Endogenous Retroviruses = Evolution

[Blayz]

In short --- I don't mind being forefront on the firing line, firing answers back to questions being fired at us. If it makes me look like a clown, then let the circus begin.

Except your looking like a clown makes your god look like a clown. You turn far more people from Christianity than I do. Could you elaborate further on this commission? Is it from Satan?

 

[AV1611VET]

Except your looking like a clown makes your god look like a clown.

Says you.

You turn far more people from Christianity than I do.

Funny --- my rep comments say otherwise; and I've yet to see a YEC or KJVO ask me to stand down.

 

[Danyc]

Says you.

Says me as well.

Whomever agrees, say aye.

 

[Quantic]

AV, while reading your posts, I realize that you're sincere and know a great deal about the Bible. Put just half the effort you have spent in learning the Bible to understanding biology and you will understand why evolution is such a well supported theory.

I'm glad to see this thread, because endogenous retroviruses are one of my favorite pieces of evidence for humans and the other apes having a common ancestor. The broken vitamin C gene is my next favorite!

 

[AV1611VET]

Put just half the effort you have spent in learning the Bible to understanding biology and you will understand why evolution is such a well supported theory.

Thank you, Quantic --- I appreciate the advice ---

 

[Danyc]

Thank you, Quantic --- I appreciate the advice ---

*turns to crowd*
Ah!...But will he follow it?

Join us again tomorrow on "AV Says The Darndest Things" to find out!

 

[AV1611VET]

*turns to crowd*
Ah!...But will he follow it?

I don't plan to.

 

[Lakercom]

Rock on, AV. I am also a YEC, believing in Bible innerancy. Our presuppositions are based in the Word of God and there is no need to bow to evolutionists and the god of humanity and their mantra of "anything but God". Evolutionary theory is nothing but a fairy tale based on historical science, not demonstratable science.

 

[TeddyKGB]

Like I've said many times, I'm here because of the Great Commission.

No doubt. I think the question, however, is whether you're doing it Jesus's way or your own. Admittedly, it might be hard to tell considering the details don't always agree across Gospels.

And I suppose it's not even worth bringing up the fact that Jesus directed only his disciples, but evangelicals have long since decreed that Jesus was speaking to all Christians. Help me here... does that count as an interpretation?

I'll be more than happy to answer any questions put to me, and am not in the least bit afraid to admit I don't know something. The problem comes when I get questions like, "Where did the Flood waters go?" Or, "Show me evidence for..." In that case, I have to "fill in the gaps" so to speak, and I feel I'm quite capable of doing that. I don't think we're left totally in the dark about some things that aren't directly recorded in the Scriptures. Like, "How were all those animals fed?" I believe the Scriptures intimate how all those animals were fed.

Actually, you don't have to do anything. There are no threads in here, at least on the first page, directed at you personally. And, even if there were, the structure of message boards is such that any posting is entirely voluntary.

In any case, I still don't think the types of discussions you engage in with startling regularity, vehemence, and condescension are the quasi-teaching moments Jesus had in mind.

I think it's one of Satan's tricks to have people ask questions that aren't in the Bible, then accuse them of "making stuff up" when they answer. That sounds just like something he would do.

Actually, given the little that we know about him, it sounds rather bush league, if you will. He did, after all, facilitate the fall of every member of the human race and, with God's permission, make Job's life memorably miserable.

I bet Satan thinks a bit bigger than you and your quaint theology.

In short --- I don't mind being forefront on the firing line, firing answers back to questions being fired at us. If it makes me look like a clown, then let the circus begin.

That you look like a clown is certainly a benefit to me. What ought to trouble you, however, is that looking like a clown in the face of trivial matters (e.g. the age of the Earth contra the New Testament) makes you a bad evangelist for more critical information. At least that's the way I think Jesus would see it.

 

[TeddyKGB]

Says you. Funny --- my rep comments say otherwise; and I've yet to see a YEC or KJVO ask me to stand down.

Yes, it's truly amazing that folks who already agree with you on doctrine, dogma, and approach are offering their "You go, girl"s. I'm sure no one saw that coming.

 

[TeddyKGB]

Rock on, AV. I am also a YEC, believing in Bible innerancy. Our presuppositions are based in the Word of God and there is no need to bow to evolutionists and the god of humanity and their mantra of "anything but God". Evolutionary theory is nothing but a fairy tale based on historical science, not demonstratable science.

What would it do to your otherwise impregnable wall-o-rhetoric to learn that thousands of Christians are evolution-supporting scientists and millions of Christians are evolution-accepting layfolk?

 

[AV1611VET]

In any case, I still don't think the types of discussions you engage in with startling regularity, vehemence, and condescension are the quasi-teaching moments Jesus had in mind.

I'll give ya this one, Teddy. I sometimes get convicted of how I respond to someone; and I've even gone as far as going back and deleting a post or two - (I deleted two back-to-back posts just yesterday). I'll have to answer to God for that if I don't apply 1 John 1:9 to it.

 

[AV1611VET]

What would it do to your otherwise impregnable wall-o-rhetoric to learn that thousands of Christians are evolution-supporting scientists and millions of Christians are evolution-accepting layfolk?

Not one blessed thing to me. Churches aren't immune to strange doctrines creeping in.

12 And to the angel of the church in Pergamos write; These things saith he which hath the sharp sword with two edges;
13 I know thy works, and where thou dwellest, even where Satan's seat is: and thou holdest fast my name, and hast not denied my faith, even in those days wherein Antipas was my faithful martyr, who was slain among you, where Satan dwelleth.
14 But I have a few things against thee, because thou hast there them that hold the doctrine of Balaam, who taught Balac to cast a stumblingblock before the children of Israel, to eat things sacrificed unto idols, and to commit fornication.
15 So hast thou also them that hold the doctrine of the Nicolaitans, which thing I hate.

 

[TeddyKGB]

Not one blessed thing to me. Churches aren't immune to strange doctrines creeping in.

Yeah, thanks for defending the other guy's position about as poorly as possible.

 

[RichardT]

Rock on, AV. I am also a YEC, believing in Bible innerancy. Our presuppositions are based in the Word of God and there is no need to bow to evolutionists and the god of humanity and their mantra of "anything but God". Evolutionary theory is nothing but a fairy tale based on historical science, not demonstratable science.

Do you want to know anything about the world we actually live in or not? If you keep to your presupposition how will you know that you're wrong?

 

[Gawron]

I guess the OP got lost somewhere.

However, getting back to ERV's. We share genetic markers with many species in the plant and animal world, but this doesn't prove we are related; or the common ancestor, because similarity of function from one organism to another is not in itself evidence of common descent. ERV's insert information into the host chromosome, but this insertion is not proof of creating new information. True, ERV's change the genetic structure, but the problem with this is the definition of the term evolution has been defined to mean 'any' change in a species. Since ERV's add information, either by insertion or reinfection, this qualifies as change, and thus, I guess, evolution.

HIV - 1 is a retrovirus. Does it cause the infected to 'evolve'? Of course not, but which part of the question is the OP after? Is it that the mere existence of ERV's proves evolution, or that when inserted ERV's create new information and are thus proof of evolution?

In addition, how many times has non-coding DNA created a new functional protien? This would be creating new information.

 

[Tomk80]

I guess the OP got lost somewhere.

However, getting back to ERV's. We share genetic markers with many species in the plant and animal world, but this doesn't prove we are related;
or the common ancestor,

Indeed, the similarities in themselves show nothing. However, the pattern that arises from these shared genetic markers shows relationship.

because similarity of function from one organism to another is not in itself evidence of common descent.

Again, indeed similiarty of function also is not in itself evidence of common descent. What is important is again the patterns that arise from the differences in how these similar functions are put into effect. Furthermore, ERV's are non-functioning parts in the genome, so similarity of function is not an issue here.

ERV's insert information into the host chromosome, but this insertion is not proof of creating new information.

Why not?

True, ERV's change the genetic structure, but the problem with this is the definition of the term evolution has been defined to mean 'any' change in a species. Since ERV's add information, either by insertion or reinfection, this qualifies as change, and thus, I guess, evolution.

This really is only barely coherent. Sorry. I cannot parse what you want to get at here.

HIV - 1 is a retrovirus. Does it cause the infected to 'evolve'? Of course not, but which part of the question is the OP after? Is it that the mere existence of ERV's proves evolution, or that when inserted ERV's create new information and are thus proof of evolution?

That the existence of ERV's shows common ancestry.

In addition, how many times has non-coding DNA created a new functional protien? This would be creating new information.

No idea. Generally, new proteins arise from changes to already existing proteins. Why isn't that evolution?

 

[Cabal]

*snip*

 

[Blayz]

Funny --- my rep comments say otherwise; and I've yet to see a YEC or KJVO ask me to stand down.

Ahh, I see! so your "commission" is to preach to people that already agree with you. Interesting. Doesn't explain why you post here though.

 

[Blayz]

I guess the OP got lost somewhere.

However, getting back to ERV's. We share genetic markers with many species in the plant and animal world, but this doesn't prove we are related; or the common ancestor, because similarity of function from one organism to another is not in itself evidence of common descent.

It's the fact they are all located in the same place that is evidence of common descent. Few ERVs have any functional bits at all.

ERV's insert information into the host chromosome

No, RVs insert information into the host chromosome. ERVs have been there millions of years and are basically non functional.

the problem with this is the definition of the term evolution has been defined to mean 'any' change in a species. Since ERV's add information, either by insertion or reinfection, this qualifies as change, and thus, I guess, evolution.

Anyone able to translate this into sane for me?

HIV - 1 is a retrovirus. Does it cause the infected to 'evolve'?

Yes it does. And HIVs ancestors are why we are placental mammals.

In addition, how many times has non-coding DNA created a new functional protien? This would be creating new information.

567859 times.