ERVs place common descent beyond any reasonable doubt.

[The Barbarian]

Any scientific conclusion based on human reasoning is always doubtful. That's why common descent is called a theory and not a fact. A scientific theory is always held tentatively precisely because there is always reasonable doubt. If there was no reasonable doubt it would be considered a fact and not a mere theory.

People who say "mere theory" do not understand what the word means. In common usage, it has come to mean something like "maybe" or "our best guess." In fact, that is what "hypothesis" means. A theory is an idea that has been confirmed often enough that it is considered unreasonable to deny it. Theories are stronger than scientific laws, because while laws predict things, theories predict and explain things.

Hence, we have Kepler's Laws, which predict planetary motion, but Newton's theory of gravitation, which explains why they move that way. And theories, by way of explanation, bring up new questions that science can pursue.

And my apologies for going along with the hijacking of this thread. It would be great if some creationist would address the points Barry made and give us their responses to those facts.

 

[Barry Desborough]

I was answering someone elses question. The world does not revolve around you.

The thread should revolve around the OP.

 

[joshua 1 9]

How many doctor deaths are caused by malpractice or accidents, or mistakes that have nothing to do with science.

The leading cause of death is diet or food related. Doctors know this but it is not there job to educate people to eat right, exercise and control their stress. Doctors can only hope to keep people alive long enough to get them into a rehabilitation program where they can learn what they need to live out a full life. Science is able to add years to our life though a healthy lifestyle. So the blame must be on the government and big business.

Some people say this is the best of times and the worst of times. Food is more healthy today then it has ever been. Also food is more unhealthy now then it has ever been. To often people choose unhealthy over what is healthy for them.

Retroviruses are abundant in the genomes of jawed vertebrates. So there is a strong relationship between carnivores and retroviruses. This is strong evidence for Creationism more so then evolutionary theorys.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21589882

 

[joshua 1 9]

The thread should revolve around the OP.

Then address the issue of why retrovirus seem to be abundant in carnivores and jawed mammals. Evolutionary theory would require them to be more evenly distributed throughout all the various species. You are not presenting evidence for evolution you are presenting evidence that creation has been tampered with.

 

[The Barbarian]

Then address the issue of why retrovirus seem to be abundant in carnivores and jawed mammals. Evolutionary theory would require them to be more evenly distributed throughout all the various species.

Data, with a checkable source?

 

[Barry Desborough]

Then address the issue of why retrovirus seem to be abundant in carnivores and jawed mammals. Evolutionary theory would require them to be more evenly distributed throughout all the various species. You are not presenting evidence for evolution you are presenting evidence that creation has been tampered with.

Endogenous retroviruses are abundant in carnivores and jawed mammals because of the endogenization of retroviral proviruses. Why do you think that ERVs in corresponding DNA loci in different species is due to "tampering"?

 

[loveofourlord]

The leading cause of death is diet or food related. Doctors know this but it is not there job to educate people to eat right, exercise and control their stress. Doctors can only hope to keep people alive long enough to get them into a rehabilitation program where they can learn what they need to live out a full life. Science is able to add years to our life though a healthy lifestyle. So the blame must be on the government and big business.

Some people say this is the best of times and the worst of times. Food is more healthy today then it has ever been. Also food is more unhealthy now then it has ever been. To often people choose unhealthy over what is healthy for them.

Retroviruses are abundant in the genomes of jawed vertebrates. So there is a strong relationship between carnivores and retroviruses. This is strong evidence for Creationism more so then evolutionary theorys.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21589882

Actually the first part is a long known myth, of course doctors talk about nutrition and excercise, it's one of the best things they can do as you said as it's a huge cause of many problems.

And the problem with healthy food is more to do with economic class then anything else, good food is expensive and most people say in the US can't afford it, but they can easily get food at mcdonalds or buy a bulk bag of chicken mcnuggets, but things like vegetables are both expensive, and low carlories compared to other things. It's the strange dicthomy that the healthiest and best for you foods are the hardest to get.

ummm I don't get your idea that carnivore retroviruses and creationism, they exist, and end up in the genome in the SAME places, this isn't contraversial.

 

[joshua 1 9]

Data, with a checkable source?

The point is that evolution is said to go back billions of years. Yet Endogenous retrovirus showed up millions of years ago. Mostly in mammals and other jawed vertebrates. This is evidence that creation is in a fallen condition and in need of redemption and restoration. It was never God's plan for creation to devour itself and once restored the species will not harm and try to devour themselves they way you see now. The study of creation verifies the word of God.

Isa 65 25 New Heavens and Earth
…24"It will also come to pass that before they call, I will answer; and while they are still speaking, I will hear. 25"The wolf and the lamb will graze together, and the lion will eat straw like the ox; and dust will be the serpent's food. They will do no evil or harm in all My holy mountain," says the LORD.

 

[Barry Desborough]

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21589882

From the abstract,

In conclusion, this ERV analysis of the first carnivorous species supports the notion that different mammals interact distinctively with endogenous retroviruses and suggests that retroviral lateral transmissions between dog and human may have occurred.

If you think that this is a problem for common ancestry, then you have missed the point, or Morton's Demon has prevented you from seeing the point. ERVs that are found in dogs and humans are not items in favour of common ancestry between the two species unless they are found in common DNA loci in both species. These are not. Therefore, they are evidence of lateral transmission as opposed to horizontal transmission.

 

[Barry Desborough]

The point is that evolution is said to go back billions of years. Yet Endogenous retrovirus showed up millions of years ago. Mostly in mammals and other jawed vertebrates. This is evidence that creation is in a fallen condition and in need of redemption and restoration.

It is evidence that ERVs are present in mammals and jawed vertebrates. Do you have any data on ERV distribution in other types of organisms?

 

[joshua 1 9]

Endogenous retroviruses are abundant in carnivores and jawed mammals because of the endogenization of retroviral proviruses. Why do you think that ERVs in corresponding DNA loci in different species is due to "tampering"?

Yes that is one theory to explain why creation is in a fallen condition is because of tampering by the fallen angels. No one considers a virus to be a good thing. Evolution try very hard to find something good about them and fail to achieve their objective for the most part. They simply show that creation is in a fallen condition and in need of redemption and restoration. It's broken and needs to be fixed.

 

[Barry Desborough]

Yes that is one theory to explain why creation is in a fallen condition is because of tampering by the fallen angels.

Or, as the title of the thread has it, "ERVs place common descent beyond any reasonable doubt."

 

[loveofourlord]

The leading cause of death is diet or food related. Doctors know this but it is not there job to educate people to eat right, exercise and control their stress. Doctors can only hope to keep people alive long enough to get them into a rehabilitation program where they can learn what they need to live out a full life. Science is able to add years to our life though a healthy lifestyle. So the blame must be on the government and big business.

Some people say this is the best of times and the worst of times. Food is more healthy today then it has ever been. Also food is more unhealthy now then it has ever been. To often people choose unhealthy over what is healthy for them.

Retroviruses are abundant in the genomes of jawed vertebrates. So there is a strong relationship between carnivores and retroviruses. This is strong evidence for Creationism more so then evolutionary theorys.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21589882

Ummm...this is a SINGLE species whose genome was looked at, can you show you this means that carnivores are more likly to have ERV's or any other nonsense?

And they didn't first appear in hosts millions of years ago they been around for ages, but ERV's over a certain age degrade as there is no selective pressure to keep them whole so over a certain age it's hard to reconize them as ERV's, why you can use ERV's to link to other apes, but you might have a hard time comparing to monkey's or other mamals, the longer the split between two species the harder common ERV's be to reconize, you might tell something was there but it disapears over time.

 

[joshua 1 9]

Or, as the title of the thread has it, "ERVs place common descent beyond any reasonable doubt."

There is a reasonable doubt because ERVs are very recent in the evolutionary timeline. I am not trying to present an argument against common descent. I am just saying that ERVs are not enough and it is going to take additional evidence which you very well may be able to produce. They make help you to build your case but you need more then just that to establish it. But if you want to put all your eggs in one basket go ahead, who am I to stop you.

 

[joshua 1 9]

Ummm...this is a SINGLE species whose genome was looked at, can you show you this means that carnivores are more likly to have ERV's or any other nonsense?

And they didn't first appear in hosts millions of years ago they been around for ages, but ERV's over a certain age degrade as there is no selective pressure to keep them whole so over a certain age it's hard to reconize them as ERV's, why you can use ERV's to link to other apes, but you might have a hard time comparing to monkey's or other mamals, the longer the split between two species the harder common ERV's be to recognize, you might tell something was there but it disappears over time.

I am not interested in the last 300 million years. I want to see an example of ervs before the dinosaurs showed up in Pangaea and before the super continent began to break up and Continental drift began.

 

[Barry Desborough]

There is a reasonable doubt because ERVs are very recent in the evolutionary timeline. I am not trying to present an argument against common descent. I am just saying that ERVs are not enough and it is going to take additional evidence which you very well may be able to produce. They make help you to build your case but you need more then just that to establish it. But if you want to put all your eggs in one basket go ahead, who am I to stop you.

ERVs establish, beyond any reasonable doubt that, among other species, chimps and humans are related by common ancestry. That is sufficient to falsify the creationist interpretation of scripture, which in turn removes any rationale for rejecting the rest of science.

 

[joshua 1 9]

ERVs establish, beyond any reasonable doubt that, among other species, chimps and humans are related by common ancestry. That is sufficient to falsify the creationist interpretation of scripture, which in turn removes any rationale for rejecting the rest of science.

You can only falsify man's traditions by establishing your own traditions. You can not falsify the Bible one iota. There has been a lot of new information come along that allows us to better understand the Bible. Even science constantly has to change their beliefs as new information becomes available. One is the same as the other in this regard. We are told to "beware of leaven of pharisees". Just like we are told "Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ." So we always need to be careful with what we do and do not accept.

 

[The Cadet]

Doctors are considered to be the third leading cause of death.

Only by people who don't understand medicine and are easily fooled by lousy statistics.

 

[whois]

ERVs establish, beyond any reasonable doubt that, among other species, chimps and humans are related by common ancestry. That is sufficient to falsify the creationist interpretation of scripture, which in turn removes any rationale for rejecting the rest of science.

given the fact that all life shares DNA, i'm more than confident you can find similarities between any 2 lifeforms you wish to compare.
you could no doubt "prove" humans were direct descendents of bananas if you looked at it in the right way.

in the case of humans/ chimps, the best evidence would be using the procedures to prove other types of descent.
i also believe that the DNA hybrid analysis for chimp/ human descent is faulty.

 

[whois]

1. The only explanation that makes any sense is that ERVs are the result of retroviral insertions into germ-line DNA - egg cells or sperm cells, followed by reproduction and consequent cell division. Cell division will duplicate the ERVs in the same positions in the DNA of every cell. Separate, parallel infection would not infect every cell, and the ERVs would end up in different locations, comparing one infected cell with another.

since when does "making sense" equate with "evidence"?
the RNA hypothesis for abiogenesis makes all the sense in the world.
unfortunately it isn't even close to being evidence.