Creationist Arguments Against ERV's

[bhsmte]

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.

Let us know when you will address the evidence, that Loudmouth has been providing for you.

 

[joshua 1 9]

There is only one college biology book?

At the high school level they offer advanced biology. An the college level an advanced course would be less general and more specialized. I just looked at the courses required for a Biology degree. It is really more generalized and not all that specialized. Other then maybe high requirements in Chemistry. So an advanced Biology course could be evolutionary biology or Cell & Molecular Biology.

 

[florida2]

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.

Which book might this be? Do you now accept that mutations are natural and occur many many many times in your body every day?

 

[bhsmte]

At the high school level they offer advanced biology. An the college level an advanced course would be less general and more specialized. I just looked at the courses required for a Biology degree. It is really more generalized and not all that specialized. Other then maybe high requirements in Chemistry. So an advanced Biology course could be evolutionary biology or Cell & Molecular Biology.

How does this answer my question about your claim that there is only "one" biology text book?

Can you not answer a simple question, without going off on a tangent?

 

[joshua 1 9]

Let us know when you will address the evidence, that Loudmouth has been providing for you.

All I got right now is that retrovirus have targeted sites so they could attach themselves at the same place in the DNA in two different species. But I am pretty sure that he will knock that down pretty quick. I really don't have an argument against retrovirus insertion as evidence for evolution. My argument is that virus and mutations are evidence for Creationism, more exact evidence that creation is in a fallen state.

 

[joshua 1 9]

Which book might this be? Do you now accept that mutations are natural and occur many many many times in your body every day?

How many times are we going to go around this mayberry bush? A lot of what they call mutations are little more then pre-existing variation. They consider frame shift a mutation and I don't. So it has a lot to do with the terminology used. When you mix truth and error together they way they do it becomes difficult to sort it out. Even though they claim the objective is to sort out the error to get at the truth.

 

[joshua 1 9]

How does this answer my question about your claim that there is only "one" biology text book?

Whatever, if Amazon has an Advanced Biology that is not specialized then give me the link and show me what book your talking about.

 

[bhsmte]

Whatever, if Amazon has an Advanced Biology that is not specialized then give me the link and show me what book your talking about.

I didn't bring up any book, you did. You claimed there is only one biology text book. Are you standing by this claim? Yes, or no?

 

[bhsmte]

All I got right now is that retrovirus have targeted sites so they could attach themselves at the same place in the DNA in two different species. But I am pretty sure that he will knock that down pretty quick. I really don't have an argument against retrovirus insertion as evidence for evolution. My argument is that virus and mutations are evidence for Creationism, more exact evidence that creation is in a fallen state.

Then present your evidence, to support your claims.

 

[Loudmouth]

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.

The first question you have to ask is how many bases are in these hotspots, and how often do the viruses insert into these hotspots? In reading the paper, we are talking about tens of millions of potential bases spread across these hotspots, and only 25% of insertions happen in these hotspots, at best. This isn't specific enough to produce the same insertion 99.9% of the time.

You will notice that they found over 2,000 new integration sites for these viruses.

"To clone integration sites, genomic DNA from infected cells was extracted, digested with MseI and ligated to adapters. The junctions between proviral DNA and genomic DNA were amplified by nested PCR using primers complementary to proviral and adaptor sequences, cloned, sequenced, and mapped to the human genome as described [11,13,14,24]. Newly determined sets of integration sites (a total of 2,440 sites for the five viruses studied) were compared to each other and to previously reported datasets (Table 1)."

2,440 insertions, and not one repeat. This isn't going to produce the same insertion at the same base 99.9% of the time.

Added in edit:

Table 2 seems to have the info we need. It says that 5% of the human genome is within 5,000 bases of a transcription start site. With the human genome at 3 billion bases, that would be 150 million bases within the hotspots. MLVPuro showed the strongest tendency to insert into these hotspots at 26.1%, compared to 5% for random insertion.

The idea that this very weak specificity for single bases would produce the same insertion 99.9% of the time for 200,000 insertions is ludicrous. However, if someone wants to figure out the probability of this occurring for 200,000 ERV's, I would be most than appreciative. It's been a while since I last used the nCr and nPr functions.

 

[Loudmouth]

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.

So says the person who thinks that indels aren't mutations. You get the basics wrong all of the time, yet you feel you know enough to tell 99.9% of biologists who have PhD's in genetics that they are all wrong.

 

[Loudmouth]

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.

Baseless assertion. You need to present evidence, not claims.

This does not look like evidence for evolution to me.

Then how would the pattern of ERV insertions need to be different in order to look like evolution?

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.

What controversy? If you mean your personal denial of evidence that is problematic for your religious beliefs, then that isn't a controversy.

 

[Loudmouth]

My argument is that virus and mutations are evidence for Creationism, more exact evidence that creation is in a fallen state.

How are they evidence of a fallen state? How is your argument able to predict things like LTR divergence and species distribution of orthologous ERV's?

If ERV's are evidence of a fallen state, then we have been falling for at least 35 million years.

 

[Aman777]

Please show me a single thing that I have said about ERV's that isn't true.

It does little good, since people who believe everything Science says, don't know that they are mistaken UNTIL another scientist points it out to them. That may be years or millions of years BEFORE what you THINK is true is shown to be wrong. Science never proves anything.

God's Truth in Genesis has never been refuted because it's the Literal Truth. The problem is with mortal man's changeable interpretation of God's Holy Word. In the end, when everyone learns the correct interpretation, you will see that God's Truth is the Truth in every way. God Bless you

 

[Loudmouth]

It does little good, since people who believe everything Science says, don't know that they are mistaken UNTIL another scientist points it out to them. That may be years or millions of years BEFORE what you THINK is true is shown to be wrong. Science never proves anything.

God's Truth in Genesis has never been refuted because it's the Literal Truth. The problem is with mortal man's changeable interpretation of God's Holy Word. In the end, when everyone learns the correct interpretation, you will see that God's Truth is the Truth in every way. God Bless you

Show me a single thing I have said about ERV's that is untrue, unobservable, or not repeatable.

 

[The Cadet]

It does little good, since people who believe everything Science says, don't know that they are mistaken UNTIL another scientist points it out to them. That may be years or millions of years BEFORE what you THINK is true is shown to be wrong. Science never proves anything.

We make assessments of reality based on the evidence currently available to us. What would you propose instead? Right now, the evidence we have suggests that vaccines don't cause autism. Evidence later on may show this to be wrong, but right now, the evidence we have suggest that they don't. Should we abstain on the slim odds that our current evidence is totally wrong? Of course not, that's ridiculous.

God's Truth in Genesis has never been refuted because it's the Literal Truth. The problem is with mortal man's changeable interpretation of God's Holy Word. In the end, when everyone learns the correct interpretation, you will see that God's Truth is the Truth in every way. God Bless you

So, basically, the knowledge we take from Genesis changes constantly based on what we know from other sources, but Genesis is still right. Okay. Couldn't you do this with every story? And how can you tell the difference between "reinterpreting" Genesis and Genesis being wrong?

 

[Aman777]

1. We make assessments of reality based on the evidence currently available to us. What would you propose instead? Right now, the evidence we have suggests that vaccines don't cause autism. Evidence later on may show this to be wrong, but right now, the evidence we have suggest that they don't. Should we abstain on the slim odds that our current evidence is totally wrong? Of course not, that's ridiculous.

2. So, basically, the knowledge we take from Genesis changes constantly based on what we know from other sources, but Genesis is still right. Okay. Couldn't you do this with every story? And how can you tell the difference between "reinterpreting" Genesis and Genesis being wrong?

1. God's Creation story is the Literal Truth scripturally scientifically and historically IF you realize that God is the Supreme Intelligence of Creation. IF He failed to tell us the Truth in Genesis, then He's NOT God. Therefore, I seek to find God's Truth which AGREES in every way with EVERY discovery of mankind, including the temporal Science of Medicine which keeps me alive today, NOT forever, but temporarily.

2. God hid His Literal Truth from ancient men. This assured that they could NOT be saved except by Faith in Him. IF the traditional religious story was true, Jesus would have NOT have been Crucified. Here is HOW God hid this Truth from ancient man's Theology, from which, so many denominations have come to be:

Dan 12:4 But thou, O Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book, even to the time of the end: many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased.

The increased knowledge available today, some of which is just now being discovered by scientists, but is clearly listed in Genesis Chapter ONE, if you have the proper interpretation. I call it God's Truth because it agrees with ALL of man's discoveries. It's a deeper Truth which comes only in our time and with the help of the Holy Spirit, MUST be studied in order to understand. It's empirical (testable) PROOF of God. Amen?

 

[The Cadet]

1. God's Creation story is the Literal Truth scripturally scientifically and historically IF you realize that God is the Supreme Intelligence of Creation. IF He failed to tell us the Truth in Genesis, then He's NOT God. Therefore, I seek to find God's Truth which AGREES in every way with EVERY discovery of mankind, including the temporal Science of Medicine which keeps me alive today, NOT forever, but temporarily.

None of this even comes close to addressing my argument. In fact, I'm kind of wondering why you even brought it up, honestly.

2. God hid His Literal Truth from ancient men. This assured that they could NOT be saved except by Faith in Him. IF the traditional religious story was true, Jesus would have NOT have been Crucified. Here is HOW God hid this Truth from ancient man's Theology, from which, so many denominations have come to be:

Dan 12:4 But thou, O Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book, even to the time of the end: many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased.

The increased knowledge available today, some of which is just now being discovered by scientists, but is clearly listed in Genesis Chapter ONE, if you have the proper interpretation. I call it God's Truth because it agrees with ALL of man's discoveries. It's a deeper Truth which comes only in our time and with the help of the Holy Spirit, MUST be studied in order to understand. It's empirical (testable) PROOF of God. Amen?

Um... Again, the question. You're not addressing it. Try again.

 

[Aman777]

1. None of this even comes close to addressing my argument. In fact, I'm kind of wondering why you even brought it up, honestly.

2. Um... Again, the question. You're not addressing it. Try again.

1. You posted:>>1. We make assessments of reality based on the evidence currently available to us. What would you propose instead?

When I reply to your question, you don't seem to like my answer. What I posted was in answer to your question. Try to keep up.

Then you asked: 2. So, basically, the knowledge we take from Genesis changes constantly based on what we know from other sources, but Genesis is still right. Okay. Couldn't you do this with every story? And how can you tell the difference between "reinterpreting" Genesis and Genesis being wrong?

Your premise exposes your unbelief. Genesis NEVER changes and it's not just any story. For sure it's God's favorite story since it's the FIRST one in His Holy Word. I suggest you stop asking leading questions with the wrong premise since it's hard to understand the replies to your misunderstandings. God Bless you

 

[florida2]

How many times are we going to go around this mayberry bush? A lot of what they call mutations are little more then pre-existing variation. They consider frame shift a mutation and I don't. So it has a lot to do with the terminology used. When you mix truth and error together they way they do it becomes difficult to sort it out. Even though they claim the objective is to sort out the error to get at the truth.

You don't seem to be reading what I've written. I'm talking about the everyday mutations that happen all the time in your body. When your cells divide (and millions of yours do every day) they have to make a copy of the DNA so both the resulting cells have a copy. When they do the copying, the DNA can be copied imperfectly meaning that the daughter cells have different DNA - that is a mutation. That's all I'm talking about. You were going on about mutations being Satanic and I showed you that they happen naturally in your body every day.

I still don't know what this one biology book is you refer to.