Endogenous retroviruses

[dad]

Fantasy world. Check.


You still haven't explained how this mechanism results in a nested hierarchy without common ancestry. Every attempt you've made to provide an explanation wouldn't result in a nested hierarchy.

I gave the elephant tree. Is that not part of the NH?

 

[Ondoher]

You can't test the past at all, let's be honest! The predictions you make are based on the present, extrapolated backward, and so they have to fit here, where they were spawned!

You really need to do a little research on the hypothetico-deductive method of science. I'm getting tired of trying to educate the unwilling on how science works.

 

[Ondoher]

I gave the elephant tree. Is that not part of the NH?

You've not explained how we arrived at a nested hierarchy that includes ALL species.

 

[dad]

You really need to do a little research on the hypothetico-deductive method of science. I'm getting tired of trying to educate the unwilling on how science works.

I am getting tired of you pretending to know what you are talking about, when you can't put something on the table.
You can deduct all you want about the past, but it is based on the hypothetical, assumed same past that is based on the presnet. Before we deduct too much, better check what you actually know.

 

[dad]

You've not explained how we arrived at a nested hierarchy that includes ALL species.

Well, I gave an example there where the created elephant evolved into the various kinds.

The kinds seem simple and clear enough, it is your desperate attempts to connect it to the worm, that is the question mark!!!!
The bible talks of wolves in heaven, and lookie here, this tree has a wolf as the kind that gave us other dogs.

 

[Ondoher]

Well, I gave an example there where the created elephant evolved into the various kinds.

The kinds seem simple and clear enough, it is your desperate attempts to connect it to the worm, that is the question mark!!!!

Before discussing science it helps to understand how science works. Before discussing evolution it helps to understand what scientists have to say about it. You've not met either of these prerequisites.

 

[Loudmouth]

Well, I gave an example there where the created elephant evolved into the various kinds.

The kinds seem simple and clear enough, it is your desperate attempts to connect it to the worm, that is the question mark!!!!

Umm, are you saying that the giraffe and whale are in the same kind?

 

[dad]

Umm, are you saying that the giraffe and whale are in the same kind?

No, I was looking at how the question mark was there, as it got toward the worm!!
The lines are just evo assumptions other than a created kind.
Look at almost any "kind" of animal you want, they came from something similar in the past.

 

[Loudmouth]

No, I was looking at how the question mark was there, as it got toward the worm!!

I was looking at how all of these different mammals were rooted by synapomorphies. Whether or not THE common ancestor is found this does not put common ancestry in doubt. In fact, it is impossible to judge whether any one species is the common ancestor of two other species without DNA comparisons.

Of course, that is the whole point of this ERV discussion. ERV's are evidence of common ancestry.

Look at almost any "kind" of animal you want, they came from something similar in the past.

Yes, including common ancestry for chimps and humans as evidenced by fossils species and ERV's.

 

[dad]

I was looking at how all of these different mammals were rooted by synapomorphies.

A synapomorphy is a derived character-state shared by two or more terminal groups (taxa included in a cladistic analysis as further indivisible units) and inherited from their most recent common ancestor.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synapomorphy
So, the idea is that the traits came from the most recent ancestor, or, generally, created kind. Beyond that is purest speculation.

Whether or not THE common ancestor is found this does not put common ancestry in doubt.

Where the created kind is the common ancestor, no!

In fact, it is impossible to judge whether any one species is the common ancestor of two other species without DNA comparisons.

And how many of these do we actually have that relate to the worm that made the elephant?

Of course, that is the whole point of this ERV discussion. ERV's are evidence of common ancestry.

The whole idea of ERVs is that they are found in traces as having been in life in the past. No, 'common ancestory' is possiblr to deduce here, beyong the created ancestors.

Yes, including common ancestry for chimps and humans as evidenced by fossils species and ERV's.

Well, in that particular instance, if you want to talk more than ERVs, and bring in fossils, what is it that says we had some past hokey pokey to where men and chimps are related?

 

[Loudmouth]

A synapomorphy is a derived character-state shared by two or more terminal groups (taxa included in a cladistic analysis as further indivisible units) and inherited from their most recent common ancestor.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synapomorphy
So, the idea is that the traits came from the most recent ancestor, or, generally, created kind. Beyond that is purest speculation.

Actually, that is the theory of evolution which is not speculation. It is a valid and tested theory.

And how many of these do we actually have that relate to the worm that made the elephant?

A worm did not make an elephant. Try again.

The whole idea of ERVs is that they are found in traces as having been in life in the past. No, 'common ancestory' is possiblr to deduce here, beyong the created ancestors.

A nested hierarchy is the test. A nested hierarchy is found. Common ancestry passes the test. Unless you can provide another observed mechanism that creates nested hierarchies scientists will continue to conclude that common ancestry is valid.

Well, in that particular instance, if you want to talk more than ERVs, and bring in fossils, what is it that says we had some past hokey pokey to where men and chimps are related?

That doesn't explain why anatomically modern humans, fossil hominids, and chimps are never found in the same strata.

 

[Ondoher]

A synapomorphy is a derived character-state shared by two or more terminal groups (taxa included in a cladistic analysis as further indivisible units) and inherited from their most recent common ancestor.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synapomorphy
So, the idea is that the traits came from the most recent ancestor, or, generally, created kind. Beyond that is purest speculation.

Except that there are synapomorphies linking higher and higher taxa until we have united all of life into a single tree. This is the point.

Where the created kind is the common ancestor, no!

Your created kinds are not in evidence.

And how many of these do we actually have that relate to the worm that made the elephant?

Modern worms are related to modern elephants via an ancestral bilaterian, which would have been called a worm were it alive today. However, there is over half a billion years separating them.

The whole idea of ERVs is that they are found in traces as having been in life in the past. No, 'common ancestory' is possiblr to deduce here, beyong the created ancestors.

No, the whole idea of ERV's is that they are synapomorphies linking primates, including humans, into a nested hierarchy demonstrating common ancestry.

Well, in that particular instance, if you want to talk more than ERVs, and bring in fossils, what is it that says we had some past hokey pokey to where men and chimps are related?

Humans and chimps share a common ancestor.

 

[dad]

Actually, that is the theory of evolution which is not speculation. It is a valid and tested theory.

Nothing is tested that goes beyond created kinds, actually.

A worm did not make an elephant. Try again.

Don't try to wiggle out of that one. It is claimed as the ancestor.

A nested hierarchy is the test. A nested hierarchy is found. Common ancestry passes the test.

Things being in groups is no test of whether the kinds were created that evolved into all the species we know today. Get real.

Unless you can provide another observed mechanism that creates nested hierarchies scientists will continue to conclude that common ancestry is valid.

Unless you can observe the mechanism that was at play in the past, at the scene of the crime, evolution can no longer be considered valid. ...Gong.

That doesn't explain why anatomically modern humans, fossil hominids, and chimps are never found in the same strata.

They are today! We both die, they have to be. In the past, either wicked men helped produce chimps, or we had seperate graveyards, and we haven't found any yet. ..Or, they are evolved from other primates, or, some combination. No law says that chimps had to be in Eden. There was some monkey kind, likely, there. And us, of course.

 

[Chalnoth]

Nothing is tested that goes beyond created kinds, actually.

Just because you say it doesn't make it truth. You also need evidence. And you have none. All that you have are your erroneous statements that the evidence we have is invalid. You have no evidence whatsoever to support your statements.

 

[dad]

Except that there are synapomorphies linking higher and higher taxa until we have united all of life into a single tree. This is the point.

Not all similarities and traits are due to evolution this is the point. God made lots of things with bones, and ribs, and lungs, and eyes, and tails, and etc etc etc. Nothing, and I mean nothing says that everything had to evolve. Some evolution is not evidence that everything did nothing but evolve from nothing! Are you getting some of this?

Your created kinds are not in evidence.

Says who? If, for example, a wolf was the first dog in Eden, and others evolved from that, then they would be in evidence. I have seen one!!!

Modern worms are related to modern elephants via an ancestral bilaterian, which would have been called a worm were it alive today. However, there is over half a billion years separating them.

Hey, Loudmouth, are you taking notes here!!!!? Behold, the claim!! As for your billions of years, that reading of evidence is same past opinion. Nothing more!!

No, the whole idea of ERV's is that they are synapomorphies linking primates, including humans, into a nested hierarchy demonstrating common ancestry.

No, your whole same past, present based, idea may be that, but the evidence does not bear that out! All we can say is that we find traces in the present cross species! That isn't saying much.

Humans and chimps share a common ancestor.

That could be, I don't know, but all that would speak to is the wickedness of pre flood men.

 

[dad]

Just because you say it doesn't make it truth. You also need evidence. And you have none.

The evidence that you can't test the past is easy, you can't, and there is no evidence you can. Period. End of story.

All that you have are your erroneous statements that the evidence we have is invalid. You have no evidence whatsoever to support your statements.

The evidence we actually have is fine, but it does not include you testing some past! This is news?

 

[Chalnoth]

Not all similarities and traits are due to evolution this is the point. God made lots of things with bones, and ribs, and lungs, and eyes, and tails, and etc etc etc. Nothing, and I mean nothing says that everything had to evolve.

Except if God created some life forms separately, and they evolved from that point, you would expect to see a break in the nested hierarchy of all life at some point. But there is no break: all life on Earth today fits nicely into a nested hierarchy. So the evidence is against you: life on Earth today speaks loudly against separate creation at any level.

 

[Chalnoth]

The evidence that you can't test the past is easy, you can't, and there is no evidence you can. Period. End of story.

That's not evidence. That's an assertion. What is your evidence for this assertion?

 

[dad]

Except if God created some life forms separately, and they evolved from that point,
you would expect to see a break in the nested hierarchy of all life at some point.

Why, and how? There was a full spectrum of creation. The adapting of the kinds filled in the gaps, so to speak, so that one could misread what really went on. But it takes more than misreading it to prove it, which is why you can't do it!!!! Never will. I never happened that way.
The evidence rests with us.

 

[dad]

That's not evidence. That's an assertion. What is your evidence for this assertion?

No sense talking in circles, and puffing up. One way to settle this right here and now, if you can prove the state of the past, and the life processes of the deep past, then just do it! If you do, then I am wrong. If you don't, I am right. End of story. You can't you won't. and so, it's a done deal. Nice try.