I never said it says nothing.
I simply said it says nothing about our immune system or vulnerability to other retroviruses. And that is regardless of the context, whatever that may mean.
Upvote
0
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.
That doesn't mean it tells us NOTHING.
It tells us something that must be taken in context.
So what you're saying is that our Trim5a protein's response to ancient retroviruses will tell us absolutely nothing (and can never tell us anything) about it's response to future retroviruses.I never said it says nothing.
I simply said it says nothing about our immune system or vulnerability to other retroviruses. And that is regardless of the context, whatever that may mean.
So what you're saying is that our Trim5a protein's response to ancient retroviruses will tell us absolutely nothing (and can never tell us anything) about it's response to future retroviruses.
On your say so of course.
You may be right, but I think your position is logically deficient.
Human endogenous retroviruses (HERVs)evolutionary junk or Gods tools?
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2006/1219herv.asp
ERV's, like any mutation, can be neutral, detrimental, or beneficial. No one is arguing that ERV's are evidence of common descent because they have no function. What we are arguing is that ERV's are evidence of common descent because they are shared at the same spot in the genome of divergent species (e.g. chimps and humans) and that they fall into the nested hierarchy predicted by the theory of evolution.
Could it be that ERV's serve similar functions for similar species?
Does that in and of itself prove common descent?
No doubt the functional ones do.Could it be that ERV's serve similar functions for similar species?
Of course not. There is no single 'smoking gun' argument or line of evidence for common descent, and 'proof' is a meaningless notion in any case.Does that in and of itself prove common descent?
Could it be that ERV's serve similar functions for similar species? Does that in and of itself prove common descent?
a) Even assuming ERV "hotspots" in genomes, this doesn't mean they would integrate in identical spots in different primates.Wouldn't it make sense for similar species to have similar mechanisms for the absorption of retroviruses, thus having ERV's in the same places? An evolutionary explanation isn't necessary.
Wouldn't it make sense for similar species to have similar mechanisms for the absorption of retroviruses, thus having ERV's in the same places? An evolutionary explanation isn't necessary.
An orthologous ERV in humans and orangutans could serve the same function and be completely absent in all other primates. This is completely within the realm of possiblity for creationism. However, evolution predicts that if an ERV is found at the same genomic position in both orangutans and humans it should also be found in chimps and gorillas. Creationism makes no such prediction. What do we find? Exactly what evolution predicts. The question of function or non-function has nothing to do with the argument for common descent. Placement and distribution does.
Except the fact that if things were totally different, you would say "Creationists predict things to be unique for each creature." Unlike evolution, which demands similarity via genetic relation, Creationists can "predict" whatever it is the real world shows similarity or not, making it a totally worthless hypothesis because it fits any piece of evidence that could ever come up. There is no piece of evidence capable of showing a vague Creationism to be untrue.Creationism predicts that the Creator would give species similar features for similar functions.
Creationism predicts that the Creator would give species similar features for similar functions.
Except the fact that if things were totally different, you would say "Creationists predict things to be unique for each creature." Unlike evolution, which demands similarity via genetic relation, Creationists can "predict" whatever it is the real world shows similarity or not, making it a totally worthless hypothesis because it fits any piece of evidence that could ever come up. There is no piece of evidence capable of showing a vague Creationism to be untrue.
If species change, it is attributable to natural selection. When species do not change for millions of years, it is attributable to stabilizing selection. When species choose mates based upon features that are disadvantageous to their survival, it is sexual selection. Thus, it appears that evolution can explain everything and anything, and thus, explains nothing.
Really, so do tell me this, what marvelous predictions does creationism predict for the relationship between raccoons, the oppossum (an American marsupial) with a similar habitat to the raccoon, and the Australian wallaby (like a kangaroo, only smaller).
Post number 5 in which you have steadfastly refused to even address orthologous integration sites.
You are a mediocre creationist.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?