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.
No they are the result of man's endeavours. Sorry but not a single one of them was given to us by God.So your saying life and healing, trains, planes and computers are all gifts from God. Because none of them would work apart from the laws of science and God is the one that Creates those laws.
What do you think was given to us by God?No they are the result of man's endeavours. Sorry but not a single one of them was given to us by God.
Creation ministries are not qualified to dismiss science! There is no more to say apart from; Would you trust a Nazi party website to give an accurate description of Jews and Judaism?It would help, all of us, if you could provide a quote or link the a CMI article or statement that advocates a flat earth.
Also, wonderful job of refuting Astridhere's comments on ERV's. Instead, you chose to lie about a website she referenced. Nice going, how about addressing the actual content in her post instead?
Because after months of reading the same drivel repeated over and over, and the lack of any change in her stance after her arguments are refuted time and time again, people very often can't be bothered with her.Also, wonderful job of refuting Astridhere's comments on ERV's. Instead, you chose to lie about a website she referenced. Nice going, how about addressing the actual content in her post instead?
Loudmouth you forgot to paste up the most important bit of the abstract
Some of the deleted sequences might encode for functions unidentified in our screen; nonetheless, these studies further support the existence of potentially 'disposable DNA' in the genomes of mammals.
Notice the word 'nonetheless'. This means that although your researcher have not provided comprehensive results they'll straw grab, limit the experiment before anything that refutes it shows up then use the hand wave of assumption as evidence.
In the analysis reported here, we found significant differences between individual human ERV families in their prevalence within genes and degree of antisense bias and show that, regardless of orientation, ERVs of most families are less likely to be found in introns than in intergenic regions.
If I weren't such a nice person, I may call you a liar that does not know what they are talking about or are trying to be deceptive.
Seriously you are providing nonsense based on ridiculous algorithms invented in desperation.
Without gravity you would fly off the planet and we would not be able to have this conversation. I have a theory for where gravity comes from: God. What is your theory for where gravity comes from and why it works so well?No they are the result of man's endeavours. Sorry but not a single one of them was given to us by God.
The researchers also admitted they did not screen for affects very well
Any algorithm is only as good as the assumption it is based on. Here is some contradictory research.
"Here we show that deletion of the orthologous 70-kb non-coding interval on mouse chromosome4 affects cardiac expression of neighbouring
genes, as well as proliferation properties of vascular cells."
Your own well credentialed researcher have no idea what is neutral or advantageous, and neither do you.
As I said the great drosophila experiment failed to fix one lousy allele in the population for accelerated development and the flys that did show accelerated development had deleterios affects such as smaller weight and less resistence to hunger. That was your great experiment when your researchers actually tried to find some solid evidence for evolution..but failed. The excuse as usual...not enough time.
I, and other creationists, have more than adequately demonstrated that all the woffle on ERVs is just that, 'woffle'. We have also demonstrated that there are many wofflers here and I call the clade 'pollywoffles'.
However ERV's are found in introns.
In short, the notion that molecules of germ cells are in states of perpetual change is not, in our present understanding of cell biology, tenable. This doesnt mean that molecular change does not occur; only that mechanisms provoking such change in germ cells are likely instantaneous and stochastic and probably often lethal (Maresca and Schwartz 2006) which will preclude their persistence into future generations.
MIT Press Journals - Biological Theory - Abstract
So here again you lot have to use a lethal system to explain what your algorithms denote, then no doubt come up with rhemes of blarney to wiggle out of the dilemma.
And then of course there is this....
"Thus, ERVs may serve as a variable pool from which exogenous viruses may diversify. Exogenous retroviruses may have originated from ERVs and ERV-Ls in particular may represent an intermediate between retrotransposons and exogenous viruses"
Characterization of an endogenous retrovirus class in elephants and their relatives
See above, this lot also love to play with algorithms and have invented one that suggests some other thinking. Below is a credentialed evolutionist that does not have the same strong faith in mankinds reasonings as most of you do.[/quote
Introns are not ERV's. They are not synonyms.
Do Molecular Clocks Run at All? A Critique of
Molecular Systematics - 2006
Abstract
Although molecular systematists may use the terminology of
cladism, claiming that the reconstruction of phylogenetic relationships
is based on shared derived states (synapomorphies),
the latter is not the case. Rather, molecular systematics is
(largely) based on the assumption, first clearly articulated by
Zuckerkandl and Pauling (1962), that degree of overall similarity
reflects degree of relatedness. This assumption derives
from interpreting molecular similarity (or dissimilarity) between
taxa in the context of a Darwinian model of continual
and gradual change. Review of the history of molecular systematics
and its claims in the context of molecular biology
reveals that there is no basis for the molecular assumption.
An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie
You lot have turned organisms into a virus.
What?
It is about time you evos woke up and realised ERV's really cannot be the remnants of past viral infections at all. They are much more likely to be functional genomic matter placed where they need to be to perform the function they were designed to do.
Why can't ERV's have function and still be the result of viral insertion? You have yet to explain this. Also, please cite a single observation of a supernatural deity inserting ERV's into genomes. Either provide the evidence or retract the claim.
You can quote as much of this nonsense as you like and it still will be no more valid than presenting myth based on assumptions as evidence. Having tizzey fits and insulting us because creationists don't swallow it is not going to make any of it any more palatable, believable or credible.
I already get that you will never accept this evidence. The problem is that you are lying about the facts. You claim that scientists compared 30,000 ERV's and only found 7 out of those 30,000 that were orthologous between chimps and humans. This is a lie. It is simply not true. I'm sorry, but you do not get to have your own personal set of facts.
Your trees are evo dream trees.
Plus eScholarship: Megabase deletions of gene deserts result in viable mice
Finding no differences in any of the whole organism phenotypes tested, we subsequently explored the impact of the deletions at a molecular level. The expression levels of multiple genes flanking the boundaries of the two deletions were determined in 12-week old mice. We assayed four genes bracketing the Mm19 deletion and five genes bracketing the Mm3 deletion by real-time quantitative PCR, in a panel of 12 tissues representing the overall expression patterns of each assayed gene. The tissue specificity of expression for all the genes tested was similar in homozygous deletion mice compared to their wild-type littermates (Fig.3). Out of the 108 quantitative expression assays (12 tissues for 9 genes), only 2 revealed detectable alterations in levels of expression. The expression of Prkacb was reduced in the heart of delMm3 / delMm3 mice and Rpp30 was reduced in intestine of delMm19 / delMm19 mice, compared to wild-type littermates (Fig. 3).
[/color]
Yes, they are trying to be fair. Nonetheless, in every test they used the mice with the deletion were indistinguishable from the mice without the deletion. You claim that this DNA has function. Where is your evidence?
I suppose you are claiming DNA has no function now. That's great. If DNA has no function then nothing will 'evolve'. End of debate. I win.
If you mean ervs, all I can say is you have got to be kidding. You should know this stuff or you shouldn't be here playing with the big kids. Here is one example of many.
Viral legacy may make pregnancy possible. - Free Online Library
I will restate the article you posted itself said it was not screening for many things.
"Knowles cautions that the study doesn't prove that non-coding DNA has no function. "Those mice were alive, that's what we know about them," she says. "We don't know if they have abnormalities that we don't test for."
Yours, Loudnouth, is a great example of assumption overtaking intelligence in desperation. You straw grab this research, regardeless of its disclosure that it is in no way comprehensive and try to shove that down my throat. I am glad you have as it demonstrates the pitifull depths of straw grabbing that evolutionists are prepared to back rather than concede any point.
Subtle-But Important-Functions of Junk-DNA - Evolution News & Views
Here is one applauding the vital and little understood role of, non coding or 'junk' dna.
Saved By Junk DNA: Vital Role In The Evolution Of Human Genome
Additionally I posted research that spoke to mice loosing much less genomic material with deleterious effect and there is heaps of research to back this claim. But OH NO, Loudmouth will back some flimsy incomprehensive research as support. Seriously you will need to do better than that.
Further to that, this is not about defending or refuting any particular paper. It is about highlighting that any evidence you use that is based on algorithms is faulty and non credible. That goes for the nonsense I use to refute you. It is all based on ridiculously complicaterd models that can never account for the complexity of genomic systems.
The reason for this is extremely obvious. If you put a big ERV (which contains ORF's) into the middle of a gene you can not reconstruct the gene after transcription. Therefore, ERV's in introns, and especially in exons, will have a higher probability of being selected against.
Again what you say is based on algorithmic nonsense that could demonstrate our closest living relative is a turtle or anything else if they needed to.
"The scientists say introns are inserted into the genome far more frequently than current models predict."
Introns -- nonsense DNA -- may be more important to evolution of genomes than thought
SEE THIS LITTLE PHRASE. It agian demonstrates that researchers are using erraneous methods and these guys reckon they have it sorted. Yeah right...until tomorrow when flavour of the month gives way to anouther flavour.
"The thinking has been that these insertion events are very rare because they always have bad effects,"
SEE THIS LITTLE PHRASE...It is not about who is right or wrong, It is about the point being your researchers are gropping in the dark with endless flavours of the month
Again you are defending research that is based on assumptions, probabilities and nonsense algorithms. Your evidence bites the dust before it is even published.
If you were a nice person you would reference the peer reviewed paper where they compared 30,000 human and chimp ERV's and only found 7 that were orthologous. Or were you lying when you made this claim?
No, not so long ago that was the fact. Then off went your researchers looking for more so called ervs, by inventing useless algorithms that could demonstrate we are related to Teletubbies if required to save TOE. You can harp on asides forever and still your algorithms will be rubbish and storytelling.
Please demonstrate that they are nonsense. That is what a nice person would do.
Let's get these arguments focused on the task at hand. I would like to focus on just one thing at the moment so that we can move on with other discussions.
In the human genome paper they found ~200,000 ERV's. In the chimp genome paper they compared the chimp ERV's to the ERV's in the human genome. That comparison demonstrated that only ~300 ERV's in chimps could not found at an orthologous location in humans, and only ~100 ERV's in humans could not be found at an orthologous position in chimps.
The comparisons are biased rubbish. These researchers can't even agree on the percentage of the genome that is composed of ervs and remnants. These so called ervs are likely nothing to do with virus. They are more likely to be functioning parts of a designed system and have nothing to do with viral remnants at all.
Does anyone have any peer reviewed studies (not creationist sites)
Why? are you threatened by real science. that challenge these findings? If not, then these are the facts that everyone must use when discussing ERV's.
Again, you are confusing fact with myth and assumption. These algorithms do not provide facts. If they did data would not be continuously challenged, which it is....GET IT?????? Obviously not!.
In Astridhere's link, I see thisLet's get these arguments focused on the task at hand. I would like to focus on just one thing at the moment so that we can move on with other discussions.
In the human genome paper they found ~200,000 ERV's. In the chimp genome paper they compared the chimp ERV's to the ERV's in the human genome. That comparison demonstrated that only ~300 ERV's in chimps could not found at an orthologous location in humans, and only ~100 ERV's in humans could not be found at an orthologous position in chimps.
Does anyone have any peer reviewed studies (not creationist sites) that challenge these findings? If not, then these are the facts that everyone must use when discussing ERV's.
I suppose you are claiming DNA has no function now. That's great. If DNA has no function then nothing will 'evolve'. End of debate. I win.
If you mean ervs, all I can say is you have got to be kidding. You should know this stuff or you shouldn't be here playing with the big kids. Here is one example of many.
Here is one applauding the vital and little understood role of, non coding or 'junk' dna.
Saved By Junk DNA: Vital Role In The Evolution Of Human Genome
Additionally I posted research that spoke to mice loosing much less genomic material with deleterious effect and there is heaps of research to back this claim.
Me: The reason for this is extremely obvious. If you put a big ERV (which contains ORF's) into the middle of a gene you can not reconstruct the gene after transcription. Therefore, ERV's in introns, and especially in exons, will have a higher probability of being selected against.
You:Again what you say is based on algorithmic nonsense that could demonstrate our closest living relative is a turtle or anything else if they needed to.
SEE THIS LITTLE PHRASE. It agian demonstrates that researchers are using erraneous methods and these guys reckon they have it sorted. Yeah right...until tomorrow when flavour of the month gives way to anouther flavour.
Again you are defending research that is based on assumptions, probabilities and nonsense algorithms.
I have posted research that poohies your 'major sweeps'.
I have posted the research on introns and itself cites research that speaks contradictory research.
I have stacks of this stuff that demonstrates the unstable nature of evolutionary science that is built on nonsense algorithms.
Me: If you were a nice person you would reference the peer reviewed paper where they compared 30,000 human and chimp ERV's and only found 7 that were orthologous. Or were you lying when you made this claim?
You: No, not so long ago that was the fact.
You are going to go around in circles endlessly, proffering false and misleading evidence based on algorithms as evidence.
I believe there are two reasons for this 1. You begin with a faulty assumption, common descent
You can post this and that research, and I can post a challenge to just about anything you put up as all your evidence for evolution is debated, changing and unstable.
All this has already been falsified in that it was the finding of 'junk' in similar loci that was initially the support for evolution.
Will this assertion that ervs demonstrate common ancestry die.
Not only have you lot turned mankind into a virus you are now bowing down to the God of fake maths.
None of the supports you provide have any basis in reality.
It is more like saying Alice in wonderland is credible because you can prove rabbits are real and you can invent algorithms to show the Tin man is likely, possible and might be. Therefore Alice in Wonderland is an established fact. Of course this is rubbish along with your algorithms.
.
In Astridhere's link, I see this
"Their study of the model organism Daphnia pulex (water flea) is the first to demonstrate the colonization of a single lineage by "introns," as the interrupting sequences are known. The scientists say introns are inserted into the genome far more frequently than current models predict."
Introns -- nonsense DNA -- may be more important to evolution of genomes than thought
The question becomes merely how did the transfer take place long ago!?
Now, whether some evil men had some sort of perverse contact with chimps that perhaps resulted in some transfers, or whether they kept them as pets, and a lot of tranfer of viruses took place however the nature of that day allowed...etc. We don't know.
What is known is that you may NOT assign present state reasons!
Funny, I hear Creationists say the same thing about what you call EVR's.Sorry but not a single one of them was given to us by God.
The comparisons are biased rubbish.
Any algorithm is only as good as the assumption it is based on.
Why? are you threatened by real science.
Introns in the so called same places in various species does not prove anything re common ancestry as introns can transfer into the same location via parallel transmission.
The beliefs are based on the facts observed in Scripture. Not the other way around.Yes, the theoscientific method where beliefs are treated as facts. Your method is also not a valid concept.
If God designed all life (and He did), then all life would have been designed by a common Designer. This common Designer would also be capable of designing two different species in common, rendering evolution theory unnecessary to explain their similarities.And that is why common design is a meaningless concept. It is no different than Last Thursdayism.
Two humans sharing ERVs is not the same as a human and a chimpanzee sharing ERVs. Your assumption is unnecessary.You have seen common ancestry produce two organisms with orthologous ERV's.
The facts are observed in Scripture: God said it, therefore it is. Case closed.You have not seen a single instance of a supernatural deity producing two organisms with orthologous ERV's. Yes, it is a double standard.
No. God did not say it, therefore it is not. Case closed.So when you read Harry Potter is that an observation of wizards? When you read the Iliad is that an observation of the Greek gods?
The beliefs are based on the facts observed in Scripture. Not the other way around.
A common designer who is omniscient and omnipotent with unlimited resources and time would also be capable of designing two organisms completely different. In fact, such a designer would be capable of producing billions of species that do not share a single thing. Therefore, shared characteristics are not evidence of a common designer. The entire concept is invalid because it is unfalsifiable.If God designed all life (and He did), then all life would have been designed by a common Designer. This common Designer would also be capable of designing two different species in common, rendering evolution theory unnecessary to explain their similarities.
Why not?Two humans sharing ERVs is not the same as a human and a chimpanzee sharing ERVs.
Your assumption is unnecessary.
Writing something down does not make it a fact.The facts are observed in Scripture:
I agree. No need for faith when there is ample evidence.There is no need for me to make such a huge leap of faith in a common ancestor . . .
. . .in light of the fact that all life is designed by a common Designer. Common design explains those similarities perfectly well.
Last I checked the Bible was written by men.No. God did not say it, therefore it is not.
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?