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.
Of everything. All life fits into a nested hierarchy.
These aren't not independent infections, as independent infections would have existed at different parts of the genome. You're actually suggesting that the interbreeding resulted in children. That is an absurd suggestion on a number of different levels.
Any mechanism for creating coincidences like this would randomize the derived phylogenic tree, and, if it were significant, would result in an inability to derive any phylogenic tree. Since we see a very strict phylogenic tree, such coincidences are exceedingly rare.
when you ONLY look at it through one IDEA then yes thta is all your consider. the odds are just as good for the other reasons given for it. you just do not wish to accept them because you will not look through a different consideration. meaning if ALL you accept is the theory then they only way you will consider HOW it happens is through the Theory. But math calculations have shown the propability of it is VERY VERY VERY VERY unlikely, YET it is still considered a reasonal chance it did happen. YET given the same chance for our ideas to be correct and it should not even be considered. we are ignorant to think it possible. AS i said ARON RA told me once it only has to happen once no matter what the odds are. this thinking gives you just a little leeway in showing the theory to be true. I do agree that there is nothing wrong with this and that science should studying to find the truth no matter what the odds may be. BUT why does it only apply to one side.
but this is not science it is just a reasoning. one that i doubt there try to follow up. there is no point in trying to find a alternative reasoning when they have found one that fits rather nicly into there thinking and has science to back it up. And no real fallback if it is wrong.
see you just made my point. you will not look outside the box of evolution theory. the nested hierarchy of species is wrong or could be wrong. seeing how it was not predicted it was made up to show evidence for the thoery.
As far as I know, transposition can occur anytime the ERV is transcribed. The transcript is read back into DNA by reverse transcriptase (produced by the local gene in the ERV, if that is functioning, or produced elsewhere in the genome), and the resulting DNA is integrated into a chromosome. (How and when the integration takes place I don't know.) If the cell in question happens to be a germ cell, the result is a germ-line mutation.
When doing any phylogenetic reconstruction, you have to be aware of the possibility that a diagnostic trait you're using could have occurred independently in two different lineages, and you'd better be able to show that the frequency of this event (which is called "homoplasy", by the way) is low enough that it will not fatally damage your analysis.
In other words, we can group it a certain way, which really is neither here no there. As for the virus traces in primates, do you claim some pattern that what I said could not account for in a different past or not???
Now, yes, but not in a different past, perhaps, where the molecular level changes mean that the present is not the standard it is to be measured.
Well, perhaps you could explain what is unexplained? If a man and a monkey had an offspring, would not some of that viral trace stuff be passed down?
No the wicked pre flood people could have ritually mated with many kinds of primates. Then, the hyper adaption, still possible then, may have branched it out furhter, just exactly the way we see it, no?
I just gave you that, so now what's the problem???
OK, then the wicked pre flood explains things. Anything else you need a little help on??
Very rare now, yes, but why would it be rare in a different past????! I mean living a thousand years is pretty rare now, no? Ha. So, this means there was a huge difference in the way things worked. Case solved, it seems. Unless you want to try to relegate the past to the present state. But you can't do that, so all we can look for is the best and simplist explanation.
Sancho, my steed!
Yes, I claim that you cannot account for ERVs in any other way than humans and other apes once were one single species that diverged. You simply cannot explain why the ERV's stay within a strict tree formation. Your laughable bestiality explanation predicts the furthest thing from a strict tree, and doesn't come close to explaining how we have ERV's in common with species much more different than us. Furthermore, your bestiality explanation would predict that we would see 'half breeds' which are not only completely impossible, but would be incredibly obvious.
First of all the tree is imagined, if I recall, just a grouping of certain creations, as if they evolved from one another. The issue at hand is the primates, and the ervs. I could see ruling out some ideas if you had a good case. I can't see that at all yet. Precisely what ervs are in what apes chimps, or monkeys, that could not be explained as wicked pre flood contact, some offspring, and a mess of adapted or 'evolved' species from them?? (For example, there are some thirty five or something like that, species of tigers, all coming from the one on the ark)
That, likely would have to be a different past's different way of dealing with virii. After all, if we look at bible documentation, and the long lifespans recorded there, we can assume that disease was dealt with far differently, as well as any virus, germs, etc.
Good point. But, how do we know, say, chimps are not half breeds? Or, some original primate 'kind' that adapted to chimps?
