Just for final clarification yes, we evolved from monkeys.

[klutedavid]

99.9% of ERV insertions in the human genome insert in the same place in the chimpanzee genome. This is only possible if you share a common ancestor. Shared ERVs also fall into a nested hierarchy, exactly what we'd expect.

Hello Jon.

Thanks for the reply. I am not a geneticist, so i need to ask you some questions.

These insertion points in the human genome. Are these insertion points, random points in the genome
that the retrovirus chooses to insert itself? Or are these points in the genome governed by the host
and assigned to the retrovirus?

Evolution doesn't attempt to explain the origin of life. That is abiogenesis. How many times are creationists gonna drag out this dishonest strawman?

If the first life form left a fossil record, evolutionists would have this fossil at the base of the evolutionary
tree. Evolutionary theory would then have the entire evolutionary tree drawn up. Even the time
intervals could be assigned from the very start, to the ends of the branches.

Then if anyone was to ask how this first life form came into existence, you can be guaranteed that
evolutionists would have an explanation. Since the first life fossil exists, the time is known, the prevailing
conditions can be established from the surrounding bedrock analysis that the first fossil was found in.

What discipline in science would deal with the origin of life on this planet?

Do you say this to all scientific theories? Do you not wash your hands because germ
theory of disease is not "proven"? Or is it just evolution that you whine about it because it threatens
your religious beliefs?

Only the major scientific theories, usually Cosmology, Evolution, e.t.c. Scientific theories do not
threaten my religious beliefs. I have no creationist dogma, I am not even a genuine fundamentalist.

Keep telling yourself that. Tell me....why shouldn't someone take antibiotics for a viral infection?

Some evolutionist protest that medicine should not use antibiotics. They believe that medicine
is distorting the natural evolutionary forces. They believe that medicine may in fact be enabling
the existence of super viruses, that will be antibiotic resistant.

Evolution does not attempt to explain the origin of life. It has nothing to do with it.
It describes how existing life evolves. Do you understand that now?

I remain unconvinced, which field of science deals with the origin of life?

Evolution can make accurate predictions about the natural world. That makes the
scientific theory very strong. What prediction can creationism offer and what falsifiable test
can it run?

The Bible made very powerful predictions, call them absolute predictions if you like.
The messianic prophecies are the most profound predictions I have ever seen.

Creationism is a subset of the broader Christian religion. Whether the Genesis
account is an accurate account of the origin of mankind, I have no idea. Some
are taught to accept the literal account, I was not taught that.

Whether the Genesis account is a strict chronology, I have no way to verify that.
Whether the Genesis account is an overview of a more elaborate evolutionary
creation, this I also cannot verify.

The Bible contains the very words of God Himself, yet the Bible itself is not all
written by God.

 

[USincognito]

How did the original spider develop into male and female to produce more spiders? How do you know this?

Wow. Just wow. Forget evolution 101 folks, rjs is going to need the finger puppet version before we get to fossils and genetics

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

Thanks for the reply. I am not a geneticist, so i need to ask you some questions.

I am not a geneticist either. The poster sfs would do better answering your questions but i'll do my best.

These insertion points in the human genome. Are these insertion points, random points in the genome
that the retrovirus chooses to insert itself? Or are these points in the genome governed by the host
and assigned to the retrovirus?

The ERV inserts its DNA into a random base pair of the host's genome. Of the 208,000 or so ERVs in the human genome, 99.9% of them insert in the same place with the same mutations in the chimpanzee genome. This is only possible if we share a common ancestor. The fact that the insertions are random and they insert in the same place only makes the evidence for common ancestry that much more overwhelming.

If the first life form left a fossil record, evolutionists would have this fossil at the base of the evolutionary
tree.

This sounds like a "missing link" argument. Fossilization is already extremely rare. It's quite amazing that we've collected the record we have. Every fossil we find is consistent with the predictions evolution makes. We can follow that to its logical conclusion.

Then if anyone was to ask how this first life form came into existence, you can be guaranteed that
evolutionists would have an explanation.

No biologist or any scientist for that matter will give you an answer to that question. You may get a hypothesis but the answer you're going to get attached to that is "but we really don't know". Also, why are you using the term "Evolutionist"? Are there also gravityists, germists and atomicists out there too?

What discipline in science would deal with the origin of life on this planet?

Chemistry. There is also a physicist who recently proposed a hypothesis. I don't think it got much traction with his peers though.

Only the major scientific theories, usually Cosmology, Evolution, e.t.c. Scientific theories do not
threaten my religious beliefs.

Any reason you have a problem with cosmology and biology?

Some evolutionist protest that medicine should not use antibiotics. They believe that medicine
is distorting the natural evolutionary forces. They believe that medicine may in fact be enabling
the existence of super viruses, that will be antibiotic resistant.

If you take antibiotics for a viral infection, you're introducing a selective pressure to the good bacteria that your body depends on. It opens a niche for bacteria that is resistant to antibiotics to flourish.

The Bible made very powerful predictions, call them absolute predictions if you like.
The messianic prophecies are the most profound predictions I have ever seen.

I'm not impressed by vague prophecy that is self fulfilling in the same book. Unless there were exact names, exact times, exact places without any foreknowledge, you don't have anything that is close to convincing.

 

[klutedavid]

I am not a geneticist either. The poster sfs would do better answering your questions but i'll do my best.

Hello Jon, thanks for the reply.

The ERV inserts its DNA into a random base pair of the host's genome.

I believe in causation, there cannot exist a random event, random events are deemed
random, because the cause is unknown.

Of the 208,000 or so ERVs in the human genome, 99.9% of them insert in the same
place with the same mutations in the chimpanzee genome. This is only possible if we share a
common ancestor. The fact that the insertions are random and they insert in the same place
only makes the evidence for common ancestry that much more overwhelming.

Once again, are these events random?

Every fossil we find is consistent with the predictions evolution makes. We can
follow that to its logical conclusion.

I disagree, I have seen fossil life forms that suddenly appear in the fossil record. The
origin of these creatures is unknown, whether or not they have an evolutionary history
is also unknown.

To make the statement, 'Every fossil we find is consistent with the predictions evolution makes'.
This is an unjustified statement, not at all supported by the entire fossil record.

No biologist or any scientist for that matter will give you an answer to that question.
You may get a hypothesis but the answer you're going to get attached to that is "but we really
don't know". Also, why are you using the term "Evolutionist"? Are there also gravityists, germists
and atomicists out there too?

An evolutionist is a person that believes in evolutionary theory.
A cosmologist is a person that believes in the study of cosmology.
An atomic physicist is one who deals in atomic theory.

Any reason you have a problem with cosmology and biology?

I am studying to be a Grand Inquisitor, one day I will cleanse the world of all ideology.

If you take antibiotics for a viral infection, you're introducing a selective pressure
to the good bacteria that your body depends on. It opens a niche for bacteria that is resistant
to antibiotics to flourish.

Yes, help me stop the practice of medicine before it's too late.

I'm not impressed by vague prophecy that is self fulfilling in the same book. Unless
there were exact names, exact times, exact places without any foreknowledge, you don't have
anything that is close to convincing.

The book of Isaiah contains many messianic prophecies, more than enough to identify
the promised messiah. Certainly not vague, we are even given the region that the
messiah would appear in.

 

[klutedavid]

I'm not Jon, but I feel like answering.

Hello DH.

Feel free to respond, I do that myself.

See definition of "Homo Sapiens".

Had a look.

Measurements concerning the genetic variations in our collective genome.

http://www.tiem.utk.edu/~gross/bioed/bealsmodules/bottlenecks.html
Will have a read later.

An interesting phenomena concerning human genetics is how it relates to the
out-of-africa history.

I reject the out of Africa explanation and favor an out of the middle east explanation.
There are no old cities in Africa, the oldest known cities are in the middle east.
Mankind probably wandered down into Africa to escape a widespread drought in the
middle east. Hence genetic tracing of populations would be biased towards Africa.
Language studies would also follow the same track, e.t.c.

Humans evolve in a specific region in Africa. We'll call this the "mother population".
That's where ALL the genetic variation among humans is located at that point in time.

Very little direct evidence of human habitation in Africa going back beyond six thousand years.
Very powerful evidence of human habitation in the middle east going back beyond seven
thousand years.

I reject the idea that humans evolved in Africa.

A group/tribe, (much) smaller then the mother population starts migrating and spreads
out from there to europe and asia. This event marks a genetic bottleneck among the group that
is migrating, since this group becomes genetically isolated from the mother population remaining
in africa.

Rejected information.

Isn't genetics awesome? I sure think so.

Genetics is a fascinating subject.

 

[mmksparbud]

These are claims. Not evidence.

That was in response to speedwell.

 

[Speedwell]

That was in response to speedwell.

Sounds very like the Principle of Reproductive Similarity, straight from Darwin: Cows don't give birth to sheep and figs don't grow on apple trees. What gives you the idea that they are immutable? Why are they different than the taxonomy Adam (we) created?

 

[mmksparbud]

Sounds very like the Principle of Reproductive Similarity, straight from Darwin: Cows don't give birth to sheep and figs don't grow on apple trees. What gives you the idea that they are immutable? Why are they different than the taxonomy Adam (we) created?

I am quoting scripture, not Darwin---

What did Adam create??

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

I believe in causation, there cannot exist a random event, random events are deemed
random, because the cause is unknown.

What on earth are you talking about? There are 3 billion base pairs in the human genome. An ERV insertion doesn't seek out a specific place to insert its DNA. It's entirely random.

Once again, are these events random?

What do you mean 'is it random'? This is what is observed when we look at the human and chimpanzee genome.

I disagree, I have seen fossil life forms that suddenly appear in the fossil record

Are you saying fossils are fake?

whether or not they have an evolutionary history is also unknown.

They are not unknown to paleontologists.

To make the statement, 'Every fossil we find is consistent with the predictions evolution makes'.
This is an unjustified statement, not at all supported by the entire fossil record

It's not unjustified at all. Evolution predicts we should see an increase in complexity of species as we move up the geologic column. That is exactly what we see. Evolution predicts these fossils should fit into a nested hierarchy. Guess what? They do. We can also use the theory of evolution to predict what type of fossils we should find in specific places. Tiktaalik Roseae was correctly predicted by Dr. Shubin and his team. The fossils are on display in the Chicago Museum.

An evolutionist is a person that believes in evolutionary theory.

Evolution isn't something you believe in. You either understand it or you don't. Someone who studies evolution is an evolutionary biologist.

I am studying to be a Grand Inquisitor, one day I will cleanse the world of all ideology.

Okay.

Yes, help me stop the practice of medicine before it's too late.

The point was that the understanding of evolution is vital to medicine and the research that goes with it.

The book of Isaiah contains many messianic prophecies, more than enough to identify
the promised messiah

Isaiah 7:14 is mistranslated.

Certainly not vague, we are even given the region that the
messiah would appear in.

The author would have knowledge of Old Testament writings and could certainly slot a character into that region. You have a self fulfilling prophecy written in the same set of books. Care of offer any contemporaneous and independent sources to back this up? Perhaps a different thread is more appropriate for this type of discussion.

 

[SteveB28]

They are of the kind which they were created to be. If you mean do they have
relatives of their kind, I don't know. Is that necessary?

Well, YOU are the people who tell us that dogs, foxes, jackals, etc are of the 'dog kind'. That tigers, lions, leopards, etc are of the 'cat kind'.

So, again, what 'kind' does the platypus belong? What 'kind' is the echidna? If Noah supposedly took 'kinds' onto his ark, in order to preserve the variety of living things, what 'kind' did he take on board that would preserve the echidna and the platypus?

 

[Astrophile]

Um ... no.

If it exploded in 1987, we wouldn't know it until around AD 166,013.

Unless God decreed otherwise.

All right, the light from the supernova reached the Earth in February 1987. The actual explosion took place in the Large Magellanic Cloud in about 166,000 BC Earth-time.

 

[Astrophile]

Sorry, duplicate post.

 

[klutedavid]

Hello Jon.

You seem surprised that I reject the idea of a random event.

What on earth are you talking about?

Causation, not a single weather event that occurs is ever a random event. Not one
earthquake or volcanic eruption is a random event. Every entity in the universe is
bound by causation. I am appalled that anyone let alone a scientist, would dare
to imagine that an event can occur that is not caused. God does not play dice.

There are 3 billion base pairs in the human genome. An ERV insertion doesn't
seek out a specific place to insert its DNA. It's entirely random.

Impossible Jon, utterly impossible.

What do you mean 'is it random'? This is what is observed when we look at
the human and chimpanzee genome.

You think that you are observing a random event, that is not the case.

Are you saying fossils are fake?

Definitely not, though I once saw a dragonfly in a fossil, no earlier fossil of
a dragonfly in progressive stages of evolution. Not sure how one arrives
at the idea, that dragonflies evolved without the evidence.

It's not unjustified at all. Evolution predicts we should see an increase in complexity
of species as we move up the geologic column. That is exactly what we see. Evolution predicts
these fossils should fit into a nested hierarchy. Guess what? They do. We can also use the theory
of evolution to predict what type of fossils we should find in specific places. Tiktaalik Roseae
was correctly predicted by Dr. Shubin and his team. The fossils are on display in the Chicago
Museum.

Predicting what fossil should appear in a given fossil strata is not rocket science. If your
claim is correct Jon, then we should also see a decrease in complexity as we go back in
the fossil record.

The dragonfly is the most sophisticated flying machine that man has ever observed.
Complex does not even get close to describing a dragonfly. How can this species not be
considered complex?

How do you define complex?

Evolution isn't something you believe in. You either understand it or you don't.
Someone who studies evolution is an evolutionary biologist.

The theory itself is packed with observable belief systems and assumptions.
1) Empiricism
2) Geological actualism
3) That time is a constant
4) All events that occur across time on earth are within acceptable limits
5) That no forces beyond the observable forces of nature occur
6) Naturalism
7) E.t.c

Isaiah 7:14 is mistranslated.

I disagree.

The author would have knowledge of Old Testament writings and could certainly slot
a character into that region.

The only problem with that idea is the discovery of the Dead Sea scrolls. There exists
the Great Isaiah scroll among these, dated four times, each dating fell within the range 300 BC
to 100 BC. Check it yourself in wikipedia. That is one hundred years before the Christ arrived.

This means of course, that no insertion into the text has occurred. Of course I checked that
the messianic prophecies were in this scroll. Virtually a word for word copy, of the Old Testament
book of Isaiah.

 

[RedPonyDriver]

Before most of you go any further, read this http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/misconceptions_about_evolution.pdf

 

[USincognito]

How do you know that spiders did not always look,like spiders? How do you know this? How do you know that these ancestors were not always spiders? How do you know where,spiders came from? How do you know? Chelicerates is a aweful broad category and you still haven't explained what the spider was before it evolved into the eight legged arachnid.

Now you're just lying.
---------------------------------------

What was a spider before it was a spider?

What is it with Creationists and their almost pathological compulsion to dishonestly ask questions that

have
been
answered

three times already?

 

[USincognito]

When I was a kid, it was different. It was if there ever was a dog/pig that it would prove evolution, not disprove it. Somewhere along the line, it flipped.

That never happened.

 

[SteveB28]

Now you're just lying.
---------------------------------------


What is it with Creationists and their almost pathological compulsion to dishonestly ask questions that

have
been
answered

three times already?

When closely held beliefs are confronted by evidence, the belief will be preferred every time.....




.

 

[SteveB28]

Hello Jon.

You seem surprised that I reject the idea of a random event.

Causation, not a single weather event that occurs is ever a random event. Not one
earthquake or volcanic eruption is a random event. Every entity in the universe is
bound by causation. I am appalled that anyone let alone a scientist, would dare
to imagine that an event can occur that is not caused. God does not play dice.

Impossible Jon, utterly impossible.

You think that you are observing a random event, that is not the case.

Definitely not, though I once saw a dragonfly in a fossil, no earlier fossil of
a dragonfly in progressive stages of evolution. Not sure how one arrives
at the idea, that dragonflies evolved without the evidence.

Predicting what fossil should appear in a given fossil strata is not rocket science. If your
claim is correct Jon, then we should also see a decrease in complexity as we go back in
the fossil record.

The dragonfly is the most sophisticated flying machine that man has ever observed.
Complex does not even get close to describing a dragonfly. How can this species not be
considered complex?

How do you define complex?

The theory itself is packed with observable belief systems and assumptions.
1) Empiricism
2) Geological actualism
3) That time is a constant
4) All events that occur across time on earth are within acceptable limits
5) That no forces beyond the observable forces of nature occur
6) Naturalism
7) E.t.c


I disagree.

The only problem with that idea is the discovery of the Dead Sea scrolls. There exists
the Great Isaiah scroll among these, dated four times, each dating fell within the range 300 BC
to 100 BC. Check it yourself in wikipedia. That is one hundred years before the Christ arrived.

This means of course, that no insertion into the text has occurred. Of course I checked that
the messianic prophecies were in this scroll. Virtually a word for word copy, of the Old Testament
book of Isaiah.

What silliness.

The concept of randomness simply implies 'without bias', in a mathematical sense. When I throw a fair die, there is a 1 in 6 chance of any particular integer showing face up. In practice, the greater number of trials I perform, the closer my results will reflect that probability. In other words, the randomness of the event is demonstrated.

So it is with the hundreds of thousands of identical retroviral insertions in the genomes of chimpanzees and humans. With a 'choice' of over 3 billion possible sites, there is no explanation for this phenomenon if the 'trial' was a 'fair' one. We should see those insertions 'scattered' in each of the genomes, with no particular pattern. We should see a similar scattering in and between each of the other primate species as well.

But we don't. The trial isn't a 'fair' one........the 'fix' is in.

And the 'fix' is the common ancestor/s shared by those primate species.




.

 

[USincognito]

Us creationists follow along very well. We don't believe that an individual creature can change during its lifetime to become something else. We don't think evolution is some cartoonish metamorphosis or anything silly like that.

There are many Creationists who, while not quite thinking evolution = Pokemon, still demand to observe single generation saltation. Something like an iguana hatching a clutch of puppies which actually would falsify evolution.

We do not agree that we all came from a common ancestor. Because a common ancestor was 1 thing at 1 point in its life and slowly evolved into the millions or billions of things that have ever lived on this planet.

I believe it has been explained to you once in this thread that descendants never stop being what their ancestors were. That is a whale is still a cetartiodactyl (despite no longer having toes or being an ungulate), a mammal, a therapsid, an amniote, a terrestrial tetrapod and a vertebrate, etc.

We utterly reject that because God says he did not do it that way. He created all living things as what they are: a spider, a bird, a lizard, a monkey and a human. These creatures may "evolve" because of environment or a need to survive such as a bear "evolving" a white coat instead of a brown one or a fish developing a mechanism to live in a certain environment. But it was always a fish and the bear was always a bear from the beginning. It was never anything else and never will be anything else.

The evidence says otherwise. You might not like it. You might not understand it. But that' what it says.

 

[USincognito]

And it starts with the one, individual bear.

But that individual is not that different from the rest of the bear population. It's a slightly different type of bear and does not stop being a bear. Just as it doesn't stop being a carnivore, a mammal, a therapsid, an amniote, a sarcopterygiian, a vertebrate, etc.

If one species could not give birth to another in evolution, you would not be able to go from a fish to an ape.

To keep it super simple for you. Extant species do not evolve into other extant or extinct species. Apes are fish by the way. http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/vertebrates/sarco/sarcopterygii.html