Another poor response to ERV evidence for common ancestry by a creationist.

Jazer · Oct 26, 2011

Loudmouth said:
retroviral insertion and genetic inheritance are not valid mechanisms?

What is your evidence that the insertion is not random and independant? That they are indeed inherited.

Jazer · Oct 26, 2011

mzungu said:
Without science we would not be able to have this conversation.

Could you show me the genetic mutation that makes us different from the other animals so that we are able to have this conversation about science?

Loudmouth · Oct 26, 2011

Jazer said:
What is your evidence that the insertion is not random and independant? That they are indeed inherited.

We know that retroviral insertion is random because we observe that it is random.

For example, the figure below shows the insertion sites of HIV (blue), MLV (lavender), and ASLV (green). These retroviruses insert across the entire length of the human genome where the insertions are random with respect to specific loci.

Retroviral DNA Integration: ASLV, HIV, and MLV Show Distinct Target Site Preferences

Retroviruses do have regions that they prefer to insert into. However, these regions contain millions of bases, and the viruses insert random amongst the bases. As the paper discusses:

"For HIV the frequency of integration in transcription units ranged from 75% to 80%, while the frequency for MLV was 61% and for ASLV was 57%. For comparison, about 45% of the human genome is composed of transcription units (using the Acembly gene definition)."

So 80% of HIV insertions are in trascription units, but these units make up nearly half of the 3 billion base genome, or 1.5 billion bases.

When we compare human and chimp genomes we find that nearly all of them (~99%) are found at the same base in each genome. This is clearly not consistent with two infections producing the same insertion given the observed randomness of retroviral insertion. In fact, this is further evidenced by the fact that not a single PTERV-1 or -2 insertion is found at the same location in chimps and gorillas. Instead, these insertions were the result of PTERV infecting chimps and gorillas independently. When people claim "if it is the same virus it will produce the same insertion" just point to PTERV insertions. It completely refutes their argument.

Loudmouth · Oct 26, 2011

Jazer said:
Could you show me the genetic mutation that makes us different from the other animals so that we are able to have this conversation about science?

Just do a comparison of the human and chimp genomes. Those differences are what make us human and different from chimps.

Loudmouth · Oct 26, 2011

dad said:
False. None of that supports you.

Yeah, it does. You want to know how I know this? Because of your arguments. For instance, this one:

"after being kissed by the tooth fairy?"

You use this argument to ignore the known decay series from uranium fission. When you can act like an adult we will discuss this material. Until then, try to work on your maturity and honesty.

dad · Oct 27, 2011

Loudmouth said:
Yeah, it does. You want to know how I know this? Because of your arguments. For instance, this one:

"after being kissed by the tooth fairy?"

You use this argument to ignore the known decay series from uranium fission. When you can act like an adult we will discuss this material. Until then, try to work on your maturity and honesty.

False. Context. When were Cohan's neutrons released? Somewhere in the twilight zone of the imaginary scenario. It is not an issue that decay occurs, and from known isotopes. The issue is using a same state past scenario, with missing isotopes, imaginary time, and a whole series of miracles such as the magic river and the dunking miles under business!! You know how I know? Because the claims are well known. Ignore it at your peril. That is not mature debating.

In this "known" decay series you include

"
Today even the most massive and concentrated uranium deposit cannot become a nuclear reactor, because the
uranium 235 concentration, at less than
1 percent, is just too low."

A past was suited (and same state) to produce what cannot be produced now.

Then of course, you invoke blind faith...

"
Although almost all this
material, which has a 24,000-year halflife,
has since disappeared (primarily
through natural radioactive decay)..."

Poof....

Heck when it is convenient, rather than gain a suitable world, they lose stuff.

"
'seemingly' lost a large portion of the xenon
136 and 134 that would certainly
have been created from fission, whereas
the lighter varieties of the element were
modified to a lesser extent."

And on and on and on it goes. Silly fable.

Just like your missing neutron star. You models and predictions are proven false.

mzungu · Oct 27, 2011

Jazer said:
Could you show me the genetic mutation that makes us different from the other animals so that we are able to have this conversation about science?

Are you purposely twisting the meaning of my posts?

Without science we would not have the computers and the internet that allows us to have this conversation. Clear enough for you???????

Greg1234 · Oct 27, 2011

mzungu said:
Are you purposely twisting the meaning of my posts?

Without science we would not have the computers and the internet that allows us to have this conversation. Clear enough for you???????

Theists invent, the search for and study of God motivates, no materialism was required.

Greg1234 · Oct 27, 2011

Loudmouth said:
It completely refutes their argument.

Not really.

It's just smoke and mirrors, a giant picture meant to create sensation and bamboozle. It isn't actually the result of any observed insertions by "viral" particles. They are just sequences they already found there, followed with an attribution to Darwinism.

mzungu · Oct 27, 2011

Greg1234 said:
Theists invent, the search for and study of God motivates, no materialism was required.

I have this nagging feeling that it is not a human that replies to my posts but a Bot!

Greg1234 · Oct 27, 2011

mzungu said:
I have this nagging feeling that it is not a human that replies to my posts but a Bot!

You'll get it, unless you're actually a bot.

mzungu · Oct 27, 2011

Greg1234 said:
You'll get it, unless you're actually a bot.

One Bot to another; Get rid of your PC as it is the Devil's science tool!

Greg1234 · Oct 27, 2011

mzungu said:
One Bot to another; Get rid of your PC as it is the Devil's science tool!

The atomic level brought to you by inquiry, not methodological visiblism. You're welcome.

Loudmouth · Oct 27, 2011

Greg1234 said:
Not really.

It's just smoke and mirrors, a giant picture meant to create sensation and bamboozle. It isn't actually the result of any observed insertions by "viral" particles. They are just sequences they already found there, followed with an attribution to Darwinism.

They are observed to be viral. I have posted the evidence several times now. Once again, we have a creationist who ignores the evidence and can only use bluster. All of you claims are backed by zero evidence. Mine are supported by evidence.

Loudmouth · Oct 27, 2011

dad said:
False. Context. When were Cohan's neutrons released? Somewhere in the twilight zone of the imaginary scenario.

Grow up.

A past was suited (and same state) to produce what cannot be produced now.

Have you never heard of an atomic bomb?

Then of course, you invoke blind faith...

"
Although almost all this
material, which has a 24,000-year halflife,
has since disappeared (primarily
through natural radioactive decay)..."

Poof....

Now you think nuclear decay is poofing. Again, grow up. The whole point is that the Earth is old. That is why we do not find short lived isotopes. Why is this so hard to figure out? You are pointing to the very evidence that supports an old Earth and constant physical laws.

And on and on and on it goes. Silly fable.

I am not the one who believes in a different past that is not supported by a single shred of evidence and contradicted by all of the evidence at hand.

Just like your missing neutron star. You models and predictions are proven false.

There is nothing within the laws of physics that requires a neutron star.

Loudmouth · Oct 27, 2011

Greg1234 said:
The atomic level brought to you by inquiry, not methodological visiblism. You're welcome.

Yes, brought to you by inquiry based on methodological naturalism. You're welcome.

Greg1234 · Oct 27, 2011

Loudmouth said:
They are observed to be viral. I have posted the evidence several times now. Once again, we have a creationist who ignores the evidence and can only use bluster. All of you claims are backed by zero evidence. Mine are supported by evidence.

I've seen what you've posted. Same thing- smoke and mirrors.

Greg1234 · Oct 27, 2011

Loudmouth said:
Yes, brought to you by inquiry based on methodological naturalism. You're welcome.

Methodological naturalism woukd have had catapult stones as the ultimate cause. Earthism woukd have us on earth. In current events, naturalism denying the mechanism, inquiry once again takes over. See ID.

Doveaman · Oct 27, 2011

Loudmouth said:
You believe that they are facts. Believing that they are facts does not make them into facts. They are beliefs.

You believe that they are beliefs. Believing that they are beliefs does not make them into beliefs. They are facts.

So God would be able to produce anything. Therefore, "God did it" does not explain anything. When an explanation can explain anything it explains nothing.

If God can produce anything, this means your explanation can be wrong since God could have done it differently (miraculously), and you would be unable to tell the difference.

If species did not share a single characteristic this would also be evidence of a common designer, by your very own admission. If every conceivable observation could be evidence then none of it is evidence.

If “every conceivable observation” was created by God then “every conceivable observation” would be evidence of God. It may be meaningless to your myopic method, but it would still be evidence of God.

“For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities — His eternal power and divine nature — have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.” (Rom 1:20).

The scientific method requires falsifiable and testable hypotheses. It is not I who is making God unfalsifiable and untestable. That would be you. You are the one keeping God out of science, not I.

Actually, it is how science has been defined that does not allow for God. If God did something like enable a donkey to talk, science is not allowed to accept that God did it even though He did it. They either come up with a ad hoc, naturalistic explanation, or simply ignore the observation all together, because God is not allowed to do anything in your myopic method.

Every hypothesis must be testable and falsifiable. That is the requirement.

And if it’s not scientifically testable and falsifiable, does this mean it’s not real?

I am not the one keeping God out of science. That would be you.

None of us are keeping God out of science; the very definition of science does that. It does not and cannot explain a Supernatural Being who performs miracles that defy the laws of physics. It’s a myopic method that is incapable of explaining all the facts of reality.

You have already shown that you don't care what the pieces are. No matter what the evidence is you will claim that it was created, by your own admission. If species share characteristics? God did it. If species do not share characteristics? God did it. Just be honest and admit that your beliefs have nothing to do with the evidence. Specifically, just admit that no genetic or fossil evidence will every convince you that humans and chimps share a common ancestor.

I already made that clear already. And that’s because, like I said, your myopic method is incapable of explaining all the facts of reality. It cannot explain God or miracles, both of which are real.

"For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways," declares the LORD. "As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts." (Isa 55:9, 8).

Chimps and humans are apes. It is apes producing apes, so it fits your criteria.

I reject your faith in favor of my own.

“The LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground...From one man He made every nation of men, that they should inhabit the whole earth.” (Gen 2:7, Acts 17:26).

Loudmouth · Oct 27, 2011

Greg1234 said:
I've seen what you've posted. Same thing- smoke and mirrors.

Like I said, all you have is bluster. You can not engage the facts. ERV's are observed to be viral. It is a fact. We observe that ERV's act the same as modern retroviruses. If you can not deal with reality that is not my problem.

Another poor response to ERV evidence for common ancestry by a creationist.

Jazer

Guest

Jazer

Guest

Contributor

Contributor

Contributor

Undefeated!

INVICTUS

In the beginning was El

In the beginning was El

INVICTUS

In the beginning was El

INVICTUS

In the beginning was El

Contributor

Contributor

Contributor

In the beginning was El

In the beginning was El

Re-Created, Not Evolved.

Contributor

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency