A question I don't think creationists will answer.

[Subduction Zone]

Scientists claiming they have the answers of our origins, and pushing anything they find that way is to me the wrong goal.
They find a 165 million year old rodent fossil "hey it's your ancestor"
They find a tiktaalik fossil of 380 million years old "hey it's your ancestor"

I don't see anything happening spontaneous.
Evolution is always triggered by something, weather, food, environment, ...

To say a rodent evolves into a human in less then 200 years old, and selling that as THE theory is wrong imho.

It is very possible that you are misinterpreting those articles.

Not every fossil is your ancestor. In fact not every transitional fossil is ancestral. The two are not necessarily one and the same.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No, I called the mutations I listed beneficial. None of them causes cancer. What the heck are you talking about?


A few points. First, the "Phoenix project" isn't a thing. Second, the Phoenix system isn't a virus; it's a system of cells that produce viruses. Third, the virus involved isn't an ERV. It's an human-engineered viral delivery system, based on a retrovirus. Retroviruses are also not ERVs (although they can, on occasion, turn into them). The Phoenix system has nothing to do with common descent, with the evidence that ERVs provide for common descent, or with beneficial mutations, and why you brought it up continues to be a mystery.


Sure we do (more or less -- rodents didn't become apes): in the fossil record, and in the record preserved in the genomes of modern species.

I haven't heard of the "Phoenix system" but there is a "Phoenix virus". That was the name for a HERV revived by a French team, you were right that it had nothing to do with cancer:

Reflections from the Other Side: Endogenous Retroviruses

 

[Bolleke]

It is very possible that you are misinterpreting those articles.

Not every fossil is your ancestor. In fact not every transitional fossil is ancestral. The two are not necessarily one and the same.

They say tiktaalik is and they say a rodent of 165 million years ago is.

They definitly trace us back to the Eomaia somewhere 125 million years ago.
Well, when I see a Eomaia fossil and I see todays mice, I can see evolution.
When they make the eomaia a human in less then 125 million years I can not see evolution and I will not teach that to my kids.

 

[sfs]

Uhoh. Now I have to go back and see what sfs said about the Phoenix virus. That was the name that the French team gave the ERV they revived. I don't see anything about it causing cancer:

Reflections from the Other Side: Endogenous Retroviruses

In general when popular magazines talk about cancer cures or causes I always have my doubts. They often get that fact wrong. Perhaps because scientists when pressed too far other throw out that as a possible benefit. People do not care to learn of the actual use of research. So I would still ignore the "cancer" claims of the sources that you listed for the Phoenix virus.

Google what he quoted about phoenix; it's from a Stanford website describing a system for manipulating cells. There's also the phoenix virus you're talking about, but they're unrelated.

 

[Dizredux]

Scientists claiming they have the answers of our origins, and pushing anything they find that way is to me the wrong goal.
They find a 165 million year old rodent fossil "hey it's your ancestor"
They find a tiktaalik fossil of 380 million years old "hey it's your ancestor"

I have never seen anyone say that Tiktaalik is definitely ancestral to us. Some have said that it might be possible but nothing definite. You normally cannot determine actual ancestry without examining DNA which we cannot find in most fossils.

I don't see anything happening spontaneous.
Evolution is always triggered by something, weather, food, environment, ...

Not quite true. Look up Genetic Drift. It refers to evolution that is not related to natural selection.

To say a rodent evolves into a human in less then 200 years old, and selling that as THE theory is wrong imho.

You might have made a typo. Did you really mean 200 years? Also I do not believe that anyone thinks Rodents are in the direct ancestral line to humans. You might clarify what you mean a little. Perhaps you mean some early mammals that look a little like rodents?

Dizredux

 

[Subduction Zone]

Google what he quoted about phoenix; it's from a Stanford website describing a system for manipulating cells. There's also the phoenix virus you're talking about, but they're unrelated.

His English is not the clearest and I am working in a rather distracting atmosphere as it is. Thanks for the clarification. "Phoenix" is a common enough word to use when you want to be a bit dramatic.

 

[sfs]

Yeah with apes. Not fish!

Not just apes: all placental mammals. At least in the articles I can find of his online, he uses exactly the same arguments to show common descent of all placentals. So do you accept his arguments or not?

 

[sfs]

Thanks for the clarification. "Phoenix" is a common enough word to use when you want to be a bit dramatic.

Yup.

 

[Bolleke]

Google what he quoted about phoenix; it's from a Stanford website describing a system for manipulating cells. There's also the phoenix virus you're talking about, but they're unrelated.

Isn't that system creating the phoenix virus?
The phoenix virus isn't causing benifical mutation

 

[Bolleke]

This is the link stanford.edu/group/nolan/retroviral_systems/retsys.html

 

[Bolleke]

Not just apes: all placental mammals. At least in the articles I can find of his online, he uses exactly the same arguments to show common descent of all placentals. So do you accept his arguments or not?

Since when is a fish a mammal?
Look, I see evolution in the humanoids. But we don't see our common ancestor anywhere, now do we?

I accept the arguments, but I don't accept them for our origins.
So evolution isn't an answer to creation, nor is creation an answer to evolution in my world.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Isn't that system creating the phoenix virus?
The phoenix virus isn't causing benifical mutation

No, the Phoenix virus that the French reanimated is an example of an ERV brought back to life. ERV's are usually neutral mutations, though very rarely they can have a positive effect at the start or end of the virus.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Since when is a fish a mammal?
Look, I see evolution in the humanoids. But we don't see our common ancestor anywhere, now do we?

I accept the arguments, but I don't accept them for our origins.
So evolution isn't an answer to creation, nor is creation an answer to evolution in my world.

You may have that backwards. In a sense all mammals, in fact all vertebrates are "fish" since we all have fish ancestors.

 

[sfs]

Isn't that system creating the phoenix virus?
The phoenix virus isn't causing benifical mutation

The phoenix virus that was recreated from an ERV and the virus in the phoenix system are different viruses.

 

[Dizredux]

Since when is a fish a mammal?
Look, I see evolution in the humanoids. But we don't see our common ancestor anywhere, now do we?

You might check out Neil Shubin's book Your Inner Fish: A Journey into the 3.5-Billion-Year History of the Human Body
He goes into this idea in some detail. It is a very good book and quite accessible to the lay public. In other words, a good read.

I accept the arguments, but I don't accept them for our origins.
So evolution isn't an answer to creation, nor is creation an answer to evolution in my world.

A lot of people have this idea but evolution has nothing to do with the creation of life but only addresses the diversity of life once it started.


Dizredux

 

[sfs]

Since when is a fish a mammal?
Look, I see evolution in the humanoids. But we don't see our common ancestor anywhere, now do we?

I accept the arguments, but I don't accept them for our origins.
So evolution isn't an answer to creation, nor is creation an answer to evolution in my world.

Since his arguments are entirely about our origins, I fail to see how you could in any sense accept them. And if you don't accept his conclusions, where do you think his logic is incorrect?

 

[Bolleke]

Ok guys I am going to refine my observations and get back to it later. I have some reading to do first. Sfs our origins as humanoid or origins of all mammals?

 

[sfs]

Ok guys I am going to refine my observations and get back to it later. I have some reading to do first. Sfs our origins as humanoid or origins of all mammals?

I don't know what your question means.

 

[USincognito]

No you don't. "incomplete lineage sorting" is simply a catch-all rescue device for discordant gene trees. You still have to assume humans,gorillas, and chimps share a common ancestor in the first place, and ILS removes any potential falsification of this assumption from genome comparisons.

You're awfully long on "they would then just make up some other excuse" and awfully short on how they would do so. This seems like a variation on your deep atavisms somehow being used to explain swapped modules garbage. Your responses to objections were continually repeating "they just would" instead of giving us anything concrete to work with.

And no, incomplete lineage sorting wasn't invented as an "catch-all rescue device" to save common ancestry. Hominid common ancestry is well established by the fossil and genetic record. When some genes showed phylogenetic relationships discordant with the body of phylogenetic evidence, actual geneticists (as opposed to some dude on the Internet) did actual science and found the explanation (as opposed to "an" explanation).

No, you would just infer that the incomplete sorting occurred nearer the base of all three groups, where the supposed human, chimp, and gorilla lineages were first diverging.

Give us a hypothetical example. I mean, an actual geneticist is trying to explain the science to you. Why can't some dude on the Internet give him a workable example of what you're talking about?

"Unlikely" ? Big deal. That's never stopped anyone in the industry before. Evolution itself is unlikely, to say the least.

Hey look folks, Mark Kennedy's got a fellow traveler here. Personal incredulity trumping evidence at every turn.

Like I said, you would just infer more sorting events at the base of humans, chimps, and gorillas. There's not really any limiting criteria on how much incomplete lineage sorting is allowed to be invoked in this situation. You're just saying "that wouldn't happen...unlikely... we'd rule that out''.. You haven't tried to explain how or why and I suspect you can't.

Why don't you give us an example of where it would have to be ruled out and how geneticists would then try and "rescue" the situation? I suspect you can't because you're in over your head on the topic.

 

[lifepsyop]

You're awfully long on "they would then just make up some other excuse" and awfully short on how they would do so.

What you don't seem to understand is that I'm simply using "explanations" that are already routinely used by evolutionists. I don't have to speculate here.

This seems like a variation on your deep atavisms somehow being used to explain swapped modules garbage.

I forget is that the thread where you were saying we know Evolution is true because we don't find insect-people ?

Your responses to objections were continually repeating "they just would" instead of giving us anything concrete to work with.

And no, incomplete lineage sorting wasn't invented as an "catch-all rescue device" to save common ancestry.

Whether or not it is intended, that is the function it serves. If genes are discordant to expected phylogeny, then evolutionists will simply say it was incomplete lineage sorting that occurred in these mysterious "common ancestors". There is no potential falsifiability, yet at the same time specific genetic patterns such as ERVs are routinely offered as "proof" of common descent. Yet if those patterns were all scrambled up, then it would be "proof" of incomplete lineage sorting. Get it? Heads I win, Tails you lose.

Hominid common ancestry is well established by the fossil and genetic record.

If by "well established" you mean "presupposed to be true", then I would agree with you.

When some genes showed phylogenetic relationships discordant with the body of phylogenetic evidence, actual geneticists (as opposed to some dude on the Internet) did actual science and found the explanation (as opposed to "an" explanation).

Something that 'explains' practically any variety of genetic discordance between humans, chimps, and gorillas, is not actually an explanation of that genetic discordance. It's like saying that each group will have genomic data. It explains nothing.

Hey look folks, Mark Kennedy's got a fellow traveler here. Personal incredulity trumping evidence at every turn.

Understanding that fish don't turn into people over time is not personal incredulity.. it's called dealing with the reality that nature isn't magic like evolutionists want it to be.

Why don't you give us an example of where it would have to be ruled out and how geneticists would then try and "rescue" the situation? I suspect you can't because you're in over your head on the topic.

I think you're confused. sfs was the one asserting a certain gene tree pattern between humans,chimps, and gorillas would rule out incomplete lineage sorting as an explanation. But I don't think he can explain how.