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

[dad]

Last Thursdayism.

So you cannot deal with anything out of your belief box. OK. Unless you can prove that our present forces and laws were in place, all you say is null and void.

 

[Loudmouth]

So you cannot deal with anything out of your belief box.

There is no belief box. There is an evidence box. Evidence shows that physical laws have not changed for billions of years.

Unless you can prove that our present forces and laws were in place, all you say is null and void.

Supernova 1987a

"We have now established by trigonometric measurement that SN1987A is at a distance of about 167,000 light years and verified the speed of light is not significantly changed since the time and place of SN1987A. This demonstrates that the events surrounding Supernova 1987A took place some 167,000 years ago and YEC is therefore falsified."

 

[Loudmouth]

Irrelevant. The issue is not what is now observed, but how the ERVs got around long ago.

We can observe how those ERV's used to infect genomes by reconstructing the retrovirus. This is done by using a consensus sequence of HERV-K insertions. By aligning several insertions you can determine which differences are mutations and which are not, and then construct the ancestral sequence. Here is a simple illustration of how a consensus sequence works:

insertion 1: ACAAAAAAA
insertion 2: AAAAAAAAA
insertion 3: AAAAAAAAA
insertion 4: AAAATAAAA

The C in insertion 1 is a mutation and the T in insertion 4 is a mutation. The consensus sequence is all A's.

When you reconstruct HERV-K insertions using this technique it produces a viable retrovirus that acts just like modern retroviruses.

If you want to claim that physical laws were different, then you have a serious problem. The same physical laws that allow retroviruses to insert into the genome are the same physical laws that allow our DNA to work. They are one in the same. If retroviruses did not work in the past then neither did our cells.

 

[Split Rock]

The present and current transposition is irrelevant. We need to know how they used to get around.

Irrelevant. The issue is not what is now observed, but how the ERVs got around long ago.

blah, blah... "Split/merge... blah, blah... "past present state"... blah, blah... "prove past present state or I am right because I am God's prophet"... blah, blah... " I have nothing to offer that is practical except for my bloated ego.".... blah, blah.......

 

[Split Rock]

So you cannot deal with anything out of your belief box. OK. Unless you can prove that our present forces and laws were in place, all you say is null and void.

Its only "null and void" in your own little myopic mind. Nobody cares about that anymore.

 

[mark kennedy]

Hey guys,

Putting together a blog series on the topic, plan on using a lot from the thread and links. I'm especially going to use my debate with loudmouth as an example of how this argument is used and scientific facts get distorted by evolutionists in these debates.

mark kennedy v. Loudmouth: Do chimps and humans share a common ancestor?

You remember our debate don't you LM? The ERVs represent what percentage of the genome again LM, 1%, 4% or 8%? You were always confused about the actual facts just wondering if you ever figured it out.

Have a nice day
Mark

 

[Loudmouth]

You remember our debate don't you LM?

Yep. I argued that ERV's are evidence of shared ancestry because they are found at the same position in both genomes. Not once did I argue that ERV's are evidence of common ancestry because they make up a specific percentage of each genome.

The ERVs represent what percentage of the genome again LM, 1%, 4% or 8%?

It is irrelevant to the argument, something that you never seemed to understand.

You were always confused about the actual facts just wondering if you ever figured it out.

ERV's are still orthologous. Those are the facts, and those facts are the basis of my argument.

 

[dad]

There is no belief box. There is an evidence box.

Yes. You have your beliefs. I have mine. Just be honest. All your models depend on the laws and forces we know here and now. That's your trip.

Evidence shows that physical laws have not changed for billions of years.

Utterly false. First you assume and accept and believe that they were the same, then you use that result as supposed evidence that they were the same. Pathetic. Overdone. Passe. Defeated.

Supernova 1987a

"We have now established by trigonometric measurement that SN1987A is at a distance of about 167,000 light years and verified the speed of light is not significantly changed since the time and place of SN1987A. This demonstrates that the events surrounding Supernova 1987A took place some 167,000 years ago and YEC is therefore falsified."

Yeah. Well newsflash: You haven't. You have established that you believe space is the same, the laws are the same and that you wouldn't recognize actual distances if the slapped you sideways.

 

[dad]

Its only "null and void" in your own little myopic mind. Nobody cares about that anymore.

No. Actually it truly is null and void in every real sense of the words. Name ANYTHING that is not present state deoendent that you would like to offer as evidence?? Lurkers, be prepared...there is NOTHING else. Ever. This I have seen, now you may watch. They offer rhetoric, false bravado, and belief piled on belief. This they call science. No more however...the jig is up.

 

[dad]

We can observe how those ERV's used to infect genomes by reconstructing the retrovirus. This is done by using a consensus sequence of HERV-K insertions. By aligning several insertions you can determine which differences are mutations and which are not, and then construct the ancestral sequence. Here is a simple illustration of how a consensus sequence works:

insertion 1: ACAAAAAAA
insertion 2: AAAAAAAAA
insertion 3: AAAAAAAAA
insertion 4: AAAATAAAA

The C in insertion 1 is a mutation and the T in insertion 4 is a mutation. The consensus sequence is all A's.

When you reconstruct HERV-K insertions using this technique it produces a viable retrovirus that acts just like modern retroviruses.

If you want to claim that physical laws were different, then you have a serious problem. The same physical laws that allow retroviruses to insert into the genome are the same physical laws that allow our DNA to work. They are one in the same. If retroviruses did not work in the past then neither did our cells.

Nonsense! For starters, explain how you think you determine which ones are mutations?

 

[Loudmouth]

Nonsense! For starters, explain how you think you determine which ones are mutations?

I already did. It is done by constructing a consensus sequence using the rules of parsimony. I showed how it was done using 4 idealized sequences.

 

[Loudmouth]

Yes. You have your beliefs. I have mine. Just be honest. All your models depend on the laws and forces we know here and now. That's your trip.

No belief necessary. I have evidence that they were the same in the past.

Yeah. Well newsflash: You haven't. You have established that you believe space is the same, the laws are the same and that you wouldn't recognize actual distances if the slapped you sideways.

Supernova 1987a DEMONSTRATES that the laws were the same in the past. Either deal with the evidence or admit that your argument is refuted.

 

[Nostromo]

dad's a weird sort of Christian in that he doesn't seem to believe in miracles, he thinks the laws of nature change to facilitate something happening out of the ordinary.

 

[Loudmouth]

dad's a weird sort of Christian in that he doesn't seem to believe in miracles, he thinks the laws of nature change to facilitate something happening out of the ordinary.

Oh, I know. I took dad off my ignore list a few days ago for some long delayed comedy. Just waiting for him to tell us how the laws of trigonometry have changed over time so he can ignore Supernova 1987a.

The more the crackpots post the more we win. If the only argument they have is that the laws of physics changed willy nilly in the past without anything to show for it then we have definitely won this debate.

 

[Nostromo]

Perhaps we should do a school tour with him.

 

[Cabal]

Perhaps we should do a school tour with him.

Creationism, kids? Just say no.

 

[dad]

I already did. It is done by constructing a consensus sequence using the rules of parsimony. I showed how it was done using 4 idealized sequences.

In other words you can't. OK. The rules you seek to impose need to be under a light here, not sluffed off as hot stuff by cunning slate of hand. Come into the light of day, and let's see what you really got. Anytime....

 

[dad]

Oh, I know. I took dad off my ignore list a few days ago for some long delayed comedy. Just waiting for him to tell us how the laws of trigonometry have changed over time so he can ignore Supernova 1987a.
...

I don't know if they changed, or if we just don't really know what we are looking at. From all evos say so far, I lean to the latter as of today.

You see, one does not look at some event like sn1987a, and then run present state based models to see how it happened. That is foolish. 'Gee, there must have been 2 stars there, we just never saw one....the rings golly gee must have been here, we just never saw them...ad nausea..'

Also, we need to ask if the space we know and rules near earth and time apply far far away. If not, then all science bets are off.

So, whether it is different out there than here now, or whether some nature change that affected earth 4400 years or so ago also affected the entire universe seems to be the only question.

 

[dad]

dad's a weird sort of Christian in that he doesn't seem to believe in miracles, he thinks the laws of nature change to facilitate something happening out of the ordinary.

Except that I believe in every miracle of the bible, and untold trillions of others. I just do not invent sextillions of miracles to account for the differences in the past nature.

 

[Delphiki]

miracle /ˈmirikəl/ 1. n a mundane scientifically explained process or phenomena dad doesn't understand