• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

Just for final clarification yes, we evolved from monkeys.

Speedwell

Well-Known Member
May 11, 2016
23,928
17,626
82
St Charles, IL
✟347,280.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Married
I'm not sure what you mean by "something else entirely." A bird species could never evolve into a lizard species--that's impossible. It could, however, evolve into a lizard-like species; that is, into a species with somatic features which allowed it to inhabit an ecological niche in which one ordinarily finds lizards. But it could never be a species of lizard. One sees this kind of thing in island ecosystems, in New Zealand, for instance, where birds arrived before mammals and many ecological niches are occupied by bird species in which we on the mainland would be used to finding mammals. But they're still birds.
 
Reactions: Astrophile
Upvote 0

loveofourlord

Newbie
Feb 15, 2014
9,131
5,086
✟325,273.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private


Oh and I'm willing to go as far to say that I bet you will find all those things you object too in the DNA of species that you would likly argued evolved from a common ancestor through micro evolution or such yet will have all those things you say mean humans and chimpnazee's didn't evolve from a common ancestor.
 
Reactions: Astrophile
Upvote 0

rjs330

Well-Known Member
May 22, 2015
28,362
9,115
65
✟434,011.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Pentecostal
Asumptions once,again. ERVs right now show similarity in design. They do,not prove common ancestor. Once again you assume it does.
 
Upvote 0

Radrook

Well-Known Member
Feb 25, 2016
11,539
2,726
USA
Visit site
✟150,380.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single

Well, that's not the way I see it. That's the way you see it. In short, you totally ignore my explanations offer your own. So I guess you don't really need me to be telling you what I believe. Just make up your own idea of what others believe and argue with yourself.

BTW
Nobody is attempting to lecture you.
Pointing out logical flaws in ethics isn't lecturing you. It is merely pointing out logical flaws in ethics. However, and to be forthright,I I do detect a profound need for a lecturing in ethics since you are obviously contentedly unaware of the significance of consequentialist reasoning a well as totally unaware about the pitfalls of deontological or rule thinking which are basic to ethics. .

Such unawareness is indeed in dire need of a lecture or two in order to straighten out the fallacious conclusions which you sophomorically put forth as irrefutable truth or as right merely because you FEEL very strongly about them. I entered college with that same idea and was fortunately unceremoniously disabused of that notion. Of course I could have stormed out of the class, cancelled the course because like you I disagreed. But then I would be still inanely putting forth things as profoundly indisputable truth simply because I feel strongly about them and that isn't good.

I also detect a certain lack of familiarity with the basics of what scientific method includes. Add to all the above-mentioned your persistent propensity to attack the man and not the idea and to create elaborate strawman arguments and we don't really have an intellectual common ground for any productive discussion at all.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Warden_of_the_Storm

Well-Known Member
Oct 16, 2015
15,243
7,491
31
Wales
✟430,008.00
Country
United Kingdom
Gender
Male
Faith
Deist
Marital Status
Single
Asumptions once,again. ERVs right now show similarity in design. They do,not prove common ancestor. Once again you assume it does.

Just because you say it's assumed does not mean you are right. You have not been able to shown, ONCE, that they are only assumptions.
 
Upvote 0

TagliatelliMonster

Well-Known Member
Sep 22, 2016
4,292
3,373
46
Brugge
✟81,672.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private

I haven't seen you present an ID model that is fundamentally different from the model advanced by organisations like the Discovery Institute.

The model you propose, the "explanations" you give, the sources you link... it's all the same stuff that is fundamentally religiously motivated from the very core.

The model is the model is the model.
You can present me with a car and then scream of the top of your lungs that it isn't a car, but that won't change the fact that it is a car.


Since you don't seem able to be consistent in your own request of getting back to topic, I'll do it for you.

I suggest you create a seperate thread in the appropriate sub-forum and poke me with it. Then we'll continue this part of the conversation there.

So, back to topic...... here's a question: please point out in what specific way(s) your "id model" differs from the fundamentally religious model advanced (and developed) by the people over at the Discovery Institute?

Stop claiming that it is different and start actually explaining how it is different. Specifically.
 
Reactions: tyke
Upvote 0

TagliatelliMonster

Well-Known Member
Sep 22, 2016
4,292
3,373
46
Brugge
✟81,672.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Asumptions once,again. ERVs right now show similarity in design.

Irony.
Your first sentence implies that assumptions are bad.
Your second sentence assumes design.

They do,not prove common ancestor. Once again you assume it does.
It, off course, is not an assumption.

Do you even know what ERV's are? An ERV is the result of the integration of viral DNA into the DNA of the host cell. If this happens in cells that produce sperm or eggs, they become inheritable by off spring. This way, they can become fixed in the gene pool of the entire population.

These ERV's literally are inherited from an ancestor, where that initial integration happened.
So, indeed, when 2 individuals share identical ERV's in identical spots, you know they are related through a common ancestor which was patient 0 of that ERV.

This is not an assumption. This is merely the obvious conclusion of a logical progression of events.
There is a mechanism to explain how we came to share ERV's with one another. A perfectly reasonable, well-evidenced mechanism. Viral DNA inserts in sex cells and results in ERV in the host cell, ERV is present in egg/sperm, off spring has ERV in their DNA. Then that off spring makes babies, then those make babies, and again babies, babies, babies,... And after a bunch of generations, that ERV is potentially present in most of the population.

It's a perfectly fine explanation. It makes predictions (concerning nested hierarchies, among others), it's testable, it's observable,... it's as solid as it gets.

There is no need to assume that there is some god, oeps sorry "designer", running around injecting identical viral DNA into both chimps and humans.
 
Upvote 0

SteveB28

Well-Known Member
May 14, 2015
4,032
2,426
96
✟21,415.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Asumptions once,again. ERVs right now show similarity in design. They do,not prove common ancestor. Once again you assume it does.

Except, those ERVs are not part of either species' "design".....they are the remnants of viral infections! They are 'scars' left in the genome from a viral attack.

And here they are in identical locations in the genomes of two species which you would claim are totally unrelated....!

And you have no alternate explanation......because there is none!
 
Upvote 0

rjs330

Well-Known Member
May 22, 2015
28,362
9,115
65
✟434,011.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Pentecostal
Nope it's all assumption. Especially when it comes to chimps and humans. Similarity leads to ERV insertions. Particularly when you consider the vast difference between chimps and humans. Evolution is assumed to be true therefore ERV is evidence of common ancestor.

And yes I assume intelligent design. ERV insertions are evidence of common design.
 
Upvote 0

Speedwell

Well-Known Member
May 11, 2016
23,928
17,626
82
St Charles, IL
✟347,280.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Married
ERV insertions are the remains of viral infections. Is that part of the "design" too?
 
Upvote 0

JonFromMinnesota

Well-Known Member
Sep 3, 2015
2,171
1,608
Minnesota
✟60,266.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Similarity leads to ERV insertions

LOL. How did you come to this conclusion? Did you just make it up?

Evolution is assumed to be true therefore ERV is evidence of common ancestor.

Shared ERVs between species is an accurate prediction that evolution makes. You can say "assumed" all you want but its not a magical word that makes evidence disappear.

ERV insertions are evidence of common design.

No. Design has been repeatedly thrown out of the court room as unscientific nonsense. The ID proponents were utterly humiliated in the Dover case and had to admit under oath that ID is unscientific.
 
Upvote 0

SteveB28

Well-Known Member
May 14, 2015
4,032
2,426
96
✟21,415.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist

Other than simple wilful ignorance, how do you arrive at the emboldened section....???

How does "similarity" (whatever you mean by that) lead to two separate species having been infected by a virus, which lodges itself in exactly the same positions in their genomes......200,000 times over....!??

For example, if you were infected with HIV, if the virus entered your body, how would this be evidence of your "design"...????

The concept simply doesn't even make enough sense to be framed as a question. I think you are just throwing words at your computer screen in a vain attempt at response.
 
Upvote 0

Subduction Zone

Regular Member
Dec 17, 2012
32,629
12,069
✟230,471.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
That's irrelevant because your grandparents are human. Just like a moth is still a moth no,matter how long a time passes.

God can't be falsified,and neither can the common ancestor.
By claiming that your God cannot be falsified you have just calimed that there is no rational evidence for his existence. Are you sure that you want to do that?
 
Upvote 0

loveofourlord

Newbie
Feb 15, 2014
9,131
5,086
✟325,273.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
My case is Piltdown Man, Nebraska Man, Neanderthals, Lucy...etc. I can give many more if you really need me to!

You know if your going to try to attack something, don't have half of the things you list real. Lucy and Neanderthals are real, and not a single specimen, they are dozens of specimens.
 
Reactions: Astrophile
Upvote 0

loveofourlord

Newbie
Feb 15, 2014
9,131
5,086
✟325,273.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private

Cool now what about the other dozen we've found since or at the same time?
 
Upvote 0

loveofourlord

Newbie
Feb 15, 2014
9,131
5,086
✟325,273.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Because there are similiarities. However there are great differences too. Accept the,similarities and dismiss the differences. That's fine. But don't say it shows a common ancestor when the,differences are so,significant.

you would expect differences as chimpanzee's and human's have both been evolving for around 10 million years since the split, so of course they would gain mutations, and other strange things that we don't have, just as we have. But you can look at the simularities that we share with all apes, or have with cimpanzee's that other apes don't have and so on. Differences arn't a problem as they are to be expected.
 
Reactions: Astrophile
Upvote 0

loveofourlord

Newbie
Feb 15, 2014
9,131
5,086
✟325,273.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private

blah blah blah blah, yeah, that accounts for many simularities, except for all the ones that don't make sense, again we don't just have genes for things that we need that apes also do, we also have genes for things that we don't use, but apes do. Dolphins have genes for smelling on land, but don't use them as they have different genes for smelling in water.

Again this fails because it's like ford making a car using all the parts for a ford truck, but just welding the extra parts to the body, and parts that are simular are still used even when you don't need X part to be the same way as a truck, and be better off making it from scratch. like having a two wheel drive car, that has all the parts for a four wheel, except you can't put it in four wheel still there, wich leads to complications as when they break the car stops working even though they serve no purpose.
 
Reactions: Astrophile
Upvote 0

Radrook

Well-Known Member
Feb 25, 2016
11,539
2,726
USA
Visit site
✟150,380.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single

Yakety Yakety yakety yak yak!


 
Upvote 0