Fine Tuning

[Nihilist Virus]

Well if I don't then the erv is not as doubt-proof as you would to imagine.

The fact that you don't know something is not an indictment of anyone or anything except you.

OK, lets take the Koala bear. The northern Koala bear population has erv. The southern Koala bear does not. If erv is the perfect device to peg the Koala bear common ancestor, then this says that the exact same Koala bear comes from 2 different common ancestors, 1 with erv, and 1 without erv. How can that be? 2 common ancetors giving rise to the same Koala bear. Not very strong evidence.

You're going back on my ignore list for asking this because I already explained to you that the existence of one ERV that is not shared by all members of a population simply means that the ERV was recently acquired. I'll finish responding to your posts only to establish a public record.

Yes, from my human ancestor, not from a Lemur 1 million years ago.

This is a scientifically illiterate statement.

By recent do you mean 50 years ago? Or like the Koala bears, they figure the erv in the northern population was inserted 5,000,000 years ago. So why does the southern population not have a erv?

You are now changing your story. You were asked below by TagliatelliMonster for your source on this. Your source (found here in case you go back and edit) estimates that the infection is around 100 years old.

Also, I said that ERVs are used as signatures. This ERV is an active infection, and thus will continue to evolve against the selective pressures of the koala immune system. For the purposes of establishing a genetic signature, you need something that remains more or less static, such as a dormant virus.

Too bad. You must have just come accross erv recently, otherwise you would have used your doubt-proof theory long ago. Erv is interesting, but not full-proof.

You forget that this thread is about fine tuning, not evolution. Or do you not know the difference between the idea that certain rules are intelligently designed versus the idea that certain creatures are intelligently designed to survive the inhospitable nature of said rules?

Theists say that God has used erv to increase divergency in the species populations.

Natural selection diverges species. ERVs are a signature in the code that is not expressed in the organism. Your statement is scientifically illiterate.

It's like a programmer has something like this:

Line of code
Line of code
Line of code
Line of code
[Note to self/other programmers]
Line of code
Line of code
Line of code
Line of code

And it has worked. For it to be other than that the only word you can use for erv theory is the word 'exact'. Sorry you can't use that word to describe erv placement all the time. You must use 'similar', 'many times', and you have to use 'some do', 'some don't' have erv, which ruins your theory.

I apologize, but our gaps in scientific knowledge make conversation between us impossible.

If you say that erv lack any kind of awareness and that it is statistically impossible for it to be there by chance, you realize what door you are opening?

Your illiteracy extends to the art of argumentation as well. Granting me this only serves to prove my point.

Since the nested inclusion is not always exact,

Citation required.

then the door swings open for God to use erv to do His work.

ERVs don't do anything. What work are you talking about? Are you referring to your article? Well what exactly are those ERVs doing aside from killing koalas? Is that God's work?

His work is to create a mechanism to increase the rate of diversion within a species. We say the erv is the tool that God chose to do it.

ERVs are not expressed in an organism. Hence they do not cause diversity. The ERV you cite is a rare breed of retrovirus because usually they are dormant and that is why they are inherited. If they aren't dormant then they emerge from the gamete before it is used in procreation. Did you even read the top comment on the article you cited?

"If you want to see a génome invasion by a retrovirus in a lab species you can have a look at gypsy in drosophila melanogaster.....
And by the way Korv is not yet a real endogenous retrovirus because to achieve this you have to be fix in the population and maybe this one is to pathogène to be..."

Since you can't use this information to give me any details as to my common ancestor with the apes, who we are closely related to, I figure you can't tell me anything about other more complex relationships. So your erv theory does not prove anything. So go with God and why He created erv.

I already explained that if there is one ERV that is not common to a population then it is newly acquired. Your own source attests to this. You need to find multiple discontinuities in the ERV mapping, not just one or two. You are so scientifically illiterate that you need to invest dozens of hours of research just to catch up with the casual layman like me. This is a very sad conversation.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

A retrovirus is invading the Koala genome

That is an article about an ERV that is being spread in the genome as we speak.
It is not an ancient infection that breaks nested hierarchy in any way.

You should read the articles you are linking attentively.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

It is exactly the kind of question you should be able to answer, having been given the level of 'no doubt' information you think erv answers.

And I did answer it. In fact, the very article you linked to concerning the ERV in koala's, confirms my answer: it is a recent infection that has not yet achieved fixation in the entire population.

Your right, genetics does work. But try to reconstruct it from the beginning and you have nothing.

The opposite is true.
By comparing genomes, we are perfectly capable of determining what the tree of life looks like and thus how species are related to one another.

It has proven to be so complex, even a single celled animal is beyond science and religion to answer important questions.

Science is quite capable of explaining how cells work.
Religion? Not so much. It doesn't even address the topic.

Look at erv in the Koala bear population. How does half the population have them and half does not?

As the very article you linked to explains, this is a recent infection which is still in the process of invading the genome. If one Koala gets infected, then that infection doesn't magically pop-up in every other member of the population. It takes time. Genes spread through reproduction. It takes quite a few generations to accomplish fixation.

If the Koala really did have a common ancestor that had erv, all of the population of Koala would have the same erv in exactly the same placement in the genome.

Only if it concerned an ancient infection that achieved fixation, which is not what this is. As the article you linked to clearly stated. In fact, it mentions an estimate of "patient 0" being as young as a mere 100 years ago.

Since this is not the case, Koala did not have a common ancestor. I suspect further research into all animals wil turn up the same kinds of results.

Read the article you linked to. It doesn't state what you think it does.
This is why your conclusion is demonstrable nonsense.

 

[Peter1000]

And I did answer it. In fact, the very article you linked to concerning the ERV in koala's, confirms my answer: it is a recent infection that has not yet achieved fixation in the entire population.



The opposite is true.
By comparing genomes, we are perfectly capable of determining what the tree of life looks like and thus how species are related to one another.



Science is quite capable of explaining how cells work.
Religion? Not so much. It doesn't even address the topic.



As the very article you linked to explains, this is a recent infection which is still in the process of invading the genome. If one Koala gets infected, then that infection doesn't magically pop-up in every other member of the population. It takes time. Genes spread through reproduction. It takes quite a few generations to accomplish fixation.




Only if it concerned an ancient infection that achieved fixation, which is not what this is. As the article you linked to clearly stated. In fact, it mentions an estimate of "patient 0" being as young as a mere 100 years ago.



Read the article you linked to. It doesn't state what you think it does.
This is why your conclusion is demonstrable nonsense.

If Koala bears have existed for 50,000 years, but the erv is just now invading their population, how can you use the erv to identify their common ancestors in the past?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

If Koala bears have existed for 50,000 years, but the erv is just now invading their population, how can you use the erv to identify their common ancestors in the past?

"the erv"??

No... try "a erv".
ERV's that have achieved fixation have become part of the genome like any other sequence is part of it. They are inherited by off spring.

So ancient ERV's will be present in all descendent sub-species.

This is why we share thousands of ERV's with chimps. Those are all ancient infections from a common ancestral population that have been past down through the generations, which is why they are now present in BOTH chimps and humans.

You know, with posts such as this one, you are kind of exposing how ignorant you are on this subject........

 

[Peter1000]

View attachment 191200

"the erv"??

No... try "a erv".
ERV's that have achieved fixation have become part of the genome like any other sequence is part of it. They are inherited by off spring.

So ancient ERV's will be present in all descendent sub-species.

This is why we share thousands of ERV's with chimps. Those are all ancient infections from a common ancestral population that have been past down through the generations, which is why they are now present in BOTH chimps and humans.

You know, with posts such as this one, you are kind of exposing how ignorant you are on this subject........

Please, please help me with my ignorance. Can science really identify our common ancestor, with an ironclad guarantee, using erv's?

If you say yes to this question, then tell me who the common ancestor is to the humans and the chimps?

If you can't answer that question, then take any 2 species in the Animal Kingdom and tell me their common ancestor based on the iron-clad identifier erv's?

If you cannot answer that question, then admit that the now present erv's are not the iron-clad identifiers that you have portrayed.

I know that I am ignorant, but since this discussion of erv's has been going, you have been unable to identify any common ancestor for anything, anywhere, vertabrate, or non-vertibrate, in any of the 5 Kingdoms, (plants, fungi, animal, protoctista or bacteria). So your argument is not being backed up by anthing solid. Again, it looks like a desparate theory and a desparate hope for a godless solution.

If I am wrong, prove me wrong. Show me one common ancestor for anything based on an iron-clad erv.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Please, please help me with my ignorance. Can science really identify our common ancestor, with an ironclad guarantee, using erv's?

Determining common ancestry on the one hand and identifying the comon ancestor, are two seperate things.

Just like we are perfectly able to determine that you and your sister are siblings, and thus that you share the same parents, without knowing who your actual parents were.

Suppose they died in a fire and all trace of them, including DNA, was lost in the pages of history.

That wouldn't stop us from determining that you and another person, shared the same parents.

If you say yes to this question, then tell me who the common ancestor is to the humans and the chimps?

As usual, your question is rooted in ignorance on how science, specifically biology and its subsets, is done.

If you can't answer that question, then take any 2 species in the Animal Kingdom and tell me their common ancestor based on the iron-clad identifier erv's?

And again the same mistake.
Once more: determining common ancestry on the one hand and actually identifying the common ancestor, are 2 different exercises.

And, especially on the big picture evolutionary scale, actually identifying a common ancestral species, is a really hard thing to do. In many cases, it might even be impossible.

For the simple reason that the required data to identify such, is long long lost in the pages of history.

If you cannot answer that question, then admit that the now present erv's are not the iron-clad identifiers that you have portrayed.

Nope.

Again, learn the difference between
- determining common ancestry between species
- identifying the actual ancient ancestral species of extant species

ERV evidence can do the first, not the second.

I know that I am ignorant, but since this discussion of erv's has been going, you have been unable to identify any common ancestor for anything, anywhere, vertabrate, or non-vertibrate, in any of the 5 Kingdoms, (plants, fungi, animal, protoctista or bacteria). So your argument is not being backed up by anthing solid.

None of what you are asking about here, actually ties in with the argument of ERV's.

Once more: erv evidence allows us to determine common ancestry. Which is not the same as identifying the ancestral species.

Again, it looks like a desparate theory and a desparate hope for a godless solution.

Nope. It rather looks like you being in need of reading up a bit on the entire thing.

If I am wrong, prove me wrong

Already did.

Show me one common ancestor for anything based on an iron-clad erv.

I never claimed that ERV's were able to pinpoint a "single common ancestor for anything".
I said that ERV's allow us to determine common ancestry.

 

[Peter1000]

="TagliatelliMonster, post: 70965291, member: 391173"]Determining common ancestry on the one hand and identifying the comon ancestor, are two seperate things.

So put into words the difference between 1) determining common ancestry and 2) identifying the common ancestor?

Just like we are perfectly able to determine that you and your sister are siblings, and thus that you share the same parents, without knowing who your actual parents were.

Suppose they died in a fire and all trace of them, including DNA, was lost in the pages of history.

That wouldn't stop us from determining that you and another person, shared the same parents.

Wow, you mean you can tell me that me and my sister came from the same parents. Wow, that's not only a genetic softball, it would be like throwing a watermelon to a professional baseball player and hoping he could hit it 5 out of 10 times. This is not even in the realm of what we are talking about in regards to who is the common ancestor to the human and the chimp. You are not even in the same ballpark. You are sidestepping the issue because you have no answers. A erv is not helping you determine who the common ancestor is and you know it.

Again, learn the difference between
- determining common ancestry between species
- identifying the actual ancient ancestral species of extant species

ERV evidence can do the first, not the second.

Well then you have served yourself up a watermelon again. And your erv theory is no help.
For instance, the only existing species in the Genus 'Homo' is 'homo sapien'. So the common ancester to the homo sapien species is another 'homo sapien'. Wow, what a revelation. We are spending trillions of dollars on genetic research and erv research and this is what we have to show for it.

OR can erv determine the common ancestor of the species 'homo sapiens' and the species 'homo neanderthalensis' and species 'homo floresiensis', all of the Genus 'Homo' ? Now the answer to this question would be interesting. This would fall within the catagory of 'determining common ancestry between species'.

Look forward to your answer.[/QUOTE]

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

So put into words the difference between 1) determining common ancestry and 2) identifying the common ancestor?

You understand english, right?

I don't know how to put it in even simpler terms then I already did with the example of siblings....

By comparing DNA samples of 2 siblings, we can determine that they share the same parents. Which is not the same as identifying there parents.

I don't get why you find that so hard to comprehend...

Determining that 2 people share ancestry is quite different from identifying that ancestor in the sense of "...and that ancestor was John Fishermann, born on the 2nd of december 1870, in a village just outside London".

Wow, you mean you can tell me that me and my sister came from the same parents. Wow, that's not only a genetic softball, it would be like throwing a watermelon to a professional baseball player and hoping he could hit it 5 out of 10 times.

I used the example of siblings because of simplicity in understanding the difference between determining common ancestry on the one hand and identifying that common ancestor on the other.

Apparantly, even such simplistic examples are problematic to make you comprehend these different concepts.

Rest assured, genetic science is so advanced these days that determining common ancestry between two random DNA strings, and even giving estimates about how long ago the species diverted from a common ancestral population, is really not a problem.

The techniques are the exact same. At bottom, it is about "measuring" how related one is to the other. Siblings are as closely related as it gets. Which is why I used it as an example - assuming you wouldn't have any problems understanding how a brother and sister share a common ancestor, while that fact doesn't tell us who exactly that common ancestor was.

The only difference here, is scale.

This is not even in the realm of what we are talking about in regards to who is the common ancestor to the human and the chimp.

Except that it is. In fact, it is the exact same thing.

The tree of life, is simply a gigantic family tree.

Same thing. Only difference is scale.

A erv is not helping you determine who the common ancestor is and you know it.

Do you even read the posts you are replying to.
I literally said that ERV evidence does not allow you to identify the common ancestor. I said it determines common ancestry.

Establishing that 2 creatures share a common ancestor, is not the same as identifying who or what that common ancestor was exactly.

How can you so repeatedly fail to comprehend this?

For instance, the only existing species in the Genus 'Homo' is 'homo sapien'.

You mean, the only surviving/extant species.
There have been many others. Homo Neanderthalis, for example.

So the common ancester to the homo sapien species is another 'homo sapien'.

Some kind of Homo, yes.
And a primate.
And a mammal.
And a tetrapod.
And an eukaryote.

Wow, what a revelation. We are spending trillions of dollars on genetic research and erv research and this is what we have to show for it.

Your ignorance on the matter, is not an argument against it.
Your misrepresentation of it, isn't either.

OR can erv determine the common ancestor of the species 'homo sapiens' and the species 'homo neanderthalensis' and species 'homo floresiensis', all of the Genus 'Homo' ?

If we have access to the DNA of those species, then yes.
Which would be rather difficult, considering all of those have long been extinct.

But you know what species aren't extinct? The other great apes, among many others.
We can take their DNA and sequence it.

And when we do so, the ERV patterns are unambigiously in support of evolution theory. They exhibit a nested hierarchy and they match the phylogenetic trees that have been concluded based on other evidence.

Look forward to your answer.

I look forward to you finally informing yourself a bit and not having to repeat myself.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

How can you so repeatedly fail to comprehend this?

You have the patience of a three-toed sloth, my friend.

 

[Peter1000]

TagliateliiMonster says:

Establishing that 2 creatures share a common ancestor, is not the same as identifying who or what that common ancestor was exactly.

OK you gave me an example of the 2 siblings. Science can establish that 2 siblings came from the same parent. It cannot identify that parents name or anything about that parent. So what we end up with is that 2 homo sapiens came from another homo sapien. That is nothing. I know that without dna or erv information.

Can science determine the common ancestor of apes and humans, using dna or erv, or anything else? To be honest that is quite high up on the phylogenetic tree of life, and for science it should not be real difficult to know that answer. For instance:
humans are one twig on a small phylogenetic branch, and apes are another twig on another small phylogenetic branch. The small phylogenetic branchs represent their divergent mothers. Each one of the mother branches are an offshoot from a larger phylogenetic branch that represents their father.

Since it has been determined that humans are cousins to the apes, based on dna and maybe even erv, has science been able to determine:
1) who is the mother to the humans using dna or erv?
2) who is the mother to the apes (this entity would be the aunte to the humans) by using dna or erv?
2) who is the father of the mother of the apes and the mother of the humans using dna or erv?
I'll stop there because determining the grand-father of the humans and the apes would perhaps be too difficult.

If science has not determined these common ancestors, high up in the top branches of the human/apes phylogenetic tree of life, then what iron-clad guaranteed evolutionary process having to do with common ancestors has the erv advanced?

 

[Peter1000]

You have the patience of a three-toed sloth, my friend.

You would think with an iron-clad guarentee that the erv gives about common ancestry, you would think he would at least be able to give me one phylogenetic common ancestor between humans and our very very close cousins, the apes.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

OK you gave me an example of the 2 siblings. Science can establish that 2 siblings came from the same parent. It cannot identify that parents name or anything about that parent.

Not without access to the DNA of that parent, no.

So what we end up with is that 2 homo sapiens came from another homo sapien

In the case of siblings, yes. Because every creature ever born was of the same species as its direct parent.

But that is not the point. The point is being able to determine that two creatures share a common ancestor.

That is nothing. I know that without dna or erv information.

And still, you have problems understanding the difference in scale.
And still, you haven't comprehended the point being made concerning the difference of determining common ancestry on the one hand and identifying a common ancestor on the other.

Can science determine the common ancestor of apes and humans, using dna or erv, or anything else?

Science can determine that humans and the other great apes, share a common ancestor, yes.

And it can do so through ERV evidence and any other genetic markers. It can also do so through comparative anatomy etc.

To be honest that is quite high up on the phylogenetic tree of life

Not really. The estimated split between the branches of chimps and homo is a mere 7 million years ago. Which is nothing, in geological timescales.

Life on this planet has a history of some 4 billion years, you know....

For instance:
humans are one twig on a small phylogenetic branch, and apes are another twig on another small phylogenetic branch. The small phylogenetic branchs represent their divergent mothers. Each one of the mother branches are an offshoot from a larger phylogenetic branch that represents their father.

No idea what you are talking about with the "mother" and "father" thingy.
Individuals don't evolve. Populations evolve. And they do so gradually.

Populations split in sub-branches due to genetic isolation. For example, a part of the group migrates elsewhere and no longer exchanges genetic material with the "original" population that didn't migrate.

Or the population is split in two due to geographic changes... Like in the case of chimps and bonobo's. There is evidence to suggest that the ancestral population was split in two by the formation of a river that cut right through their habitat.

Since it has been determined that humans are cousins to the apes, based on dna and maybe even erv, has science been able to determine:
1) who is the mother to the humans using dna or erv?
2) who is the mother to the apes (this entity would be the aunte to the humans) by using dna or erv?
2) who is the father of the mother of the apes and the mother of the humans using dna or erv?

These questions are invalid and expose a profound ignorance on how evolution works.
They also expose your continued failure to understanding the point I've been explaining for at least 4 posts now.

If science has not determined these common ancestors, high up in the top branches of the human/apes phylogenetic tree of life, then what iron-clad guaranteed evolutionary process having to do with common ancestors has the erv advanced?

The pattern of ERV distribution shows that humans and chimps share common ancestry.
This pattern matches all the other evidence in support of that same idea... The other evidence being the pattern of distribution of other genetic markers, DNA sequences, entire DNA strings, comparative anatomy, geographic distribution, the fossil record,....

ERV is just one piece of evidence among MANY, all pointing to the same conclusion: chimps and humans share common ancestors in some ancestral population some 7 million years ago.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You would think with an iron-clad guarentee that the erv gives about common ancestry, you would think he would at least be able to give me one phylogenetic common ancestor between humans and our very very close cousins, the apes.

I've been explaining to you ad nauseum that that is not how it works.

Determining common ancestry =/= identifying the common ancestor.

At least try to understand that point.

 

[Peter1000]

Not without access to the DNA of that parent, no.



In the case of siblings, yes.

Because every creature ever born was of the same species as its direct parent.

But that is not the point. The point is being able to determine that two creatures share a common ancestor.



And still, you have problems understanding the difference in scale.
And still, you haven't comprehended the point being made concerning the difference of determining common ancestry on the one hand and identifying a common ancestor on the other.



Science can determine that humans and the other great apes, share a common ancestor, yes.

And it can do so through ERV evidence and any other genetic markers. It can also do so through comparative anatomy etc.



Not really. The estimated split between the branches of chimps and homo is a mere 7 million years ago. Which is nothing, in geological timescales.

Life on this planet has a history of some 4 billion years, you know....



No idea what you are talking about with the "mother" and "father" thingy.
Individuals don't evolve. Populations evolve. And they do so gradually.

Populations split in sub-branches due to genetic isolation. For example, a part of the group migrates elsewhere and no longer exchanges genetic material with the "original" population that didn't migrate.

Or the population is split in two due to geographic changes... Like in the case of chimps and bonobo's. There is evidence to suggest that the ancestral population was split in two by the formation of a river that cut right through their habitat.



These questions are invalid and expose a profound ignorance on how evolution works.
They also expose your continued failure to understanding the point I've been explaining for at least 4 posts now.



The pattern of ERV distribution shows that humans and chimps share common ancestry.
This pattern matches all the other evidence in support of that same idea... The other evidence being the pattern of distribution of other genetic markers, DNA sequences, entire DNA strings, comparative anatomy, geographic distribution, the fossil record,....

ERV is just one piece of evidence among MANY, all pointing to the same conclusion: chimps and humans share common ancestors in some ancestral population some 7 million years ago.

Because every creature ever born was of the same species as its direct parent.

This statement cannot be true, if there is truly a common ancestor.

But it would be true if there is a Superior Designer.

Let me explain. Because there was a time when there was no specie, homo sapien, according to you, and common ancestry, there would be no homo sapiens today. You know that the species of homo sapien only started between 100,000 - 200,000 years ago. If every creature ever born was the same species as the direct parent, that would hold true for homo sapien for 100,000-200,000 years back, but 201,000 years back there would have had to be a common ancestor that was not a homo sapien that produced a homo sapien. So can science determine that a non-homo sapien common ancestor 201,000 years ago gave birth to a homo sapien?

The other side of the equation is this. Since there was no specie homo sapien 201,000 years ago, and now there is a specie homo sapien, this elliminates common ancestry. What it proves is that 201,000 years ago God created a species of homo sapien and introduced this species to earth. One day there were no homo sapiens, the next day God creates the species homo sapiens and since then there have been homo sapiens, since every creature ever born was of the same speicies as its direct parent.

Your statment is proof of no common ancestry for homo sapien, and proof that God created homo sapiens.

Thank you and good going.

 

[Peter1000]

I've been explaining to you ad nauseum that that is not how it works.

Determining common ancestry =/= identifying the common ancestor.

At least try to understand that point.

I understand your point. It is just that your point doesn't make you any points in the discussion.

If you have an iron clad erv marking you should be able to do better than just say: creatures Y & Z have these erv markings, therefore they have a common ancestor. To make points about erv's iron clad common ancestor identification marks, you should be able to say, these erv markings in Y & Z line up perfectly with common ancestor X. Therefore X must be the common ancestor of Y & Z.

What I figure is that science is afraid to make that leap, because creature Y is a toad and creature Z is a bear. Therefore to say that their common ancestor X is a worm, because the erv's line up, would be embarassing and not believable.

So, all science is willing to say is: creature Y and Z have a common ancestor. Even that statement for lots of speicies is fulll of holes.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

This statement cannot be true, if there is truly a common ancestor.

No. It is necessarily true when evolution is a gradual process.

Consider the evolution of languages, to understand this point...

Italian, Spanish and French all are derived from Latin.
This means that the ancient ancestors of extant Italian, Spanish and French speaking folks all spoke one language: Latin.

However, at no point in history did a Latin speaking mother, raise a French speaking child.

Latin gradually changed into French and the other roman languages.

Let me explain. Because there was a time when there was no specie, homo sapien, according to you, and common ancestry, there would be no homo sapiens today. You know that the species of homo sapien only started between 100,000 - 200,000 years ago. If every creature ever born was the same species as the direct parent, that would hold true for homo sapien for 100,000-200,000 years back, but 201,000 years back there would have had to be a common ancestor that was not a homo sapien that produced a homo sapien.

No. Just like how French evolved gradually from Latin, so did Homo Sapiens gradually evolve from its ancestral primate species.

Just like how no Latin speaking mother ever gave birth to a French speaking child, no non-homo sapiens parent ever gave birth to a homo sapiens.

So can science determine that a non-homo sapien common ancestor 201,000 years ago gave birth to a homo sapien?

Gradualism. Look it up. Inform yourself.
Again: every individual ever born, was of the same species as its direct parents.

The other side of the equation is this. Since there was no specie homo sapien 201,000 years ago, and now there is a specie homo sapien, this elliminates common ancestry. What it proves is that 201,000 years ago God created a species of homo sapien and introduced this species to earth. One day there were no homo sapiens, the next day God creates the species homo sapiens and since then there have been homo sapiens, since every creature ever born was of the same speicies as its direct parent.

Your statment is proof of no common ancestry for homo sapien

Your statements are proof that you have no idea on how evolution works and what gradualism is all about.

, and proof that God created homo sapiens.

lol

Even ignoring for a second your blatant ignorance on what gradualism means, you need to actually demonstrate the causal chain in order to have a proof. You can't just assert it, like you are doing here.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

If you have an iron clad erv marking you should be able to do better than just say: creatures Y & Z have these erv markings, therefore they have a common ancestor.

Why?

To make points about erv's iron clad common ancestor identification marks, you should be able to say, these erv markings in Y & Z line up perfectly with common ancestor X.

That is only true if you actually have access to common ancestor X.
Since common ancestor X in this case lived about an estimated 7 million years ago, it should be rather obvious that identification thereof is rather problematic.

What I figure is that science is afraid to make that leap, because creature Y is a toad and creature Z is a bear. Therefore to say that their common ancestor X is a worm, because the erv's line up, would be embarassing and not believable.

It seems you still haven't understood the difference between determining common ancestry and identifying a common ancestort, as well as the difficulties associated with such identification because that species has been extinct for millions of years.

If we would have access to the DNA of all extinct species, then identifying common ancestors would be rather trivial, actually.

About as trivial as a paternity DNA test. But in such a test, off course, you actually DO HAVE the DNA of the ancestor.

So, all science is willing to say is: creature Y and Z have a common ancestor.

Not "willing". Rather: "able".

Even that statement for lots of speicies is fulll of holes.

Is it?

 

[Peter1000]

Why?



That is only true if you actually have access to common ancestor X.
Since common ancestor X in this case lived about an estimated 7 million years ago, it should be rather obvious that identification thereof is rather problematic.




It seems you still haven't understood the difference between determining common ancestry and identifying a common ancestort, as well as the difficulties associated with such identification because that species has been extinct for millions of years.

If we would have access to the DNA of all extinct species, then identifying common ancestors would be rather trivial, actually.

About as trivial as a paternity DNA test. But in such a test, off course, you actually DO HAVE the DNA of the ancestor.



Not "willing". Rather: "able".



Is it?

View attachment 191591

Then what you have is 'creatures A and B have a common ancestor', with no DNA evidence to give it any support.

No. It is necessarily true when evolution is a gradual process.

Consider the evolution of languages, to understand this point...

Italian, Spanish and French all are derived from Latin.
This means that the ancient ancestors of extant Italian, Spanish and French speaking folks all spoke one language: Latin.

However, at no point in history did a Latin speaking mother, raise a French speaking child.

Latin gradually changed into French and the other roman languages.




No. Just like how French evolved gradually from Latin, so did Homo Sapiens gradually evolve from its ancestral primate species.

Just like how no Latin speaking mother ever gave birth to a French speaking child, no non-homo sapiens parent ever gave birth to a homo sapiens.





Gradualism. Look it up. Inform yourself.
Again: every individual ever born, was of the same species as its direct parents.



Your statements are proof that you have no idea on how evolution works and what gradualism is all about.



lol

Even ignoring for a second your blatant ignorance on what gradualism means, you need to actually demonstrate the causal chain in order to have a proof. You can't just assert it, like you are doing here.

Talk about a causal chain. Demonstrate your causal chain linking anything 7 million years ago to humans? Demonstrate your gradual causal chain per the fossil record or erv's or dna or any other form of evidence to anything linking it to humans.

That is really all evolutionists have is chance and time. The odds of a chance happening of all this life is so astronomical, it is a lost cause, and your precious gradualism falls so short of causal evidence that the whole theory shudders for breath, but because of the money, and the bitter desire to find a godless path, they press on even in the darkness. It's like Jesus says, let the blind lead the blind.