Great let's see how you date this 'close relative!?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.
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 told me that you believed that Satan was responsible for faking the evidence for common descent with ERVs.
I am wrong about what?You are all wrong.
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 cannot understand
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.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?
Evolution.I am wrong about what?
We were talking about the many apparently orthologous ERVs there are in common between chimps and humans. What is your explanation for them?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.
In "The Great Syncytin Challenge to Intelligent Design" you said: "Syncytins have been shown to be vital."Where have I or anyone else said that evolution would not work without retroviruses?
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 we are saying is that they provide proof positive of common descent.
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 is your explanation for them?
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.In "The Great Syncytin Challenge to Intelligent Design" you said: "Syncytins have been shown to be vital."
Are you trying to argue that the evidence from ERVs has not been verified? What exactly do you think has not been verified?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 the screaming abdabs are you ranting about here?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.
Related how? Would a paternity test work in the past state?
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.
You just do not have any present state stuff for Adam, or the animals of that day, or etc
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...
But why would He play such stupid games?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.
You are all wrong. You have been shown that you are wrong. What I cannot understand is why you still cling to your beliefs.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.
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.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.
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.
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.
You would be entitled to if you had posted a case for your views comparable to my OP. But you have not.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 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.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.
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.