ERVs and how Evolutionists bluff with the data

[sfs]

This thread is about ERVs and evolution, not about the origin of life. Is there any chance we could keep it on topic? Just for the novelty factor, if nothing else.

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

Hmm, you might want to read the following text about the probability factors and then re-evaluate why you think life is possible without God. If you can still accept that idea then you sure have a lot of faith!

"What are the odds that the first cell could have popped into being?

Statistics
A cell pops into being one sunny day. Doesn't sound too hard does it? Just, "POP!" and there it is. Gross ignorance would accept this fairy tale, but reality always gets in the way of fairy tales. Evolution isn't science.

To the extent that anything can be proven impossible, spontaneous life has been proven to be impossible. To the extent that anything can be proven impossible, evolution has proven to be impossible. These two ideas stand with the flat earth theory, the big bang theory and so many others. Even so, evolutionists remain closed-minded.

Scientists, way back in time, thought that there was such a thing as a simple cell. It was believed that a simple one-celled creature popped into existence one day by chance. The right combination of chemicals just fell together and voila: spontaneous life. Scientists now know that life is too complex for that. To date, we don't even know much about what constitutes life. We know a little about the elements that could be alive if they were alive. We know conclusively that these life-capable components could not just fall together by chance. The job of evolutionists is very difficult because they must argue that impossible things have taken place without any evidence that these impossible things did take place and with insurmountable evidence that these impossible things are impossible.

H. S. Lipson, Professor of Physics, University of Manchester, UK, said: "I think, however, that we must go further than this and admit that the only acceptable explanation is creation. I know that this is anathema to physicists as indeed it is to me, but we must not reject the theory that we do not like if the experimental evidence supports it." Isn't that ever scientific! Lipson, and the "physicists," made up their minds before looking at the data. Then, the physicists are having trouble with what the data is telling them. They still can't believe it! Evolutionists are not open-minded at all, but Lipson was being more honest than the average so-called scientist when he wrote the above quote.

Evolution and Statistics
Fact: Scientists have failed every attempt to create the twenty different amino acids that are required to produce the proteins that exist in the smallest living cell. There was the falsified claim that a group of scientists had created life in a test tube, but that was a falsification. The experiment at that time confirmed that life couldn't be created by any known natural process. It only dealt with the attempt to create some molecules that are capable of combining to form other molecules and building blocks of cells. These molecules are not self-sufficient or capable of supporting life. They are simply molecules, and the scientists were not successful in creating them. They created some amino acids, but, in all amino acids, the molecular structure for living matter is different from that for non-living. They were not able to create the molecular structure for living matter, but only that of non-living matter. The method they used to create these few molecules of non-living amino acid has the unfortunate effect of destroying amino acids thousands of times faster than it creates them, so there would be no hope of accumulating enough to start assembling them into a DNA molecule, let alone a cell.

"... the odds against our universe randomly taking a form suitable for life as one out of 10,000,000,000^124--a number that exceeds all imagination. ... the odds of the random formation of a single enzyme from amino acids anywhere on our planet's surface are one in 10^20.... The trouble is that there are about two thousand enzymes and the chance of obtaining them all in a random trial is only one part in (10^20)^20,000 = 10^40,000, an outrageously small probability that could not be faced even if the whole universe consisted of organic soup.... And this is just one step in the formation of life. Nothing has yet been said about DNA and where it came from, or the transcription of DNA to RNA, which scientists admit cannot even be numerically computed.... Nor has anything been said of mitosis or meiosis. [Ravi Zacharias, The End of Reason, p.35].

The probability of a non-living amino acid producing the special structure of living matter by chance is one in 10 to the 123rd power, that is, it is mathematically impossible.

The number just given is a 10 with 123 zeros behind it.

Interestingly, the news media and many schools claim that life was created in a lab. Of course, this is simply a lie.

For comparison 10 with 123 zeros behind it is 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 times the number of atoms in the visible universe. Odds like that constitute a scientific impossibility. and this is just one very insignificant step in the process that would have been required. The molecules-to-man evolution conjecture / fabrication is possibly the most ridiculous scientific conjecture / fabrication that has ever been put forth by anyone at any time.

The math isn't important except to understand that the odds against evolution constitute an impossibility. Of course, people tend to prefer to believe what they prefer to true. In addition, the speculative assumptions of each person's world tend to solidify, even though these speculative assumptions have no basis. People get mentally stuck. Once speculative assumptions solidify, each person garners selective facts and speculative rational-lies-zations to bolster his or her foundationless assumed speculations. When the speculative assumptions aren't even addressed, but quietly are assumed to be obvious, they are very hard to deal with. They become mystical revelations of the Secular Humanistic intellectuals. At a certain point, the person making the speculative assumptions finds it hard to challenge his or her own paradigm, even when the odds become ridiculous. This is what has happened to evolutionism. Human weakness has made it possible for intelligent people to, not only accept the impossible odds just mentioned, but also to continue stumbling on to ever greater leaps into the preposterous.

OK, back to what would be required to have the initial cell pop into being. The first step along the way would be to have a method to create all the amino acids in nature. We already went over a little bit about the odds against that.

But, let's pretend: if there were a way to create amino acids of the right type, the next impossible leap would be to form an ocean of these specially structured amino acids. (Keep in mind that even one of the molecular structures-let alone an ocean-already has failed the possibility test.) But lets play pretend. Out of the bazillions of specially structured amino acid molecules that would make up this fictitious ocean, 500 must line up in the proper order; the impossible odds are one chance in 10 with 200 zeros behind it. Oh, this is silly to even think about. If you're an evolutionist, you don't want to know how big that number is. That is odds of 1 chance in 10 to the 200th power. Again, this alone would be impossible. But this is the land of make believe, isn't it? So let's press on to never-never land.

Next, a sea of these chains has to form itself by chance. In spite of the fact that forming a sea of these chains is well beyond being farfetched (when it's impossible for random chance to form one or even one part of one part), let's pretend that there's a sea of them... just for illustration's sake. From this sea, DNA must randomly be formed; the odds used to be one chance in 10 with 155 zeros behind it, but now we know more about the DNA. DNA is much more complex than we ever imagined. The DNA is a tiny computer holding genetic programming of more information than a library of books. This computer must be perfectly and completely programmed in the simplest form of life; the odds against forming one of these DNA molecules, given all the materials listed above, used to be one in 10 with 400,000 zeros behind it. Now, with the little bit of work they've done trying to figure out the logic of the DNA... every time we get more information, evolution becomes sillier and sillier. Every time we learn more, it gets worse for the evolutionist. But the evolutionist thrives on the ignorant. They survive because people want to believe what they prefer to be true, not because they have any facts.

And the DNA is only one part of a cell. Every once in a while, we find out more about just how complex cells are. With every discovery, evolution is more silly.

False information and false logic have produced this unworkable hypothesis called evolution. And we haven't yet mentioned any level of complexity that would be capable of supporting life. We don't know enough about cells to really give a fair estimate of what it would take to pop a cell into existence by chance, but the odds get worse with each new discovery.

If you are one of those who is honest enough to admit that you don't understand these numbers, don't feel bad. Math can be very intimidating. We can't write out these huge numbers; they're too big. Telling how many zeros are behind the first 10 is a way to make it possible to write them, but it does give a false illusion of smallness. You know, from experience, how zeros affect a number. If 3 zeros are added to a check for one dollar that makes it a check for one thousand dollars. If 20 zeros are added to a check for one dollar, then that check would represent more money than exists in the world. What would 400,000 zeros do? Just make the check payable to me.

As if these numbers weren't large enough, you must realize that, when the odds of creating one of a certain type of molecule is one chance in 10 with 200 zeros behind it, the odds of creating two at the same time is one chance in 10 with 400 zeros behind it. When evolutionists say they need three of them to accidentally fall into place at the same time, the odds used to be one chance in 10 with 800 zeros behind it. It remains to be seen where the new research will put these odds, but they will make the concept of evolution much more unbelievable. Take a minute to grasp what happens. The odds keep getting more unbelievable for each additional one of these molecules that evolutionists need to create by blind chance. Take a moment to let that sink in. Now think of the evolutionists' ocean of these molecules covering the planet. The odds against all this nonsense happening are impossible to write using our method of telling how many zeros were behind the first 10. These odds become so fantastic that expressing them in a meaningful way becomes impossible. Every fairy tale you ever heard as a child is much more probable than the fairy tale of evolution.

The flaws in evolutionism compound from here. A partial amoebae, for instance, cannot sustain life or reproduce, and the law of entropy quickly destroys every element that is needed to make any creature. This means that all the events listed above plus the amazing complexity of an amoebae need to pop into being in a moment by blind chance. It must happen in a moment, because the second law of thermodynamics makes it impossible for things to go from lower levels of complexity to higher levels of complexity.

The Evolutionists will tell you a half truth about the Second Law of Thermodynamics. The Evolutionists will tell the half truth: "The Second Law of Thermodynamics only applies to isolated systems, so it's not relevant to evolution, because the Earth is an open system." This is a clever lie. Here is the part of the truth that they are withholding: the Second Law of Thermodynamics was derived using theoretical isolated systems, but it applies to all systems, and can only be overcome locally and temporarily in open systems when stringent conditions are met. Not only that, but we are not talking about the Earth. The Earth is just a subsystem of a much larger system called the Universe. The Universe is an isolated system. Evolutionists claim that Evolution took place in this isolated system, but the Second Law of Thermodynamics tells us that their story is a myth.

The ungodly are forced to hold on tightly to some basic presuppositions. These presuppositions are just simple-minded assumptions. They are filters and a way to censor out any data that supports the existence of God. They set up a web of rules to filter out God. They will only accept those things that conform to Naturalism, materialism, and uniformitarianism. Naturalism claims that God does nothing. Materialism claims that there is no God or spiritual realm. Uniformitarianism claims that there was not creation and that there was no violent worldwide flood, as the Bible and numerous other historical accounts record. Whatever they observe that does not conform to this complex filter is censored. The way that it is censored can take several forms. The ungodly may boldly proclaim that, though the data appears to support God's version and refute the version of the ungodly, yet it still must be interpreted to mean just the opposite of what it does mean. A backup method that ungodly people use is to prophecy that in the future, science will be able to explain what they see as an anomaly. If that fails, they will hide the data, set it aside, or lie to keep the public from knowing the truth. The data clearly demolishes the story of the ungodly and clearly supports the reality of the Creator God, His Bible, and His abiding Presence in His people. When confronted with the obvious, a closed-minded ungodly person says, "I can't understand it." They are willingly ignorant because they refuse to hold God in their knowledge. The reality is that these people, for whatever reason, don't what to know the Creator. They don't want to truly know Jesus, their Creator."

Here's the link: http://www.seekfind.net/Evolution_And_Statistics.html

First, you are linking a highly biased article. It uses fallacious mathematical arguments. Allow me to link you to the rebuttal while citing some of the more important points. The argument above is using pseudomathematics and misrepresenting basic laws.

"We are well aware of anti-evolutionists' fondness for presenting their audiences with numbers of dizzying magnitude that they use to represent incredibly low probabilities for such events as the chance formation of a protein molecule, the origin of life, and the like. Thus they argue that it is irrational to believe that the event in question could have happened naturally (they mean "by chance") without the aid of intelligent design. In some cases, such as the chance formation of habitable planets, one may avoid a technical discussion of the physical processes involved and respond simply by pointing out that the universe is a very big place, containing countless galaxies, stars, and planetary systems, thus providing so much opportunity for the natural occurrence of the event in question that the probability may be quite high that such an event would occur somewhere. Furthermore, if the universe is infinite, providing the event with infinitely many chances to occur, then the occurrence of the event is a virtual certainty. Thus creationist probability arguments can often be undermined by pointing out that any event with a probability greater than 0, no matter how low, will be likely to happen if given enough opportunity, and sure to happen if opportunity is unlimited.

This principle is sometimes illustrated with the following thought experiment (of which the reader has probably heard one version or another): Suppose that a monkey, trained to hit the keys of a typewriter one by one in a truly random fashion, types forever, producing infinitely many pages of text. No one doubts that the monkey would type page after page of gibberish, but it follows from the above principle that sooner or later the monkey would type all of the works of Shakespeare from beginning to end, without error, solely by accident".
Further rebuttal in the links below.

http://ncse.com/rncse/20/4/creationism-pseudomathematics
http://experimentalmath.info/blog/2009/08/misuse-of-probability-by-creation-scientists-and-others/

Now lets address the common misrepresentation of the laws of thermodynamics.

"Let us see how Morris responds after he has been confronted with the clear evidence that evolving systems are open. In 1976, he said: "The second law really applies only to open systems, since there is no such thing as a truly isolated system." This statement suggests that he lacks the ability to distinguish between theoretical and practical concepts—an ability which is absolutely essential for the understanding of much of physics. It is certainly true that the second law applies to all thermodynamical systems; it wouldn't be much of a law otherwise. But the particular statement of the second law that Morris has in mind—namely, that the entropy cannot decrease—applies only to isolated systems. It is a purely theoretical statement, and in theory, any desired system can be postulated whether or not it can exist in practice. Let me mention another example: The concept of an ideal gas is utilized throughout thermodynamics and is extremely useful, even though no such substance actually exists. Just as real gases approximate an ideal gas, some better than others, there are real thermodynamical systems that are very nearly isolated. In these systems we do not expect the entropy to decrease. On the other hand, in a wide open system the entropy can either increase, decrease, or remain constant. The second law does not in any way prevent entropy decreases and the generation of entropy deficiencies in local systems so long as there is an equal or larger increase in entropy outside the system. This concept is easily grasped by most college and even high school students of science but not, apparently, by creationists, including those boasting Ph.D.s in the science".

Rest of the rebuttal in the link: http://ncse.com/cej/2/2/creationist-misunderstanding-misrepresentation-misuse-second

You see, faith is not required when you can follow the evidence to a logical conclusion. Misrepresenting the laws of thermodynamics and probability is being dishonest and misleading. This misrepresentation also includes an argument from silence. You are dismissing a claim with by misrepresenting basic scientific and mathematical models and then providing a conclusion of God without evidence to support that conclusion. Science does NOT make claims for the existence or nonexistence of a God. It only explains the natural world. Mathematical and scientific models and theories have led to many advances in medicine and technology. If you enjoy the computer you are using to type out these responses, the cell phone you use, the car you drive, the medicine you take and your longer life expectancy, you love science. Yet...you choose to dismiss the most basic of principles.

 

[Not_By_Chance]

the universe is a very big place, containing countless galaxies, stars, and planetary systems, thus providing so much opportunity for the natural occurrence of the event in question that the probability may be quite high that such an event would occur somewhere. Furthermore, if the universe is infinite,

With just the above quote, it is clear that you are misrepresenting where the known facts are leading. Firstly, the chances given in the article are so absurdly stacked against the described events happening that they ain't gonna happen - NOT EVER. You can take a much time as you want and they won't occur. Secondly, if the universe had a beginning, as even creationists and evolutionists agree on, then it isn't by definition, "infinite", so your argument is a non-starter. This is just a good example of how evolutionists are so committed to their false paradigm that no matter how much the evidence points the other way, they will never accept it, exactly as it was stated in the bible all those years ago...
2Ti 3:7 always learning but never able to acknowledge the truth.
Rom 1:20 For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
Rom 1:21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened.
Rom 1:25 They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.

 

[Not_By_Chance]

This principle is sometimes illustrated with the following thought experiment (of which the reader has probably heard one version or another): Suppose that a monkey, trained to hit the keys of a typewriter one by one in a truly random fashion, types forever, producing infinitely many pages of text. No one doubts that the monkey would type page after page of gibberish, but it follows from the above principle that sooner or later the monkey would type all of the works of Shakespeare from beginning to end, without error, solely by accident".

Well, this is so silly, it hardly merits a reply, but have a look here: http://www.nutters.org/docs/monkeys
and maybe here: http://www.genesispark.com/essays/probabilities/
The last two paragraphs on the second link say it all (reproduced below), especially the second one. Now ask yourself, why do such absurd probabilities against something happening deserve your faith?

"Say the odds of getting a “word” models the mutation problem. Then successfully dealing with the cost-of-mutation issue could be analogous to producing an intelligent sentence; and obtaining a reasoned paragraph could then model the evolution of an irreducibly complex system. The “poetic sensibility and grammatical complexity” that I mentioned earlier would finally be analogous to the beautifully complex, highly adapted creatures we observe, in which many of these systems ultimately work together in exquisite symmetry.

Does this scenario solve the monkeys’ probability challenge with the sonnet? Let’s rework the calculation using ReMine’s assumption that we have as many monkeys as protons in the observable universe. Furthermore, let’s upgrade the monkeys skills to typing a miraculous 500 random words per minute (while generously having the “nonwords” removed and mercifully being spared system crashes) around the clock for 20 billion years. There are 114 words in Shakespeare’s famous sonnet When in Disgrace with Fortune and Men’s Eyes. There are over 75,000 words just in my dated Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, so let’s grant that many in the “spellchecker.” The probability of typing, in order, all the sonnet’s words is just one chance in 75,000114 or 5.77×10555. This would require 4.1×10412 universes more than the ReMine illustration above to have an even chance at such an enterprise succeeding!"

Don't forget as well, this is only talking about a small fraction of Shakespeare's works. How long do you think it would take to type out the complete works as per your original statement?!

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

With just the above quote, it is clear that you are misrepresenting where the known facts are leading. Firstly, the chances given in the article are so absurdly stacked against the described events happening that they ain't gonna happen - NOT EVER. You can take a much time as you want and they won't occur. Secondly, if the universe had a beginning, as even creationists and evolutionists agree on, then it isn't by definition, "infinite", so your argument is a non-starter. This is just a good example of how evolutionists are so committed to their false paradigm that no matter how much the evidence points the other way, they will never accept it, exactly as it was stated in the bible all those years ago...
2Ti 3:7 always learning but never able to acknowledge the truth.
Rom 1:20 For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
Rom 1:21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened.
Rom 1:25 They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.

You seem stuck on the probability in thinking "The odds are so insurmountable that I cannot comprehend a scenario where it happens" That is an argument from incredulity. The odds of winning the lottery are 1 in 175 million, but it happens all the time. The odds of being born are 1 in 400 trillion, but it happens every day. The odds of being struck by lightening is 1 in 750,000 but in rare occurrences some have had it happen more than once to them. Want to try an experiment. Take a deck of cards, shuffle them and spread all 52 out. The probability of this order coming out is
1 in 80658175170943878571660636856403766975289505440883277824000000000000, but it happened. You seem stuck on thinking that low probabilities mean impossibility. That is false.

Again, Science does not make any claims for or against the existence of God. It only explains the natural world.
Now this isn't a debate of bible verses but one comes to mind that is rather troubling.

1 Corinthians 3:19 For the wisdom of this world is foolishness before God. For it is written, "He is THE ONE WHO CATCHES THE WISE IN THEIR CRAFTINESS";and again, "THE LORD KNOWS THE REASONINGS of the wise, THAT THEY ARE USELESS"

I don't know how you would interpret this verse but it's clear to me it is saying that knowledge and wisdom is foolish and discouraged. If we followed this exactly, we'd still be in the iron age with a life expectancy of 25-30. We would not make extraordinary medical and technological advances. So, if you enjoy running hot water, modern medicine, the cell phone and computer you use and.....living past 30, then you love science. Next time you go get an immunization such as a flu shot, keep in mind that they are available to you because of our understanding of evolution.

 

[029b10]

I don't know how you would interpret this verse but it's clear to me it is saying that knowledge and wisdom is foolish and discouraged.

To know wisdom and instruction; to perceive the words of understanding;

To receive the instruction of wisdom, justice, and judgment, and equity;

To give subtilty to the simple, to the young man knowledge and discretion.

A wise man will hear, and will increase learning; and a man of understanding shall attain unto wise counsels:

For the wisdom of this world is foolishness before God. For it is written, "He is THE ONE WHO CATCHES THE WISE IN THEIR CRAFTINESS";and again, "THE LORD KNOWS THE REASONINGS of the wise, THAT THEY ARE USELESS"

Might do a little research and select a Translation that doesnt' interpet a birds to be flying insects amongst other errors.

For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness.1 Cor 3:19

If we followed this exactly, we'd still be in the iron age with a life expectancy of 25-30. We would not make extraordinary medical and technological advances. So, if you enjoy running hot water, modern medicine, the cell phone and computer you use and.....living past 30, then you love science. Next time you go get an immunization such as a flu shot, keep in mind that they are available to you because of our understanding of evolution.

I bet you honestly believe that evolution and the Big Bang are purely scientific without any relationship with religion or the Bible.
-------------

• Would you believe the Big Bang, originally published in scientific form under the title Hypothesis of the Primordial Atom, was written by a Catholic Priest.

----------------

• So in Genesis , God made the heaven and the earth,

• But in the beginning of the the Big Bang, the Primordial Atom which came from who knows where and from a condensed state errupted and instantaneously all formed the known and observed universe.

------------
"Therefore I should infer from analogy that probably all the organic beings which have ever lived on this earth have descended from some one primordial form, into which life was first breathed." Charles Darwin

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 soul.Gen 2:7

 

[lasthero]

• Would you believe the Big Bang, originally published in scientific form under the title Hypothesis of the Primordial Atom, was written by a Catholic Priest.

...who was also a professor of physics. Important detail.

 

[crjmurray]

You seem stuck on the probability in thinking "The odds are so insurmountable that I cannot comprehend a scenario where it happens" That is an argument from incredulity. The odds of winning the lottery are 1 in 175 million, but it happens all the time. The odds of being born are 1 in 400 trillion, but it happens every day. The odds of being struck by lightening is 1 in 750,000 but in rare occurrences some have had it happen more than once to them. Want to try an experiment. Take a deck of cards, shuffle them and spread all 52 out. The probability of this order coming out is
1 in 80658175170943878571660636856403766975289505440883277824000000000000, but it happened. You seem stuck on thinking that low probabilities mean impossibility. That is false.

Again, Science does not make any claims for or against the existence of God. It only explains the natural world.
Now this isn't a debate of bible verses but one comes to mind that is rather troubling.

1 Corinthians 3:19 For the wisdom of this world is foolishness before God. For it is written, "He is THE ONE WHO CATCHES THE WISE IN THEIR CRAFTINESS";and again, "THE LORD KNOWS THE REASONINGS of the wise, THAT THEY ARE USELESS"

I don't know how you would interpret this verse but it's clear to me it is saying that knowledge and wisdom is foolish and discouraged. If we followed this exactly, we'd still be in the iron age with a life expectancy of 25-30. We would not make extraordinary medical and technological advances. So, if you enjoy running hot water, modern medicine, the cell phone and computer you use and.....living past 30, then you love science. Next time you go get an immunization such as a flu shot, keep in mind that they are available to you because of our understanding of evolution.

The card argument has already been attempted.....

 

[lifepsyop]

There was no consensus about the organization of placental mammals before that study. But you already know this, since you're quoting from the Churakov study: "However, pure sequence-based molecular attempts to resolve the basal origin of placental mammals have so far resulted only in apparently conflicting hypotheses."

I'm not sure what your point is. Regardless of whether or not there is a consensus on a particular phylogeny, newly arising conflicting data will be treated accordingly, as 'evidence' of past evolutionary processes that caused the discordance.

You seem to be confused about a basic point here. The deep branches of the placental mammal tree are close neighbors to one another, just as the branches of humans, chimps and gorillas are. It doesn't matter when the branches start: if they're close together, they can experience ILS. What cannot happen is for ILS to occur between distant terminal branches.

Your problem is that you keep treating the "close neighbors" (the common ancestral nodes and branching) as if they are real things, when they are not. They are imaginary data points. You only believe they represent real populations undergoing evolutionary processes in the deep past. Imaginary data points can be rearranged to accommodate data. In the case of Incomplete Lineage Sorting, these imaginary common ancestry data points can even be held in a state of perpetual non-arrangement.

Obviously ILS can not occur between distant branches. That is not an argument being made.

Just because you cannot understand a distinction does not mean that it is made up. There's nothing imaginary or ad hoc about the fact that every New World monkey branch is closer to every other NWM branch than it is to any OWM branch. That's the phylogeny, and that's not flexible.

That is ad-hoc. They are delineated into "New World Monkeys" in the first place in reaction to the data. If the data instead pointed to greater genomic confusion with those species currently regarded as "Old World Monkeys", then the distinction would be diminished accordingly.

You only assert that the phylogeny is "not flexible", because there has not been a need in this particular case to make it flexible. In the cases where we do see significant conflict, (as in the studies referenced), then the phylogenies are of course quite flexible.

Evolution is always settling like an amorphous fog around the data.

So you still have the challenge of explaining why ERV insertions are never shared between one OWM and one NWM monkey, and not by any other species. I've told you the evolutionary explanation for that fact. I'm still waiting to hear yours. What is it?

And you have yet to explain how Evolution predicts that precise ERV pattern. You just keep asserting it. Just like you avoided my challenge to explain how Evolution predicts the precise Primate ERV pattern in general.

As for your challenge, If ERV insertions are shared between OWM and NWM and not by any other species, then this could be resolved by positing the insertion occurred in the common ancestor of OWM and NWM though not completely fixating in the total population. The lineages leading to OWM and NWM inherit the ERV, but another segment of the population never inherits it to begin with. This uninfected branch eventually gives rise to higher order primates. Thus we are left with an ERV insertion shared by Old and New World Monkeys but not other animals. The ERV element was never completely sorted in the populations giving rise to OWM, NWM, and higher order primates.

Such a discovery would have possibly forced a new narrative and classification scheme of 'monkeys' altogether. But that is what Evolution is at heart - an ad-hoc reaction to the data, followed by a false claim of fulfilled predictions which is sold to an unsuspecting public.

 

[029b10]

...who was also a professor of physics. Important detail.

I'll give you that one but his theory is much more theology than science.

While much more plausible than Darwin's hypothesis which reads more like the Trinity Doctrine
than a Scientific Theory, which personally I find better than not having any faith.

Yet you really think that fact that Father Georges Lemaître,an astronomer, as well as being a instructor of physics at the Catholic
University of Leuven is going to make the earth any less flat

 

[lifepsyop]

3. You are not demonstrating how asking "IF" abiogenesis occurred is not permitted. I don't think you understand how a hypothesis works. That is asking a scientist to argue from incredulity which you so clearly love to do. Testing a hypothesis will determine if it is possible to occur or not. Lets use an example from abiogenesis. Hypothesis: Hydrothermal vents in the ocean may spontaneously create life". Now you are suggesting that we need to ask "Is this even possible? We have to ask if this even happened!" Well how do we conclude if it is or isn't possible. We test the hypothesis. You are saying because we don't understand it, we need to dismiss it. That is unproductive. Now if we test this hypothesis and see that it is possible, we cannot publish the findings yet because this test has to be repeatable and predictable. You don't understand how scientific testing works.

You have a strange concept of science and incredulity.

According to your logic, in prior centuries, it would have been a fruitless argument from incredulity for researchers to even begin to question and attempt to falsify the prevailing doctrines of Spontaneous Generation. Luckily, SG was relatively easy to disprove with experiments, yet before any experiments could be conducted, researchers had to be free to investigate the potential limits upon nature's ability to give rise to a certain form of complexity. What if SG had been more complex of a subject and not so easy to falsify... Would you have balked at those researchers for seeking out nature's limitations?

Unlike Spontaneous Generation, Abiogenesis has simply been removed from the realm of testability. No matter how unlikely it may be shown to be, you will just keep saying that "science is working on it", and refuse to consider nature's limitations. It really is more of a Creation religion than a science. You started with your conclusions long ago. The sad part is you consider your position to be extremely scientific and any opposition to be extremely anti-science. It's amazing, really...

 

[USincognito]

Common Ancestry is primarily based on the assumption...

Ah yes, the magical, totemic words used by Creationists to make evidence POOF! away in a puff of smoke.

Assumptions!

 

[USincognito]

What are the odds that the first cell could have popped into being?

As was noted, this thread is about ERVs and evolution, not abiogenesis, but I do want to point out that no abiogenetic hypothesis suggests a fully developed procaryotic or eukaryotic cell "popping into being".

You might want to avoid straw men in the future.

 

[lifepsyop]

Ah yes, the magical, totemic words used by Creationists to make evidence POOF! away in a puff of smoke.

There is little to no real evidence for Common Descent. There are certain things that *seem* like they could be pointing to common ancestry, yet at the same time, if those things were completely different it wouldn't disprove common ancestry either. It is a pseudo-theory, designed to accommodate extreme variations and contradictions in data.

Meanwhile the basic idea of a fish being able to transform into a human over hundreds of millions of years via "ecological niches" remains just as stupid and superstitious as ever.

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

There is little to no real evidence for Common Descent. There are certain things that *seem* like they could be pointing to common ancestry, yet at the same time, if those things were completely different it wouldn't disprove common ancestry either. It is a pseudo-theory, designed to accommodate extreme variations and contradictions in data.

Meanwhile the basic idea of a fish being able to transform into a human over hundreds of millions of years via "ecological niches" remains just as stupid and superstitious as ever.

There is overwhelming evidence of common descent which has been presented to you several times in this thread. You are willfully choosing not to accept it. I have to ask, what would be considered sufficient evidence for common descent that would have to be presented to you?

Your final sentence is an argument from incredulity....again. You don't understand it, therefore you dismiss it as false. The theory is not superstitious nor is it stupid. It's a well substantiated theory that explains the natural world. So I ask you again: What would be sufficient evidence that would have to be presented to you. Also, what is a more plausible explanation of the natural world to you?

 

[Loudmouth]

Evolutionists love to show you their cherry-picked primate studies where Endogenous Retroviruses (ERVs), which are transposable elements claimed to be clear markers of common descent.

Category error. All cats are mammals, but not all mammals are cats. The same for ERV's and transposable elements. ERV's are transposable elements, but not all transposable elements are ERV's. This initial error hamstrings your entire argument from the start.

Here we show that genome-level analyses of 2,118 retrotransposon presence/absence markers converge at a largely consistent Neoaves phylogeny and detect a highly differential temporal prevalence of incomplete lineage sorting (ILS), i.e., the persistence of ancestral genetic variation as polymorphisms during speciation events. We found that ILS-derived incongruences are spread over the genome and involve 35% and 34% of the analyzed loci on the autosomes and the Z chromosome, respectively. Surprisingly, Neoaves diversification comprises three adaptive radiations, an initial near-K-Pg super-radiation with highly discordant phylogenetic signals from near-simultaneous speciation events..."

The first question that needs to be asked before getting to the rest of the post.

How many retrotransposons are there in these genomes? What percentage does this 2,118 represent? 1%? 0.1%? How much?

 

[Loudmouth]

There is little to no real evidence for Common Descent. There are certain things that *seem* like they could be pointing to common ancestry, yet at the same time, if those things were completely different it wouldn't disprove common ancestry either.

Defense attorney:

"To the juror's, I will make this argument. If the DNA, fingerprint, tire print, shoe print, and fiber evidence were completely different the forensic scientist would still try to link the forensic evidence to my client. Therefore, I ask the jurors to completely ignore all of the forensic science."

Do you think that argument will work?

 

[Loudmouth]

Evolution predicts both concordance and very specific kinds of discordance. Discordance found in close-lying branches of the tree is expected, because ILS is inevitable. Discordance found solely between widely separated terminal branches of the tree is not expected.

This can't be stressed enough. This is the concept that lifepsyop fails to comprehend.

To put this another way, the closer you get to the common ancestor (where the branches meet in a phylogeny) the more ILS you will see. As sfs mentions, this is inevitable because ILS is unavoidable. Finding ILS close to the branching point of two lineages is what we expect to see.

What we wouldn't expect to see is ILS well away from those nodes. For example, finding that 10% of the human genome was more like the armadillo genome than the chimp genome would clearly falsify evolution.

 

[Loudmouth]

What predictions, the only principle evolution can legitimately claim as the basis for any predictions is the one it was established upon, random genetic mutations.

That is exactly what the ERV evidence is based on.

 

[Loudmouth]

I'm not sure what your point is. Regardless of whether or not there is a consensus on a particular phylogeny, newly arising conflicting data will be treated accordingly, as 'evidence' of past evolutionary processes that caused the discordance.

As sfs has patiently pointed out on multiple occasions, the discordance occurs between near neighbors on the tree, exactly where evolution would produce them. What we don't see is 10% of the human genome that is more like DNA from sloths than it is DNA from great apes. The root of the mammal tree is made up of lineages that were as closely related as humans are to other great apes. We would expect to see the same amount of ILS that we see with humans and other great apes.

Your problem is that you keep treating the "close neighbors" (the common ancestral nodes and branching) as if they are real things, when they are not. They are imaginary data points.

You are the one arguing that the data is inconsistent with the evolutionary model. You don't get to ignore the model when it doesn't go your way.

ILS between closely related neighbors is what the evolutionary model predicts. That is exactly what the data shows. The two are consistent with one another.

That is ad-hoc. They are delineated into "New World Monkeys" in the first place in reaction to the data. If the data instead pointed to greater genomic confusion with those species currently regarded as "Old World Monkeys", then the distinction would be diminished accordingly.

Hypothetical scientists making conclusions about hypothetical data does not trump real scientists who have made real conclusions from real data.

What scientific theory could you not "overturn" with such an argument? Could I state that relativity is unfalsifiable because if the data were different scientists would still conclude that relativity is correct? What theory could I not use this same argument for?

Evolution is always settling like an amorphous fog around the data.

Evolution has consistently stated that ILS occurs between closely related lineages.

And you have yet to explain how Evolution predicts that precise ERV pattern. You just keep asserting it. Just like you avoided my challenge to explain how Evolution predicts the precise Primate ERV pattern in general.

First, let's start with the fact that there are over 200,000 ERVs in the human genome, and of those ERVs, less than 100 are not found at the same position in the chimp genome. How do you explain that without common descent?

Let's use PtERV insertions as our example, since it is a slightly different argument from the one you may be familiar with. As it turns out, there are hundreds of insertions in the chimp and gorilla genome from the PtERV retrovirus. However, there are no insertions from this virus in the human or orangutan genome.

What would you predict about these PtERV insertions? Will they be found at the same position in the chimp and gorilla genome, or at different positions? Why do you make that prediction.

As for your challenge, If ERV insertions are shared between OWM and NWM and not by any other species, then this could be resolved by positing the insertion occurred in the common ancestor of OWM and NWM though not completely fixating in the total population.

As sfs has already stated, it can't be accommodated in such a fashion.

The lineages leading to OWM and NWM inherit the ERV, but another segment of the population never inherits it to begin with. This uninfected branch eventually gives rise to higher order primates.

ERV's are passed on by inheritance, not infection.

The ERV element was never completely sorted in the populations giving rise to OWM, NWM, and higher order primates.

For how many millions of years in how many lineages?