A question I don't think creationists will answer.

[Bolleke]

Nope, wrong. Try again.

AIDS is an ERV friend. Known to be since 2009, and it got quite interesting since Finlay got pushing in the cancer field as well.
If we are going to discuss this... we are finished and you may call me the ignorant afterwards. Frankly I wouldn't care, but be thankful for the remaining time

You have not heard of Finlay's work, or you would have not been denying the leukemia part as well.

 

[Bolleke]

Again, this is simply an argument from ignorance. The fossil record is going to be incomplete by its nature. Yet we keep filling it in. If the theory of evolution was wrong don't you think we would find fossils that tell us it is wrong? Instead every new fossil that we find fits the evolutionary paradigm. The "gaps" between fossils keeps getting smaller and smaller. The gaps where the god of the gaps can hide are slowly disappearing.

Why is it quite complete with humanoids?
Quite complete with horses?

It isn't about the gaps, it's about making gaps. If you are related to tiktaalik, and there's nothing to back that up. That's the same as holding up your bible.
I ask the Christian with his bible: where is your God?
I ask the scientist with the tiktaalik: how is that fossil related to us?
After all answers gone through? It remains wishful thinking.

 

[Subduction Zone]

If I made false assumptions, which was that?
The phoenix project is worked through labs all over the world.
Anticipated by thousands of scientists.
They have reconstructed couple of retrovirusses found in our junk DNA. They cause mutations such as cancer. The first phoenix virus is based on murine leukemia virus. Anything to correct?


If I made false assumptions, why are you not correcting them?

I am in the process of correcting you. You do not ask the right questions.

Here is a start:ERV stands for Endogenous Retro-Virus. Though AIDS is a retrovirus it is not an endogenous retrovirus.

Occasionally when someone gets ill with a virus a virus will invade a germline cell and become part of the genome. It does not reproduce and spread like a regular virus it becomes "trapped" in our DNA. If this occurs it can become part of the genome of a whole species given enough time. It is no longer active as a virus, it is part of our DNA that would be casually labeled "junk".

As I said this is a very rare event. You can read more about it here:


Endogenous retrovirus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And what makes the Phoenix ERV special is that we have revived it. Over time ERV's mutate along with the rest of our genome. Since the tend to be "junk" there is no guiding force to those mutations and they lose viability over time even if they are separated out. The Phoenix ERV was a relatively recent one that they revived by taking the average genome of several samples to undo the mutations that had occurred.

 

[Subduction Zone]

AIDS is an ERV friend. Known to be since 2009, and it got quite interesting since Finlay got pushing in the cancer field as well.
If we are going to discuss this... we are finished and you may call me the ignorant afterwards. Frankly I wouldn't care, but be thankful for the remaining time

You have not heard of Finlay's work, or you would have not been denying the leukemia part as well.

No, AIDS is caused by a retrovirus. It is not caused by an ERV.

I am not name calling if I tell you that you are ignorant, I am informing you when you are wrong. As you see in my last post you did not know what ERV's are. I told you long ago that you did not know and I did know.

I am more than happy to help you to learn, but if you are ignorant about a subject and you keep getting an idea wrong I WILL point out that your are ignorant and show how you are ignorant.

It is not an insult to be told that you are ignorant about a subject. There are many subjects that I am ignorant about. People can help each other to learn, but if you deny your own ignorance then you can never learn.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Why is it quite complete with humanoids?
Quite complete with horses?

It isn't about the gaps, it's about making gaps. If you are related to tiktaalik, and there's nothing to back that up. That's the same as holding up your bible.
I ask the Christian with his bible: where is your God?
I ask the scientist with the tiktaalik: how is that fossil related to us?
After all answers gone through? It remains wishful thinking.

It only makes sense that the more recent a species is that the more fossils we will have for that species. The longer a strata has existed the higher the odds that all of it will have eroded away. One of the problems with finding Precambrian fossils is that over 600 million years many of the layers have eroded away to nothing around the world. There are still some, but look at a geologic map of the oldest sedimentary rocks and you will see relatively few Precambrian strata.

 

[sfs]

So you call cancer a benficial mutation?

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

HERV's are virussen that don't cause happy mutations. However, where nature had no doctors for species, natural selection settled this otherwise.
I know beneficial mutations exists, I brought some up myself: increased bone density, increased color enhancement. But I don't see them add up to the hypotheses of our origins. The observations of phoenix is brought up by me, because that's THE HERV's they are working on. That's hot. I didnt mention HERV as proof here, it's a great observation. And we can achieve great accomplishments with that. But it does not show our origins, does it?

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.

We even see mutations at ring species. But we don't see a fish becoming a salamander which becomes a reptile, which becomes a bird, where others become rodent, which becomes apes, which becomes semi apes, which becomes humans. No we don't see that, do we?

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.

 

[Bolleke]

You are right, but AIDS is exogenous, E as well, so ....
Nah, not gonna taunt ya that way, AIDS isn't the same I was wrong there.

It is rare, but it does not show anyting peculiar.
The phoenix ERv's are responsible for bad mutations, agreed on that one?
When it starts undoing mutations, it's like building up a resistance. Such as farmers did with chicken pox.
Imagen no vaccin came and people died, just couple of lucky ones made it and nobody knew why.
How would the markers look like from survivers and those who died through time?
And what conclussions will they make out of it? Asking questions again or am I trying to show you something?

 

[Bolleke]

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

We are talking about mutations caused by ERV's
Were you?

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.

So what does this then show for evolution? Isn't this more something for the medical field?

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.

Why does man evolve from rodent in less then 165 million year? While it takes 50 million years for a foot to become hooves? Time goes here and there, but isn't synchrone with the fossil record.
If the dino's got extinct somewhere 65 million years ago and Earth was so violent, how come we evolved in such a short time to such a great diversity?
Time is going off the charts, stands still, ... It goes everywhere the assumptions desire it to go.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I note that I have made a mistake. I conflated the "Phoenix virus" with an actual ERV that was rejuvenated.

That is how you handle it when you make an error. Admit it and move on. If you would like I could link an article about the revived ERV.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You are right, but AIDS is exogenous, E as well, so ....
Nah, not gonna taunt ya that way, AIDS isn't the same I was wrong there.

It is rare, but it does not show anyting peculiar.
The phoenix ERv's are responsible for bad mutations, agreed on that one?
When it starts undoing mutations, it's like building up a resistance. Such as farmers did with chicken pox.
Imagen no vaccin came and people died, just couple of lucky ones made it and nobody knew why.
How would the markers look like from survivers and those who died?

Since almost all viruses are "exogenous" no one makes a big deal about them. The "E" in ERV or even HERV stands for endogenous, and that is a very unique process.

Otherwise congratulations on admitting your error. It shows that you can and want to learn. That is a rarity here.

 

[Subduction Zone]

On the Phoenix virus, I am not sure about that and it does not matter since the topic was ERV's and it is not an ERV. sfs knows far more about this subject than I ever will. If you can ask him he will be able to help you better than I can.

 

[sfs]

AIDS is an ERV friend. Known to be since 2009, and it got quite interesting since Finlay got pushing in the cancer field as well.
If we are going to discuss this... we are finished and you may call me the ignorant afterwards. Frankly I wouldn't care, but be thankful for the remaining time

You have not heard of Finlay's work, or you would have not been denying the leukemia part as well.

I've never heard of Finlay. Which Finlay do you mean? Graeme Finlay? If so, he seems to be a competent cancer biologist who's also written about the genetic evidence for common descent. If you've read his book, I think you've misunderstood it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

We are talking about mutations caused by ERV's
Were you?


So what does this then show for evolution? Isn't this more something for the medical field?



Why does man evolve from rodent in less then 165 million year? While it takes 50 million years for a foot to become hooves? Time goes here and there, but isn't synchrone with the fossil record.
If the dino's got extinct somewhere 65 million years ago and Earth was so violent, how come we evolved in such a short time to such a great diversity?
Time is going off the charts, stands still, ... It goes everywhere the assumptions desire it to go.

It seems that you have the mistaken idea that evolution has a goal.

Actually the hoof took the whole history of life to evolve. If you want to ask why it took a certain structure to go from A to B you need to look at the environment the creature is living in. Evolution is usually caused by a changing environment. In unchanging environments there is very little evolution.

 

[Bolleke]

I note that I have made a mistake. I conflated the "Phoenix virus" with an actual ERV that was rejuvenated.

That is how you handle it when you make an error. Admit it and move on. If you would like I could link an article about the revived ERV.

Yeah I'd like that

Since almost all viruses are "exogenous" no one makes a big deal about them. The "E" in ERV or even HERV stands for endogenous, and that is a very unique process.

Otherwise congratulations on admitting your error. It shows that you can and want to learn. That is a rarity here.

Thanks If I were not too impulsive I might've learned more in the past.
I am very attracted to evolution, but take the wings of a bug.
Do you really believe it evolved from gills?
Strong arguments indicate that bugs had wings 500 mya... I find that quite profound and paradox...

 

[Bolleke]

I've never heard of Finlay. Which Finlay do you mean? Graeme Finlay? If so, he seems to be a competent cancer biologist who's also written about the genetic evidence for common descent. If you've read his book, I think you've misunderstood it.

Yeah with apes. Not fish!

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yeah I'd like that


Thanks If I were not too impulsive I might've learned more in the past.
I am very attracted to evolution, but take the wings of a bug.
Do you really believe it evolved from gills?
Strong arguments indicate that bugs had wings 500 mya... I find that quite profound and paradox...

I will find that article for you.

And no, bugs are not the descendants of fish. Fish are vertebrates bugs aren't. The split occurred before fish evolved.

 

[Bolleke]

It seems that you have the mistaken idea that evolution has a goal.

Actually the hoof took the whole history of life to evolve. If you want to ask why it took a certain structure to go from A to B you need to look at the environment the creature is living in. Evolution is usually caused by a changing environment. In unchanging environments there is very little evolution.

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.

 

[Bolleke]

I will find that article for you.

And no, bugs are not the descendants of fish. Fish are vertebrates bugs aren't. The split occurred before fish evolved.

Sorry impulsive again.
bugs might've lived in water first as well, and the gills evolved into wings...
Or another hypothesis says it had cooling functions which evolved into wings.
By this I am not saying insects evolved from fish, but insects also live in water.

I wanted to jump to bugs, because the evolution of insect wings is quite bizar. Look at a dragonfly millions of years ago, same wings as today (though not that big anymore lol).

The bugs had wings long before tiktaalik grasped for air
Isn't that bizar?

 

[Subduction Zone]

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.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

I didn't say evolution is religious.
I clearly stated evolution is a proven fact to me.
And may I add, I love Richard Dawkins approach explaining it to us all.
However, the fossil record is too incomplete and too abberant. DNA is gone after millions of years, so we can't trace anything there. HERVS only go back up to 5 mya so we can't even look at our common ancestor there.....

I have seen the fossils (photograph) and read the observations. What makes you related with the tiktaalik? And more important, how?
When one starts explaining this it's all fine, when we want proof we are left with assumptions and beliefs. Isn't that kinda religious? Taunting? Maybe a little, but isn't it what it is?

It takes 40 million years to shape a foot to hooves. It takes 10 millions of years for humanoids to evolve a brain sufficient to interact with nature like no other creature before.
We see it happen, ... The animations are far off, the way they animate stuff on national geographic for kids is just not supported by sufficient facts to draw pictures like that.

Hmmmph. You might as well complain about all the pictures of Jesus in the children's departments of the churches because we can't be certain what Jesus' face looked like.

The pictures do help give the idea that Jesus was a real person, and the animations give the idea that the fossils were once real living things.