Mechanical Bliss
Secrecy and accountability cannot co-exist.
That is obviously not true, and it's been explained to you more times than once, twice, or thrice, so there's really no point going over it again.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Man as we now know him has been around for about 6000 years. Before that there could have been what has been refered to as human like or humanoids. But not humans as we now know them.
Ok, please, explain to me how viruses used to be 'good', and how man changed them.JohnR7 said:God created everything, and He created it to be good. But then man and the devil made a mess out of things. If you built a brand new beautiful house and then your teenage son had a wild party and trashed the house, are you going to blame the builder, because the house is trashed?
Sure. Ok John, show me some of this research. From a journal. That non-coding genes actually do code for proteins.JohnR7 said:This is getting falsified more and more very day. You need to keep up more with the latest research.
You see, that is exactly the problem, you think that all DNA does is make protein. Because so little is known about just what DNA and RNA does. Here is the link you asked for: http://www.cgen.com/news/articles/article110003.htmlData said:Sure. Ok John, show me some of this research. From a journal. That non-coding genes actually do code for proteins.
Yes, it is pretty easy to tell the diffence between the remains of historic and pre historic man. The bones of "civilized" man has a lot more diseases in it. Evolutionists have their own explaination for this, but the facts remain the same.Jimmy The Hand said:I'm just trying to be clear here, John. Are you saying that those that have genetic disorders suffer from the curse?
Yes, it has been explained to you more times than once, twice of thrice, so there really is no point in going over it again.Mechanical Bliss said:[/font]
That is obviously not true, and it's been explained to you more times than once, twice, or thrice, so there's really no point going over it again.
John, without ridiculling him (yes I call this parroting riddicule), could you give us any evidence for that statement? Any at all? You know what, I even allow scriptural evidence for a change. I've seenmany responces to your statement before this one and ALL say and prove that humans lived +6000 years ago.JohnR7 said:Yes, it has been explained to you more times than once, twice of thrice, so there really is no point in going over it again.
Success! Actually - I read that same article last year. But notice that I did actually ask about non-coding genes coding for proteins, not regulatory functions of said introns. No matter!JohnR7 said:You see, that is exactly the problem, you think that all DNA does is make protein. Because so little is known about just what DNA and RNA does. Here is the link you asked for: http://www.cgen.com/news/articles/article110003.html
Psychological projection.JohnR7 said:Yes, it has been explained to you more times than once, twice of thrice, so there really is no point in going over it again.
Ok, lets try something different. I will give you the perspective from theistic evolution, sense your not going to accept creationism anyways.Mistermystery said:John, without ridiculling him (yes I call this parroting riddicule), could you give us any evidence for that statement? Any at all? You know what, I even allow scriptural evidence for a change. I've seenmany responces to your statement before this one and ALL say and prove that humans lived +6000 years ago.
If your teenage son had a wild party and an outbreak of ebola broke out in Africa, would you blame your son?JohnR7 said:God created everything, and He created it to be good. But then man and the devil made a mess out of things. If you built a brand new beautiful house and then your teenage son had a wild party and trashed the house, are you going to blame the builder, because the house is trashed?
Wrong John. They are BORN with these ERV's, it is not a choice. Therefore, you have to explain why some people are born with more sin than others.Some people are more cursed by sin than others. God offers us a choice, blessing or curse, health or sickness, poverty or prosperity. Each and every individual at some point in their life, gets to make that choice.
Do you have evidence that backs this up? We have written documents that predate 4,000 BC.Man as we now know him has been around for about 6000 years. Before that there could have been what has been refered to as human like or humanoids. But not humans as we now know them.
Allowing someone to be decieved by your creation and deceiving them with the creation are the same thing. This makes God a deceiver.God does not deceive people, but at times He will allow them to be deceived.
I know, I have read quite a few creationist sites.People do a pretty good job of deceiving themselves and others.
It is simple. All a creationist has to do is test newborns for ERV's. If they can show a certain ERV appearing in the same nucleotide position for 20% of the population in one generation then they have won. Of course, creationists are famous for not doing actual research, so I won't hold my breath. If every cell in our body caries an ERV at a precise nucleotide position the only explanation is that you were born with that ERV and did not acquire it over your lifetime. There is absolutely no evidence that retroviruses can leave the same sequence in the exact same spot in every somatic cell in an organisms body. Until that evidence is found your position has been refuted.Only if you can show they were added and not there all along. Otherwise, species may have a lot in common without having evolved from a common ancestor. There are other explainations for why they would have so much common DNA.
I will accept creationism if there's enough evidence for it. So far it's got nothing.JohnR7 said:Ok, lets try something different. I will give you the perspective from theistic evolution, sense your not going to accept creationism anyways.
Genesis 2:7-8
And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.
[8] The Lord God planted a garden eastward in Eden, and there He put the man whom He had formed.
Okay, agreed.Now according to theistic evolution, there is no referance to time here.
kay,We only know that God formed man out of the ground, out of the elements of the earth.
... A bit rigoreus in a literal context, but sure, if you want that, it's okay.It could have taken God 64 million years, but when he was done, he took the man and put him in the garden.
Wait. What? Let's back track for a second:This is where we find Adam, 6000 years ago,
More crazy numbers from John! Where do you get them all from John? Does someone whisper it in your ear, or do you genuily make them up for yourself?This work of redemption has taken 6000 years and we have another 1000 years to go.
Sounds awfully boring. What makes you so sure that God won't make a mistake again?So, 1000 years from now, everything will be restored. The earth will be as God intended it to be. There will be no pain, misery, suffering or sorrow. The animals will no longer devour one another. All of God's creation will abide together on this earth in peace and in harmony.
Hi there! An exclent question I might add. I think you oughto look at winace's post concerning this (3th post in this thread). While it get's kinda technical here and there it basicaly goes something like this:brightlights said:i read the posts up until about page 4, so forgive me if i am mistaken.
from what i see here, i understand that this virus effects both ape and human alike and this goes to prove that they are related or descendants. but it is already obvious that the ape is related to the human, it is a very similar creation. they are so similar that they share the same genetic diseases. but how does this go to prove that the human evolved from the ape?
If both humans and apes share the same piece of data that says it's a viral infection, how do you suppose it got there?brightlights said:so the human genome has traces of this virus. why could these not have come from early human as opposed to ape? yes, ape shares the virus too, but the two species are very similar. i'm sorry, i fail to see the evolution here, it seems it can be justified.
I'll try and explain this using analogies. Learning science through analogies is often easier than using the scientific terminology.brightlights said:so the human genome has traces of this virus. why could these not have come from early human as opposed to ape? yes, ape shares the virus too, but the two species are very similar. i'm sorry, i fail to see the evolution here, it seems it can be justified.
well considering how similar the species are, is it too illogical to think that they share this disease?Mistermystery said:If both humans and apes share the same piece of data that says it's a viral infection, how do you suppose it got there?
ok im seeing this now, i understand better, thank you. a few questions though. how do we pick out a viral insertion? how do we know this is a viral insertion and not a similar trait in both ape and human genome? How do we know the process is random?Loudmouth said:I'll try and explain this using analogies. Learning science through analogies is often easier than using the scientific terminology.
Let's pretend that the letters of the human genome are represented by a complete set of encyclopedias. Now, close your eyes and pick a volume at random. Keeping your eyes closed, flip to a page. Again, keeping your eyes closed put your finger somewhere on the page. This is similar to what a virus does when it inserts into a genome. It randomly inserts into a "word" somewhere in the set, with chromosomes being the volumes. Now, ask yourself if it is probable that two people could randomly put their finger on the same letter in the same encyclopedia set. If there are 3 billion letters in an encyclopedia, the chances of two people putting their same finger on the same letter are 1 in 3 billion. Now, instead of just two people putting their finger on the same letter, imagine 6 billion people all putting their finger on the same letter. This would seem very improbable, would it not? Therefore, it is theorized that each viral insertion seen in two separate genomes at the same DNA "letter" is a one time occurence, not the result of multiple random insertions. Therefore, if two people have the same insertion they must share a common ancestor that was the originator of a single infection.
Now, what happens when two SPECIES share the same insertion? It is the same mechanism. One organism had an egg or a sperm that was invaded by a virus that inserted a dysfunctional portion of viral DNA in a specific place in the genome. This was passed on to the child, and the children of that child spread those viral genes through the population over time. When this viral insertion was spread through most of the population a speciation event occurs. Now we have two species each carrying the same viral insertion. Repeat this a few times and you get the patterns we see between humans and apes.
In conclusion, it is not a matter of sharing the same virus, but sharing the same parents. No one has ever observed a retrovirus inserting into the same letter in the genomic DNA even 2 times per 100,000 infections. There are hotspots where viruses TEND to insert, but these areas are thousands of letters in size. Also, the ancient viral sequences we see in the human genome are related to the very same viruses that we see today. Therefore, there is no support that a virus in the past was able to insert in the same exact spot for every infection. Claiming that this type of virus existed is not justified and common ancestory is the only explanation that remains.
We know that these are viral genes because they are the same genes we find in viruses today. These genes code for the protein coat that make up the outside of the virus, a gene that codes for an enzyme that inserts the viral gene into the host genome, and the third type I can't remember at the moment (darn memory). Also, the viral genes are flanked by what are called LTR's. This stands for Long Terminal Repeats. These are repetitive sequences of DNA that are not found in human DNA (except around viral genes). Needless to say, viral genes stick out like a sore thumb.brightlights said:ok im seeing this now, i understand better, thank you. a few questions though. how do we pick out a viral insertion?
They very well might serve a similar function, but at the moment that function is unknown, and they may have no function at all. In an earlier post I linked to a study that discovered an ERV that may be essential in placental development. This ERV is shared by all placental mammals, so ERV's can have a functional. However, these are still viral genes. For instance, if I used a computer keyboard to push a nail in, does that make it a hammer? Of course not. The original function of these ERV's are quite obvious as is their origin.how do we know this is a viral insertion and not a similar trait in both ape and human genome?
Through observation, otherwise known as scientific evidence. This picture shows places where HIV (the blue dots) and other retroviruses inserted into the cells in the study. They mapped 3,000 + insertions and not one is repeated. However, they did find that HIV prefers spots that are close to functional genes, but as you can see the insertions are spread throughout the genome.How do we know the process is random?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?