The evidence for Evolution.

[TagliatelliMonster]

Sorry, that doesn't do a whole lot for me. you'll have to be a bit more specific on your point.

(mutated) DNA is past on to off spring.

This creates a family tree. A nested hierarchy.
This means that traits that evolved on a specific branch, will only be found on those branches and their sub-branches, but not on other branches.

Inner earbones are a mammalian trait. So you'll only find it in mammals.
Feathers are a bird/dino trait. So you won't find it in mammals.
Hair is a mammalian trait. So you won't find it in amphibians.

And to top it off, ERV's are also past on to off spring.
So the closer related the species, the more ERV's they'll share.
Hence, you won't find non-primates with which we share more ERV's then with primates.

All that, off course, if evolution is an accurate model of reality.
You literally have a bazillion trillion ways of showing it to be wrong.
If it's wrong, it should be easy to find anything that doesn't fit such a nested hierarchical model.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Now you might just be on to something there. You keep throwing the same conclusion derived of opinion and calling it fact, and I keep seeing it as just that, yet you continue to do it over and over again.

Once more, they aren't opinions. Nore are they even conclusions.

They are observed and verifiable facts.

 

[Kenny'sID]

LOL!

Denial: not just a river in Egypt.

Can't do a lot with that reply.

How do you explain the identical viral scarring?

I don't, it's of no real concern to me. That said, I don't doubt anything that is truly fact, only what is is said that the facts mean. that has always been my stance.

 

[Kenny'sID]

You literally have a bazillion trillion ways of showing it to be wrong.

Explain a few.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Can't do a lot with that reply.

There comes a point where it becomes senseless to try and reason with someone who ignores all the facts, calls them "opinions" and then "counters" it with "god dun it".

I don't, it's of no real concern to me.

Indeed it isn't. As you said in that other post... you don't care about observable reality or explanatory models of reality. You only care about believing in your particular interpretation of a book. You want it to be so.

That said, I don't doubt anything that is truly fact, only what is is said that the facts mean. that has always been my stance.

It is a fact that viral insertions are inherited by off spring and that that results in shared ERV's.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Explain a few.

I just did:

Find me a mammal with feathers.
Find me an amphibian with hair.
Find me a reptile with an inner earbone.
Find me a primate without a blind spot.
Find me any non-primate with which we share more ERV's (or any other genetic markers) then with primates.

In short: find me any organism that breaks the nested hierarchy of life.

 

[Speedwell]

You lost me there, please explain in detail what you mean, using easily understood terminology.

1. The human and chimpanzee genomes contain long stretches of identical DNA.
2. These stretches of identical DNA contain what are called "retrovirus insertions" at identical points.
3. Not to get too technical, these insertions are what amount to scars of random virus infection accumulated over long (many generations) periods of time.
4. Biologists conclude that they occurred in the common ancestry of chimps and humans, otherwise it is unlikely that they would be at identical points in both chimp and human DNA

What is your explanation?

 

[Kenny'sID]

There comes a point where it becomes senseless to try and reason with someone who ignores all the facts, calls them "opinions" and then "counters" it with "god dun it".

There you go again, I already said I don't doubt facts. Facts, if they are truly facts are undeniable, why would I pretend to doubt them? It's your opinions on what certain facts mean or what is concluded from them O doubt wholheartedly. Why do feel you have to twist things so often as you do here?

Indeed it isn't. As you said in that other post... you don't care about observable reality or explanatory models of reality. You only care about believing in your particular interpretation of a book. You want it to be so.

Of course I do, and the very reason I followed the comment as I did, but there you go, again with the twisting, as in singling out that sentence so you can use it to whale on me, when it is simply out of context by itself. That really is getting irritating.

It is a fact that viral insertions are inherited by off spring and that that results in shared ERV's.

And what do you make of that?

 

[Loudmouth]

You lost me there, please explain in detail what you mean, using easily understood terminology.

Do you agree that we can observe parents passing on ERVs to their offspring?

Do you agree that we can observe retroviruses inserting randomly into genomes, producing new ERVs?

 

[Loudmouth]

There you go again, I already said I don't doubt facts. Facts, if they are truly facts are undeniable, why would I pretend to doubt them?

You pretend to doubt them because they lead to conclusions you don't like.

It's your opinions on what certain facts mean or what is concluded from them O doubt wholheartedly.

When DNA fingerprinting matches a suspect, do you consider that just an opinion?

When evidence exactly matches what evolution would produce, is it just an opinion that evolution is supported by evidence?

 

[Kenny'sID]

What is your explanation?

I don't need to give an explanation, I don't doubt any facts, only the conclusion you say is drawn from the facts. Is there some way I can make myself clearer on that point?

 

[Loudmouth]

I don't need to give an explanation, I don't doubt any facts, only the conclusion you say is drawn from the facts. Is there some way I can make myself clearer on that point?

You could make yourself clearer by giving us a justification for rejecting the conclusion which is backed by mountains of empirical observations.

 

[Kenny'sID]

You pretend to doubt them because they lead to conclusions you don't like.

Another bogus/unfounded conclusion, and derived out of agenda...see how that works?

 

[Loudmouth]

Another bogus/unfounded conclusion, and derived out of agenda...see how that works?

Then give us a scientific reason for rejecting the conclusion that ERVs shared by humans and chimps at the same location in both genomes came from a common ancestor. Show us why this is not a valid scientific conclusion.

 

[Kenny'sID]

When DNA fingerprinting matches a suspect, do you consider that just an opinion?

When evidence exactly matches what evolution would produce, is it just an opinion that evolution is supported by evidence?

You refuse to hear me...oh well.

Your so-called evolution is supported by facts that you see as evidence.

 

[Kenny'sID]

Then give us a scientific reason for rejecting the conclusion that ERVs shared by humans and chimps at the same location in both genomes came from a common ancestor. Show us why this is not a valid scientific conclusion.

Is that scientific conclusion opinion or fact?

 

[Loudmouth]

You refuse to hear me...oh well.

Your so-called evolution is supported by facts that you see as evidence.

That's what people in denial say.

 

[Loudmouth]

Is that scientific conclusion opinion or fact?

An opinion is a subjective judgement. A scientific conclusion is a testable hypothesis that is supported by objective observations. They are not the same thing.

What do you consider to be evidence? Or is everything just opinion?

 

[Speedwell]

I don't need to give an explanation, I don't doubt any facts, only the conclusion you say is drawn from the facts. Is there some way I can make myself clearer on that point?

So you doubt the conclusion that biologists have drawn from the loci of retrovirus insertions without giving any grounds for it and you have no alternate conclusion of your own. What reason do we have, then to reject the biologists' conclusion?

 

[David_M]

How it does work, or we would still think that vestigial organs were useless and "junk" DNA had no function.

I should point out that even back in Darwin's day "vestigial" did not mean useless.