have nothing to do with the evidence. Specifically, just admit that no genetic or fossil evidence will every convince you that humans and chimps share a common ancestor.

Human siblings are observed to be produced by humans, but humans and chimps are not observed to be produced by apes. This is only inferred.
So does a common Designer.

Chimps and humans are apes. It is apes producing apes, so it fits your criteria.
 
Upvote 0

Astridhere

Well-Known Member
Jul 30, 2011
1,240
43
I live in rural NSW, Australia
✟1,616.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
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?
In that case...Neither are your scientists that make huge blunders in an ever changing and unstable science.
Novel Endogenous Retrovirus in Rabbits Previously Reported as Human Retrovirus 5

Above is just one example of an unexplained blunder...I have stacks of 'em. These so called scientists could not tell the difference between a mouse erv and a human one. Such are your unstable algorithms that will produce the results you want them to produce. ..and sometimes even this bias comes back to smack 'em in the face.

Evolutionary researchers would not know what evidence for creation looked like if it smacked them across the head. In fact they have confused evidence with non plausible scenarios of maybe's likely and probably and proffer this is as evidence. IT ISN'T!

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.:wave:
No evolutionists warp the data that clearly supports creation with non plausible scenarios then call that evidence.

The day you lot used these silly algorithms to produce results that said 10% of the genome are small dead sequences called erv's was the day you lot should have recanted. This is ridiculous and is getting more delusional by the day.

First off you lot shove the junk DNA line to us saying why would God make useless junk dna then place it in the same loci in chimps & humans, and would laugh when we said it will be found to have function. Now we are being vindicated and we will be further vindicated. How quickly you lot hand wave away your false predictions and evolutionary falsifications.

Now you lot reckon we are up to 10% viral remnants. You really need to take a step back and reconsider this nonsense.
Also There are biologists here better able to refute Astridhere's comments.
Well..none have sucessfully done so! The best you can do is provide results based on erraneous algorithms that even then, regardless of the bias, they are full of likely maybe perhaps, possibly. NOT SCIENCE!
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:
Don't get me started on this. I can certainly produce evidence for earth being the centre of the universe and face it off with the nonsense of big bang theory, mysterious dark matter, faith in multiple dimensions, and singularities that make no sense.
Mathematicians’ theory means Earth may be the center of the universe « Thoughts En Route


Science in Ancient Greece - Crystalinks
:liturgy:

Creatioists have said these so called transposable elements you see are functional and part of the design necessary to provide functions and we have said so all along rather than chopping and changing and providing predictions is hindsight and misleading the public, as you lot do.

The ERV nonsense is no more plausible nor supportive of common descent than your other genomic comparisons.

Life MUST be comparativly similar as we are all part of a food chain. If other life forms were totally disimilar we would not be able to process nutrient from them. ERV are simply transposable elements that are similarly placed in various species because they were designed that way and the organism won't have it's full adaptive potential without them.

You are finding more and more that erv's have function. They are not all useless as initially purported. So off you lot go and invent some other crazy algorithm that will find transposable elements that kinda resemble a mutated single stand of exogenous virus with deletions and nonsense mutations sitting in the same loci and from this assume they are fossil viral remnants we shared with chimp ancestors maybe 20mya. What rubbish!

The silly article Loudmouth cited was no more than quoting desperation to produce a self proclaimed paper that itself states is incomprehensive.

Meanwhile there is a plethora of evidence that contradicts it demonstrating that even small amounts of missing non coding dna will have deleterious results. Yet you will accept that huge regions of genomic data will sucessfully transpose into other regions without fatal or extremely deleterious results.

The day your algorithms produced 200,000 shared ervs with chimps and comprised 10% of the genome was the day you lot should have seen the nonsense behind your claims. Such an amount of genomic material that is proving to be functional in some way simply cannot have accidentally been endogenised into an ancient ancestor and produced immediate changes in function to an organism. Nor have you shown how gradual change and functionality can come about that accounts for the 5% mitochondrial comparative difference. Nor can an organ like a uterus evolve. There is no such thing as uterus like or a half uterus. It is a nonsense. A placenta is not going to poof/evolve into existence overnight either, unless it was created and neither was the genomic material designed to maintain mammalian pregnancy, that happens to be missing in gorillas.

Your research has demonstrated the impossibility of evolution and hand waved it away with nonsense. Your observed research demonstrates that species have complex systems that are intricately designed and irreducably complex, including functional transposable elements.

Your whole evolutionary science, including the basis of erv's is based on ridiculous and non plausible scenarios with hand waving disregard for actual observed evidence that supports creation.

We are designed as we should be with transposable elements in various species where they need to be to maintain the sytems of life and limited adaptability in respnse to evironmental and dietry changes. Species adapt through somatic epigenetic mechanisms that do not result in changes in the underlying DNA.

Nothing you have observed supports these possibilities of ervs evolving function. You lot get around this with all sorts of possible scenarios, using likely and possibly or maybe,to resolve it, none of which are supported by real and observed evidence. What you have found is the opposite, where large amount of change is usually fatal or deleterious and again have to evoke crazy algorithms and maybe's to support ridiculous scenarios to get around it.

So, 200,000 transposable elements you named ervs have been found according to your crazy algorithms. They act as promoters, starting transcription at alternative starting points, which enables different RNA transcripts to be formed from the same DNA sequence. These are adaptive requirements where these ones you call ervs must be where they are to provide the function they were designed to do.

Large scale function for 'endogenous retroviruses'


Endogenous retroviruses (ERVs) are sequences in the genome thought to be derived from ancient viral infections of germ cells in humans, mammals and other vertebrates; as such their proviruses are passed on to the next generation and now remain in the genome.

Endogenous retroviruses may be a variant of a retrovirus which became permanently integrated with its host and is inherited from generation to generation as part of the genome of the host.
Endogenous retrovirus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have taken obvious evidence for creation and turned it into a mystery based on non plausible scenarios that have not been observed.

Algorithms have released evolutionists from the straightjacket of observation and turned their science into fairytales.

The thread claim that these ervs are proof of common ancestry to chimps is based on non plausible maybe's and thought to be's without any observed research to back it. What they do demonstrate is how ridiculous your claims are that life arose by any other method than creation.
 
Upvote 0

Astridhere

Well-Known Member
Jul 30, 2011
1,240
43
I live in rural NSW, Australia
✟1,616.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I already covered this as well.

You have offered unobserved mythical data as evidence.
If you have siblings you will find that you share the same ERV's at the same location in your genomes. This is not because each of you was infected independently in the womb by 200,000 independent infections. Rather, you inherited those ERV's from your common ancestor, your parents. We directly observe that orthologous ERV's are produced by common ancestry. We also directly observe that retroviruses insert randomly amongst millions of insertion sites, including those that are shared by humans and chimps.
Thats because junk dna, namely erv's, are not junk at all as you thought they were and could provide evidence for once upon a time. Now we see more and more they are functional and that is why they are where they are to perform the function they are designed to do.

Do you not get it? Your initial claims that non coding regions are useless is falsified. You do not get a free pass to just keep knee jerk changing your theory to suit what you find and then try to pass that off as convincing evidence.

Anything at all you put up today as irrefutable evidence for evolution can be residing in the garbage bin of evolutionary delusions past, tomorrow. Get it??????????????.
Of course, none of this matters to you. You don't care about the evidence. No evidence will ever convince you. You are blinded by your own dogmas and fantasies.


Oh yeah..you believe in multiple dimensions and half uterus and placentas and that makes you all scientific does it ??????????????:confused:
 
Upvote 0

Loudmouth

Contributor
Aug 26, 2003
51,417
6,143
Visit site
✟98,025.00
Faith
Agnostic
You have offered unobserved mythical data as evidence.

It is both observed and real:

"Human Endogenous Retroviruses are expected to be the remnants of ancestral infections of primates by active retroviruses that have thereafter been transmitted in a Mendelian fashion. Here, we derived in silico the sequence of the putative ancestral “progenitor” element of one of the most recently amplified family—the HERV-K family—and constructed it. This element, Phoenix, produces viral particles that disclose all of the structural and functional properties of a bona-fide retrovirus, can infect mammalian, including human, cells, and integrate with the exact signature of the presently found endogenous HERV-K progeny."
Identification of an infectious progenitor for the multiple-copy HERV-K human endogenous retroelements

Lying about the evidence does not make it disappear.

Thats because junk dna, namely erv's, are not junk at all as you thought they were and could provide evidence for once upon a time. Now we see more and more they are functional and that is why they are where they are to perform the function they are designed to do.

Function or the lack of function in ERV's has nothing to do with the argument. Why do you keep bringing it up? Also, you have presented zero evidence that anyone designed them.

Your initial claims that non coding regions are useless is falsified.

Those claims have nothing to do with ERV's as evidence of common ancestry. Never did. Every base of the genome could have function and ERV's would still be evidence for common ancestry. You are barking up the wrong tree.

Anything at all you put up today as irrefutable evidence for evolution can be residing in the garbage bin of evolutionary delusions past, tomorrow.

Sorry, but you don't get to invent fantasies to explain away inconvenient evidence. They are evidence for common ancestry. You have supplied zero evidence as to why they shouldn't be.

Oh yeah..you believe in multiple dimensions and half uterus and placentas and that makes you all scientific does it ??????????????:confused:

Red herring.

Also, please learn to use the quote tags correctly. Having to pull quotes from within quote areas is a bit of a bear. I think we would all appreciate it.
 
Upvote 0

Loudmouth

Contributor
Aug 26, 2003
51,417
6,143
Visit site
✟98,025.00
Faith
Agnostic
+1

With no mechanism too.

Are you saying that retroviral insertion and genetic inheritance are not valid mechanisms? Really? Those are the two mechanisms that are being put forth as the cause of orthologous ERV's between humans and other apes. I have supplied obvious observations of these two mechanisms.

Nowhere has anyone offered observations of a supernatural deity inserting retroviral sequences into apes (including humans) so that they fall into a nested hierarchy. Nowhere. Who is the one who lacks a mechanism again?
 
Upvote 0

dad

Undefeated!
Site Supporter
Jan 17, 2005
44,905
1,259
✟25,524.00
Country
Canada
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
I already covered this as well. Reconstructed HERV-K ERV's produce viable retroviruses that act just like modern retroviruses.
Then they were 'reconstructed' in this present time and state. In other words, like other modeling based on assuming things worked the same way, it amounts to 'it could be done this way now, to get similar results'

I mean why play games? It is like saying 'a comet could have carried the stuff needed to make life, so that is how life must have started'!

Gong.

There are two modes of transfer. Heredity and infection.

Who asked what modes there "are"?? Strange. If we are talking about something in the different state past, where men's lives for example are recorded to have been exponentially longer, and etc....then we cannot use how it now might work. Not unless we know it worked the same...again, you are hooped.
If you find the same ERV at the same location in two organisms then you can know that this ERV was the product of a single infection and inherited from the common ancestor in which this insertion occurred.
Nope. That may be true NOW, but not relevant...unless you want to contain your claim to the last few Milena or something.

If they are not at the same location in each genome then these ERV's were the product of two independent infections in separate ancestors (or on the rare occasion, the insertion has occurred in that organism).
Not at all. I do not assume 'infection' need even be the proper concept. It was a transfer. The infection is inferred.
If humans and chimps do not share a common ancestor then we should not find ERV's at the same location in each genome, or at least just a handful as the probability of an ERV inserting at the same location is very low but finite.

False! You mean, literally 'if humans and chimps do not share a common ancestor, and we had a present state in the far past, then we should not find ERV's at the same location in each genome...yada yada blah blah'
If humans and chimps do share a recent common ancestor then the bulk of ERV's in each genome should be found at the same location in each genome, and they are to the tune of >200,000 of them.
Or if the transfer was different, as in a different state past. Since you have no way of proving what state it was you are hooped indeed.
If you have siblings you will find that you share the same ERV's at the same location in your genomes. This is not because each of you was infected independently in the womb by 200,000 independent infections. Rather, you inherited those ERV's from your common ancestor, your parents. We directly observe that orthologous ERV's are produced by common ancestry. We also directly observe that retroviruses insert randomly amongst millions of insertion sites, including those that are shared by humans and chimps.
I agree. It now works a certain way....so??? You need to make some sort of connection.


I will quote from the Jonhson and Coffin (1999) paper:

"Given the size of vertebrate genomes (>1 × 109 bp) and the random nature of retroviral integration (22, 23), multiple integrations (and subsequent fixation) of ERV loci at precisely the same location are highly unlikely (24). Therefore, an ERV locus shared by two or more species is descended from a single integration event and is proof that the species share a common ancestor into whose germ line the original integration took place (14)."
I agree...in this state...so? This state in the past is unlikely!


It is not unknown. Evidence in the present allows us to reconstruct the past.
False. Your beliefs and assumptions and use of present state laws and materials allow you to model how it would need to have happened if we had a same state past. Nothing more.

No need. I agree. So? Let's talk about the past.


There is no such thing as "earth state law bound". That is your fantasy.
Really? Have you been out of the earth area? Got a ride with little green men maybe?? No. Keep in your paygrade. Man has not only not been out of his backyard, he has not reached the far side of his balcony yet! Be honest.
In distant stars we can see the same gap between the spectrograph lines produced by hydrogen. This tells us that the laws were the same in the past as they are now.

Maybe it tells us that we can only see certain parts of the big picture out there? Who knows? Maybe it tells you that your distances are very very very very far off? Who knows. What it tells us here is that you assume a lot, and do not know. For example when hydrogen is 'flipped' in far space, we assign long ages in this state as the reason it got that way! Speculation.
Any change in the laws would produce a different pattern in spectrographs due to the laws which govern energy and atoms. For example, a shift in the speed of light would produce hydrogen lines at higher wavelengths due to the increase in energy (E=mc^2). The distance is known through the use of standard candles and stellar parallax.
Right, if it were really as far as you think, and if some change happened on the way, and if..if...if...if....you don't know. It looks a certain way from our earth window. Get out more..:)
Of course, none of this matters to you. You don't care about the evidence. No evidence will ever convince you. You are blinded by your own dogmas and fantasies.

Truth matters. So stick to what you really know. Talking big will only make it worse..:)
 
Upvote 0

Loudmouth

Contributor
Aug 26, 2003
51,417
6,143
Visit site
✟98,025.00
Faith
Agnostic
Then they were 'reconstructed' in this present time and state. In other words, like other modeling based on assuming things worked the same way, it amounts to 'it could be done this way now, to get similar results'

There is only one state. Your division of states is your fantasy, not reality.

If we are talking about something in the different state past, where men's lives for example are recorded to have been exponentially longer, and etc....then we cannot use how it now might work. Not unless we know it worked the same...again, you are hooped.

You have never presented evidence that backs any of these assertions.

Nope. That may be true NOW, but not relevant...unless you want to contain your claim to the last few Milena or something.

See above.

I do not assume 'infection' need even be the proper concept. It was a transfer. The infection is inferred.

Then how does this transfer ERV's into the same position in multiple genomes? Also, please cite observations of this mechanism in action.


False! You mean, literally 'if humans and chimps do not share a common ancestor, and we had a present state in the far past, then we should not find ERV's at the same location in each genome...yada yada blah blah'

There is only one state.

Or if the transfer was different, as in a different state past.

There is only one state.

This state in the past is unlikely!

Again, only in your fantasies.

Really? Have you been out of the earth area?

This is as silly as it gets. You do realize that the Earth is in a different area every second, right? You do realize that the Earth is moving about the Sun, that our Solar system is moving about the center of the galaxy, and that our galaxy is in motion around the center of mass within our galactic supercluster, right? You are also aware that scientists have been using devices like mazers to measure any fluctuation in the speed of light or invariances in relativistic effects, right? You also know that scientists have never seen any variations from these constants, right?

This "earth state" and "present state" are childish things you hold on to in order to ignore inconvenient truths. When you are ready to grow up and deal with reality let me know.

Got a ride with little green men maybe?? No. Keep in your paygrade. Man has not only not been out of his backyard, he has not reached the far side of his balcony yet! Be honest.

Like I said, grow up.

Maybe it tells us that we can only see certain parts of the big picture out there? Who knows? Maybe it tells you that your distances are very very very very far off? Who knows. What it tells us here is that you assume a lot, and do not know. For example when hydrogen is 'flipped' in far space, we assign long ages in this state as the reason it got that way! Speculation.

:doh:

So much wrong . . . so little time.

Sadly, you don't even understand the "present state" so it is meaningless even discussing the topic.
 
Upvote 0

dad

Undefeated!
Site Supporter
Jan 17, 2005
44,905
1,259
✟25,524.00
Country
Canada
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
There is only one state. Your division of states is your fantasy, not reality.
Your claim that this temporal state we see on earth is all there will be or was is fantasy. Obviosuly you have no possible way of knowing that. Presumptuous bullheadness is not knowledge or real science.

You have never presented evidence that backs any of these assertions.
The evidence for long lives and etc is in the record of the bible, and even somewhat in ancient history. There is no other evidence, so your head in the sand approach must remain on exhibit here.
Then how does this transfer ERV's into the same position in multiple genomes? Also, please cite observations of this mechanism in action.
How "does"? Or do you mean how "did"? What time period do these ervs represent? When do you think that the transfer took place? One must look at whether the pre nature change transfers later became locked into by the present state offspring methods, etc...

If chimps right after the flood, still in the past state, for example, were getting the (what is now) ERVs or giving them to mankind, then explain why they would not be in the same position?


There is only one state.



There is only one state.
Repeating it doesn't make it true.

This is as silly as it gets. You do realize that the Earth is in a different area every second, right? You do realize that the Earth is moving about the Sun, that our Solar system is moving about the center of the galaxy, and that our galaxy is in motion around the center of mass within our galactic supercluster, right?
The earth is moving, yes. And wherever we are obviously our laws would have to apply, if God designed this state for us! But remember this, we are only in one place at one time!:)
You are also aware that scientists have been using devices like mazers to measure any fluctuation in the speed of light or invariances in relativistic effects, right? You also know that scientists have never seen any variations from these constants, right?
"A maser is a device that produces coherent electromagnetic waves through amplification by stimulated emission. Historically, “maser” derives from the original, upper-case acronym MASER, which stands for "Microwave Amplification by Stimulated Emission of Radiation". The lower-case usage arose from technological development having rendered the original denotation imprecise, because contemporary masers emit EM waves (microwave and radio frequencies) across a broader band of the electromagnetic spectrum; thus, the physicist Charles H. Townes’s suggested usage of “molecular” replacing “microwave”, for contemporary linguistic accuracy.[" wiki


So tell us where the thing was when it was used? Earth?

Oh, and by the way, you didn't really address the fine line thing in the last post. But for lurkers, who might actually have some honest interest in truth, they really do claim old ages to explain the flip!

"
The lowest orbital energy state of atomic hydrogen has hyperfine splitting arising from the spins of the proton and electron changing from a parallel to antiparallel configuration. This transition is highly forbidden with an extremely small probability of 2.9×10−15 s−1.
This means that the time for a single isolated atom of neutral hydrogen to undergo this transition is around 10 million (107) years and so is unlikely to be seen in a laboratory on Earth. "

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_line
This "earth state" and "present state" are childish things you hold on to in order to ignore inconvenient truths. When you are ready to grow up and deal with reality let me know.
Not according to any knowledge you have, so why talk?? Not according to God...He says this earth and heavens will pass away. You are out on a limb with no support in heaven or earth.

Sadly, you don't even understand the "present state" so it is meaningless even discussing the topic.
You do not even know what gravity or time or much else here is...you should talk!?? The state we live in encompasses the forces and laws that govern us, including time and space. Who says we need to know what science doesn't? But the whole package is temporal, so present state is a good way to put it.

Science uses only present state laws and processes, and etc in all models. Your whole trip, in other words, is busted. Busted in truth. Busted in reality. Busted forever. Once you are busted, you just can't 'unbust'.

Let's try to be grown up about this.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Loudmouth

Contributor
Aug 26, 2003
51,417
6,143
Visit site
✟98,025.00
Faith
Agnostic
Your claim that this temporal state we see on earth is all there will be or was is fantasy. Obviosuly you have no possible way of knowing that.

Yes, I do. I have explained it in several posts. I have mentioned Supernova 1987a, Oklo Reactor, cobalt isotope decay, and hydrogen lines in distant stars. You ignore all of it.

When you are willing to disucss things like an adult let me know.

Oh, and by the way, you didn't really address the fine line thing in the last post. But for lurkers, who might actually have some honest interest in truth, they really do claim old ages to explain the flip!

"
The lowest orbital energy state of atomic hydrogen has hyperfine splitting arising from the spins of the proton and electron changing from a parallel to antiparallel configuration. This transition is highly forbidden with an extremely small probability of 2.9×10−15 s−1.
This means that the time for a single isolated atom of neutral hydrogen to undergo this transition is around 10 million (107) years and so is unlikely to be seen in a laboratory on Earth. "

Perfect example of what I am talking about.

"Now go to the heart of the matter, to how free-flying radiation interacts with atoms to give us detailed information about stars and other celestial bodies. Send radiation from a hot, incandescent solid through a gas of low density and watch what happens. The electrons that surround an atom have a minimum energy below which they cannot go (a discovery of "quantum mechanics" made in the early part of the 20th century). The electrons will naturally seek this lowest energy level. If you move the electrons outward, away from the nucleus, you give them more energy. However, electrons are very specific about what energies they will take. For any given atom or ion, only certain specific electron energies, that is, specific energy levels, are allowed. Electrons can be moved from one energy level to another by collisions among atoms or by absorption of photons. However, an electron in a specific level cannot absorb part of a photon, but must absorb all or none of it. As a result, only photons with particular energies, those that correspond to differences between the various energy levels, can be absorbed from the flow of passing radiation. Since photon energy corresponds to wavelength, only specific wavelengths (or colors) can be absorbed. And since the electron structures are different for each kind of atom or ion, the photon energies that each kind will absorb are also different."
http://stars.astro.illinois.edu/sow/spectra.html#absorption

Please learn what star spectra really are, and then get back to me.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Astridhere

Well-Known Member
Jul 30, 2011
1,240
43
I live in rural NSW, Australia
✟1,616.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Ah, that looks to be one of the less disputed ones!

And here I slowly lift my eyebrows. Right into orbit.

And please, for the love of everything you hold dear, stop typing inside quote tags. It makes quoting you a whole lot more bother.

Fine, now would you please quote where I talked about that? You quoted me pointing out that two statements about ERVs were not equivalent... and then started going off about porkies. Let's at least try to maintain an appearance of coherence, shall we?

You are barking up the wrong person here. I don't remember putting forward any "evidence for ERVs" in this discussion. I do remember dissecting your logic, though.

Now that is a lie. Neither of us said such a thing. In fact, it was my trying to explain that to you that got labelled as a lie.

And why should your thinking so make me comment on stuff I didn't intend to comment on?

:sigh:

When you respond to something I wrote, try to actually respond to it. To recap, here is the conversation from posts 408 and 411.




You may have noticed I wasn't asking about your claims of evidence. You seemed to be under the impression that I made one, but you didn't indicate which claim you meant. You just went off about something completely unrelated.

Quote where I did so or retract.

The stuff you quoted in the post I was responding to were a shot to your foot. Neither of them said that ERVs are useful, and in fact they presented evidence to the contrary.

Hard not to get confused when you jump all over the place like you do, and your replies are not actually replies to anything you quote...

But speaking of introns, I didn't say you did... in fact, if memory serves, you were trying to shoot down the claim that ERVs are mostly junk with evidence that introns have a function. But nobody was saying that introns didn't have functions, and ERVs and introns are not the same thing. Ergo, the function of introns is irrelevant to the discussion you were having about ERVs.

"We lot" suggest homologous viruses in identical loci are evidence of common descent. Do these parallel intron insertions share recognisable sequence homology? Not from what I saw in the Daphnia study.

Neither of us made that assertion. How hard it is to understand that "is not the same as" is a different assertion from "has nothing to do with"?
POST 407
I summarised the research you quoted.

(Claims of irrelevance and waffling are funny as heck coming from you...)

Honey, I was working on your evidence. You posted ERV location preferences as if they were evidence for the functionality of ERVs.

I came up with an alternative explanation to demonstrate that this is not the case. Is there anything wrong with my alternative hypothesis, based on the evidence I was discussing and not something you posted later in response to it?

Is that a "no", then?

I've done a bit more than BIO101, and did rather well at it. In any case, if you feel I'm wasting your time, you are perfectly within your rights to put me on ignore. No one forces you to talk to me.

Now that we have this nice summary, can you deconstruct a particular example of this mysterios "algorithm"?

Would you mind posting a creationist reference from the time when "junk" DNA was discovered that makes that prediction?
Yes. When junk dna was found, creationists immediately predicted it would be found to have function Unlike your knee jerk predictions that when falsified are appeased with changed stories. We are being vindicated whether you like it or not.
If. How many genes is that actually true for?

O RLY? Then what are those handful of human lineage-specific (i.e. NOT SHARED WITH OTHER APES) ERVs Loudmouth keeps talking about? What are the millions of indels that might represent gains of DNA in the human lineage?

The usefulness of ERVs as evidence for common descent doesn't depend on their lacking a function. It depends on the fact that they are sequences of foreign origin that insert randomly.
OFGS...you lot once upon a time, not that long ago, did base all this erv nonsense on the fact that junk and useless dna was found in similar regions in chimps. That was great. You had us on the back foot. Now you have found these regions aren't junk at all. You still toot the same war cry. Now you lot are trying to tell all these regions that are functional are still there due to common descent. Rubbish. They are there because they provide a function, the same as any other gene which is part of a symphony of gene expression, and still you lot say this is due to common descent. Your theories are unfalsifiable and they therefore are not based on real science. End of story.
(And it's not like they are the only evidence we have of common ancestry... it's just that creationists keep trotting out the common design, common designer argument. Which makes no sense, but after enough futile attempts at explaining that you just go "well, damn, then here's something with no purpose at all".)


Fine, let's go with that. How do their known or suspected functions necessitate that ERVs should be where we find them? We more or less know why Hox genes are found in clusters, why bacteria have functionally related genes in operons, and why the ends of eukaryotic chromosomes have telomeres. So why are ERVs where they are, aside from "they'd be harmful anywhere else"?
They are where they need to be to perforn the function they were designed to do. As opposed to humans being 10% viral mutant. You are asking questions that not even your researcher can answer without stories and fables and challenges and debate. However creationists are very used to hipocrites that expect a better standard of evidence than they themselves can produce.


How about you check out your post 407.

Here is what you said.

"Introns are not ERVs" =/= "introns have nothing to do with ERVs".

That said, the rest of you post is just nonsense.

You lot have found 200,000 so called 'same' ervs in chimps and human.

For a start you lot have no idea what 'similar' means, and stretch the imagination and your algorithms in desperation.

See bold below. So these researchers excluded any sequences that did not fit their predetermined assumptions and therefore we are meant to take this rubbish as credible. Nonsense. You are the ones lacking for taking any of it seriously and for any more than the entertainment value it is.


Using the procedure described above, we identified a total of 425 full-length chimpanzee endogenous retroviruses. This is certainly an underestimate of the number of endogenous retroviruses in the chimpanzee genome because we consciously excluded any sequences that could not be unambiguously identified as an endogenous retrovirus. The majority of these endogenous retroviruses (395/425 or 93%) were identified directly by LTR_STRUC or by homology to LTR_STRUC-identified elements.
Identification, characterization and comparative genomics of chimpanzee endogenous retroviruses

This research also identified that there are likely many more of these ervs. However you lot are only interested in what supports evolution, not the truth.

Then there is this

Recent evaluation of the human genome sequencing data revealed that about 9% of the human genome is comprised of elements with long terminal repeats (LTRs) (LTR retrotransposons) (36, 43, 84) comprising over 200 families (30). The majority of these LTR elements, however, lack sequence similarity to retroviral genes within their internal region or constitute solitary LTRs. About 40 families identified so far have at least some members that show discernible homology to coding regions of retroviruses, but most of them have not yet been analyzed in depth (47, 74). These families are grouped into three classes based on the sequence homology of their pol regions with the pol genes of exogenous gammaretroviruses, betaretroviruses, and spumaviruses. They comprise around 200,000 entities (36), including about 230 full-length proviruses. Around 8,100 elements contain pol-related sequences, 3,661 of these with full or partial open reading frames (J. Blomberg, personal communication
Comprehensive Analysis of Human Endogenous Retrovirus Transcriptional Activity in Human Tissues with a Retrovirus-Specific Microarray -- Seifarth et al. 79 (1): 341 -- The Journal of Virology

Seriously all this is psychobabble. You invent a system of category based on a hand full of enzymes and use the same system to demonstrate relationships then explain away 'disimilarities' with more unfalisfiable storytelling.

This is called straw grabbing prented as evidence.

I am telling you this kind of complicated nonsense will never be seen by me as evidence of anything more than you researcher like to mess around with algorithms and can adjust them to produce the results they want. On the occasion they abslutely cannot make the results align with current thinking a non plausible ridiculous and unfalsifiable scenario ensues to save the day..like oh it must have got there through HGT, it must mean reinfection, it must mean there was a purging.

Even the ridiculous thought that every one of these 200,000 so called ervs you suggest have some similarity, that have mutated for over 6my or 20my, there are deletions and insertions, nonsense mutations, lack sequence similarity to retroviral genes within their internal region or constitute solitary LTRs, and in the end what you call similar could be as similar as an egg and a coconut.

Then of course there is the great story told of how all these so called 200,000 virus spead through all ancient species. That actually does not happen in the real world only in fables where the story line is able to be fantastic and unbelievable because it is just a story. The door is well open to storytellers when using algorithmic unstable and changing nonsense as evidence.

So if you lot want to base you belief system on fables rather than science, that is fine with me.

This thread demonstrates that not only can creationsts refute ervs as a sign of common ancestry, they can also provide alternative interpretations of the data, regardless of how biased and ridiculous as your algorithms are, that support creation.

Evolutionists problem is that they have been so inculcated into their belief system that they are closed off to any other interpretation that does not support common descent. eg erv's have function. You will believe any non credible story as long as it aligns with TOE.

Then they take the high chair of self importance and offer storytelling as evidence for common ancestry and ridicule creationists because they do not swallow it.

Placental mamammals were created with the genomic material to maintain their pregancy. They did not inherit an erv that opened the door to a sort of uterus or half a placenta. You obviously believe some old virus had a plan that was better than Gods?

You lot have found 200,000 instances of genomic material that appears to vaguely have some similarity when desperational biased comparisons are done. These are not junk but actually will be found to be functioning genomic material that forms part of the genome functionality as per creation. ..and this is actually what is being demonstrated as time moves on.





 
Upvote 0

dad

Undefeated!
Site Supporter
Jan 17, 2005
44,905
1,259
✟25,524.00
Country
Canada
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Yes, I do. I have explained it in several posts. I have mentioned Supernova 1987a, Oklo Reactor, cobalt isotope decay, and hydrogen lines in distant stars. You ignore all of it.
False. None of that supports you. The series of miracles in a same state past required for Oklo, as I pointed out is unsupportable.

Need a fresh one?

"
Today even the most massive and concentrated uranium deposit cannot become a nuclear reactor, because the
uranium 235 concentration, at less than
1 percent, is just too low.

1[so they assume that differences existed..proof?]


But this isotope
is radioactive and decays about six times
faster than does uranium 238, which indicates
that the fissile fraction was much
higher in the distant past. For example,
two billion years ago (about when the
Oklo deposit formed) uranium 235 must
have constituted approximately 3 percent,
2
["Must have"??? Prove it]



The third important ingredient is a
neutron “moderator,” a substance that
can slow the neutrons given off when a
uranium nucleus splits so that they are
more apt to induce other uranium nuclei
to break apart

3[so we need water every few hours for millions of years?]



Cowan described, for example, how
some of the neutrons released during the
fission of uranium 235 were captured by
the more abundant uranium 238, which
became uranium 239 and, after emitting
two electrons, turned into plutonium
239.

4[after being kissed by the tooth fairy?]



Although almost all this
material, which has a 24,000-year halflife,
has since disappeared (primarily
through natural radioactive decay),
5[ah, the case of the missing stuff-prove it was here]

The
abundance of those lighter elements allowed
scientists to deduce that fission
reactions must have gone on for hundreds
of thousands of years.
6
[missing stuff forces same state past conclusion!]

From the
amount of uranium 235 'consumed', they
calculated the total energy released,
15,000 megawatt-years, and from this
and other evidence were able to work out
the average power output,
7
[present state calculations]

It is truly amazing that more than a
dozen natural reactors spontaneously
sprang into existence and that they managed
to maintain a modest power output
for perhaps a few hundred millennia.
8
[truly amazing indeed]



Xenon
is extremely rare, which allows scientists
to use it to detect and trace nuclear
reactions, even those that occurred in
primitive meteorites before the solar system
came into existence.
To analyze the isotopic composition
9
[attribute all this gas to same state causes...absurd]



We applied this technique to many
tiny spots on our lone available fragment
of Oklo rock, only one millimeter thick
and four millimeters across.
10
[all this fable based on a teensy fragment. wow]


The second epiphany was that the extracted
gas had a significantly different
isotopic makeup from what is usually
produced in nuclear reactors.
11
[so there was a difference...from what we now see]


'seemingly' lost a large portion of the xenon
136 and 134 that would certainly
have been created from fission, whereas
the lighter varieties of the element were
modified to a lesser extent.
12
[large amount of missing stuff]


For example,
measured with respect to the
amount of xenon 132 present, the depletion
of xenon 136 (being four atomicmass
units heavier) would have been
twice that of xenon 134 (two atomic mass
units heavier) if physical sorting had operated.
We did not see that pattern.

13
[IF physical sorting of the present kind existed...who says it did? so now we need to look at sorting in the former state as a possible cause rather than reaction]


None of the xenon isotopes
we measured were the direct result
of uranium fission. Rather they were the
products of the decay of radioactive isotopes
of iodine, which in turn were
formed from radioactive tellurium and
so forth, according to a well-known sequence
of nuclear reactions that gives
rise to stable xenon.

14 [this became that and that became this and on and on in a same state dream fest]

xenon
136 began at Oklo only about a
minute after the onset of self-sustained
fi ssion. An hour later the next lighter
stable isotope, xenon 134, appeared.
Then, some days after the start of fission,
xenon 132 and 131 came on the
scene. Finally, after millions of years,
and well after the nuclear chain reactions
terminated, xenon 129 formed.

15 [woulda coulda]

The
most likely mechanism involves the action
of groundwater, which presumably
boiled away after the temperature
reached some critical level.


16[same state speculation]

very likely they pulsed
on and off in some fashion, and large
quantities of water 'must have' been moving
through these rocks—enough to
wash away some of the xenon precursors,
tellurium and iodine, which are
water-soluble.


17[large quantities of water must have...must have ..must have...same state religion]


another—it is
unlikely that aluminum phosphate minerals
were present before the Oklo reactors
began operating.

18[says who?]


Instead those
grains of aluminum phosphate 'probably'
formed in place through the action of the
nuclear-heated water, once it had cooled
to about 300 degrees Celsius.

19[speculation in the extreme]



During each active period of operation
of an Oklo reactor and for some
time afterward, while the temperature
remained high, much of the xenon gas
(including xenon 136 and 134, which
were generated relatively quickly) was
'driven off'.

20
[missing stuff again with same state beliefs]


incorporated into growing grains of aluminum
phosphate.

21
[remember they said it was unlikely that aluminum was there before the 'reactions' they don't really know]


Then, as more water
returned to the reaction zone, neutrons
became properly moderated and fission
once again resumed, allowing the cycle
of heating and cooling to repeat. The result
was the peculiar segregation of xenon
isotopes we uncovered.

22
[The result of what? The result of the water they imagine 'HAD to' be there for millenia and in the right time and amount]


It is not entirely obvious what forces
kept this xenon inside the aluminum
phosphate minerals for almost half the
planet’s lifetime. In particular, why was
the xenon generated during a given operational
pulse not driven off during the
next one?

23
[GIANT leap of faith]

Presumably it became imprisoned
in the cagelike structure of the aluminum
phosphate minerals, which were
able to hold on to the xenon gas created
within them, even at high temperatures.
The details remain fuzzy, but whatever
the fi nal answers are, one thing is clear:
the capacity of aluminum phosphate

24[[bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]?]


The Oklo reactor
we studied had switched “on” for 30 minutes
and “off” for at least 2.5 hours.


. The more
important lessons may be about how to
handle nuclear waste. Oklo, after all,
serves as a good analogue for a long-term
geologic repository,


25 [dangerous false prophesy]

The Oklo reactors may also teach scientists
about possible shifts in what was
formerly thought to be a fundamental
physical constant, one called  (alpha),
which controls such universal quantities
as the speed of light [see “Inconstant
Constants,” by John D. Barrow and John
K. Webb; Scientifi c American, June].
26
[fables like Oklo form basis of alpha now?]


For three decades, the two-billion-year old
Oklo phenomenon has been used to
argue against alpha having changed. But last
year Steven K. Lamoreaux and Justin R.
Torgerson of Los Alamos National Laboratory
drew on Oklo to posit that this
“constant” has, in fact, varied signifi -
cantly (and, strangely enough, in the opposite
sense from what others have recently
proposed).


27 [so - opposite now of what they said then]


-------------------------------------------------

"He explained that, after the fission process had finished, a geological shift caused the Oklo reactor to sink a few miles below the surface - where it was 'preserved from erosion'.
28
[proof?]

A few million years ago, 'another shift' brought the uranium deposits back to the surface. "
29
[proof?]

Natural Nuclear Reaction Powered Ancient Geyser | LiveScience



[Manhattan project head oversees ocklo for US.]



Shortly after this astonishing discovery, physicists from around the world studied the evidence for these natural nuclear reactors and came together to share their work on “the Oklo phenomenon” at a special 1975 conference held in Libreville, the capital of Gabon.


"
The next year George A. Cowan, who represented the U.S. at that meeting (and who, incidentally, is one of the founders of the renowned Santa Fe Institute, where he is still affiliated), wrote an article for Scientific American [see “A Natural Fission Reactor,” by George A. Cowan, July 1976] in which he explained what scientists had surmised about the operation of these ancient reactors."

The Workings of An Ancient Nuclear Reactor - A Two Billion Years African Uranium Deposit




"Uranium is soluble in water only in the presence of oxygen. Therefore, the rising oxygen levels during the aging of earth may have allowed uranium to be dissolved and transported with groundwater to places where a high enough concentration could accumulate to form rich uranium ore bodies. Without the new aerobic environment available on earth at the time, these concentrations probably could not have taken place."

Natural nuclear fission reactor - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Imaginary ages needed to deposit stuff..

"
However, Dr. Glenn T. Seaborg, former head of the United States Atomic Energy Commission and Nobel Prize winner for his work in the synthesis of heavy elements, pointed out that for uranium to “burn” in a reaction, conditions must be exactly right. For example, the water involved in the nuclear reaction must be extremely pure. Even a few parts per million of contaminant will “poison” the reaction, bringing it to a halt. The problem is that no water that pure exists naturally anywhere in the world.

Besides, several specialists in reactor engineering remarked that at no time in the geologically estimated history of the Oklo deposits was the uranium ore rich enough in U-235 for a natural reaction to have taken place.

Even when the deposits were first formed, because of the slow rate of radioactive disintegration of U-235, the fissionable material would have constituted only 3 percent of the deposits—far too low a level for a nuclear reaction. Yet a reaction did take place, suggesting that the original uranium was far richer in U-235 than a natural formation could have been."
Cassiopaea

Proof?"



When you are willing to disucss things like an adult let me know.
I am ready, kid.



Perfect example of what I am talking about.
"Now go to the heart of the matter, to how free-flying radiation interacts with atoms to give us detailed information about stars and other celestial bodies. Send radiation from a hot, incandescent solid through a gas of low density and watch what happens.

Sorry, I can't any more than you can! Why pretend? We live on earth. From our window here we see light coming in, and little stars, etc. Not knowing what space they resede in way out there, we cannot know distance. Neither can we know what forces and laws actually exist there. Talk about what you know.
The electrons that surround an atom have a minimum energy below which they cannot go (a discovery of "quantum mechanics" made in the early part of the 20th century). The electrons will naturally seek this lowest energy level. If you move the electrons outward, away from the nucleus, you give them more energy. However, electrons are very specific about what energies they will take. For any given atom or ion, only certain specific electron energies, that is, specific energy levels, are allowed. Electrons can be moved from one energy level to another by collisions among atoms or by absorption of photons. However, an electron in a specific level cannot absorb part of a photon, but must absorb all or none of it. As a result, only photons with particular energies, those that correspond to differences between the various energy levels, can be absorbed from the flow of passing radiation. Since photon energy corresponds to wavelength, only specific wavelengths (or colors) can be absorbed. And since the electron structures are different for each kind of atom or ion, the photon energies that each kind will absorb are also different."
Spectra
False! That only applies IN this state we know at present. The atomic relationships in a different state with forces we know not here, do not need to work that way at all. You assume. You project mentally. You do not know.
Please learn what star spectra really are, and then get back to me.
It is meaningless, unless we know how big and far they are, for the most part for starters, obviously. It is meaningless if there is another set of forces and laws and time and space way out there. It is meaningless if there is more than we can see and detect with our earth state fishbowl instruments as well, obviously. Try to get your mind free. The universe is so much bigger and more interesting than what fishbowl so called science has pulpit pounded for too long now.
 
Upvote 0