A question of ERVs

[46AND2]

yep. this is another interesting point. if these ervs are indeed so fatal (in their initial condition) then how so many of them got into the genome in the first place?

Because not all of them are as fatal as HIV. I have even mentioned one several times in which 96-98% of people don't ever show symptoms...and even the ones who do develop leukemia often do not do so for several decades, giving them plenty of time to reproduce.

 

[46AND2]

so if i will give you something that is equivalent to that situation (shared transposons that contradict the species phylogeny), you will admit that evolution is false?

No. If you can come up with a better explanation for the pattern we see, then I will do so. I've already told you that a couple outliers don't refute the vast majority.

 

[mark kennedy]

There have only been 80-ish endogenization events in the last 6 million years in the human lineage. About once every 75,000 years. It's hardly rampant.

Sure, stretch it over enough time and something that doesn't happen becomes routine.

 

[pitabread]

Sure, stretch it over enough time and something that doesn't happen becomes routine.

This sentence makes no sense.

 

[mark kennedy]

what do you mean by that?

Humans diverge by 1/10th of 1 % and ERVs are transposable on a prolific scale as seen with T-cells. They can crash whole immune systems, what do you think they could do to stem cells?

 

[46AND2]

Sure, stretch it over enough time and something that doesn't happen becomes routine.

Duh. Say my water faucet drips once an hour. Can i conclude that it doesnt drip if i only observe it for 15 minutes without seeing a drop?

 

[mark kennedy]

Duh. Say my water faucet drips once an hour. Can i conclude that it doesnt drip if i only observe it for 15 minutes without seeing a drop?

But if it drips every 75,000 years it could explain why no one has seen a drip in modern science, invading the human genome.

 

[46AND2]

But if it drips every 75,000 years it could explain why no one has seen a drip in modern science, invading the human genome.

Guess we just have to examine the pool developing in the sink, then, huh?

 

[pitabread]

Guess we just have to examine the pool developing in the sink, then, huh?

But what if the pool was created by magic? What then, huh?

 

[mark kennedy]

Guess we just have to examine the pool developing in the sink, then, huh?

Yea, we can fabricate a drip did it, you don't need a real explanation that way.

 

[46AND2]

Yea, we can fabricate a drip did it, you don't need a real explanation that way.

Nah, that's what your side does. Godidit can explain anything you want it to. A little miracle here, a little blessing there, and poof. Easy made explanation.

 

[xianghua]

No. If you can come up with a better explanation for the pattern we see, then I will do so. I've already told you that a couple outliers don't refute the vast majority.

so you are talking about most ervs that are shared between human and chimp. not about nested hiearchy. why the creation scenario is better? because only the creation scenario can explain the existence of living creatures and only the creation model can explain how ervs were made in the first place. evolution cant (we cant explain for instance how the viral genes evolved stepwise or how some creatures were able to lived before they got these ervs). this is why the creation scenario is the best explanation in this case.

 

[pitabread]

because only the creation scenario can explain the existence of living creatures and only the creation model can explain how ervs were made in the first place.

Except there is no "creation model". Therefore it can't explain those things.

 

[xianghua]

I used 14 traits. Why would that not be enough?

becuase a tipical car has about 30,000 different parts (or about 2000 "big" parts). 14 is basically nothing. you also need to check a single company since we are talking about a single designer.

here is a try that was made by a creationist source (take a look at table 1):

Walking whales, nested hierarchies, and chimeras: do they exist? - creation.com

 

[xianghua]

Except there is no "creation model". Therefore it can't explain those things.

to show you why its incorrect?

 

[pitabread]

becuase a tipical car has about 30,000 different parts (or about 2000 "big" parts). 14 is basically nothing.

So? That still doesn't explain why isn't 14 enough.

It's also worth pointing out that on your hand-drawn tree you only listed a couple parts yourself. Yet, you kept trying to argue your trees are valid.

Yet I created a tree with 14 characteristics and you're trying to claim it is invalid.

So which is it?

you also need to check a single company since we are talking about a single designer.

Why?

here is a try that was made by a creationist source (take a look at table 1):

Walking whales, nested hierarchies, and chimeras: do they exist? - creation.com

So? Why is their tree relevant?

A real phylogenetic tree is based on underlying data sets and is constructed mathematically. They didn't seem to do that with their tree any more than what you did with yours.

Why do you think it's relevant?

(Especially since their tree is obviously wrong since most of the characteristics they list are NOT how those objects are categorized.)

 

[pitabread]

to show you why its incorrect?

To show why what is incorrect?

 

[xianghua]

So? That still doesn't explain why isn't 14 enough.

because by this criteria we cant do that with biology either:

Gene Study Shows Turtles Are Next Of Kin To Crocodiles And Alligators

in this study they check the phylogeny of 24 genes and get a wrong phylogeny. its also true for this study:

Bats and horses get strangely chummy

this is why we need far more parts.

 

[xianghua]

--

 

[pitabread]

because by this criteria we cant do that with biology either:

This isn't about biology though. This was about your tree with cars, trucks and vans. Are you now saying your tree you posted isn't valid?