Loch Ness Monster debunks evolution

[Inan3]

At least we agree on something!

 

[CabVet]

I am not playing dumb at all. I have often stated that I am not knowledgeable in science. I don't want to be nor do I need to be!! Others are and there are those who don't see ERV markers as evidence of common ancestry. They may be evidence of other things but it doesn't PROVE we have a common ancestor. In truth there is NO true evidence that proves we have a common ancestor.

Oh really? You should take this argument to court and revert all verdicts ever made based on DNA evidence, because they rely on the same principle: similar DNA equals common ancestry. If we cannot tell with DNA that humans and chimps (and other primates) shared a common ancestor, we cannot tell if humans are related at all.

 

[Inan3]

Oh really? You should take this argument to court and revert all verdicts ever made based on DNA evidence, because they rely on the same principle: similar DNA equals common ancestry. If we cannot tell with DNA that humans and chimps (and other primates) shared a common ancestor, we cannot tell if humans are related at all.

That is absurd. To identify someone's DNA doesn't require the common ancestral story at all.

 

[CabVet]

That is absurd. To identify someone's DNA doesn't require the common ancestral story at all.

What?? Do you even know what DNA is?

 

[Inan3]

What?? Do you even know what DNA is?

Isn't it that stuff that forms between your toes?

 

[rikerjoe]

What?? Do you even know what DNA is?

Actually, he is correct. To identify someone, common ancestry is not required. However, to identify kinship between two individuals does require common ancestry theory.

 

[CabVet]

Actually, he is correct. To identify someone, common ancestry is not required. However, to identify kinship between two individuals does require common ancestry theory.

Actually, common ancestry (and evolution) is required. If there is no common ancestry, even if a piece of DNA found in a crime scene matches a suspect's DNA, it might have been "designed" like that. Common ancestry and evolution predict DNA of every person is different, intelligent design does not.

 

[Split Rock]

One of the biggest problems I have with creationism is that with creationism anything goes. You can throw out the scientific method, logic, and reason and still call it "science." Its OK to teach that there is a plesiosaur living in Scotland, or that Behemoth was a sarupod dinosaur of the type still living in Africa, and that this all somehow disproves the theory of evolution. Then you can also make animatronic dinosaurs living with Adam and Eve and call it a "museum." Eve can look like a barbie doll too if you like, even though she's supposed to be Middle Eastern. You can even have kids riding on the back of a Triceratops if you like. All under the umbrella of "science."

 

[NailsII]

I have often stated that I am not knowledgeable in science. I don't want to be nor do I need to be!! Others are and there are those who don't see ERV markers as evidence of common ancestry. They may be evidence of other things but it doesn't PROVE we have a common ancestor. In truth there is NO true evidence that proves we have a common ancestor. There are just things in common from the Designer Who is our common Creator.

Ignoring the last part of your post, which is a bit personal so it is not for me to comment, your lack of scientific knowledge is your business.
We all have gaps in our knowledge; no-one knows everything.
If ERVs are not evidence for a common ancestor, what are they? There must be an explanation - especially from someone who thinks that everything must have a cause.

Look at it logically.
If you were asked to write a piece in an English class about your favourite book, and you copied a slarge ection of Shakespeare's King Lear word for word, what is the logical explanation?
The chances of you coming up with say a thousand words of shakespear in any order may not be remarkable, but a thousand words in exactly the same order?

So if we find 100,000 genes in our DNA that are viral in origin, and appear almost exactly the same (same order, virtually the same sequences) then what is the logical explanation?

As has been pointed out, DNA evidence in court would not work if common ancestory was false - because it is the only theory which explains why your DNA is more similar to people that you are closely related to.
It works with animals too, and even bacteria.

This is where I would rather be with you, agreeing on things and not taking oposing sides.
You ar a clever person, and I enjoy discussing things with you.
But I would much rather we agree than disagree!

 

[Loudmouth]

I am not playing dumb at all. I have often stated that I am not knowledgeable in science. I don't want to be nor do I need to be!!

If you want to claim that there is no evidence for evolution then yes, you do need to be knowledgeable in science.

Others are and there are those who don't see ERV markers as evidence of common ancestry. They may be evidence of other things but it doesn't PROVE we have a common ancestor.

I thought you were not knowledgeable in science? How can you claim that ERV's are not evidence of common ancestry if you do not understand genetics or retroviruses?

In truth there is NO true evidence that proves we have a common ancestor.

Such a claim would require knowlede in science which something that you lack by your own admission.

There are just things in common from the Designer Who is our common Creator. That is not hard to see.

Obviously it is hard to see since no one has ever observed a supernatural deity creating two species with shared DNA.

It's just something that some people don't want to accept.

I will gladly accept it once you supply evidence to support it. Where is that evidence?

Science does not prove that we are not Created as separate and individual species it only surmises that we are.

How can you know this without knowledge of science?

And I know that God does exist and is not a figment of my imagination or of the imagination of millions of people from all walks of life.

Such a statement is usually followed by evidence. Where is it?

And no amount of science will ever convince me otherwise. It's too late, God has made Himself known to me. I would never leave Him for .... for.... I don't know... What is it that you would want a person to stop believing in God for? I don't get it nor will I ever. I was without God once and believe me I would NEVER want to go back to that.... EVER!!

Peace!!

You have it the wrong way around. Why would I accept such claims without evidence? Why would I throw out scientific theories backed by mountains of evidence for religious claims backed by no more than your say so?

 

[Inan3]

Actually, he is correct. To identify someone, common ancestry is not required. However, to identify kinship between two individuals does require common ancestry theory.

Please DO explain how this works.

 

[CabVet]

Please DO explain how this works.

How what works? Common ancestry? It predicts that your children's DNA will be more similar to yours than anybody else in the planet. Evolution and common ancestry also predict that two people will not have the same DNA, and those two principles (common ancestry and evolution) are used on crime scenes every day.

Creationism on the other hand predicts that God created DNA from nothing (or dust, depends on who you talk to). If God did it once, he can do it again, so creationism has no prediction regarding pieces of DNA found in crimes scenes. It could be from the criminal, but it can also be a random piece of DNA created by God.

 

[Inan3]

If you want to claim that there is no evidence for evolution then yes, you do need to be knowledgeable in science.

I have some knowledge of science but not an in depth knowledge.

I thought you were not knowledgeable in science? How can you claim that ERV's are not evidence of common ancestry if you do not understand genetics or retroviruses?

Ok, LM, why don't you tell me how it is evidence of common ancestry....IF you can.... and please bring me all the way back to our common ancestor ... IF you know who that is.

Obviously it is hard to see since no one has ever observed a supernatural deity creating two species with shared DNA.

And no one has ever observed evolution either.

I will gladly accept it once you supply evidence to support it. Where is that evidence?

It's all around and yet, you choose not to accept it.

How can you know this without knowledge of science?

You don't have to have an in depth knowledge of science to listen to others who do. And often it just takes common sense to understand some things. And when you know and understand spiritual things and God you know that anything that dismisses either is wrong.

Such a statement is usually followed by evidence. Where is it?

If you are expecting scientific evidence then that is where you are wrong. Spiritual evidence is not observed that way. It is observed in the spirit realm not the natural.

You have it the wrong way around. Why would I accept such claims without evidence? Why would I throw out scientific theories backed by mountains of evidence for religious claims backed by no more than your say so?

What are these mountains of evidence that prove there is no God and that He did not create man just as he is today. You cannot produce any evidence. You only can produce things that might possibly or could be perhaps evidence of that and in the end it is only speculation by men that it might be the case.

 

[Inan3]

How what works? Common ancestry? It predicts that your children's DNA will be more similar to yours than anybody else in the planet. Evolution and common ancestry also predict that two people will not have the same DNA, and those two principles (common ancestry and evolution) are used on crime scenes every day.

This proves nothing of common ancestry. People were predicting the same things before DNA was ever discovered. That's like giving the definition of Evolution as "things evolving."

 

[Inan3]

This is where I would rather be with you, agreeing on things and not taking oposing sides.
You ar a clever person, and I enjoy discussing things with you.
But I would much rather we agree than disagree!

Me too, Nails, me too!!

Endogenous Retroviruses (ERVs) - YouTube

 

[Inan3]

One of the biggest problems I have with creationism is that with creationism anything goes. You can throw out the scientific method, logic, and reason and still call it "science." Its OK to teach that there is a plesiosaur living in Scotland, or that Behemoth was a sarupod dinosaur of the type still living in Africa, and that this all somehow disproves the theory of evolution. Then you can also make animatronic dinosaurs living with Adam and Eve and call it a "museum." Eve can look like a barbie doll too if you like, even though she's supposed to be Middle Eastern. You can even have kids riding on the back of a Triceratops if you like. All under the umbrella of "science."

Well, unfortunately there are some indiscretions when it comes to people's (creationists) opinions BUT that is also the same when it comes to evolution and yet, you overlook it and turn the other way because you do NOT want to admit them or see them. I have not read one thing on evolution where they have not speculated and added conjecture throughout the entire thing but yet, evolutionists believe it as solid evidence and proof. I, therefore, don't believe or put any credibility to any of it on either side. When something is made up it usually is very obvious. I find that often with evolution. Many of the stories of evolution are made up and/or surmised and by their very context and wording you can logically see this and therefore, come to the logical conclusion that they are untrue. As I see it your description above explains evolution to a "T".

 

[CabVet]

This proves nothing of common ancestry. People were predicting the same things before DNA was ever discovered. That's like giving the definition of Evolution as "things evolving."

Oh, so "things evolving" is not the same as evolution? I have heard pretty wild claims by creationists before, but this one beats even AV's "embedded age".

No, people did not know these things before they knew about DNA, you should look it up. At one point, people thought sperm were a bunch of "little men" or homunculus (fully formed humans that were placed inside the female's uterus my the males):

Homunculus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So, no people were not predicting common ancestry that long ago.

And yes, the DNA of your cousin being at the exact distance where common ancestry predicts it to be is evidence that common ancestry is a sound scientific hypothesis. Your cousin's DNA being closer to yours than it is to his mother would weaken support for common ancestry, but that is not the case.

The same holds for relationships that are deeper in time, the absolute same principle. A lion and a tiger have DNAs that are closer to one another than either are to dogs. If everything was "designed", things that look alike would have similar DNA, and things that don't would have different DNA, regardless of ancestry, but that is not the case.

 

[CabVet]

I have not read one thing on evolution where they have not speculated and added conjecture throughout the entire thing but yet, evolutionists believe it as solid evidence and proof. I, therefore, don't believe or put any credibility to any of it on either side.[/COLOR]

How about you stop making general speculations and conjectures, why don't you post exactly what you read about evolution that you think is "wrong"? No evolutionist believes in "proof".

 

[Loudmouth]

Ok, LM, why don't you tell me how it is evidence of common ancestry....IF you can.... and please bring me all the way back to our common ancestor ... IF you know who that is.

Retroviruses insert randomly amongst millions of potential insertion sites. Therefore, the chances that two retroviruses will insert into the same position in two genomes (even identical genomes) is quite low.

What do we see in the human and chimp genome? We find hundreds of thousands of old retroviral insertions called ERV's (endogenous retroviral insertions). If humans and chimps do not share a common ancestor then these insertions came about through separate infections in each species. Therefore, we would expect to find few, if any, ERV's at the same position (i.e. orthologous) in each genome. If humans and chimps share a common ancestor then we would expect to find many, if not most, ERV's to be found in the same position since these ERV's would have been inherited from a common ancestor. If you have siblings, for example, you would find that you share ERV insertions at the same position in each of your genomes. This is because you inherited them from your parents.

So what do we find? When the human and chimp genomes were sequenced they found over 200,000 ERV's in the human genome. When they comapred the chimp genome to the human genome they found that only a few hundred were not found at the same location. Nearly all of the ERV's were found at the same location in both genomes. This is smoking gun evidence for common ancestry.

And no one has ever observed evolution either.

We observe evolution with each and every generation.

It's all around and yet, you choose not to accept it.

I see creationists claiming this all of the time, but they never ever present this evidence to us. Wonder why that is?

Perhaps you can tell us how ERV's are evidence of creation.

You don't have to have an in depth knowledge of science to listen to others who do. And often it just takes common sense to understand some things. And when you know and understand spiritual things and God you know that anything that dismisses either is wrong.

Over 99% of biologists accept evolution as an accurate theory. The ones with the most in depth knowledge of the evidence accept evolution, and this crosses all faiths and philosophies.

If you are expecting scientific evidence then that is where you are wrong. Spiritual evidence is not observed that way. It is observed in the spirit realm not the natural.

So you have no empirical evidence to back up your claims, correct?

What are these mountains of evidence that prove there is no God and that He did not create man just as he is today. You cannot produce any evidence. You only can produce things that might possibly or could be perhaps evidence of that and in the end it is only speculation by men that it might be the case.

What God? Evidence please.

 

[Loudmouth]

I have not read one thing on evolution where they have not speculated and added conjecture throughout the entire thing but yet, evolutionists believe it as solid evidence and proof.

Here is the paper I linked to earlier.

Constructing primate phylogenies from ancient retrovirus sequences

Can you please show how this is conjecture and speculation?