Subduction Zone
Regular Member
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.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.
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.
Not quite true. Look up Genetic Drift. It refers to evolution that is not related to natural selection.I don't see anything happening spontaneous.
Evolution is always triggered by something, weather, food, environment, ...
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?To say a rodent evolves into a human in less then 200 years old, and selling that as THE theory is wrong imho.
Dizredux
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.
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?Yeah with apes. Not fish!
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.
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?
Isn't that system creating the phoenix virus?
The phoenix virus isn't causing benifical mutation
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.
The phoenix virus that was recreated from an ERV and the virus in the phoenix system are different viruses.Isn't that system creating the phoenix virus?
The phoenix virus isn't causing benifical mutation
You might check out Neil Shubin's book Your Inner Fish: A Journey into the 3.5-Billion-Year History of the Human BodySince 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?
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.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?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.
I don't know what your question means.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?
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.
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.
"Unlikely" ? Big deal. That's never stopped anyone in the industry before. Evolution itself is unlikely, to say the least.
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.
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).
Hey look folks, Mark Kennedy's got a fellow traveler here. Personal incredulity trumping evidence at every turn.
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.
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?