"Life and its building blocks are way too complicated to have evolved." [moved]

[-57]

endogenous retrovirus

From what I read...The term ‘endogenous retrovirus’ is a bit of a misnomer. There are numerous instances where small transposable elements thought to be endogenous retroviruses have been found to have functions, which invalidates the ‘random retrovirus insertion’ claim. For instance, studies of embryo development in mice suggest that transposable elements (of which ERVs are a subset) control embryo development. Transposable elements seem to be involved in controlling the sequence and level of gene expression during development, by moving to/from the sites of gene control.

I also read...
First, genetic data indicate that these sequences are not millions of years old. Using the comparative tools of evolutionary genetics, secular scientists compared the gene sequences of viruses to their counterparts in animal genomes and found that, at most, the variation in these sequences indicates they can be no more than 50,000 years old.2 So, if these viral-like sequences are not millions of years old, then where did they come from?

You can read more about them here and here and here

.....but then again those links are from creationist sites.....so they really don't count.

 

[-57]

It doesn't matter. I'm talking about the overwhelming majority that are neutral. When did those mutations occur? Each of us carries thousands of them. Which of our ancestors did they occur in?

When did they occur? Through out mankinds history.

I still would like an answer to how many of them are considered as beneficial

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

From what I read...The term ‘endogenous retrovirus’ is a bit of a misnomer. There are numerous instances where small transposable elements thought to be endogenous retroviruses have been found to have functions, which invalidates the ‘random retrovirus insertion’ claim. For instance, studies of embryo development in mice suggest that transposable elements (of which ERVs are a subset) control embryo development. Transposable elements seem to be involved in controlling the sequence and level of gene expression during development, by moving to/from the sites of gene control.

I also read...
First, genetic data indicate that these sequences are not millions of years old. Using the comparative tools of evolutionary genetics, secular scientists compared the gene sequences of viruses to their counterparts in animal genomes and found that, at most, the variation in these sequences indicates they can be no more than 50,000 years old.2 So, if these viral-like sequences are not millions of years old, then where did they come from?

You can read more about them here and here and here

.....but then again those links are from creationist sites.....so they really don't count.

Of course they don't count. Because they aren't written by actual scientists.

 

[sfs]

From what I read...The term ‘endogenous retrovirus’ is a bit of a misnomer.

You'd be better off reading people who know what they're talking about.

There are numerous instances where small transposable elements thought to be endogenous retroviruses have been found to have functions, which invalidates the ‘random retrovirus insertion’ claim.

The second half of your sentence does not follow from the first half. Sure, quite a few ERVs have function; that doesn't make them any less retroviral insertions. (The fraction of ERVs that is functional is tiny, by the way.) Any stretch of DNA can acquire function, and ERVs are particularly likely to, since they already had their own function when they were inserted into the genome.

I also read...
First, genetic data indicate that these sequences are not millions of years old. Using the comparative tools of evolutionary genetics, secular scientists compared the gene sequences of viruses to their counterparts in animal genomes and found that, at most, the variation in these sequences indicates they can be no more than 50,000 years old.2

Again, read people who know what they're talking about. In fact, read the paper that's cited. It is not talking about ERVs, and does not study gene sequences in animal genomes. It's talking only about how long it's been since current members of each RNA virus family evolved from their common ancestor.

.....but then again those links are from creationist sites.....so they really don't count.

No, they don't count because they are written by people who are (intentionally or not) incompetent in genetics.

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

.....but then again those links are from creationist sites.....so they really don't count.

You're right, they don't. Why would you accept sources that are known liars and have a statement of faith that literally states if the evidence disagrees with their beliefs, the evidence is wrong. Would you like to cite a source that isn't intellectually dishonest?

 

[sfs]

When did they occur? Through out mankinds history.

When throughout history? If the human population is 1 million when a mutation occurs, then the new variant has a frequency of 1 in two million. In a population of 50,000, it will have a frequency of 0.001%. 4500 years ago, single cities in Sumer had populations that large. So these 1% mutations had to date from well before that. When did they happen?

I still would like an answer to how many of them are considered as beneficial

Since I've given you estimates of precisely that number on two different occasions, neither of which led to any meaningful engagement by you, you'll have to forgive me if I don't give it a third try.

 

[Radrook]

Why do you mention atheists? Did you not see the Christians in this thread arguing against this nonsense?



Apart from the logical fallacies and most likely false, unsupported statistics you've managed to fit into this sentence, I find the use of the word "Effortlessly" most telling. Maybe if you and your Creationist friends put a bit of effort into learning about the subject you would have a different viewpoint.

I mention atheists because they are the ones which are typically known to be incapable of inferring creation from organization of matter towards a purpose when such organization is present in nature. Everyone else doesn't suffer from that perplexing paradoxical incapability.

Creationist friends? Just because a person is a creationist doesn't automatically make the person my friend. Does being an atheist make people who are atheists your friends?

About maybe, well, that's just the point, the more we learn about it the more ridiculously absurd the whole idea becomes.
Learning more about it would only serve to provide us with further reasons to reject it as totally unfeasible. So it isn't the unfamiliarity with your explanations which causes our rejection of your abiogenesis idea, instead, it is the very irrational essence of your explanations which is the problem.

 

[-57]

When throughout history? If the human population is 1 million when a mutation occurs, then the new variant has a frequency of 1 in two million. In a population of 50,000, it will have a frequency of 0.001%. 4500 years ago, single cities in Sumer had populations that large. So these 1% mutations had to date from well before that. When did they happen?

It started with Cain.

Judging from those numbers the "ape" population must have been extremely huge.....considering the low amount of mutations and the even drasticallly lower amount of mutations that would have enhanced the fitness of the apes.

 

[-57]

And this comment proves that you don't want to have an actual conversation. You just want to regurgitate your creationist beliefs ad nauseam, and you absolutely refuse to listen to anyone who says that you even might be wrong.

Listen to you. You were caught presenting the same type of "misinformation". At least be honest. Sheeze.

Of course they don't count. Because they aren't written by actual scientists.

You'd be better off reading people who know what they're talking about.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Listen to you. You were caught presenting the same type of "misinformation". At least be honest. Sheeze.

I am honest.

 

[sfs]

I mention atheists because they are the ones which are typically known to be incapable of inferring creation from organization of matter towards a purpose when such organization is present in nature. Everyone else doesn't suffer from that perplexing paradoxical incapability.

I'm afraid most Christian scientists suffer from the same incapability.

 

[sfs]

It started with Cain.

Great. Cain being human, he had about 60 new mutations. How many people were in the population then? How did Cain's mutations reach 1% frequency? When did the other ~50,000 1% mutations (that each of us carries) occur?

 

[sfs]

Just for the record...at this point I stopped reading your reply. For you to make such a claim...deception must be your ploy. You certainly weren't honest with that reply.

Pretty harsh accusation there, that I'm being deceptive and dishonest. You'd better be able to back it up. Now would be a good time to get started.

 

[AV1611VET]

Great. Cain being human, he had about 60 new mutations. How many people were in the population then? How did Cain's mutations reach 1% frequency? When did the other ~50,000 1% mutations (that each of us carries) occur?

I have a question for you, sfs:

Who was Adam's mother?

 

[sfs]

I have a question for you, sfs:

Who was Adam's mother?

I have a question for you, AV: who was Paul Bunyan's mother?

 

[AV1611VET]

I have a question for you, AV: who was Paul Bunyan's mother?

What kind of answer is that?

I'm asking you a specific, legitimate question.

Who (or what) was Adam's mother?

 

[Radrook]

I'm afraid most Christian scientists suffer from the same incapability.

Not as I described it.

 

[sfs]

What kind of answer is that?

I'm asking you a specific, legitimate question.

Who (or what) was Adam's mother?

It's not an answer -- it's a specific, legitimate question. Answer my question and I'll answer yours.

 

[sfs]

Not as I described it.

Yes, as you described it -- inferring a creator from matter organized in nature toward a purpose. Pointing toward faith in a creator, sure, but actual inference? Nah.

 

[doubtingmerle]

What kind of answer is that?

I'm asking you a specific, legitimate question.

Who (or what) was Adam's mother?

Eve.

GEn 3:20 And Adam called his wife's name Eve; because she was the mother of all living.

Did he marry his mother?