Evolution or Creationism?

[Tree of Life]

If the theory of evolution were, tomorrow, proven false it would not imply the existence of a creator.

Because the theory of evolution doesn't reject the existence of a creator, and is completely neutral on the subject. Creator or no creator is a subject completely independent of the theory of evolution.

It's like asking if the oxygen theory of combustion were falsified if it would imply a creator. It is, fundamentally, a nonsense question.

-CryptoLutheran

If it's a nonsense question why were you able to answer it with such a sensible answer?

 

[bhsmte]

If it's a nonsense question why were you able to answer it with such a sensible answer?

I am curious, what is your answer to the question?

 

[AV1611VET]

However, have you ever heard the expression "A gentleman and a scholar"?

Yes, mam.

In fact, I just happened to call our resident tech that very thing a couple of hours ago.

He's pretty quick with solutions around here.

 

[LoricaLady]

Yes, mam.

In fact, I just happened to call our resident tech that very thing a couple of hours ago.

He's pretty quick with solutions around here.

He probably appreciated some appreciation.

 

[AV1611VET]

(I think that's two glasses clinking in a toast...)

Now you're somebody who can both dish it out and take it. You really tick me off sometimes, but you make me laugh other times.

Well, thank you, sfs.

I hope you don't take some of my rants too seriously.

I do wax meolodramatic at times, but it's not to cause aught -- that's for sure.

I apologize for ticking you off.

(But don't expect any abatement of style! )

 

[LoricaLady]

fFOLLOW UP RESEARCH ON ERVs:

This is from an evolution friendly site, for those who think anything from creation sites is defective (though my experience through years of research says just the opposite):

Human endogenous retroviruses: from infectious elements to human genes.
de Parseval N1, Heidmann T.
Author information

• 1Unité des Rétrovirus Endogènes et Eléments Rétroïdes des Eukaryotes Supérieurs, UMR 8122 CNRS, Institut Gustave Roussy, Villejuif, France.

Abstract
Mammalian genomes contain a heavy load (42% in humans) of retroelements, which are mobile sequences requiring reverse transcription for their replicative transposition. A significant proportion of these elements is of retroviral origin, with thousands of sequences resembling the integrated form of infectious retroviruses, with two LTRs bordering internal regions homologous to the gag, prt, pol, and env genes. These elements, named endogenous retroviruses (ERVs), are most probably the proviral remnants of ancestral germ-line infections by active retroviruses, which have thereafter been transmitted in a Mendelian manner. The complete sequencing of the human genome now allows a comprehensive survey of human ERVs (HERVs), which can be grouped according to sequence homologies into approximately 80 distinct families, each containing a few to several hundred elements. As reviewed here, strong similarities between HERVs and present-day retroviruses can be inferred from phylogenetic analyses on the reverse transcriptase (RT) domain of the pol gene or the transmembrane subunit (TM) of the env gene, which disclose interspersion of both classes of elements and suggest a common history and shared ancestors. Similarities are also observed at the functional levels, since despite the fact that most HERVs have accumulated mutations, deletions, and/or truncations, several elements still possess some of the functions of retroviruses, with evidence for viral-like particle formation, and occurrence of envelope proteins allowing cell-cell fusion and even conferring infectivity to pseudotypes. Along this line, a genomewide screening for human retroviral genes with coding capacity has revealed 16 fully coding envelope genes. These genes are transcribed in several healthy tissues including the placenta, three of them at a very high level. Besides their impact in modeling the genome, HERVs thus appear to contain still active genes, which most probably have been subverted by the host for its benefit and should be considered as bona fide human genes. Some of their characteristic features and possible physiological roles, as well as potential pathological effects inherited from their retroviral ancestors are also reviewed.


----------As can be seen by the words in green, above, the topic of ERVs is highly speculative at this time. Therefore it seems obvious, to me at least, that any "proof" for evolution that they purportedly give is also highly speculative. "Suggest a common ancestor....appear to...most probably....can be inferred....possible...." are nice words for an hypothesis but are not adequate to make a case for actual scientific evidence of anything.

Here is a creationist's perspective on ERVs.:

Here is another thing that seems not to be based on real scientific data...

The evolutionists are saying we are related to chimps because 14 of our 98,000 ERVs are located where theirs are. Aside from the point made in the vid that this is a minuscule percentage, who is saying we came from chimps anyway? Not even the evolutionists say that. Of course they co exist with us! Apparently we are supposed to use our imaginations to draw lines to the invisible dots leading to the invisible, i.e. "missing links" (really, I believe, non existent) ancestors of the chimp. Again, I don't believe that is science at all, just fanciful theories presented as facts.

 

[Tangible]

Why would a young Earth look old?

Why would God create species so that they look like they evolved when God didn't have to create that way?

If we can't trust the Creation to tell us the truth of the past, then why should we trust the Word?

Why would God create Adam and Eve as mature adults? If we physically examined them, would they differ from other humans in the evidence of their growth from fetus to infant to child to adult?

 

[Loudmouth]

Why would God create Adam and Eve as mature adults? If we physically examined them, would they differ from other humans in the evidence of their growth from fetus to infant to child to adult?

Would Adam have scars from injuries he never suffered? Would the ground already have fossils in it? Why would a functional creation require Lead in zircons?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

fFOLLOW UP RESEARCH ON ERVs:

This is from an evolution friendly site, for those who think anything from creation sites is defective (though my experience through years of research says just the opposite):

Human endogenous retroviruses: from infectious elements to human genes.
de Parseval N1, Heidmann T.
Author information

• 1Unité des Rétrovirus Endogènes et Eléments Rétroïdes des Eukaryotes Supérieurs, UMR 8122 CNRS, Institut Gustave Roussy, Villejuif, France.

Abstract
Mammalian genomes contain a heavy load (42% in humans) of retroelements, which are mobile sequences requiring reverse transcription for their replicative transposition. A significant proportion of these elements is of retroviral origin, with thousands of sequences resembling the integrated form of infectious retroviruses, with two LTRs bordering internal regions homologous to the gag, prt, pol, and env genes. These elements, named endogenous retroviruses (ERVs), are most probably the proviral remnants of ancestral germ-line infections by active retroviruses, which have thereafter been transmitted in a Mendelian manner. The complete sequencing of the human genome now allows a comprehensive survey of human ERVs (HERVs), which can be grouped according to sequence homologies into approximately 80 distinct families, each containing a few to several hundred elements. As reviewed here, strong similarities between HERVs and present-day retroviruses can be inferred from phylogenetic analyses on the reverse transcriptase (RT) domain of the pol gene or the transmembrane subunit (TM) of the env gene, which disclose interspersion of both classes of elements and suggest a common history and shared ancestors. Similarities are also observed at the functional levels, since despite the fact that most HERVs have accumulated mutations, deletions, and/or truncations, several elements still possess some of the functions of retroviruses, with evidence for viral-like particle formation, and occurrence of envelope proteins allowing cell-cell fusion and even conferring infectivity to pseudotypes. Along this line, a genomewide screening for human retroviral genes with coding capacity has revealed 16 fully coding envelope genes. These genes are transcribed in several healthy tissues including the placenta, three of them at a very high level. Besides their impact in modeling the genome, HERVs thus appear to contain still active genes, which most probably have been subverted by the host for its benefit and should be considered as bona fide human genes. Some of their characteristic features and possible physiological roles, as well as potential pathological effects inherited from their retroviral ancestors are also reviewed.


----------As can be seen by the words in green, above, the topic of ERVs is highly speculative at this time. Therefore it seems obvious, to me at least, that any "proof" for evolution that they purportedly give is also highly speculative. "Suggest a common ancestor....appear to...most probably....can be inferred....possible...." are nice words for an hypothesis but are not adequate to make a case for actual scientific evidence of anything.

Here is a creationist's perspective on ERVs.:

Here is another thing that seems not to be based on real scientific data...

The evolutionists are saying we are related to chimps because 14 of our 98,000 ERVs are located where theirs are. Aside from the point made in the vid that this is a minuscule percentage, who is saying we came from chimps anyway? Not even the evolutionists say that. Of course they co exist with us! Apparently we are supposed to use our imaginations to draw lines to the invisible dots leading to the invisible, i.e. "missing links" (really, I believe, non existent) ancestors of the chimp. Again, I don't believe that is science at all, just fanciful theories presented as facts.

 

[Loudmouth]

----------As can be seen by the words in green, above, the topic of ERVs is highly speculative at this time.

It isn't. In fact, if you take the mutations out of the ERV's they produce full fledged retroviruses.

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.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1665638/
​

The ERV's that have not undergone recombination to produce solo LTR's still have a full complement of retroviral genes and elements, including an integrase gene, reverse polymerase gene, envelope proteins, and flanking long terminal repeats. They have the same structure and genes as real retroviruses. We also know that retroviruses insert into the host genome. There really isn't any debate as to the source of ERV's.

Therefore it seems obvious, to me at least, that any "proof" for evolution that they purportedly give is also highly speculative. "Suggest a common ancestor....appear to...most probably....can be inferred....possible...." are nice words for an hypothesis but are not adequate to make a case for actual scientific evidence of anything.

All of the evidence points to ERV's being the product of retroviral insertion. Nothing you have posted refutes it.

Here is a creationist's perspective on ERVs.:

Part of the etiquette on this site is to use words instead of videos. If you could summarize the contents of the video, or find written material that explains it, I would be most appreciative.

The evolutionists are saying we are related to chimps because 14 of our 98,000 ERVs are located where theirs are.

If you had read the other thread that I referenced for you earlier, you would already know that this is false. There are over 200,000 ERV's in the human genome. Of those 200,000 ERV's, less than 100 are NOT found at the same location in the chimp genome. This means that more than 99.9% of the 200,000 human ERV's have a chimp orthologue.

All of the info is in the other thread in post #7.
http://www.christianforums.com/threads/lines-of-evidence-part-1-ervs.7867271/

Aside from the point made in the vid that this is a minuscule percentage, who is saying we came from chimps anyway? Not even the evolutionists say that. Of course they co exist with us! Apparently we are supposed to use our imaginations to draw lines to the invisible dots leading to the invisible, i.e. "missing" (really, I believe, non existent) ancestors of the chimp. Again, I don't believe that is science at all, just fanciful theories presented as facts.

As this post shows, you are being misled <staff edit> by your creationist sources. I would suggest using real scientific sources.

 

[Loudmouth]

double post

 

[LoricaLady]

Would Adam have scars from injuries he never suffered? Would the ground already have fossils in it? Why would a functional creation require Lead in zircons?

This is my last post on this string. Why does the world look old? It doesn't if you look at all the scientific data not just at one side's presentation of the facts. Why do things look like they evolved when they didn't? They don't when you look at all the scientific data not just at one side's presentation of the facts. I assume didn't watch the Don Patton video on The Fossil Record, which was included in the link I gave earlier or you wouldn't be asking that question. Would the ground already have fossils in it? Of course not. They are the result of, and the overwhelming evidence for, the Great Flood.

Do you see any road kill, any animals in the forest, turning into fossils? Fossilization is a very rare event that requires rapid burial by water with a covering of sediment, you know, sorta like in a...flood. Though such events are very, very rare, we have these vast, worldwide fossil graveyards all over the planet. Some of the evidence shows animals dying right in the process of giving birth or of eating another animal. Sudden destruction, in other words. No, we're not talking about local floods, either. I live in an area that has suffered many floods. Absolutey no fossils are left behind. Tsunamis and hurricaines happen all the time but they are not leaving behind vast, fossil graveyards or any fossils that I know about. The Great Flood was unique, more powerful and vast by far than anything we know today.

Are you just asking rhetorical Qs and looking at one side only, or are you truly, diligently and thoughtfully looking at both sides? Rhetorical Q of my own as I won't be reading any more posts. The truth is out there. You've been given some resources to see that and they are all over the net. If you don't find the truth I would guess that would be because you didn't look hard and long enough.

 

[Loudmouth]

This is my last post on this string.

I would still like to hear your comments on ERV's. The other thread is still available for comment.

http://www.christianforums.com/threads/lines-of-evidence-part-1-ervs.7867271/

Why does the world look old? It doesn't if you look at all the scientific data not just at one side's presentation of the facts.

Notice how you don't present any facts, just assertions.

Would the ground already have fossils in it? Of course not.

Then why would igneous rocks above fossils date to millions of years old? It can't be because the Earth was "created with age". Those rocks had to form after the fossils were buried. They should date young by radiometric dating, but they don't.

They are the result of, and the overwhelming evidence for, the Great Flood.

Again, that is an empty assertion.

Do you see any road kill, any animals in the forest, turning into fossils? Fossilization is a very rare event that requires rapid burial by water with a covering of sediment, you know, sorta like in a...flood. Though such events are very, very rare, we have these vast, worldwide fossil graveyards all over the planet. Some of the evidence shows animals dying right in the process of giving birth or of eating another animal. Sudden destruction, in other words.

Rapid burial does not require the entire Earth to be covered in water.

 

[AV1611VET]

Are you just asking rhetorical Qs and looking at one side only, or are you truly, diligently and thoughtfully looking at both sides?

Some have trouble distinquish between apparent age and Omphalos/Last Thursday.

They see only what they want to see.

 

[Loudmouth]

I am not going to respond to the above as I think it would be a waste of time. Let those see who have eyes to see.

I posted scientific evidence that refutes all of your arguments. No comment?

Also you talk about "Part of the etiquette of this site" involves using words not vids. People post vids all over this forum and there is no rule against it.

I didn't say that it was against the rules. I said that it was part of the etiquette of this forum, the science forum. You can continue to post vids if you want, but you will find that they are largely ignored. It was just a friendly suggestion.

As for etiquette, the forum rules do say not to attack groups of people as when you talk about "creationist lies".

I find there is no other description for what those creationist groups are doing. For instance, you repeated their claim that out of tens of thousands of ERV's that only 14 or so are shared with chimps. How else can this be described except as a lie on the part of those creationists?

You seem well meaning, so I would hope that you would appreciate it when people point out when sources are not trustworthy.

 

[Loudmouth]

Some have trouble distinquish between apparent age and Omphalos/Last Thursday.

Your "apparent age" claims require God to plant fossils in the ground as part of the creation. That is Omphalos/Last Thursdayism.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

sfs As a matter of fact I had already looked up info on ERVs in the past but searched them out again to be sure I was being factual.

ERV's are a retroviruses.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endogenous_retrovirus

One of those capable of transferring genetic material from separate Kinds into other Kinds.

Which of course makes determining which, if any shared genes, come from actual decent.

"In addition, the retroviral proteins themselves have been co-opted to serve novel host functions, particularly in reproduction and development. Recombination between homologous retroviral sequences has also contributed to gene shuffling and the generation of genetic variation."

They have been "co-opted," meaning they know these proteins the retroviruses produce were not original to the host, just used by the host. Those same retroviruses that are responsible for bringing the genome of other Kinds to separate Kinds. There are no imagined missing links - this is why each and every one is missing. The genes shared are all from retrovirus causes. Supported by all laboratory and observational evidence. A T-Rex is a T-Rex from the oldest fossil found to the youngest fossil found for that Kind. The same thing seen for every distinct Kind in the entire fossil record. Or E coli which after billions of generations and billions of mutations are well, E coli.

Then you have to factor in the 2 of every 3 they have incorrectly classified, and suddenly ToE falls apart.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Your "apparent age" claims require God to plant fossils in the ground as part of the creation. That is Omphalos/Last Thursdayism.

No, your age claims require we ignore everything about decomposition and fossilization and pretend soft tissue is hundreds of millions of years old.

 

[Loudmouth]

ERV's are a retroviruses.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endogenous_retrovirus

One of those capable of transferring genetic material from separate Kinds into other Kinds.

I am unaware of any examples of retroviruses taking the DNA out of one species and transferring it to another. Do you have references?

All of the reading that I have done shows that only the retroviral genes are inserted into the host genome.

"In addition, the retroviral proteins themselves have been co-opted to serve novel host functions, particularly in reproduction and development. Recombination between homologous retroviral sequences has also contributed to gene shuffling and the generation of genetic variation."

Retroviral genes evolve to take on function as part of the host genome. This is evidence against evolution how?

There are no imagined missing links- this is why each and every one is missing.

I am saying that they are genetic markers, not missing links.

 

[Loudmouth]

No, your age claims require we ignore everything about decomposition and fossilization and pretend soft tissue is hundreds of millions of years old.

Everything we know about decomposition and fossilization includes the examples of soft tissue that was preserved for 65 million years. We have the evidence that soft tissue can be preserved for that long.