Endogenous retroviruses confirm common descent

Status
Not open for further replies.

dad

Undefeated!
Supporter
Jan 17, 2005
44,904
1,261
✟25,524.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Facts about Halobacterium salinarum - Encyclopedia of Life

"Oldest DNA ever recovered
A sample of a close genetic relative of H. salinarum encapsulated in salt has allowed for the recovery of DNA fragments estimated at 121 million years old.
Great let's see how you date this 'close relative!?


Microorganisms are not really what was being discussed anyhow. Animals and people were what I was referring to. But let's see how you date the micro organism if you like. I could use a side show.

I notice there is some concern the sample was contaminated. Rather than grasp at isolated questionable straws, let's see some DNA from people or animals that is fairly widespread, and not some magic act.



If the article you cite is right, and the samples are older than the flood....I would note that


"Russell Vreeland of Ancient Biomaterials Institute of West Chester University in Pennsylvania, USA, performed an analysis of all known halopathic bacteria, which yielded the finding that Park's bacteria contained six segments of DNA never seen before in the halopaths." your link--



Oh yeah...
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Coelo

Newbie
Jun 8, 2013
462
7
✟663.00
Faith
Word of Faith
Marital Status
Private
You told me that you believed that Satan was responsible for faking the evidence for common descent with ERVs.
No, that is not what I said. First of all it is AV that talks about what you call "fake evidence", not me. Second of all what I was saying is that a virus is not a part of God's creation. That means we should be living in a world that does NOT have any Retrovirus. I understand that your using this as a marker, for it's mutation value and that is fine. But when you say evolution would not work without retrovirus, then your wrong. "Evolution" would work just fine without mutations, disease, sickness and retrovirus. If you get this wrong, then why should I believe you in other areas of your theory that your trying to promote?

You are all wrong.
I am wrong about what?

I cannot understand
Yes, that is very clear that you do not understand. Perhaps it is to complicated for you. For example, lets look at a tiny, tiny, tiny part of how ecology effects evolution. Look at the planet earth. Lets assume that you can control the atmosphere so the distance of the planet from the sun is not a factor. The size of the planet is a factor because of gravity. Also the moon is a factor because that gives us our seasons. So if you could find another star maybe bigger or smaller then our sun. If that star had a planet maybe bigger or smaller then our earth. Then what sort of life would you expect to evolve on that planet?

I am just pointing out that there are many, many factors to take into consideration and you HAVE to get it right or your theory will not work. Right now you have a tiny, tiny, part of your theory that is WRONG. That means all of your theory is wrong. Many people were trying to fly. ONLY the Wright brothers had the right math and the right formula. So they were the first to actually get an airplane to fly. Your evolutionary theory is never going to get off the ground. They got their tiny simple little plane to fly and that same formula works for every plane that has ever flown.
 
Upvote 0

BarryDesborough

Well-Known Member
Jul 11, 2010
1,150
17
France
✟1,473.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Married
No, that is not what I said. First of all it is AV that talks about what you call "fake evidence", not me. Second of all what I was saying is that a virus is not a part of God's creation. That means we should be living in a world that does NOT have any Retrovirus. I understand that your using this as a marker, for it's mutation value and that is fine. But when you say evolution would not work without retrovirus, then your wrong. "Evolution" would work just fine without mutations, disease, sickness and retrovirus. If you get this wrong, then why should I believe you in other areas of your theory that your trying to promote?
What the heck are you on about? Where have I or anyone else said that evolution would not work without retroviruses? What we are saying is that they provide proof positive of common descent. Read the OP again.

I am wrong about what?
Evolution.

Yes, that is very clear that you do not understand. Perhaps it is to complicated for you. For example, lets look at a tiny, tiny, tiny part of how ecology effects evolution. Look at the planet earth. Lets assume that you can control the atmosphere so the distance of the planet from the sun is not a factor. The size of the planet is a factor because of gravity. Also the moon is a factor because that gives us our seasons. So if you could find another star maybe bigger or smaller then our sun. If that star had a planet maybe bigger or smaller then our earth. Then what sort of life would you expect to evolve on that planet?

I am just pointing out that there are many, many factors to take into consideration and you HAVE to get it right or your theory will not work. Right now you have a tiny, tiny, part of your theory that is WRONG. That means all of your theory is wrong. Many people were trying to fly. ONLY the Wright brothers had the right math and the right formula. So they were the first to actually get an airplane to fly. Your evolutionary theory is never going to get off the ground. They got their tiny simple little plane to fly and that same formula works for every plane that has ever flown.
We were talking about the many apparently orthologous ERVs there are in common between chimps and humans. What is your explanation for them?
 
Upvote 0

Coelo

Newbie
Jun 8, 2013
462
7
✟663.00
Faith
Word of Faith
Marital Status
Private
Where have I or anyone else said that evolution would not work without retroviruses?
In "The Great Syncytin Challenge to Intelligent Design" you said: "Syncytins have been shown to be vital."

What we are saying is that they provide proof positive of common descent.
My response is: If we can not trust you in the areas we can verify then why should we trust you in the things you say that we can not verify?

What is your explanation for them?
I already gave you my explanation, that is the Creationist perspective on death, disease and retrovirus. Of course it does not matter where the retrovirus comes from. That has no impact on the way you are using retrovirus as evidence for common ancestor. Which is absurd because evolutionists only accept common ancestor when it is convenient for them and they reject common ancestor when it proves their theory wrong. So it's pretty much just pick and choose.
 
Upvote 0

BarryDesborough

Well-Known Member
Jul 11, 2010
1,150
17
France
✟1,473.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Married
In "The Great Syncytin Challenge to Intelligent Design" you said: "Syncytins have been shown to be vital."
In certain species. Different ones come in and out of use in different lineages. They have been exaptated by evolution. Please try to keep up and read the material being presented, rather than just skimming it for morsels that seem to confirm your bias, but do not, really.
My response is: If we can not trust you in the areas we can verify then why should we trust you in the things you say that we can not verify?
Are you trying to argue that the evidence from ERVs has not been verified? What exactly do you think has not been verified?

I already gave you my explanation, that is the Creationist perspective on death, disease and retrovirus. Of course it does not matter where the retrovirus comes from. That has no impact on the way you are using retrovirus as evidence for common ancestor. Which is absurd because evolutionists only accept common ancestor when it is convenient for them and they reject common ancestor when it proves their theory wrong. So it's pretty much just pick and choose.
What the screaming abdabs are you ranting about here?
 
Upvote 0

dad

Undefeated!
Supporter
Jan 17, 2005
44,904
1,261
✟25,524.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Related how? Would a paternity test work in the past state?

The 'dna' is now affected by certain things. The life processes and forces and laws that govern the atoms, and etc etc. How would science be able to know? Why ask as if it should be able to? That is pretentious.


Now as to microorganisms, we see this

" Microorganisms are crucial to nutrient recycling in ecosystems as they act as decomposers. As some microorganisms can fix nitrogen, they are a vital part of the nitrogen cycle, and recent studies indicate that airborne microbes may play a role in precipitation and weather." in seconds

Microorganism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Naturally if a MO used the light, for example in the former state, we likely are talking different light. So they could exist in the former state, but we would not know just looking at them now, what other abilities and adaptations and functions they would have had then!

Going back to before the fall of man (things changed a lot there also)--we may have had these little recyclers doing fantastic things. Wonderful things! Perhaps they would 'eat up' the remains of a piece of fruit in moments, so that there was no waste, or such jobs, that would have made it a better world.

We also may have had some sort of recyclers at work on human remains, so that they would not be able to fossilize. The remains would likely have returned to dust in jig time!! That is why we see no human and animal remains in the early record I suggest.

Just like DNA in man and animals. We now see a certain way that things work. The things that make them work that way are THIS STATE. Therefore, merely having an ERV in a location doesn't give that much info as to how it got there. Your whole trick is to focus solely on how it now gets there. (or would get there now).




be-amazed%203.gif
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

biggles53

Junior Member
Mar 5, 2008
2,819
63
70
Pottsville, NSW, Australia
✟10,841.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
AU-Greens
Great let's see how you date this 'close relative!?


Microorganisms are not really what was being discussed anyhow. Animals and people were what I was referring to.

No...that's false. Here's what you asked for...

You just do not have any present state stuff for Adam, or the animals of that day, or etc

You see, your request left it quite open as to what DNA evidence could be provided. You've just borne false witness - doesn't your belief system have something to say about that...hmmm?

But let's see how you date the micro organism if you like. I could use a side show.

I notice there is some concern the sample was contaminated. Rather than grasp at isolated questionable straws, let's see some DNA from people or animals that is fairly widespread, and not some magic act.

No, again you bear false witness.....the earlier concerns about contamination no longer apply - please read the article again and cease trying to misrepresent it....


If the article you cite is right, and the samples are older than the flood....I would note that

There was no flood....

"Russell Vreeland of Ancient Biomaterials Institute of West Chester University in Pennsylvania, USA, performed an analysis of all known halopathic bacteria, which yielded the finding that Park's bacteria contained six segments of DNA never seen before in the halopaths." your link--



Oh yeah...

This is your whole approach in a nutshell, isn't it...?

When you are presented with evidence which refutes your imaginary beliefs, you stick your fingers in your ears and shout "La la la la"....

I can't think of a more pathetic example of wilful ignorance.....
 
Upvote 0

Doveaman

Re-Created, Not Evolved.
Mar 4, 2009
8,444
593
✟77,387.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
You have Satan performing miracles now? What for?
Nope. Father God. There's a difference.

Miracles do happen. Your "packs of cards" scenario doesn't account for miracles. Bad scenario.

Mother nature is restricted to the laws of nature. Father God isn't.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

BarryDesborough

Well-Known Member
Jul 11, 2010
1,150
17
France
✟1,473.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Married
Nope. Father God. There's a difference.

Miracles do happen. Your "packs of cards" scenario doesn't account for miracles. Bad scenario.

Mother nature is restricted to the laws of nature. Father God isn't.
But why would He play such stupid games?
 
Upvote 0

Doveaman

Re-Created, Not Evolved.
Mar 4, 2009
8,444
593
✟77,387.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
I understand the various beliefs that various creationists have. (You have certain common beliefs, but also various differences. Some think God was responsible for common ERVs, for example.) You are all wrong. You have been shown that you are wrong. What I cannot understand is why you still cling to your beliefs.
You are all wrong. You have been shown that you are wrong. What I cannot understand is why you still cling to your beliefs.

See, I can play that game too. :)
I do not want you to believe evolution. I want you to examine the evidence for it objectively, and without prejudice and presupposition. But that seems to be too much to ask. Again, I have no idea why. Your psychology is totally impenetrable to me.
We did examine the evidence. We also examine the evidence documented in Scripture. Any explanation for ERVs must account for all the evidence, not just some.

To conclude that common descent is the only explanation for ERVs is to ignore the evidence documented is Scripture. Such a bias approach to evidence leads nowhere.
 
Upvote 0

Doveaman

Re-Created, Not Evolved.
Mar 4, 2009
8,444
593
✟77,387.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
But why would He play such stupid games?
What game? There is no game and no deception, except yours.

You are deceive by your own myopic approach to evidence by ignoring the evidence documented in Scripture.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

CabVet

Question everything
Dec 7, 2011
11,738
176
Los Altos, CA
✟28,402.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
1. Why just that one?
2. Whose interpretation?

Whenever I ask those questions, these are the answers I invariably get:

1. Because it is the word of God.
a. And how do you know it is the word of God? Because the Bible says so.
b. And why do you believe in the Bible? Because it is the word of God.

2. Mine.
 
Upvote 0

Cheeky Monkey

Newbie
Jun 11, 2013
1,083
14
✟16,348.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Whenever I ask those questions, these are the answers I invariably get:

1. Because it is the word of God.
a. And how do you know it is the word of God? Because the Bible says so.
b. And why do you believe in the Bible? Because it is the word of God.

2. Mine.

That's been my experience too although silence is the most common reply. Other questions might be which translation of which bible?
 
Upvote 0

BarryDesborough

Well-Known Member
Jul 11, 2010
1,150
17
France
✟1,473.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Married
You are all wrong. You have been shown that you are wrong. What I cannot understand is why you still cling to your beliefs.

See, I can play that game too. :)
You would be entitled to if you had posted a case for your views comparable to my OP. But you have not.
To conclude that common descent is the only explanation for ERVs is to ignore the evidence documented is Scripture. Such a bias approach to evidence leads nowhere.
I keep asking people what that evidence could be. That is hardly evidence of bias. But nobody has come up with any other explanation for common ERVs, other than "GodDidIt" or "SatanDidIt". Why would either of them do it, making it appear, unnecessarily, that chimps and humans are related? What is the evidence for either of them doing it? I'm going out on a limb here, but I don't think the Bible mentions DNA at all.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Subduction Zone

Regular Member
Dec 17, 2012
32,628
12,068
✟230,461.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
What game? There is no game and no deception, except yours.

You are deceive by your own myopic approach to evidence by ignoring the evidence documented in Scripture.

No, we are not ignoring it.

We are simply pointing out that it is wrong.

It would not be the first time. The Bible is filled with all sorts of errors. It has countless self contradictions, failed prophecies, and extremely bad morals.

It is in my opinion extremely blasphemous to call it "The word of God".
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.