Evolution/Creation on Trial

[Loudmouth]

Appearance of differences just lead you to name fossils different species - even if you understand by observation it is breed mating with breed.

Please show that H. sapiens and H. erectus mated. Please show that any living species of ape mated with australopithecines. Until you do, all you have are baseless assertions.

Appearances of similarity cause you to proclaim species are related.

False. It is the pattern of shared and derived features in an objective phylogeny, as well as a matching phylogeny based on DNA sequence, that evidences relatedness.

 

[Loudmouth]

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.

We don't need to know the ultimate origin of retroviruses in order to understand how they insert into a genome.

 

[Smidlee]

We don't need to know the ultimate origin of retroviruses in order to understand how they insert into a genome.

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.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

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.

"The genomes of all higher organisms are littered with the remnants of past retroviral infections"

No one here is claiming retroviruses did not infect the host, nor that they pass by VGT once the host has been infected. 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

"But all agree that the exchange of genetic information across species lines — which is how we will define LGT in this primer — is far more pervasive and more radical in its consequences than we could have guessed just a decade ago."

Perhaps some on here may not be up on their science and are at a lack for a defense, but some of us are quite aware of the actual science - as you should be. It seems to be you that is arguing that despite the fact that all retroviruses are foreign to the host - are known to bring foreign genomes from other species, that it means nothing. I would say it "is far more pervasive and more radical in its consequences" than you will ever willingly admit to, because you are aware of the consequences of admitting such. The scientists have no problem admitting to it, just the layman supporters.

 

[Loudmouth]

Remember that evolutionist not only believes that they insert into the genome . . .

WE OBSERVE THAT THEY INSERT INTO THE GENOME!!!!!

For Pete's sake, this is common knowledge.

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.

Many are going to be neutral which means that they have a 1/n chance of reaching fixation where n is the population size.

 

[Loudmouth]

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

Where does that study show retroviruses taking host DNA from one species and transferring it to another? Where does that reference EVEN MENTION RETROVIRUSES??????

 

[Smidlee]

WE OBSERVE THAT THEY INSERT INTO THE GENOME!!!!!

For Pete's sake, this is common knowledge.

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.

Also who's Pete?

Many are going to be neutral which means that they have a 1/n chance of reaching fixation where n is the population size.

Again this proves just how useless natural selection is. So all evolutionist have left is dumb luck.

 

[Loudmouth]

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.

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?

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.

Again this proves just how useless natural selection is. So all evolutionist have left is dumb luck.

So now you also try to ignore neutral drift?

 

[Smidlee]

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 scientist doesn't actual know the origins....

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.

... so they automatically assumed "Evolution did it".

So now you also try to ignore neutral drift?

Neutral drift and any drift is still very much random. It's still just dumb luck.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

I am not the one claiming that ID would necessarily produce a nested hierarchy. That would be Oncedeceived.

And is exactly why I explained why we would expect nested hierarchies, because it is the expected outcome when things mate. The only difference is that in real life we know it happens from the recombination of genes and new dominant and recessive traits - and evolution by mutation had nothing to do with it, except once in awhile deform babies or cause them to be mentally challenged.

How could any rational person expect otherwise??????

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?

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, or are you just going to keep prattling about nothing? What, you think Adam and Eve produced Cain and Able by evolution and didn't mate?

Assertions are not facts. You have as of yet not given any valid reason that ID would not produce a nested hierarchy.

I support Once 100% in his assertion.

 

[Loudmouth]

So scientist doesn't actual know the origins....

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.

... so they automatcially assumed "Evolution did it".

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?

Neutral drift and any drift is still very much random.

Yep, and it has little to do with the adaptation or change in the morphology of species.

 

[Loudmouth]

And is exactly why I explained why we would expect nested hierarchies, because it is the expected outcome when things mate.

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??????

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,

In ID/creationism, why would thousands of mammal species, including humans, form a nested hierarchy. Why would hundreds of thousands of vertebrate species form a nested hierarchy?

 

[Smidlee]

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?

and they have produces virus from ERV in the lab.

Yep, and it has little to do with the adaptation or change in the morphology of species.

I agree dumb luck is a sorry explanation and since you prove how useless natural selection is that's all evolutionist have.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

So now you also try to ignore neutral drift?

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.

 

[Loudmouth]

and they have produces virus from ERV in the lab.

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 agree dumb luck is a sorry explanation and since you prove how useless natural selection is that's all evolutionist have.

So you doubt that natural selection occurs? Really?

 

[Smidlee]

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??????

There is nothing to explain since everything in connected to an unknown mythological creature. All we have in evolutionist assumptions.

 

[Loudmouth]

What does dieing have to do with evolution except genes fon't get passed on and the gene population becomes smaller?

All DNA in a modern population was passed on by a previous generation. You do know how genetics works, don't you?

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.

Never? Where did you get that info? Neutral drift is responsible for the bulk of DNA variation in most eukaryotic species.

 

[Loudmouth]

There is nothing to explain since everything in connected to an unknown mythological creature. All we have in evolutionist assumptions.

Those species fall into objective phylogenies. How do you explain that with ID/creationism?

 

[bhsmte]

There is nothing to explain since everything in connected to an unknown mythological creature. All we have in evolutionist assumptions.

Maybe you were not born a scientist after all.

 

[Smidlee]

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.

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.

So you doubt that natural selection occurs? Really?

I doubt the almighty power of natural selection evolutionist loves to believe.