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.
I have considered most theories and especially the main ones like OEC, YEC, intelligent design, creationism, theistic evolution and Neo Darwinism. Like I say I cannot say which is the most truthful account of how things came into being and how life continually changes. Of course, I believe that God is behind what we see but this is based on my faith and cannot be entirely supported through scientific verification because these are two different views of life and Gods creative abilities are unseen. Therefore I tend to lean towards design or intelligence in life and there is some indirect evidence for this especially if you consider how all life appears to have a common design, natural laws and codes which direct it. But also think that life is open to circumstance and a degree of randomness but that randomness is a consequence of an existence that is more directed by God.
Endogenous retroviral (ERV) insertion points fall into a nested hierarchy. Why?
Sure, if by "in plenty" you mean a vanishingly small fraction. The great majority of Christian biologists accept evolution.
The basic fact of evolution -- common descent -- has been settled science for well over a century. The hundreds of thousands of biologists working around the world, who are working on thousands of research projects and generating hundreds of thousands of articles in the scientific literature, spend none of that time and effort on evaluating whether evolution is true or not.
It shows a lack of faith to believe one must disconnect one's religion from the findings of investigation of reality. Some religious ideas are false, and sometimes science can bring the evidence that matters for a particular idea to our attention. I believe the ultimate truths about God will be found to be compatible with the ultimate truths about the universe. If our human ideas about God have to suffer along the way, perhaps that isn't such a great loss.
Insertion is known to be biased by sequence, but not determined by it. There are still an enormous number of possible insertion points, and yet the ones we see fall into a nested hierarchy.
Then you have to explain why they look exactly like they originate from a virus, including (in some cases) have genes for viral proteins, and have even been shown to be able to recreate a virus.
Your first answer says nothing to explain this fact.
How does either one explain the transition-transversion being the same? This is about differences, not similarities. Why do the genetic differences between humans look like the genetic differences between humans and chimps, except for there being more of the latter?
Virtually all evolutionary biologist reject strict neo-Darwinism. Some of them propose to replace a single last universal common ancestor with an interlinked community that evolved as a group. None of them reject the basic fact of common descent. That is indeed settled science.
It might prevent you from giving the impression that the basic fact of evolution is not settled science. Because that's wrong, and working biologists know it's wrong.
A working knowledge of biology.
I don't know whether it would or not. Do you care whether you speak the truth? If so, you're probably well advised to talk to working biologists about what biologists think.
And there is still an enormous amount we do not understand about these sequences and their “insertion”. There is evidence for the majority of these being functionally transcribed. What evolutionists wilfully forget to acknowledge that homology is not stronger evidence for common descent. It is equally evidence for common design as you would expect a common designer to use common design plans. And guess what? Chimps look more like humans than a cow does. If we were designed, why would we expect us to not have similar sequences? ERVs are just another piece of “homology = common descent” which is a fallacy.
Because according to the Biblical literal paradigm, it is perfectly logical to assume humans pre-dated viruses. You said it yourself these sequences can recreate a virus. Where might viruses originated from? (as per Peer Torberg’s proposal of “The ‘VIGE-first hypothesis’”)
I fail to see how this supports descent from chimps. Similar sequences are more likely to mutate in a similar way….unless you presume ALL mutations are always purely random…rather than self-directed….as one example.
So far you have failed to provide an argument that has not adequately been rebutted by many people studying this in far more detail than myself that overwhelmingly supports common descent across kinds. You just choose to not accept other proposals. Most, far better than the simple time-constrained responses I have provided. I would link to various sites but my experience in doing that is people focus on the source rather than the science (which is a type of ad hominem and bad science). They expect the rebuttals to fall in peer-reviewed science when they fail to acknowledge that that is like asking a Muslim to review a publication by a Buddhist as to why Buddhism is a superior religion to all others and expecting them to say it should be published. I know how the peer-review system works. I have been victim of it with good science myself, blocked by reviewers with competing interests, let alone someone who completely holds a different world view. Just look at the reaction of the hard core evolutionists to the ENCODE results – they outright reject them not because of the science per se, but because it flies in the face of evolution. So rather than “transcription might mean function” it is “transcriptional activity cannot mean function as there is no way 80% of the genome can be functional and our models of evolution also be true.”
Yes, humans produce variants of humans. So do birds. So to non-human primates. Primates do not produce humans – that is not settled science in terms of actual real testable evidence.
No, I am pretty sure it would not.
I think I have that.
No there's not. Its random for what section of the chromosome is exposed enough get the insertions.
over millions of years evolution will of course coopt some of that junk dna into useful stuff.
Yes it is, only you reject it as above. For example nested hierarchy of retroviral inserts is evidence. So you reject it, of course.
There is one way to shut down an argument. Noted.
Ad hoc. Please provide me with convincing evidence that function was not there first. Given that in many cases we observe function. It is a pure ad hoc argument that whatever the observation, evolution wins. No function? Of course! Evolutiondidit. Function? Of course! Evolutiondidit.
You can find this answer….in your Bible. Loss of an ability is a Biblical feature. Genetic entropy is a Biblical prediction. Ironic how the eye can independently evolve 10’s of times, yet somehow evolution cannot keep the function of wiggling an ear with existing muscles. Why is this so difficult to see? Why does evolution explain this MORE than fallen humanity as per the Biblical literal translation?
Just living up to your approach, my brother!
Functional genetic components that look like retroviral sequences is evidence of common design. You just choose to reject this as evidence. It does not mean it is not evidence.
Glad to hear it! It is a shame that blind luck and chance has the same explanatory power as an all-powerful God though in your eyes.
How do you know it was made by God? I thought science told us that there was a big bang, that there is a multiverse, that gravity and black holes are how we know the universe can spontaneously arise from nothing, and string theory is a better explanation than God? Where do you draw your line at rejecting mainstream science?
“Where were you when I laid the earth’s foundation? Tell me, if you understand. Who marked off its dimensions? Surely you know!” - God
I agree. I would also add that staying away from astronomy would probably be profitable to those looking for 'evidence' to prove an old universe as astronomy is highly theoretical given that so little has and can be directly observed. As to evolution (the topic), nobody, ever, has observed one kind becoming a new kind. It has been enumerated multiple times on this thread the topic of transitional fossils. Exactly how many alleged transitional fossils have been found relative to the entire library of the known-to-date fossil record. If we assume all life arose from a common molecular life form, seems that we should almost exclusively be finding (statistically speaking) transitional fossils in the fossil record... with the very rare case being fossils that happen appear stagnant - which is the opposite of what is actually seen. Instead, we see dinosaurs that look like dinosaurs, fish that look like fish, birds that look like birds, etc... all perfectly in alignment with God creating animals after their own kind and then commanding them to be fruitful and multiply. Where's the repetition of transitional fossils continually being found? Nowhere.
