The fact that around 5-8 % of the human genome is the result of germline infections is clear, according to the experts, based on the evidence. The fact that you, as a non-expert, dispute that, says more about your argument than the ERVs themselves.
Yet they have never directly observed or demonstrated that a viral infection of the human germline is possible, let alone a definitive answer. The closest they have ever came is the Phoenix virus.
Except that the ERVs clearly show common descent.
ERVs are broken reading frames, nothing more. You do know what a reading frame is right?
OK, so it sounds like you are saying there are many dates. So you agree that you disagree with your own statement about "a single massive invasion around 20 million years ago"?
There's no one else listening, I'm not impressed and your just using another ad hominem fallacy to fill in where your understanding stops, which invariably is early and often.
Mark, the reasons those details are consistent with common descent have been explained to you many times, by experts who have graciously taken the time to do that explaining. Are you saying that you still don't understand those explanations?
Experts who lie almost constantly. Even one of the staffers from the Chimpanzee genome project wouldn't honestly admit the no more then 96% of the respective genomes were the same. They can't admit it because the mutations on that level would be at lethal levels, it's a formula for extinction and they know it.
Claims that Mark has refused to support, which we are waiting for him to support or retract:
Now Papias faces the now empty auditorium, beating his straw victim mercilessly, nothing from the theater but a dull echo. Sad, very sad indeed.
1. Mark claimed ERVs were from a single massive germline invasion 20 million years ago, then switched to saying it was "the primary" invasion, after the actual case of many infections ranging from 3 to 50 million years ago was shown. (Posts #104 &107)[/COLOR]
That's what you have been rambling on about
The ERVs as genetic markers are based on commonality. You don't even know what a homology argument is, that's the problem, you never understood the basics.
and later clarified that to be "20 million years ago".
That's an estimate based on where the node is in the Darwinian tree of life. You would understand that if you had bothered to read any of the source material but you don't need it, as long as your rejecting Creation that's all you need to be enlightened and superior. Some of the indels would have had to be over a million base pairs in length, 70% of the protein coding genes show at least one substitution per gene per lineage. The oldest and most abundant family of ERVs is present in Chimpanzees and other apes and monkeys but not humans. You are oblivious to the fact that ERVs are all but extinct in the human genome and that's assuming they were actually viral infections in the first place.
Thus, if macroevolution is going to occur, it must begin in early development. Yet it is precisely here, in early development, that organisms are least tolerant of mutations. Furthermore, the adult homologies shared by these vertebrates commence at remarkably different points (e.g., cleavage patterns). How then did these different starting points evolve from a common ancestor?
Homology
The ERVs are like a man who lost his keys in the dark but decides to look under the street light for them. When asked why he just explains that the light is better. Notice, the keys could not have possibly been there and in order for humans to have evolved from apes it required the accelerated evolution of brain related genes. Something that never happens without deleterious if not lethal effects.
So, do you retract that or not? A better set of dates are those shown by the experts, such as those I've given before.
You don't even know the argument but your smarter then creationists because you share the naturalistic assumptions of Darwinians. You don't know why the date is important, you have no source material and most telling of all, you don't even know it's a homology argument.
The reason Darwinians want you obsessed with ERVs is because they are meaningless. It diverts attention form the protein coding genes, regulatory genes and highly conserved genes related to the brain. So you can't lose, you lose the point but the debate was never over anything important.
Yet another clear indication you have nothing but fallacious rhetoric.
2. Mark claimed that "evolutionists" "consider themselves experts because they insult creationists. " in post #106. Still waiting for support for that.
All TEs have to do is be as scathing as possible toward any literal or creationist view and they are automatically experts. I never had one try to make a scientific argument that had a clue what the evidence was, let alone why it's important. You don't have to read anything, study anything, you don't even have to make reasonable arguments. All you do is insult creationists, with an air of superiority and the secular world applauds. Just one problem, the show is over, there is no one left to perform for.
So now are you claiming that I claim to be an expert because I attack you? First, that's absurd because I've explicitly stated to you that I'm not an expert, and certainly have never gave any reason whatsoever for being an expert (since I'm not).
That's an understatement, you haven't a clue but you feel totally justified in making condescending remarks without the slightest regard for the large body of scientific work you pretend to know. Those who don't know have no idea how much they don't understand so they feel justified in correcting anyone who contradicts their opinions.
Still waiting for a retraction.......
Still waiting for the counter argument.
3. Sounds like another claim. So you claim I'm using an ad hominem. Please show where I said that your argument was wrong because you personnally are a bad person, or again, retract this claim as well.
When are you going to learn, I don't jump through hoops for you. I certainly won't chase you pedantic, fallacious rhetoric in circles.
4. Earlier in this thread you claimed that creationism was growing, and ignored that atheistic evolution was growing. Just a few days ago, you repeated that on another thread, after being shown the most recent Gallup poll here (which shows the opposite of your claim). Do you care to retract those claims too now, based on the evidence from Gallup, or not?
Since Darwinians backed off the full court press I've seen it statistically and in my acquaintances with other Christians who are interested in the subject matter. The discussion has become far less contentious so evangelicals have taken another interest, just finished a journal article that warns, Beware of Philosophy...they are talking about Darwinism and it's been a while since I seen it done so openly.
I don't take the subject matter lightly but you do. When's the last time you researched anything? Do you read the scientific literature or go straight for the Talk Origins arguments. If you look it up the ERV argument they use says ERVs make up 1% of the human genome and they will never update it.
Hang in there, this whole creation vs. evolution thing is almost run it's course. The Creationists have ministries thriving in the wake of the controversy and the Ivory tower Ivy League Darwinians believe they are unassailable. The only losers are those who were being used, like the TEs. You know what you get from the whole thing? Absolutely nothing, but that's what you get for playing politics with religion.
On the bright side you managed to get through an entire post without a single flame, I'm proud of you. I'll tell you what, since you've bent over backwards to be civil I'm going to tell you the single strongest argument I've seen for Darwinian evolution. It's the Chromosome 2 fusion and I have absolutely no explanation for what that TTTAAAGGG sequence is doing there. It almost had me convinced but after the Chimpanzee Genome paper that wasn't worth pursuing. You might want to check into it, that's the whole problem with evolutionists, they steer others habitually from the real evidence and after a while start chasing their own diversions. Why don't you just try to find out how a molecular clock would relate to ERVs, then we might be able to have an actual discussion.
Have a nice day
Mark
