Loudmouth said:
Humans and gibbons also share ERV's, and they are not closely related (as compared to our ape bretheren). In fact, humans share ERV's with all Old World primates.
Nevertheless the principle is the same. If men did wicked things with some creatures then, how is it that it may not have gotten passed on by primates to other primates? Or, did the huge past genetical differences mean that then, hervs could have gotten passed in a more casual way than just through offspring? Seems like all you have to hang on is how it now happens to work.
Let's just focus on us apes: us, gorillas, chimps, bonobos, and orangutans. The phylogenic tree constructed from morphology gives a branching pattern in the human lineage. The first to branch off are the orangs followed by the gorilla and then the chimp/bonobo group.
Precisely how is it detrmined that they "branched off" though, that is the question. Are you talking skull difference, or the herv stuff here, or what?
Of the ERV's shared by all of the apes, the largest sequence differences should be seen in the human-orang comparison since there has been more time for mutations to build up.
No. There was no more than thousands of years, so time is not a major player there.
The least amount of sequence divergence should be seen in the human-chimp comparison. This is exactly what is seen. This is a test of both common ancestory and the phylogeny constructed through morphology.
That is one construct. But DNA differences in primates, and which ones more resemble man need not be looked at in that way.
If shared ERV's between apes is due to interbreeding then such a pattern should not exist. It is just as likely that the human-orang sequences are more alike than the human-chimp sequences.
Well, depends who they interbred with. Or, if the hervs could have been passed by casual sexual contact back then even? How would we know? Now if some pre flood wicked woman, say, had a chimpish child from a chimp or other primate, and later, the chimps mixed with other primates, would not things get passed on down the line there? Or, if some violated monkey, and a violated chimp bred, what might we get? In other words if the idea is that some cross breeding barriers were not there, what combinations can you not think of that would have some shared hervs, and maybe even dna similarities?
Or, if it was possible then to pass on viral infections or whatnots without having to have offspring, then, I think we have at least as many possibilities ther as well. See how I have to question someone flaunting present genetical limitations as some so called proof we were not created?
Noah's flood.
It is not assumed, it is tested. No one has ever assumed that radioactive half lives were the same in the past. It was concluded by testing the idea through observations. That you prefer your sky daddy stories to real data only damages your argument.
You are misinformed I think. No one tested the past for decay. They see decay happening, and we see decay products. But the decay process itself is assumed. If the process was itself different, then the 'products' were already there that are found in nature, but were not then part of a decay process at all. So, neither present decay we observe, nor daughter material now in the decay mode mean in any way there was decay, and a decay process in the pre split past. That is pure assumption. Not one I, or the bible agree with, at least as we apply it to the future. Jesus said that rust will not corrupt then.
The constancy of physical laws are evidenced by the Oklo reactors and several supernova. You can not dismiss it without dealing with this evidence and presenting contradictory evidence.
Oh, yes I can. Easily. Oklo really is simply evidence of an ancient nuclear reaction of some type. Much is assumed there. For example billions of years, and what uranium would theoretically have been like then.
"
About 3.5 billions years ago, the geological structure and composition of the planet was very different from the one we know today. The isotopic constitution of natural uranium was characterized by the presence of 235U in a percentage of about 33%. According to the above mentioned details of a fission reaction mechanics, this composition is more than capable for a chain reaction to commence. However the enrichment in 235U does not suffice for a chain reaction to self-sustain, without the presence of a moderator. The uranium has the attribute of being soluble in water only in the presence of oxygen and under his form of oxides. At that time, the atmosphere’s oxygen did not suffice for the uranium tobe dissolved in water.
2 billions years later the conditions were much different. The content of atmosphere in oxygen and hence the oxygen dissolved in water had been increased, while the 235U levels in natural uranium it had been decreased to about 3%. ..."
http://www.e-telescope.gr/en/cat04/art04_021201.htm
Now, what else does it assume? That uranium was more radioactive, for one thing, long ago.
Why was uranium so much more radioactive then? That is a
deep question that points to the very origin of the solar system. The formation of the planets (and the Sun) from an original
cloud of dust and gas apparently was triggered by the explosion of a nearby supernova. Only a supernova can manufacture elements heavier than iron, including uranium. With a half-life of 700 million years, U-235 started out making up nearly half of all uranium when the solar system began some 4560 million years ago."
http://geology.about.com/od/geophysics/a/aaoklo.htm
See, such a thing is not possible in the present world, to have a natural reactor.
So now we have the whole thing dependant on some
imagined explosion and cosmic dust billions of imagined years ago, as part of the deal here!!!!! Not to mention we need to toss in some
volcanic activity.
"The uranium content of the Gabon uranium ore
probably got to the surface by volcanic activity. Later the surface waters dissolved it from the volcanic rock. About 1.7 million years ago there was enough oxigen in the atmosphere for uranium to oxidize. Uranium oxide, however, is insoluble in water and thus it could settle down in high concentration layers. "
http://www.npp.hu/tortenelem/foldreaktor-e.htm
. In other words, old age belief is used to try to explain a past nuclear reaction. It is just as easy to assume that God set up the reaction for Eden's river, than all that old age Occam's razor dulling stuff. Being in the pre split world, no old age is required.
For cosmology, what we see now is what happened in the past.
No, we see now how it was left in the past.
Sedimentary rock and other rocks can be made in the lab. The conditions and reactions that create rock in the lab are identical to the rocks we see in the geologic record. Chemical reactions in nebula also produce the same chemicals as the reactions here on earth.
Which chemical reaction in a Nebula? If you mean decay, yes, of course, it is part of the PO universe. As for water deposited or created rock, why shouldn't we see stuff lab created resemble other rock? What is the point? Did it take billions of years of lab time to create it!?
Invisible sky daddies are not comparable to my lip. I can see one in the mirror but the other is quite invisible.
So is God, and angels, what do your vision limitation prove, you think? Nothing is there but your lip? There are atoms around you don't see, and air, and all sorts of things, besides your mouth.
Please present me with Adam's DNA and genetic systems to support your claim that genetics were different in the past.
What reason do we have to assume it was the same? You'd have to give reason it could not possibly have been different. Or leave it unknown.