Creationist Arguments Against ERV's

[Loudmouth]

You seem to be confused, all I am asking is what Chapter we are on in the Biology book.

Where did I ever say that we are in a chapter in any Biology book? I am citing peer reviewed primary research papers which is the gold standard in biology.

 

[Loudmouth]

I do not care about peer reviewed anything. I want to know what is in the text book. I want to know what is required reading to get a degree.

If you want to know what is in text books, then go get a text book. I am discussing the science.

If you aren't interested in the evidence, then you should have said so to begin with.

 

[joshua 1 9]

You keep making blanket statements, with no evidence to support them.

All I am asking for is what Chapter we are on in the Biology book. What is required reading about Evolution in order to get a degree. What has passed all the peer review to find its way into the text books.

 

[joshua 1 9]

If you want to know what is in text books, then go get a text book. I am discussing the science.

I have lots of college biology text books. All I am asking is what chapter is this information in. College text books are pretty much a dime a dozen. But they are required reading to get a degree to go out and earn a living. No matter what people's opinion is about them.

I am citing peer reviewed primary research papers which is the gold standard in biology.

If it is a gold standard then it should be in the text book. Where is it in the Biology Text Book. What chapter are we talking about?

 

[bhsmte]

All I am asking for is what Chapter we are on in the Biology book. What is required reading about Evolution in order to get a degree. What has passed all the peer review to find its way into the text books.

Clearly, you do not understand science. Peer reviewed research is the gold standard.

You keep making blanket statements on your own end, without any evidence to support them. Loudmouth has supported his claims, with peer reviewed research, which you have not even addressed.

As it stands right now, it is pretty clear who's claims are being supported.

 

[bhsmte]

I have lots of college biology text books. All I am asking is what chapter is this information in. College text books are pretty much a dime a dozen. But they are required reading to get a degree to go out and earn a living. No matter what people's opinion is about them.

The topic is ERV's, not chapters in books.

 

[Loudmouth]

All I am asking for is what Chapter we are on in the Biology book. What is required reading about Evolution in order to get a degree. What has passed all the peer review to find its way into the text books.

Most undergrad biology degrees require 4 years of study and include topics such as comparative anatomy, taxonomy, histology, developmental biology, genetics, botany, and a senior seminary where you learn to understand and present information from peer reviewed research papers.

Also, I presented a research paper co-authored by John Coffin. As it turns out, Dr. Coffin wrote the text book on retroviruses, literally.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK19376/

 

[Loudmouth]

I have lots of college biology text books. All I am asking is what chapter is this information in. College text books are pretty much a dime a dozen. But they are required reading to get a degree to go out and earn a living. No matter what people's opinion is about them.

We are discussing ERV's, not trying to get degrees in biology.

If it is a gold standard then it should be in the text book.

Do you think John Coffin writes one thing in his research papers, and the opposite in the text book with his name on it?

 

[florida2]

So we are on the same page, could you tell me what chapter you are referring to in the Biology book so I can look it up and see what your talking about. I do not want a random reference on the internet, I want something that has found it's way into the text books. Right now I need to see what your talking about that mutations are the driving force behind evolution. From what I understand the retro virus are just markers and now shown to be a cause of evolution.

Natural mutations and ERVs are not the same thing.

Which biology book? There isn't a single book for any scientific discipline.

If you don't know why mutations are important to evolution, you really need to do a bit of basic reading about it.

 

[Goonie]

We are not talking about apologetics, we are talking about why the theory of evolution has a lot of nonsense in it.

I am not the one introducing satan into the debate.

 

[Loudmouth]

Natural mutations and ERVs are not the same thing.

ERV's can be classed as mutations, either as an insertion mutation during the initial insertion of the viral genome or as a recombination mutation in the case of solo LTR's. A mutation is a permanent change in the DNA sequence of a genome, and ERV's certainly fit that bill.

 

[joshua 1 9]

I am not the one introducing satan into the debate.

Satan is not an important part of it. The point is that the world we live in, all of creation is in a fallen state and evolution does not take any of that into consideration. We are all looking at the same evidence. The question is, how do we interpret or understand the evidence that we are looking at. Science is telling us that our DNA is filled with mistakes, errors, mutations and now virus. For a creationist that is indication that creation is in a fallen state and in need of repair, redemption and restoration.

 

[bhsmte]

Satan is not an important part of it. The point is that the world we live in, all of creation is in a fallen state and evolution does not take any of that into consideration. We are all looking at the same evidence. The question is, how do we interpret or understand the evidence that we are looking at. Science is telling us that our DNA is filled with mistakes, errors, mutations and now virus. For a creationist that is indication that creation is in a fallen state and in need of repair, redemption and restoration.

Well, you could start by addressing the evidence that has been presented.

 

[Loudmouth]

Satan is not an important part of it. The point is that the world we live in, all of creation is in a fallen state and evolution does not take any of that into consideration.

What evidence is science not considering? Surely you can understand if science ignores baseless claims, can't you?

We are all looking at the same evidence. The question is, how do we interpret or understand the evidence that we are looking at. Science is telling us that our DNA is filled with mistakes, errors, mutations and now virus. For a creationist that is indication that creation is in a fallen state and in need of repair, redemption and restoration.

How is that interpretation backed by evidence?

 

[joshua 1 9]

ERV's can be classed as mutations, either as an insertion mutation during the initial insertion of the viral genome or as a recombination mutation in the case of solo LTR's. A mutation is a permanent change in the DNA sequence of a genome, and ERV's certainly fit that bill.

Ok listen as long as we are here lets look at this: "Recent studies have shown that human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) and murine leukemia virus (MLV) favor integration near different chromosomal features. HIV preferentially targets active genes, while MLV prefers integration near start sites of gene transcription" http://journals.plos.org/plospathogens/article?id=10.1371/journal.ppat.0020060 If the virus favor integration at a targeted site then what is to keep a retrovirus from inserting itself at the same place in two different species. Textbook 101 stuff I know, but I was just wondering what the answer is for this.

 

[joshua 1 9]

Well, you could start by addressing the evidence that has been presented.

R U talkin to me or are you talking to yourself? The evidence your presenting shows we live in a fallen world in need of repair and redemption. This does not look like evidence for evolution to me. I understand that the virus is just a marker and not used as an agent for evolution. But that is because they are still depending on the controversial mutation theory as an cause.

 

[bhsmte]

R U talkin to me or are you talking to yourself?

You.

 

[joshua 1 9]

Natural mutations and ERVs are not the same thing.

Which biology book? There isn't a single book for any scientific discipline.

There is only one college Biology book. Anyways, never mind I found it. Actually the whole section on evolution is surprising a small part of the book. The chapter is called: "The Molecular Processes that Underlie Evolution". I am beginning to think that people are making much ado out of nothing.

 

[bhsmte]

There is only one college Biology book. Anyways, never mind I found it. Actually the whole section on evolution is surprising a small part of the book. The chapter is called: "The Molecular Processes that Underlie Evolution". I am beginning to think that people are making much ado out of nothing.

There is only one college biology book?

 

[joshua 1 9]

You.

Ok, I was just wondering because it looks like your either ignoring the evidence or having a twisted understanding of the evidence to support your own illusions, delusions or preconceived notions.