Evolution & Viruses

[LouisBooth]

" What do you think the odds are that the pattern of insertions are the result of chance? "

If they are created, a rather large one. Just as an example, not to be analyzed to the detail.

If you have a car manufacturing plant and one person always paints a small e on it, thus all the cars crated will have a small e on it regardless of the type of car. If you say that humans all have the same patterns that speaks to me HIGHLY of a designer or we would all have different patterns because of independent evolment.

 

[Late_Cretaceous]

Louis, does that mean you have designer genes

 

[Jerry Smith]

If you have a car manufacturing plant and one person always paints a small e on it, thus all the cars crated will have a small e on it regardless of the type of car. If you say that humans all have the same patterns that speaks to me HIGHLY of a designer or we would all have different patterns because of independent evolment

So, by this logic, identical twins share a common designer. Other siblings had designers borrowing one another's plans. Cousins had designers borrowing one another's plans, but each also borrowing plans from a different source.

By this test, using the phylogenetic studies done on ERV's and pseudogenes (like the LGGLO), chimps and humans are cousins only in the sense that they had two different designers working from plans for Proconsul or something like it, complete with its pseudogenes and ERV's.

 

[RufusAtticus]

Not only that, but paternity tests are not reliable since the child could have just be designed to look like Bob is the father when he really isn't.

 

[Morat]

If they are created, a rather large one. Just as an example, not to be analyzed to the detail.

If you have a car manufacturing plant and one person always paints a small e on it, thus all the cars crated will have a small e on it regardless of the type of car. If you say that humans all have the same patterns that speaks to me HIGHLY of a designer or we would all have different patterns because of independent evolment.

  Did you forget the fact that all primates have this too? Did God make a mistake?

   Did God create man with retroviral insertions already in place, or did they happen the normal way (actually inserted by a retrovirus).

  If God created us with insertions in place, why? And why did he put them in all primates too? Why, in fact, did God stick retroviral insertions in all species in such a way as to mimic common descent?

 

 

[LouisBooth]

"Did God create man with retroviral insertions already in place, or did they happen the normal way (actually inserted by a retrovirus"

Umm...have you ever read genesis..? Adam and eve weren't babies.

This will be my last post in here seeing as none of you can seem to have a civil conversation and instead resort to childish remarks. Bye

 

[Morat]

  So? You haven't (and in fact refuse) to explain why God stuck retroviral insertions into all those species.

  The only reason I can think of is that God wanted it to look like Common Descent occured. He went out of his way to make sure any way of comparing species yields the same nested heirarchy.

   However, it's interesting to see you leave rather than address this. Out of curiosity, what childish remarks? I'd like to see what was said that upset you so horribly that you had to leave the thread, with so many important questions unanswered.

 

 

[LouisBooth]

PM and I'll talk there. I'm not posting in this forum.

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by Late_Cretaceous
Louis, does that mean you have designer genes

That was pretty good.

 

[Morat]

  Why PM? What's so wrong with this forum? Who, in fact, has flamed you? You're a mod. If someone violated the rules, you should be able to point it out and deal with it yourself.

  I prefer speaking in the open. That way, if I make a mistake of fact or logic, someone can point it out.

 

 

[LouisBooth]

okay, well don't expect me to answer then

"However, it's interesting to see you leave rather than address this. "

Oh, and by the way, that's a strawman I'm not leaving because I dont' want to address this.

 

[Morat]

  It's a rather simple question. You refuse to address or answer it in a public forum.

   Your only state reason is one related to being flamed (ie the tone of this thread). Were you an average poster, I might be inclinded to go with that.

   But you're a moderator. If the tone of this thread has degenerated to the point of impeding discussion, you would have made a comment (as a moderator) to that effect.

   It's not like it's outside of your power to deal with such things, and if anything is in your mandate.

   I am very curious to know your reasoning for finding nested heirarchies of retroviruses. Specifically a heirarchy that not only matches the one generated by the fossil record, but is the only sort of order and relationship allowable by common descent.

  As retroviral insertions are not part of the "design" of a species, but genetic material added later, I want to know how "Common Design" explains both their appearance, and the shared patterns of them.

    This question was, in fact, the main topic of this thread. One that was not answered by anyone during the thread. I had hoped you would, as it's an answer I am most curious about.

 

 

[LouisBooth]

"you would have made a comment (as a moderator) to that effect."

YOu can PM and I will explain why I did not.

 

[Morat]

  Personally, I don't care why you did or didn't do a mod thing, or really anything to do with your mod duties. I just want an answer to the question this thread was based on.

  There ain't nobody but us chickens here now, and the question I want is manifestly on topic. *shrug*. However, since I'm not expecting you to hop back in the thread now against your stated wishes, feel free to let the sucker die. I'll start another thread on the topic soon enough...It's a good question, and I want an answer.