200,000 ERVs...

[Blayz]

That there are strikingly similar species between marsupial and placental mammals actually helps Creation rather than evolution.

How, exactly?

At any rate, you completely missed the point. the rock wallaby lives in desert terrain leaping rabbit like from rock to rock.

The oppossum lives in the same environment as the raccoon, temperate American forest. Why would a tree dwelling creature from NA be more similar to a desert dwelling Australian wallaby than another tree dwelling NA creature?


Explain how this "similar function" thing works.

 

[Blayz]

I am not a "creationist." I ...believe in the traditional understanding of Genesis.

That's the definition of creationist.

That understanding might be wrong

no "might" about it. It is wrong.

but it is no more refutable than Darwinian evolution.

It is a complete fairy tale, evolution is backed by an overwhelming mountain of fact.

In matters of prehistory, since no one was there to record what really happened, people look at the available evidence through their perspective presuppositions and worldviews.

No, its only the idolators and other deranged types that twist and ignore fact to try and make fiction real.

 

[TeddyKGB]

Creationism predicts that the Creator would give species similar features for similar functions.

Kind of like how the Creator gave the Panda a modified wrist bone instead of a thumb?

 

[TeddyKGB]

In matters of prehistory, since no one was there to record what really happened, people look at the available evidence through their perspective presuppositions and worldviews.

This is an amazingly childish argument.

In any case, what's so special about history? Thousands of historical events were not eyewitnessed. How do you know the Indian Ocean tsunami in 2004 was caused by a deep-sea earthquake?

 

[vajradhara]

Namaste all,

interesting thread.

i think that Mark Kennedy said the exact thing which is making this discussion quite difficult.. it is about religion and not about science. in point of fact, it is about CreationISM and it's adherents and their understanding of reality.

from this point of view, something is either 100% true or it is false, ipso facto, if something shares 99.9999 of common material the .00001 difference is enough to invalidate the claim.. not 100% and the rest of the information is simply not addressed. as the argument is steered towards the .00001 the 99.9999 still remains a clear indictment of the narrow view.

this paradoxical sort of view allows one to quite easily conclude that a vast conspiracy is present to suppress the truth of their view whilst affecting a persecution complex.. truly a tight spiral of self-confirmation is at play.

the information presented in support of common descent is, in my estimation, incontrovertible at this point in time. new information could come along to over turn this view but such as not been brought forth yet.

metta,

~v

 

[KCfromNC]

Creationism predicts that the Creator would give species similar features for similar functions.

I thought your god was omnipotent? I'd be very careful claiming that there are things it can't do - many on this site wish to exclude people who promote heretical views like yours.

 

[Loudmouth]

Creationism predicts that the Creator would give species similar features for similar functions.

Then creationism is falsified by a comparison of the bat and bird wing. The bird wing is an airfoil made up of the bones that are homologous to the humerus, ulna, and radius. The bat wing is membranous. It is made up of a skin membrane stretched between the phalanges. The two wings are completely different. Creationism is falsified.

 

[Schroeder]

I read the thread, but like I said, I'm not looking into getting into a debate about ERVs at this point. It's completely besides the point.

The point I was raising is that evolutionary biology, including common descent, is an applied science. In industry. Not theory, not academia, not atheistic conspiracies designed to smote the religious. Applied science.

Do you not get the implication of that? If evolutionary biology, again including common descent, is being applied by real-world companies looking to solve issues, develop products, etc, etc, then claiming all this is part of some sort of conspiracy is just ludicrous to the extreme. I mean, really, do you really think the pharmaceutical industry is in on it? A 600 billion dollar industry with nothing better to do than promote an atheistic agenda by secretly applying evolutionary biology in their quest for new drugs to treat illness?

I'm sorry, but I'm just not *that* paranoid.



I think someone is ignoring science here, but I don't think it's me. Do you have anything to comment on the way modern evolutionary biology is applied? Do you even care?

whayou say is correct. the only thing is it NEVER goes past what we OBSERVE today. they have NO need to go past into exstinct species. they observe evolution in living exsisting species NOT things in the ground. this is what the theory is about. It trys to make things from ONE common ancestor. common ancestor doesnt have to mean the ONE common ancestor or even out of the species. Its not ignoring it its not embelishing it.

 

[Schroeder]

Kind of like how the Creator gave the Panda a modified wrist bone instead of a thumb?

thats it i dont believe in God anymore. this proof is just to overwhelming.

 

[Schroeder]

Then creationism is falsified by a comparison of the bat and bird wing. The bird wing is an airfoil made up of the bones that are homologous to the humerus, ulna, and radius. The bat wing is membranous. It is made up of a skin membrane stretched between the phalanges. The two wings are completely different. Creationism is falsified.

see more solid proof that GOd was an idiot if he did exsist. why would he do this kind of creation. man you guys have got to be kidding.

 

[TheOutsider]

what you say is correct. the only thing is it NEVER goes past what we OBSERVE today. they have NO need to go past into extinct species. they observe evolution in living existing species NOT things in the ground. this is what the theory is about. It tries to make things from ONE common ancestor. common ancestor doesn't have to mean the ONE common ancestor or even out of the species. Its not ignoring it its not embellishing it.

We'd see radically different evidence if there was more than one ancestor.

thats it i don't believe in God anymore. this proof is just to overwhelming.

see more solid proof that God was an idiot if he did exist. why would he do this kind of creation.

I can't wait to see what you change your Faith Icon to.

 

[Schroeder]

about the issue in debate. ervs. how does the RNA play a role in all this. i was reading something about it playing a part in it. In that it shows it could have been there already or something, or that it shows it is not just left over making it common decsent. I have to look at it again. And be a bit more specific. course i think there are a bit more problems in being from a ape. the mutations that would have to happen in such a short time just doesnt sem likely.

 

[Loudmouth]

see more solid proof that GOd was an idiot if he did exsist. why would he do this kind of creation. man you guys have got to be kidding.

What are you going on about?

Spyridon said, "Creationism predicts that the Creator would give species similar features for similar functions."

The null hypothesis is "Creationism is falsified if two species with similar functions have dissimilar features." Right?

Therefore, creationism would predict that all flying vertebrates would have the same flying "features". They don't. Creationism makes incorrect predictions.

 

[Schroeder]

We'd see radically different evidence if there was more than one ancestor.

i never said more then one ancestor. there would be only one. just not ONE common to all. You really didnt answer my post. do they go beyond what is curently living to study for new medicines?

I can't wait to see what you change your Faith Icon to.

if i did change it i would be from creationist to old earth creationist. BUT as i have said i dont see thta it matters one way or the other on the age of the earth. God could have created certain species at certain times or all together and they change to what they are now in the way science says they do. they would still be from a common decent first created types.

 

[Loudmouth]

about the issue in debate. ervs. how does the RNA play a role in all this. i was reading something about it playing a part in it. In that it shows it could have been there already or something, or that it shows it is not just left over making it common decsent.

Common descent is evidenced by ERV's found at the same position (aka orthologous) and the nested hierarchy produced by orthologous ERV's. The argument for common descent is not based on ERV function or the function of RNA from ERV's.

Are you going to actually discuss the evidence or continue to throw red herrings about?

 

[Schroeder]

What are you going on about?

Spyridon said, "Creationism predicts that the Creator would give species similar features for similar functions."

The null hypothesis is "Creationism is falsified if two species with similar functions have dissimilar features." Right?

Therefore, creationism would predict that all flying vertebrates would have the same flying "features". They don't. Creationism makes incorrect predictions.

I think your being to picky or piticular where Spydridon wasnt. they both have wings for the same purpose. Its been used before. either to piticular or to vage or simple.

 

[Schroeder]

Common descent is evidenced by ERV's found at the same position (aka orthologous) and the nested hierarchy produced by orthologous ERV's. The argument for common descent is not based on ERV function or the function of RNA from ERV's.

Are you going to actually discuss the evidence or continue to throw red herrings about?

see a red herring is when one says i am throwing out one, when all i did was ask a guestion. I never said you were wrong. i think your ,but i never said you were. and for another this is the first post i made here. i believe. Its always the way of the evolutionist to grab whatever it sees as potential material to prove the creationist wrong. goes the other way to. seein ghow this ervs thing is fairly new iwould have to continue to see what it produces. at least at the best i can seeing how i am not actually great at science stuff.

 

[Loudmouth]

I think your being to picky or piticular where Spydridon wasnt. they both have wings for the same purpose. Its been used before. either to piticular or to vage or simple.

You only looked at one part of the prediction. It's and "if . . . then" prediction, you only focus on the "if". The prediction is this: If two species have the same function (flying) then the features should be similar. They aren't. The prediction is falsified. No bird has a membranous wing. No bat has an airfoil wing. They are completely different wings. We can also include the insect wing and the flying fish wing if you want. We could also compare the cephalopod eye, the insect eye, and the vertebrate eye. We could compare the gills of the basing shark with the baleen of a whale. We could compare the thumb of an ape with the thumb of a panda. There are hundreds of comparisons which falsify the prediction made by Spyridon.

 

[Loudmouth]

see a red herring is when one says i am throwing out one, when all i did was ask a guestion. I never said you were wrong. i think your ,but i never said you were. and for another this is the first post i made here. i believe. Its always the way of the evolutionist to grab whatever it sees as potential material to prove the creationist wrong. goes the other way to. seein ghow this ervs thing is fairly new iwould have to continue to see what it produces. at least at the best i can seeing how i am not actually great at science stuff.

Argument: ERV's evidence common descent because orthologous ERV's fall into a nested hierarchy.

Red Herring: Some ERV's have function.

 

[brakepads]

Hi,

I have two questions:
1) If most of HERV-Ks integrated before the separation of hominids and Old World monkeys +-30-45 million years ago, why was no RhERV-K (yet anyway) found to be orthologous to closely related HERV-K's and CERV-K's? (Article: Demographic Histories of ERV-K in Humans, Chimpanzees and Rhesus Monkeys)
2) Is there an example of any mammal that is capable of reproduction without ERV envelope genes playing a role in placental physiology?

Thank you!

Edit: Wait, make that 3 (sorry):
3) Why was one of the CERV1 subfamilies dated to 7.8my and two CERV2 families dated at 21.9my and 14.1my? They have no orthologues in humans... (Article: Identification, characterization and comparative genomics of chimpanzee endogenous retroviruses)