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

[Waterwerx]

-- Ouch!

Seriously, we are wasting our time here just as much as they are. Their faith is in the theory of evolution. They will never be able to disprove God just as much as we will never be able to scientifically prove God using the same standards.

 

[SteveB28]

Seriously, we are wasting our time here just as much as they are. Their faith is in the theory of evolution. They will never be able to disprove God just as much as we will never be able to scientifically prove God using the same standards.

Except our aim is NOT to "disprove God". We make no claim at all in that regard.

We simply don't believe yours..........we are waiting for YOU to provide evidence.....

 

[SteveB28]

Seriously, we are wasting our time here just as much as they are. Their faith is in the theory of evolution. They will never be able to disprove God just as much as we will never be able to scientifically prove God using the same standards.

And there is no "faith in evolution." Faith is what is required to believe something without evidence.

We have (literally) tons.............

 

[bhsmte]

Seriously, we are wasting our time here just as much as they are. Their faith is in the theory of evolution. They will never be able to disprove God just as much as we will never be able to scientifically prove God using the same standards.

Trust in the science behind evolution. No faith needed.

 

[-57]

How do you explain the insertion patterns of endogenous retroviruses in both chimpanzees and humans (and between the other primate groups for that matter)?

That was previously addressed in this post.

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.

 

[SteveB28]

That was previously addressed in this post.

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.

And your appalling ignorance was corrected just a few messages later. I suggest you go back and read. But to summarise.....

1. The point of endogenous retriviral insertion is NOT about any subsequent function. It is about the LOCATION of those insertions. You can't explain that.

2. The second part of your message has nothing to do with endogenous retroviruses. You've included it as a red herring.




.

 

[Jimmy D]

Right, a picture, that's quite a compelling argument.

So you haven't got anything to say?

 

[pshun2404]

And there is no "faith in evolution." Faith is what is required to believe something without evidence.

We have (literally) tons.............

Not true...only in your minds...

 

[pshun2404]

To support the insertion claim one would first have to prove the same type of creature existed first without them and then they are there...show us some early homo-sapien's DNA that does not have them, and then later homo sapiens that have them, and then "insertion" may be an appropriate and accurate term

 

[SteveB28]

To support the insertion claim one would first have to prove the same type of creature existed first without them and then they are there...show us some early homo-sapien's DNA that does not have them, and then later homo sapiens that have them, and then "insertion" may be an appropriate and accurate term

You are joking, aren't you?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Not true...only in your minds...

Wrong.

 

[sfs]

3 generations isn't long enough.

Why not? If you have the complete genome sequence of both parents and the child, then you can identify every single mutation that occurs, since you know the initial and final states of the genome. This kind of study has been done multiple times with similar answers.

I don't accept that answer.

A fact that has no bearing on the validity of the estimate. You are at liberty to reject any aspects of reality you don't like. Just don't expect anyone else to care.

 

[AV1611VET]

You are at liberty to reject any aspects of reality you don't like.

Like you guys do the spiritual realm?

 

[DogmaHunter]

Because these discussions get out of hand, and before you know it, God is completely factored out of the equation.

There's no need to factor certain parameters "out" of an equation they were never "in", in the first place.

 

[DogmaHunter]

You didn't answer my question: how do we factor God in to an equation?

Let's try.... Let's refer to god as the parameter G.

E = mc² + G

When we work that out, G equals 0.

Sounds about right.

 

[AV1611VET]

There's no need to factor certain parameters "out" of an equation they were never "in", in the first place.

What's this making fun of then? the weather?

 

[AV1611VET]

Because these discussions get out of hand, and before you know it, God is completely factored out of the equation.

Let's try.... Let's refer to god as the parameter G.

E = mc² + G

When we work that out, G equals 0.

Sounds about right.

Thanks for the QED.

 

[DogmaHunter]

I'll just keep this short for the both of you, I did address evidence, just as I said. What evidence? Steve wasn't specific when he said I didn't. I did just as I said I did, if you say I did not, you are liars. As to addressing any or all particular evidence, you let your imagination run completely off with you there. No one brought that up, no on asked me if I addressed that and I never claimed I addressed everything, see the dishonest twist there? You got nothing...zip.

In your desperation to find fault, sounds like you are losing it to me.

So... you addressed "evidence", but just not "specific evidence"?

Owkay.

 

[JCFantasy23]

MOD HAT ON

This Thread Has Been Moved

We are moving this thread to a section where it is a better fit.

Please continue the discussion here, thank you.

MOD HAT OFF​

 

[DogmaHunter]

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.

No, it doesn't. What that means is only that after the virus inserted and got fixed in the genome, it took up function within the dna strand it found itself in.
What the function of those particular sequences end up being, has no bearing on how it ended up there.

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.

You certainly got that right.
Furthermore, if this studies were done by "regular, mainstream secular scientists", as you say, then there would be no need to link to creationist propaganda platforms. In that case you could simply link to the actual scientific paper authored by those specific mainstream secular scientists. So why don't you?