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.
Appearance of differences just lead you to name fossils different species - even if you understand by observation it is breed mating with breed.
Appearances of similarity cause you to proclaim species are related.
So virus and it's code just popped into existence? ERV speaks just how useless evolution is. If natural selection can't select out virus then it proves it's complete useless.
Remember that evolutionist not only believes that they insert into the genome but those who pass on the ERV out lived those who didn't have the ERV which is a slap in the face to natural selection which can't even select against all those ERV. Thus natural selection is completely useless. These ERV are fixed in the population.We don't need to know the ultimate origin of retroviruses in order to understand how they insert into a genome.
We can directly observe retroviruses producing ERV's in the koala population as we speak.
http://www.genomebiology.com/2006/7/11/241
We can also observe retroviruses producing very real ERV's in the lab.
Also, you don't get functional retroviruses out of ERV's until you remove all of the mutations. This is the opposite of what we should expect to see if ERV's are producing retroviruses. Your claims make no sense if you actually understand the evidence and genetics.
Remember that evolutionist not only believes that they insert into the genome . . .
but those who pass on the ERV out lived those who didn't have the ERV which is a slap in the face to natural selection which can even select against all those ERV.
No one here is claiming that retroviruses do not bring foreign genome across the species line except evolutionists, even when the DNA studies show the exact opposite.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960982211001011
And it common knowledge that most viruses can't reproduce so where did they get they genetic code but the livng cell the first place.WE OBSERVE THAT THEY INSERT INTO THE GENOME!!!!!
For Pete's sake, this is common knowledge.
Again this proves just how useless natural selection is. So all evolutionist have left is dumb luck.Many are going to be neutral which means that they have a 1/n chance of reaching fixation where n is the population size.
And it common knowledge that most viruses can't reproduce so where did they get they genetic code but the livng cell the first place.
Again this proves just how useless natural selection is. So all evolutionist have left is dumb luck.
So scientist doesn't actual know the origins....Did scientists have to figure out the ultimate origin of viruses before they could conclude that HIV causes AIDS? Did they have to do the same for Polio? Smallpox?
... so they automatically assumed "Evolution did it".We can determine proximal causes without needing to know ultimate origins. We don't need to know where the first viruses came from in order to conclude that genomes have the remnants of retroviral insertion.
Neutral drift and any drift is still very much random. It's still just dumb luck.So now you also try to ignore neutral drift?
I am not the one claiming that ID would necessarily produce a nested hierarchy. That would be Oncedeceived.
Are you also incapable of explain how a nested hierarchy is a necessary outcome of ID/creationism? We see mammal-like reptiles, so why not mammal-like birds?
Assertions are not facts. You have as of yet not given any valid reason that ID would not produce a nested hierarchy.
So scientist doesn't actual know the origins....
... so they automatcially assumed "Evolution did it".
Neutral drift and any drift is still very much random.
And is exactly why I explained why we would expect nested hierarchies, because it is the expected outcome when things mate.
Oh, I am quite capable of it as the picture shows. How about you showing me how people breeding would not produce a nested hierarchy,
and they have produces virus from ERV in the lab.No, we don't know the ultimate origin of viruses since they really don't leave a fossil record. What we do know is that retroviruses produced ERV's. That is all we need to know in order to use ERV's as evidence for common ancestry between humans and other primates.
No, they don't. When they see an ERV they conclude that a retrovirus did it because WE FREAKING WATCH RETROVIRUSES PRODUCE ERV'S IN THE LAB.
How much simpler can this get?
I agree dumb luck is a sorry explanation and since you prove how useless natural selection is that's all evolutionist have.Yep, and it has little to do with the adaptation or change in the morphology of species.
So now you also try to ignore neutral drift?
and they have produces virus from ERV in the lab.
I agree dumb luck is a sorry explanation and since you prove how useless natural selection is that's all evolutionist have.
There is nothing to explain since everything in connected to an unknown mythological creature. All we have in evolutionist assumptions.Are these breeds?
How do you explain that nested hierarchy? How do you explain the nested hierarchy of amniotes?
How could any rational person expect otherwise??????
What does dieing have to do with evolution except genes fon't get passed on and the gene population becomes smaller?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_drift
"is the change in the frequency of a gene variant (allele) in a population due to random sampling of organisms. The alleles in the offspring are a sample of those in the parents, and chance has a role in determining whether a given individual survives and reproduces. A population's allele frequency is the fraction of the copies of one gene that share a particular form. Genetic drift may cause gene variants to disappear completely and thereby reduce genetic variation."
Never has it been observed to increase variation.
There is nothing to explain since everything in connected to an unknown mythological creature. All we have in evolutionist assumptions.
And what did they do make a ERV cause by a virus to become fixed in the population? Remember evolution doesn't just claim that viruses infect a creature that that creature offspring become select by natural selection and ERV becomes fix in the population.What did they have to do in order to get retroviruses from ERV's? They had to make the DNA sequence in the lab based on a predicted consensus sequence. They had to take out all of the mutations in the ERV's to get it back to what it was like when it first inserted.
I doubt the almighty power of natural selection evolutionist loves to believe.So you doubt that natural selection occurs? Really?
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?