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

[Greg1234]

So you are saying that God inserted ERV's into the genomes and that they are not from viral infections? IOW, you are claiming that God plants fingerprints at crime scenes?

"Viral" like elements are functional genetic material responsible for mediating biological processes. It was already presented "That "viruses" by the trillions are consumed daily by human body cells that providentially recycle the contents of body cells that die. By processes called pinocytosis and phagocytosis, cells in contact with food invaginate, form an impromptu stomach, secrete lysosomes as digestants and thusly break "viruses" and other materials down into amino acids, simple fatty acids and glucose for purposes of reuse. Minerals and vitamins associated therewith are also reused. The photographs of these processes always show action on behalf of the cell, never the so-called virus."

Then I guess you don't understand the use of analogies. You are admitting that you are getting things out of order.

No I'm not.

The "other" is equivalent to God planting fingerprints at a crime scene. Sorry for not being convinced.

As given above.

How are they different?

Physiology alone places emphasis on outward phenotype comparisons while physiological requirements places emphasis on shared functional roles.

Evidence please. Please show that LTR's have to be there.

A function of LTR was already given.

And they do.

"The integrated provirus has two LTRs, and the 5' LTR normally acts as an RNA pol II promoter. The transcript begins, by definition, at the beginning of R, is capped, and proceeds through U5 and the rest of the provirus, usually terminating by the addition of a poly A tract just after the R sequence in the 3' LTR."
The LTR Retroviral Promoter

Can you please start dealing with the facts?

I'm aware of the current paradigm. How does a promoter promote dead genetic material being recycled by the cell?

No, it doesn't. Children are born with detrimental mutations. Retroviruses can insert into regions where there are no genes which means that they have no activity as promoters for human genes. ERV's can have both detrimental and neutral effects.

The viability of random mutations is for another time. If you're gong to base your argument on that then it will simply be discarded.

The role of LTR's was established by observing real retroviruses in action. Again, these are the facts. Please deal with them.

Explain where dead cellular debris being recycled by the cell was observed to be promoted. "That, upon cellular death, (several hundred billion cells die daily within the human body) sacs within each cell containing lysosomes rupture and disintegrate the cell into debris. That debris includes the remains of around 20 to 30 thousand mitochondria or organelles in most cells other than those of the blood. Because of their extraordinary protection by capsids, lysosomes do not disintegrate the integument of the genomes thoroughly, trillions of them daily remaining relatively intact through the process. These genomes do not, however, remain intact through the recycling process. They are digested and recycled by a very provident body."

And when the retrovirus inserts into the genome it does so randomly with respect to locus. It is not guided by the "physiological requirements" of the organism.

Same as above.

​

For full length ERV's, the whole viral genome is there including reverse trascriptase, gag, env, pro, and flanking LTR's. In fact, if you align HERV-K sequences and produce a virus with the consensus sequence you get a FUNCTIONAL RETROVIRUS.

"Human Endogenous Retroviruses are expected to be the remnants of ancestral infections of primates by active retroviruses that have thereafter been transmitted in a Mendelian fashion. Here, we derived in silico the sequence of the putative ancestral “progenitor” element of one of the most recently amplified family—the HERV-K family—and constructed it. This element, Phoenix, produces viral particles that disclose all of the structural and functional properties of a bona-fide retrovirus, can infect mammalian, including human, cells, and integrate with the exact signature of the presently found endogenous HERV-K progeny."
Identification of an infectious progenitor for the multiple-copy HERV-K human endogenous retroelements

It quacks like a retrovirus, it walks like a retrovirus, it swims like a retrovirus . . . What more evidence do you need that ERV's are the result of retroviral insertion?​

You've merely said that debris mistaken to be viruses, which led to the investigation of these viruses, were detected after the investigation.

That is not what I am saying at all. I am saying that the divergence of the two LTR's in a single ERV is due to the amount of time in the lineage. You have brought nothing forward to refute this.

I'm saying that they were never identical. I've addressed the reverse transcription assertion.

Please address my response. Divergence continues today. It will continue to occur as long as species reproduce and do not pass genes between species.

I don't believe in microbe to man phenomena.

Natural selection of ERV's occurs after they are inserted. Since ERV's insert randomly, different species will have different ERV's to select from. This is what drives divergence.

I wasnt talking about purported ERV insertions.

Again, do you know how nested hierarchies work? It appears not. Feathers are a derived trait that evolved in the dinosaur lineage after basal tetrapods diversified. No one in their right mind would pose such a question if they understood biology. All you are doing is airing your ignorance of biology. Please, learn cladistics and how it applies to our discussion. Otherwise, you will keep making a fool of yourself like you did in the quote above.

Actually, this was addressing your assertion that you expect to see tetrapod features in fishes because of an alleged fish to man phenomenon. The ends determines the means in Darwinism. It is not "absurd" to ask for feathers on fishes. If there were feathers on fishes it simply means that birds that dive for fishes in the ocean today, over time, became feathered fishes. Or it simply means that flying fish represents the precursor to feathered fish. It's only "foolish" because it isn't there.

You might as well have said that fishes allegedly morphed into reptiles and reptiles supposedly morphed into mammals. It is completely foolish to think that you would have an aquatic creature with mammalian traits. However, once its there, the acrobats are summoned. The mammals went back into the ocean and morphed back, completely in line with the nested hierarchy which depicts mammals allegedly going back.

Now that the creative process has for the most part ceased, you are free to draw arrows and paint pictures of what happened. Then you are essentially asking to refute something already drawn up with something that doesn't have an arrow next to it.

Like I told you, I drew up my nested hierarchy when there were no fishes with lungs. No fishes morphing into tetrapods. All fishes have gills. And that's it, the creative process essentially stopped there. Lung fishes break my hierarchy, or do they (*reaches for bright red marker).

What would break the nested hierarchy is an organism with derived bird and mammalian features.

You cannot ask for a bird with mammalian features. You don't seem to be getting it.

1. A bird is defined by its features

2. A mammal is called a mammal because of its features.

3. If you find a bird with mammalian features then it would not have been called a bird in the first place.

4. You are essentially asking me to show you something without three ear bones which has three ear bones.

A bat with feathers or a bird with three middle ear bones would make nice examples. So what was stopping God from creating species like a flying animal with feathers and teats, or a flying animal with feathers and three middle ear bones? Care to explain?

There are bird features on mammals. One of the trademarks of mammals is that they are warm blooded. Reptiles, as Wikipedia puts it "are classically viewed as having a "cold-blooded" metabolism." Bats are called mammals, but bats are cold-blooded. You essentially have a reptilian trait mixed in with predominately mammalian traits, but there are arrows for that also.

You want feathers because you are anxious to draw arrows. Feathers on certain mammals only means that these mammals evolved feathers as depicted by the arrows and hence completely in line with the nested hierarchy. There is no need for feathers, there are enough features dispersed. If mammals had feathers then birds would never have been characterized as only feathered organisms (completely in line with the nested hierarchy).

You obviously don't understand how a nested hierarchy would be broken.

Riiight.

 

[Greg1234]

Thanks heaps for the responses to my questions.

Not a problem. Thanks also for your contributions.

This post particularly is fantastic for me with no science background. My degree is in the social sciences, not quite the same thing.

I just want to say that I believe you have made your point time and again. This is all theoretical and you have proposed a creationist paradigm that is just as robust as any evolutionary one.

Human ERV-K had a similar demographic signature to that of the rhesus monkey, both differing greatly from that of the chimpanzee. The evolutionary explanation is 'purging'. Your explanation would be simply that rhesus monkey and humans share this similarity likely due to similar function, not ancestry with the added convolution of necessary purging to make the data fit the evolutionry paradigm.

Well done Greg1234! Yours is the more parsinomous explanation.

DNA Chunks, Chimps And Humans: Marks Of Differences Between Human And Chimp Genomes

ScienceDaily (Nov. 6, 2008)

"It is evident that there has been striking turnover in gene content between humans and chimpanzees, and some of these changes may have resulted from exceptional selection pressures," explains Dr George Perry from Arizona State University and Brigham and Women's Hospital, another leading author of the study. "For example, a surprisingly high number of genes involved in the inflammatory response - APOL1, APOL4, CARD18, IL1F7, IL1F8 - are completely deleted from chimp genome. In humans, APOL1 is involved in resistance to the parasite that causes sleeping sickness, while IL1F7 and CARD18 play a role in regulating inflammation: therefore, there must be different regulations of these processes in chimpanzees.

CNVs in humans and chimpanzees often occur in equivalent genomic locations: most lie in regions of the genomes, called segmental duplications, that are particularly 'fragile'. However, one in four of the 355 CNDs that the team found do not overlap with CNVs within either species - suggesting that they are variants that are 'fixed' in each species and might mark significant differences between human and chimpanzee genomes."


This information correlates with your theory and assertions. However this is about what is not shared. This research demonstrates that mankind has its own system of inflamation regulation that must be different to chimps. 'Evolutionary selection' is the evolutionary explanation. However, a non ancestral connection is once again the more parsinomous explanation.

Thanks again for your responses. They have clarified your argument, which appears to be quite valid.

There are others too.

Who is Your Creator: Endogenous Retroviruses

“… and two closely related ERV genomes are found in a carnivore (fox) and a ruminant (sheep).”
The discovery of endogenous retroviruses
“We have sequenced and characterized an endogenous type D retrovirus, which we have named TvERV(D), from the genome of an Australian marsupial, the common brushtail possum (Trichosurus vulpecula). Intact TvERV(D) gag, pro, pol, and env open reading frames were detected in the possum genome. TvERV(D) was classified as a type D retrovirus, most closely related to those of Old World monkeys, New World monkeys, and mice, based on phylogenetic analyses and genetic organization.”
Endogenous Type D Retrovirus in a Marsupial, the Common Brushtail Possum (Trichosurus vulpecula) -- Baillie and Wilkins 75 (5): 2499 -- The Journal of Virology
“For instance gamma-retrovirus was isolated from trophoblastic cells of the baboon placenta. This virus was found 7o be very closely related antigenically and by sequence homology to the endogenous RD114 virus in cats (which is itself unrelated to endogenous FeLV). Benveniste and Todaro observed, like we did for jungle fowl, that only certain species of the cat genus, Felis, possessed this endogenous genome related to the baboon ERV. In contrast, all species of baboons carry this virus so it would appear to have been present in the germ line of primates much longer than in cats. Thus it seems evident that a horizontal, infectious event occurred to transfer the virus from baboons to cats, whereupon it became endogenous in the new species.”
Note: Evolutionists make up ridiculous scenarios without any supporting evidence or proven genetic capabilities:
“Since cats would be quite likely to scavenge and feed on baboon placentae, a possible exposure to the virus can be envisioned.”
The discovery of endogenous retroviruses
​

 

[Astridhere]

Not a problem. Thanks also for your contributions.


There are others too.

Who is Your Creator: Endogenous Retroviruses

“… and two closely related ERV genomes are found in a carnivore (fox) and a ruminant (sheep).”
The discovery of endogenous retroviruses
“We have sequenced and characterized an endogenous type D retrovirus, which we have named TvERV(D), from the genome of an Australian marsupial, the common brushtail possum (Trichosurus vulpecula). Intact TvERV(D) gag, pro, pol, and env open reading frames were detected in the possum genome. TvERV(D) was classified as a type D retrovirus, most closely related to those of Old World monkeys, New World monkeys, and mice, based on phylogenetic analyses and genetic organization.”
Endogenous Type D Retrovirus in a Marsupial, the Common Brushtail Possum (Trichosurus vulpecula) -- Baillie and Wilkins 75 (5): 2499 -- The Journal of Virology
“For instance gamma-retrovirus was isolated from trophoblastic cells of the baboon placenta. This virus was found 7o be very closely related antigenically and by sequence homology to the endogenous RD114 virus in cats (which is itself unrelated to endogenous FeLV). Benveniste and Todaro observed, like we did for jungle fowl, that only certain species of the cat genus, Felis, possessed this endogenous genome related to the baboon ERV. In contrast, all species of baboons carry this virus so it would appear to have been present in the germ line of primates much longer than in cats. Thus it seems evident that a horizontal, infectious event occurred to transfer the virus from baboons to cats, whereupon it became endogenous in the new species.”
Note: Evolutionists make up ridiculous scenarios without any supporting evidence or proven genetic capabilities:
“Since cats would be quite likely to scavenge and feed on baboon placentae, a possible exposure to the virus can be envisioned.”
The discovery of endogenous retroviruses
​

Thanks for the links.

I stumbled on the "Who is your creator" link also, so it is good to see you quoted it. The bits I like the most are these......

FUNDAMENTAL PROBLEMS FOR ERVS BEING CONSIDERED GERMLINE INFECTIONS OF EXOGENOUS RETROVIRUSES INSTEAD OF INTRINSIC ESSENTIAL GENETIC MATERIAL

By Chance, How Did ERV Related Elements Insert Themselves into Germ Cells Thousands of Times Without Fatalistic Damage to the Host?

How is it that ERVS are Considered Copies of Disease Producing Exogenous Retroviruses but None Have Been Proven to Directly Cause Disease?

How Could ERVS Create a Specie-Specific Regulatory Network that Controls the Expression of Cells in a Collective Manner?

The information in the article provides convincing information that ERVs are not evidence of common descent and has slipped from its' poster child position. The use of ERVs is a poor response in upholding the theory of common ancestry.

I also found this re combination hotspots saying humans and chimps have totally different hotspots that present an irrefuteable evolutionary proof of a ...mystery.

Researchers find surprising difference between human and chimp genomes (University of Oxford) 2005


Why these hotspots occur, and what triggers the swapping of DNA at those particular points, is a mystery. One theory was that the DNA code either side of hotspots controlled the activity. However, comparing chimps and humans showed that despite being so genetically similar, the species have totally different recombination hotspots.



The more research that is done the more dissimilar humans are to chimps.

The most convincing thing I have learned in support of creation is that these so called remnants and ghosts researchers call ERV's may have nothing to do with left overs from ancient infections past, as I suspected. They appear to be elements, not junk, that are imperative to the functioning of a beautifully designed and created system as research, although biased against creation, continues to validate.

Thanks Greg1234. I have learned alot.

 

[Awesome_Frog]

But man is a hominid, is he not?

Man is in the bible, therefore hominid is in the bible.

No mention of other hominids, also the other hominids would have to be alive in the garden, and that would create an awful lot of biological confusion.

 

[sfs]

I also found this re combination hotspots saying humans and chimps have totally different hotspots that present an irrefuteable evolutionary proof of a ...mystery.

Researchers find surprising difference between human and chimp genomes (University of Oxford) 2005


Why these hotspots occur, and what triggers the swapping of DNA at those particular points, is a mystery. One theory was that the DNA code either side of hotspots controlled the activity. However, comparing chimps and humans showed that despite being so genetically similar, the species have totally different recombination hotspots.

So is this where you want to put God -- in a gap in scientific knowledge? What will you do when researchers discover why recombination hotspots occur where they do? When they discover why even small genetic differences can make big differences in where hotspots occur?

The more research that is done the more dissimilar humans are to chimps.

Correction: the more bits of research cherry-picked by creationists that you read, the more dissimilar humans and chimps humans appear to be.

 

[SLP]

There's no need for a pattern, genes can now jump across. Nested Heirarchy is moot btw.

If that is true, then how can any kind of phylogenetic tree be generated at all?

Do ALL genes 'jump'?
Really?

For that is the only way a nested hierarchy can be 'moot' - but even then, someone will have to explain the regularities we see in phylogenetic reconstructions when using differing sets of genes or noncoding DNA.

What is YOUR explanation for that, since jumping genes makes it all moot?

 

[Loudmouth]

"Viral" like elements are functional genetic material responsible for mediating biological processes.

All 200,000 of them? What evidence do you have?

It was already presented "That "viruses" by the trillions are consumed daily by human body cells that providentially recycle the contents of body cells that die. By processes called pinocytosis and phagocytosis, cells in contact with food invaginate, form an impromptu stomach, secrete lysosomes as digestants and thusly break "viruses" and other materials down into amino acids, simple fatty acids and glucose for purposes of reuse. Minerals and vitamins associated therewith are also reused. The photographs of these processes always show action on behalf of the cell, never the so-called virus."

This is the most asinine comment I have seen yet. Where do you think new retroviral particles come from? Are you actually claiming that retroviruses do not insert into the genome, take over the machinery of the host cell, and produce new retroviral particles? Really? Are you completely unaware that viruses are INFECTIOUS AGENTS? Really?

Physiology alone places emphasis on outward phenotype comparisons while physiological requirements places emphasis on shared functional roles.

This is gobblygook. Please explain how this requires a nested hierarchy. Cars have requirements, and comparisons can be made between car parts. Cars do not form nested hierarchy. No designer would be forced to create life so that it falls into a nested hierarchy. When humans design organisms they see no reason to keep their designs in a nested hierarchy. I have personally moved genes across species without any concern for the nested hierarchy.

A function of LTR was already given.

It is the same function it has as part of the viral genome. Your point? Also, why do orthologous LTR's fall into a nested hierarchy?

I'm aware of the current paradigm. How does a promoter promote dead genetic material being recycled by the cell?

Are you completely unaware of how retroviruses replicate? Really?

The viability of random mutations is for another time. If you're gong to base your argument on that then it will simply be discarded.

Random mutations are a fact. They are observed. They are ongoing in every generation. For every generation species become less and less alike. Ignoring facts is not helping your argument.

Explain where dead cellular debris being recycled by the cell was observed to be promoted. "That, upon cellular death, (several hundred billion cells die daily within the human body) sacs within each cell containing lysosomes rupture and disintegrate the cell into debris. That debris includes the remains of around 20 to 30 thousand mitochondria or organelles in most cells other than those of the blood. Because of their extraordinary protection by capsids, lysosomes do not disintegrate the integument of the genomes thoroughly, trillions of them daily remaining relatively intact through the process. These genomes do not, however, remain intact through the recycling process. They are digested and recycled by a very provident body."

Are you still ignoring how new retroviruses are produced? Really? Do you mean to say that creationism must ignore the process by which a retrovirus inserts into the host genome and produces new retroviral particles? Really?

You've merely said that debris mistaken to be viruses, which led to the investigation of these viruses, were detected after the investigation.

This is really a hoot. What next? AIDS denial?

I'm saying that they were never identical.

It is OBSERVED that LTR's are identical at the moment of genomic insertion. That is a FACT. Why are you ignoring the facts?

I've addressed the reverse transcription assertion.

You denied it. That is not addressing it. It is a fact that retroviruses insert their RNA genome into the host genome through reverse transcription of the RNA viral genome into double stranded DNA. Why are you ignoring the facts?

I don't believe in microbe to man phenomena.

No one is proposing that man came from microbes. Please learn what the theory of evolution actually says.

Actually, this was addressing your assertion that you expect to see tetrapod features in fishes because of an alleged fish to man phenomenon. The ends determines the means in Darwinism. It is not "absurd" to ask for feathers on fishes. If there were feathers on fishes it simply means that birds that dive for fishes in the ocean today, over time, became feathered fishes. Or it simply means that flying fish represents the precursor to feathered fish. It's only "foolish" because it isn't there.

Please learn what a nested hierarchy is. There are plenty of resources out there. Google is your friend. A fish with feathers would violate the nested hierarchy. Period. That you can't figure this out says a lot about your ignorance of biology and systematics.

It is completely foolish to think that you would have an aquatic creature with mammalian traits.

Have you never heard of dolphins and whales? Really?

What fish features do dolphins and whales have that are not found in terrestrial mammals? Care to illuminate?

If whales and dolphins have mammary glands why can't salmon?

Like I told you, I drew up my nested hierarchy when there were no fishes with lungs. No fishes morphing into tetrapods. All fishes have gills.

Some species have tetrapod legs and gills, such as Acanthostega and Icthyostega. How does that fit into your nested hierarchy? Some fish have both gills and a lung, such as the lung fish. How does that fit into your nested hierarchy?

Lung fishes break my hierarchy, or do they (*reaches for bright red marker).

What are the apomorphies and synapomorphies? Which species are you trying to compare?

You cannot ask for a bird with mammalian features. You don't seem to be getting it.

1. A bird is defined by its features

2. A mammal is called a mammal because of its features.

3. If you find a bird with mammalian features then it would not have been called a bird in the first place.

4. You are essentially asking me to show you something without three ear bones which has three ear bones.

I am asking you to show me a species with feathers and three middle ear bones. Why can't we find any?

There are bird features on mammals. One of the trademarks of mammals is that they are warm blooded. Reptiles, as Wikipedia puts it "are classically viewed as having a "cold-blooded" metabolism." Bats are called mammals, but bats are cold-blooded. You essentially have a reptilian trait mixed in with predominately mammalian traits, but there are arrows for that also.

Warm blood is not a feature. It is a measure of the metabolic rate.

You want feathers because you are anxious to draw arrows. Feathers on certain mammals only means that these mammals evolved feathers as depicted by the arrows and hence completely in line with the nested hierarchy. There is no need for feathers, there are enough features dispersed. If mammals had feathers then birds would never have been characterized as only feathered organisms (completely in line with the nested hierarchy).

The features are dispersed into a nested hierarchy. How does creationism explain this?

 

[Loudmouth]

There are others too.

Who is Your Creator: Endogenous Retroviruses

“… and two closely related ERV genomes are found in a carnivore (fox) and a ruminant (sheep).”
The discovery of endogenous retroviruses
“We have sequenced and characterized an endogenous type D retrovirus, which we have named TvERV(D), from the genome of an Australian marsupial, the common brushtail possum (Trichosurus vulpecula). Intact TvERV(D) gag, pro, pol, and env open reading frames were detected in the possum genome. TvERV(D) was classified as a type D retrovirus, most closely related to those of Old World monkeys, New World monkeys, and mice, based on phylogenetic analyses and genetic organization.”​

How does this refute the argument that orthologous ERV's are due to common ancestry?

Endogenous Type D Retrovirus in a Marsupial, the Common Brushtail Possum (Trichosurus vulpecula) -- Baillie and Wilkins 75 (5): 2499 -- The Journal of Virology
“For instance gamma-retrovirus was isolated from trophoblastic cells of the baboon placenta. This virus was found 7o be very closely related antigenically and by sequence homology to the endogenous RD114 virus in cats (which is itself unrelated to endogenous FeLV). Benveniste and Todaro observed, like we did for jungle fowl, that only certain species of the cat genus, Felis, possessed this endogenous genome related to the baboon ERV. In contrast, all species of baboons carry this virus so it would appear to have been present in the germ line of primates much longer than in cats. Thus it seems evident that a horizontal, infectious event occurred to transfer the virus from baboons to cats, whereupon it became endogenous in the new species.”

How does this refute our argument? Pointing to horizontal transfer of retroviral elements resulting in non-orthologous ERV's does not refute our argument that orthologous ERV's are due to common ancestry.
​

 

[Loudmouth]

By Chance, How Did ERV Related Elements Insert Themselves into Germ Cells Thousands of Times Without Fatalistic Damage to the Host?

It's called natural selection. Look into it. Organisms with fatal insertions . . . well, they died, kind of by definition. Organisms with retroviral insertions that were either beneficial or neutral lived and had offspring.

How is it that ERVS are Considered Copies of Disease Producing Exogenous Retroviruses but None Have Been Proven to Directly Cause Disease?

It is proven. When you remove the mutations from HERV-K insertions you get a functional retrovirus that acts just like modern retroviruses:

"Here, we derived in silico the sequence of the putative ancestral “progenitor” element of one of the most recently amplified family—the HERV-K family—and constructed it. This element, Phoenix, produces viral particles that disclose all of the structural and functional properties of a bona-fide retrovirus, can infect mammalian, including human, cells, and integrate with the exact signature of the presently found endogenous HERV-K progeny."
http://genome.cshlp.org/content/early/2006/10/31/gr.5565706.short

They are from retroviruses. It is proven.

How Could ERVS Create a Specie-Specific Regulatory Network that Controls the Expression of Cells in a Collective Manner?

Because species have species-specific mutations and ERV's. This does nothing to put their retroviral origin in doubt.

The information in the article provides convincing information that ERVs are not evidence of common descent and has slipped from its' poster child position. The use of ERVs is a poor response in upholding the theory of common ancestry.

None of the information you have posted put's their origin in doubt. You still can not explain why ERV's fall into a nested hierarchy. You still can not refute the argument that they are retorviral in origin.

I also found this re combination hotspots saying humans and chimps have totally different hotspots that present an irrefuteable evolutionary proof of a ...mystery.

Yes, because evolution can not explain why species are different . . . oh wait, that's the entire point of evolution.

The more research that is done the more dissimilar humans are to chimps.

Can you name a species that is more similar to humans than chimps? You aware that we share 95% of our DNA with chimps, and 98% if you ignore indels?

The most convincing thing I have learned in support of creation is that these so called remnants and ghosts researchers call ERV's may have nothing to do with left overs from ancient infections past, as I suspected.

Where did you learn this?

They appear to be elements, not junk, that are imperative to the functioning of a beautifully designed and created system as research, although biased against creation, continues to validate.

All 200,000 of them? You will need to supply this evidence.

 

[Doveaman]

No mention of other hominids, also the other hominids would have to be alive in the garden, and that would create an awful lot of biological confusion.

The other hominids were extinct by the time the garden was planted. Adam was recreated (resurrected) from one of those extinct hominids, and all modern hominids descended from Adam.

"From one man He made every nation of men, that they should inhabit the whole earth" (Acts 17:26).

 

[pgp_protector]

The other hominids were extinct by the time the garden was planted. Adam was recreated (resurrected) from one of those extinct hominids, and all modern hominids descended from Adam.

"From one man He made every nation of men, that they should inhabit the whole earth" (Acts 17:26).

So Death was around before Adam ate from the tree of knowledge?

 

[AV1611VET]

So Death was around before Adam ate from the tree of knowledge?

I think I asked you this once before PGP, but did you ever work with the I.B.M. 370 series mainframes?

 

[Lion Hearted Man]

If death was not around before the Adam ate from the tree, he must have been riddled with tumors and deformities.

 

[pgp_protector]

I think I asked you this once before PGP, but did you ever work with the I.B.M. 370 series mainframes?

Nope, closest I've come to working with something like those is shipping the massive Hard Drive that they used to use at IBM.

 

[Doveaman]

So Death was around before Adam ate from the tree of knowledge?

Yup, hence the fossils.

The bible speaks of different ages or different worlds.

"Now He [Jesus] is far above any ruler or authority or power or leader or anything else in this world or in the world to come." (Eph 1:21).

There was also the prehistoric world in which death existed. Hence the extinction of prehistoric life-forms.

After the re-creation of our modern world described in Genesis 1 death then entered our modern world when Adam ate from the tree of knowledge.

"Sin entered the world through one man [Adam], and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned" (Rom 5:12).

Death entered our modern world through Adam, but death also existed in the prehistoric world before our modern world existed.

The bible also speaks of a future global catastrophe followed by a re-created new earth inhabited by resurrected beings:

"But the day of the Lord will come like a thief. The heavens will disappear with a roar; the elements will be destroyed by fire, and the earth and everything in it will be laid bare...But in keeping with His promise we are looking forward to a new heaven and a new earth, the home of righteousness." (2 Peter 3:10, 13).

"The earth and everything in it will be laid bare" also sounds like a description of Genesis 1:2:

"Now the earth was formless and empty" (Gen 1:2).

2 Peter is describing a future global catastrophe followed by a re-creation of a new earth.

Genesis 1 may also be describing a re-creation of a new earth following a global catastrophe(s) that led to the extinction of prehistoric life-forms.

"When You hide your face, they are terrified; when You take away their breath, they die and return to the dust. When You send Your Spirit, they are created, and You renew the face of the earth." (Ps 104:29-30).

Scientific evidence also supports global catastrophe(s) and the extinction of prehistoric life-forms followed by global renewal and the emergence of modern life-forms.

The scientific evidence is therefore consistent with my Genesis 1 theory.

 

[Naraoia]

The other hominids were extinct by the time the garden was planted. Adam was recreated (resurrected) from one of those extinct hominids, and all modern hominids descended from Adam.

Careful with your taxonomy. Technically, "all modern hominids" include chimps, gorillas and orangs

Hominidae - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hominidae

Hominidae - Encyclopedia of Life

 

[Doveaman]

Careful with your taxonomy. Technically, "all modern hominids" include chimps, gorillas and orangs

Hominidae - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hominidae

Hominidae - Encyclopedia of Life

Thanks.

Human-hominids from now on.

 

[Loudmouth]

Bump for Astridhere. She seems to think that PTERV1 insertions falsify common ancestry. Let's see if she is brave enough to defend this claim.

 

[AV1611VET]

Bump for Astridhere. She seems to think that PTERV1 insertions falsify common ancestry. Let's see if she is brave enough to defend this claim.

-- Don't they?

 

[Loudmouth]

-- Don't they?

PTERV1 insertions are non-orthologous, just as they should be if evolution and common ancestry is true.