A question I don't think creationists will answer.

[TLK Valentine]

That can stem from not fully understanding.

It can -- but it can also stem from a lack of credibility.

 

[Queller]

No, I sure don't.

But you guys don't whine & moan & have epileptic fits over their interpretations -- assuming they'll give you one.

That's because our interpretations don't conflict with observable reality.

No, instead you do backflips over those of us who aren't ashamed of the Gospel of Christ, and will be glad to tell you what we think.

I'm not ashamed of the Gospel of Christ at all.

Put another way, these others you mentioned won't rock the boat.

We rock the boat all the time, it's just that it is your boat that gets rocked, not the boat of observable reality.

They're either afraid they'll chase you guys away down the alley and you'll never get saved; or else they have cognitive dissonance so strong that they can't make up their mind what they really believe, and wouldn't dare speculate for fear of ending up on FSBVD, or whatever that site is.

Or maybe something in-between.

Only they know.

Yes we do. And you should stop trying to guess what that is because I have yet to see you get it right?

 

[USincognito]

What you need to know is the rate at which insertions were occurring during the time that led up to the split into gorillas and us, and the how long that period was.

The first I can make a rough estimate of. Take a modern human, chimpanzee and gorilla chromosome and trace them back to the point when the gorilla line split from the others. Only insertions that were polymorphic at that point could experience ILS in the three species. Polymorphic insertions would be those that occurred between that point and the most recent common ancestor of those chromosomes. The mean time to the common ancestor for 3 chromosomes is (mumble) 8/3 * Ne, where Ne is the effective population size at that period. The effective population size then is difficult to estimate precisely, but the evidence is that it was pretty large, something like 50,000 maybe. That would give a time to the MRCA of 130,000 generations, or about 2.7 million years.

That number times the rate at which ERVs have entered and fixed in our history will give you the total number of candidates for gorilla-human shared ERVs. Roughly 15% of our genome is most closely related to gorilla, so ~15% of the candidates should be shared only by humans and gorillas (or only be seen in chimp). About 4 times as many of the candidates should follow the species genealogy, and be either only in humans and chimps, or only in gorillas. Assuming the insertion rate was constant (not a good assumption, unfortunately), the number of human-specific insertions -- those that occurred after the human-chimp speciation) should be roughly 2 times higher than the number of ILS candidates (since the human-chimp speciation time is ~2 times 2.7 million years), or about 13 times higher than the ERVs that follow the human-gorilla vs chimp genealogy (2 x 1/.15). How many human-specific ERVs are there?

That's a very crude estimate. It doesn't take into account that ERV insertion rates have varied, and it ignores some other things too. (And of course, I could have done something wrong.) Getting a proper answer would require some real modeling.

ETA: Correction: I was assuming that ERVs that ended up either in the human-gorilla line or in the chimp line (in regions of the genome where humans and gorillas are most closely related) should be counted, but that's wrong. Those ending up in the chimp lineage will look like chimp-specific insertions, and not violate the species tree. So cut my above estimate of tree-violating ERVs by a factor of two; that makes my crude estimate be that the number of human-gorilla shared ERVs (missing in chimp) should be about 4% of the human-specific ERVs.

Wow. Lifepsyop claims that we'd just make something up, but it appears that you're basing a prediction on existing observations and actual (admittedly rough) math. Who'd have thunk it?

 

[dad]

Wrong. We have evidence. You don't even know what qualifies as evidence.

And until you give evidence for the existence of God then you really can't claim him (or her) as a source. A book with hundreds of errors hardly counts as evidence for God's existence.

You are in error each time you say God is in error. That is many errors.

 

[PsychoSarah]

You are in error each time you say God is in error. That is many errors.

Saying a book we don't consider to be authored by a deity isn't claiming that deity has made errors

 

[dad]

Saying a book we don't consider to be authored by a deity isn't claiming that deity has made errors

It is if you do not know that He did do it, yet He did do it. You just would not know it. There is more than enough evidence through ages that the Scripture is the word of God. When we are talking about the bible then we are talking about God, not what you chose to consider in some ignodenialist fit of fancy to be some other author.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You are in error each time you say God is in error. That is many errors.

I have never once said that God is in error.

Ninth Commandment Warning!

ETA: And possible Second Commandment Warning.

 

[PsychoSarah]

It is if you do not know that He did do it, yet He did do it. You just would not know it. There is more than enough evidence through ages that the Scripture is the word of God. When we are talking about the bible then we are talking about God, not what you chose to consider in some ignodenialist fit of fancy to be some other author.

No, all the errors in scripture indicate it wasn't written by an omniscient deity. Nothing about the bible suggests it was written by a deity.

 

[AV1611VET]

Nothing about the bible suggests it was written by a deity.

1 Thessalonians 2:13 For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe.

 

[dad]

I have never once said that God is in error.

Ninth Commandment Warning!

ETA: And possible Second Commandment Warning.

Your version of the commandments can take a hike. Speaking of honesty though, Christians believe that Jesus is God, and that He validated the Scripture. You call them in error and you are calling Jesus a liar.

 

[PsychoSarah]

1 Thessalonians 2:13 For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe.

I can claim my post was written by god too. Meaningless

 

[dad]

No, all the errors in scripture indicate it wasn't written by an omniscient deity.

ALL the errors are with you.

Nothing about the bible suggests it was written by a deity.

Jesus being dead and rising again suggests He is God.

 

[AV1611VET]

I can claim my post was written by god too.

That's right ... you could ... and I would ask you for your martyrs -- by name.

ETA: Oh, sorry ... you said "post."

LOL -- and you guys wonder why I call you "scientific methodists."

 

[PsychoSarah]

That's right ... you could ... and I would ask you for your martyrs -- by name.

ETA: Oh, sorry ... you said "post."

LOL -- and you guys wonder why I call you "scientific methodists."

And you wonder why people would consider you gullible when the only indication you have the bible was written by a deity is that it claims it was

 

[dad]

And you wonder why people would consider you gullible when the only indication you have the bible was written by a deity is that it claims it was

The only reason you think it is 2014 is because the calendar claims it is?

 

[AV1611VET]

And you wonder why people would consider you gullible when the only indication you have the bible was written by a deity is that it claims it was

Don't forget the martyrs who died believing It also.

 

[PsychoSarah]

The only reason you think it is 2014 is because the calendar claims it is?

No. All time is relative anyways, what number or name we call the year isn't exactly a big deal. Would it really matter if suddenly we all chose to label it as 2000 again?

 

[PsychoSarah]

Don't forget the martyrs who died believing It also.

As if other religions or positions don't have martyrs. And you think science doesn't have martyrs?

 

[AV1611VET]

All time is relative anyways,

And don't forget:

That would be 2014 A.D.

 

[AV1611VET]

As if other religions or positions don't have martyrs.

And that's a valid reason for you to overlook the martyrs of the Writing currently being discussed?

And you think science doesn't have martyrs?

[Psycho mode]

So what? The Declaration of Independence has martyrs. That doesn't mean we're free from the tyranny of King George III.

[/Psycho mode]