Loch Ness Monster debunks evolution

[Inan3]

First step Inan, investigate the source.
Does this man have a vested interest in Nessie?
Of course he does, his livelyhood depends upon it.
Because of this, I will take a sketptical stance on anything he claims without hard evidence.

unexplainable does not mean plesiosaur.

Because more research means more press coverage, which means more tourists which presumably justifies his job.
If the sonar really is unexplainable then no amount of research will ever uncover the truth, right?

See above.

It is much easier to prove that Nessie does exist than he/she doesn't.
The fact that there is no proof, other than questionable photos, 'unexplainable' sonar readings and inconsistant eye-witness reports, for an animal that in all likelyhood breaths air and would have to be part of a breeding population is pretty poor really.

So the obvious conclusion is that Nessie's existance is highly unlikely.
Until evidence emerges that contradicts my stance, I will remain an agnostic a-Nessyist.

So how does gave any bearing on evolution, as the article implies?

That is the disgrace, teaching that evolution is not based on fact.

i am not aware of any hype or malicious attacks.
If there are any, then yes I would suppose that they are disgraceful.
But to teach a scientific theory as nonsense based on what is little more than a myth really is a disgrace.
How would normal people react if a school started teaching astrology as fact, and stating that the constelations disprove astronomy?

Nails, I realize he was in the tourist industry but that does not exclude him as an "expert" in regards to Nessie. For all you know, he may know all about the sonar evaluations of Nessie and much more than those who did them. I read the article as well as you so you should not assume I did not "investigate" the source of my information. I also realize that this man does not think they will ever find the Loch Ness monster. He is of your opinion. That does not exclude the fact that he said there were some unexplainable sonar findings and that more research should be done. I don't find that anything that you should be objecting to. It sounds right up your alley. Your suggestion that because something is unexplainable then "no amount of research will ever uncover the truth only goes contrary to the very principles of scientific research.

You may not be aware of hype or malicious attacks because perhaps they are saying what you would think or say. I know that after the news first broke on the web that I searched through 32 search pages on Google for perhaps just one different slant on the issue and what I found was probably 99% of them were just copied and pasted information with a few of their own jabs along wtih their own opinions on the subject. No one did any further "research" on the subject. They just passed the bias on from one heckler to the other. I find that disgraceful. Is that their right, yes. People are going to do what they want to do. And people only see what you want to see. That includes you and me, Nails.

People teach what they believe. As to astrology they already do teach such things in schools and it seems your only problem with that is that it would only be wrong if it touched on astronomy. Science is not the only thing of value in this world. I find it disgraceful that women, the medical profession, science, and many other people find it okay to abort babies with no regard for the babies or what they go through. That does not stop them from funding it out of my money!! Science does many other things that are disgraceful and yet, the people of Scienceville find nothing disgraceful or upsetting about their testings on human subjects or on our atmosphere or with the drugs they put out "in the name of science", and on and on and on. These people in these schools have a right to teach what they believe. We have a constitution that supports that. If someone is offended by it they do not have to send their children. As to supporting them with funds, they have as much right to get funds as those who teach transcendental meditation and astrology and other things that people on my side of the court do not support. For years we have been left out of the loop on funding but we pay taxes as much as those who get help doing things we don't approve of. You may not agree with it but in my eyes it is more beneficial to teach children to believe in God rather than in some of the things you might support.

 

[Inan3]

I have no problem with pink. But pink on a gray background is hard on the eyes. Seriously.

My original writing in pink was that it went along with my avatar. I also, like it because it makes it easy to spot my posts. My intention has never been to bother or irritate anyone. It's not about them. It's just a matter of preference for me. I realize it is a little hard on the eyes for some but it never seems to prevent anyone from reading them. I have no problem with changing the color but I really don't think it is that big of a deal. Because you said it in a nice way, selinflikted, I will do it. I'm not promising that I will never write in pink again but for now I will put aside my preferences. I'm going to still choose a new color, though, because it helps me to find them easier and I find black text rather boring. Hope it doesn't offend.

 

[CaliforniaSun]

Nails, I realize he was in the tourist industry but that does not exclude him as an "expert" in regards to Nessie. For all you know, he may know all about the sonar evaluations of Nessie and much more than those who did them. I read the article as well as you so you should not assume I did not "investigate" the source of my information. I also realize that this man does not think they will ever find the Loch Ness monster. He is of your opinion. That does not exclude the fact that he said there were some unexplainable sonar findings and that more research should be done. I don't find that anything that you should be objecting to. It sounds right up your alley. Your suggestion that because something is unexplainable then "no amount of research will ever uncover the truth only goes contrary to the very principles of scientific research.

You may not be aware of hype or malicious attacks because perhaps they are saying what you would think or say. I know that after the news first broke on the web that I searched through 32 search pages on Google for perhaps just one different slant on the issue and what I found was probably 99% of them were just copied and pasted information with a few of their own jabs along wtih their own opinions on the subject. No one did any further "research" on the subject. They just passed the bias on from one heckler to the other. I find that disgraceful. Is that their right, yes. People are going to do what they want to do. And people only see what you want to see. That includes you and me, Nails.

People teach what they believe. As to astrology they already do teach such things in schools and it seems your only problem with that is that it would only be wrong if it touched on astronomy. Science is not the only thing of value in this world. I find it disgraceful that women, the medical profession, science, and many other people find it okay to abort babies with no regard for the babies or what they go through. That does not stop them from funding it out of my money!! Science does many other things that are disgraceful and yet, the people of Scienceville find nothing disgraceful or upsetting about their testings on human subjects or on our atmosphere or with the drugs they put out "in the name of science", and on and on and on. These people in these schools have a right to teach what they believe. We have a constitution that supports that. If someone is offended by it they do not have to send their children. As to supporting them with funds, they have as much right to get funds as those who teach transcendental meditation and astrology and other things that people on my side of the court do not support. For years we have been left out of the loop on funding but we pay taxes as much as those who get help doing things we don't approve of. You may not agree with it but in my eyes it is more beneficial to teach children to believe in God rather than in some of the things you might support.

How many cats do you own?

 

[Loudmouth]

Nails, I realize he was in the tourist industry but that does not exclude him as an "expert" in regards to Nessie. For all you know, he may know all about the sonar evaluations of Nessie and much more than those who did them. I read the article as well as you so you should not assume I did not "investigate" the source of my information. I also realize that this man does not think they will ever find the Loch Ness monster. He is of your opinion. That does not exclude the fact that he said there were some unexplainable sonar findings and that more research should be done. I don't find that anything that you should be objecting to. It sounds right up your alley. Your suggestion that because something is unexplainable then "no amount of research will ever uncover the truth only goes contrary to the very principles of scientific research.

You could use sonar in every lake in the world and get unexplanable results. Unexplanable does not equal plesiosaur. Even more, plesiosaurs nesting on the shores of Loch Ness would be pretty obvious.

People teach what they believe.

Some people teach what they can support with evidence. We call them scientists.

 

[Inan3]

You could use sonar in every lake in the world and get unexplanable results. Unexplanable does not equal plesiosaur. Even more, plesiosaurs nesting on the shores of Loch Ness would be pretty obvious.

Well thank you, LM. I find your answer to at least make a stab at some useful and intelligent information.

Some people teach what they can support with evidence. We call them scientists.

I understand that you believe this but I do not always find it to be true.

 

[Inan3]

How many cats do you own?

Zero, How bout you?

 

[Loudmouth]

I understand that you believe this but I do not always find it to be true.

I don't believe it. I can demonstrate it. That's the difference.

 

[Inan3]

I don't believe it. I can demonstrate it. That's the difference.

I have no way of knowing that. I only have your say so on it. No evidence here.

 

[AV1611VET]

My original writing in pink was that it went along with my avatar. I also, like it because it makes it easy to spot my posts. My intention has never been to bother or irritate anyone. It's not about them. It's just a matter of preference for me. I realize it is a little hard on the eyes for some but it never seems to prevent anyone from reading them. I have no problem with changing the color but I really don't think it is that big of a deal. Because you said it in a nice way, selinflikted, I will do it. I'm not promising that I will never write in pink again but for now I will put aside my preferences. I'm going to still choose a new color, though, because it helps me to find them easier and I find black text rather boring. Hope it doesn't offend.

Man!

Get rid of the blue, will you!?

It makes it look like you're quoting Scripture!

 

[Inan3]

Man!

Get rid of the blue, will you!?

It makes it look like you're quoting Scripture!

LOL How's that for bright and cheery-o? You have to go to edit to find out what I am saying!! Ha ha!!

 

[Loudmouth]

I have no way of knowing that. I only have your say so on it. No evidence here.

"First, the distribution of provirus-containing loci among taxa dates the insertion. Given the size of vertebrate genomes (>1 × 109 bp) and the random nature of retroviral integration (22, 23), multiple integrations (and subsequent fixation) of ERV loci at precisely the same location are highly unlikely (24). Therefore, an ERV locus shared by two or more species is descended from a single integration event and is proof that the species share a common ancestor into whose germ line the original integration took place (14)."
Constructing primate phylogenies from ancient retrovirus sequences

I can demonstrate (as do the authors of that paper) that humans and other apes share hundreds of thousands of these retroviral insertions at the same spot in each of their genomes. This is demonstrable proof that we share a common ancestor with other apes. This isn't made up sonar readings or blurry photographs. This is real DNA evidence.

 

[AV1611VET]

LOL How's that for bright and cheery-o? You have to go to edit to find out what I am saying!! Ha ha!!

Ouch! LOL!

I give up! I give up!

You win!

 

[Inan3]

Delete

 

[Inan3]

"First, the distribution of provirus-containing loci among taxa dates the insertion. Given the size of vertebrate genomes (>1 × 109 bp) and the random nature of retroviral integration (22, 23), multiple integrations (and subsequent fixation) of ERV loci at precisely the same location are highly unlikely (24). Therefore, an ERV locus shared by two or more species is descended from a single integration event and is proof that the species share a common ancestor into whose germ line the original integration took place (14)."
Constructing primate phylogenies from ancient retrovirus sequences

I can demonstrate (as do the authors of that paper) that humans and other apes share hundreds of thousands of these retroviral insertions at the same spot in each of their genomes. This is demonstrable proof that we share a common ancestor with other apes. This isn't made up sonar readings or blurry photographs. This is real DNA evidence.

Well, that may be true, LM but I have no way of knowing that is even true on the account of what was said in the paper or on the account of your being able to do it. My point is not to infuriate you but rather that I would just have to take your word for it. On top of that from what I know, there is not enough DNA evidence to disprove this yet and therefore is only hypothetical until there is. Perhaps you could tell me how this disproves creation.

 

[Loudmouth]

Well, that may be true, LM but I have no way of knowing that is even true on the account of what was said in the paper or on the account of your being able to do it. My point is not to infuriate you but rather that I would just have to take your word for it. On top of that from what I know, there is not enough DNA evidence to disprove this yet and therefore is only hypothetical until there is. Perhaps you could tell me how this disproves creation.

It demonstrates that humans and other apes share a common ancestor. Whether or not that disproves creationism I will leave to creationists.

What I do know is that we observe retroviruses inserting randomly amongst thousands and thousands of insertion sites. We also observe that remnants of these insertions are found in ape genomes, including humans. Experiments demonstrating the placement of ERV's and the random nature of retroviral insertion are open to everyone. You don't have to take my word for it. That is the beauty of science. You can study this yourself.

The implications are clear. The chances that a virus will insert in the same place in two different species is improbable. The chances that a virus will insert into the same place in two different species hundreds of thousands of times is so improbable as to be ignored. Therefore, when we see hundreds of thousands of insertions at the same position in two different species we know that it is due to common ancestry. That is the evidence. It isn't hypothetical, and it isn't a belief. It is objective evidence that demonstrates common ancestry.

 

[Split Rock]

Its rather sad that creationists here cannot or will not simply agree that the Nessie argument is just plain dumb.

 

[Inan3]

It demonstrates that humans and other apes share a common ancestor. Whether or not that disproves creationism I will leave to creationists.

What I do know is that we observe retroviruses inserting randomly amongst thousands and thousands of insertion sites. We also observe that remnants of these insertions are found in ape genomes, including humans. Experiments demonstrating the placement of ERV's and the random nature of retroviral insertion are open to everyone. You don't have to take my word for it. That is the beauty of science. You can study this yourself.

The implications are clear. The chances that a virus will insert in the same place in two different species is improbable. The chances that a virus will insert into the same place in two different species hundreds of thousands of times is so improbable as to be ignored. Therefore, when we see hundreds of thousands of insertions at the same position in two different species we know that it is due to common ancestry. That is the evidence. It isn't hypothetical, and it isn't a belief. It is objective evidence that demonstrates common ancestry.

To answer and make my point, I give you a small excerpt from a Physics Book in the making. If one who is in the science field sees it this way, then I know there are many more. I saw this by just general knowledge over the years of hearing about the differing views of scientists (not only creationists) and those things that once were scientifically true and later were not. This excerpt says what I believed all along. Scienceville is not an easy or perfect place. Nor is it a place to hang your hat on. It will change and one day you all will know that there is a God and He did create man as a separate being from apes. The only common Ancestor that any and all of creation has is God Almighty the Creator of all.

" A couple major issues, first of all ... disagreements come about because the science is surprisingly complicated, the human body is incredibly complicated, all people are different, diseases are divergent and different, people and their genetic elements and physiological elements and lifestyle elements.

So when you actually get around to trying to test it, you end up with this morass of confusing and conflicting data out of which people can pick just the elements they want to support their preconceived opinions.

And that sometimes make the particular researcher look very sure that he knows the answer or she knows the answer, but unfortunately that is not how you do good science. "

Opps forgot the reference http://www.understandingphysics.org/chapters/01/1-3.php

I have emboldened this last line because I think that is how science works in Scienceville. You may not admit that it happens that way but if you stand back and look at it from a distance, the way most of us do, you will see that is exactly how it happens. You've heard the old cliche, "You can't see the forest for the trees." I think that you are there in the midst and you refuse to see the whole picture because you are too close the the subject and only look at what you want to or what benefits you.

 

[Cute Tink]

I give you a small excerpt from a Physics Book in the making.

" A couple major issues, first of all ... disagreements come about because the science is surprisingly complicated, the human body is incredibly complicated, all people are different, diseases are divergent and different, people and their genetic elements and physiological elements and lifestyle elements.

So when you actually get around to trying to test it, you end up with this morass of confusing and conflicting data out of which people can pick just the elements they want to support their preconceived opinions.

And that sometimes make the particular researcher look very sure that he knows the answer or she knows the answer, but unfortunately that is not how you do good science. "

That is an excerpt from a physics book? What does any of that have to do with physics?

 

[Inan3]

That is an excerpt from a physics book? What does any of that have to do with physics?

I forgot the reference which I have now included in my post. Here it is for you, remember it was just an excerpt to prove a point not the whole thing.

Physics Book

 

[Loudmouth]

To answer and make my point, I give you a small excerpt from a Physics Book in the making.

Yes, one that discusses dietary recommendations. That is not cogent to this discussion. We are talking about common ancestry, not dietary recommendations.

If one who is in the science field sees it this way, then I know there are many more.

What do disagreements over dietary recommendations say about the evidence for common ancestry? Please explain.

Scienceville is not an easy or perfect place.

That is not what the quote says. It says that figuring out dietary recommendations is difficult.

I have emboldened this last line because I think that is how science works in Scienceville. You may not admit that it happens that way but if you stand back and look at it from a distance, the way most of us do, you will see that is exactly how it happens. You've heard the old cliche, "You can't see the forest for the trees." I think that you are there in the midst and you refuse to see the whole picture because you are too close the the subject and only look at what you want to or what benefits you.

Then please show why orthologous ERV's do not evidence common ancestry. What am I missing?