My Evolution Challenge

[Tinker Grey]

Oh, I'm completely serious. It takes much greater faith to believe in the farce of the theory of evolution that to believe the Creator - Almighty God.

Yet another Christian implying that faith is a bad thing. How ironic is that.

 

[Greg1234]

Cute! First off, I doubt you understand the concept of junk DNA, but since this you-tube video isn't making an argument based on junk DNA, mention of it is just a non sequitor and so not worth arguing. To the issue at hand: This you-tube video is making an argument based on a mis-understanding of the research. This is amusing, since the full article and its data sets are available.

Yes and the full article was linked. There is no attempt at deception, though you will seek to paint one. And we are finding more and more functions for junk DNA. This is relevant to the topic as there have been debates where Dawinists have brought it up as a storehouse or a viral wasteland where mutations are accumulating.

This is the money-quote of the you-tube video, that the entire argument is based on:

No there is no "money quote" and the entire argument is not based on the first premise but a series of occurrences which result in some integration sites being identical in similar genotypes.

This is what the authors actually say: "HERV-KCon and the other viruses (except AAV and MMTV) integrated more frequently in genes that were actively expressed as measured by Affymetrix microarrays."

"More frequently" is not the same as "choose", and the data provided clearly shows that HERV-K(con) did indeed insert in sites of nonactive transcription.

The authors also used words like favored.

"We compared the distribution of HERV-KCon, ERV2, and HML2(85) versus a variety of genomic features. As described above, de novo HERV-KCon
integration is modestly favored within transcription units. Both ERV2 and HML2(85) were less frequently present within transcription units than expected by chance"
​

"HERV-KCon integration was more frequent near epigenetic marks associated with active transcription, H3K4 me1 and me2, H3K9 me1, H3K36 me3, and H4K20 me1, and also bound RNA Pol II. MLV and the lentivirus integration showed a stronger positive association with chromatin features linked to active transcription, consistent with the stronger biases away from random for their integration site distributions. H2AZ, a histone variant associated with promoters, was positively associated with MLV integration frequency but negatively associated with HIV-1 integration frequency, paralleling the integration frequencies of the two viruses near CpG islands. The presence of H2AZ did not have a detectable effect on HERV-KCon integration frequency."
​

Further, this is not the sole feature responsible for the observed distribution of integration. We are seeing there is indeed a bias, and a higher frequency of HERV-K in certain regions, than in others.

Since the you-tube video's argument is dependent upon 100% of HERV-K(con)'s integration being in actively transcribed locations, and since this is NOT what the authors found, we can conclude that the video's argument fails due to faulty premise.

Put down the straw man chief. Fire hazard. There is a tendency for HERV-K to target actively transcribed locations. This is exactly what the authors found. Also there is a 5 step purification process and the observed results is not "100% dependent" the first one. You isolate the first process, then isolate a word, then remove the rest of the sequence, lay the task entirely upon the first process, and from there, you make your argument.

The fossil record shows clear striation depicting certain animals at certain layers and other animals at others.

What does that have to do with Darwinism. My guess is you have never built have never built a [eco] system from scratch, neither are the entries of organisms dependent on how you would have done it.

If Creation were true, we'd expect to see a random sorting, but we don't see this.

Firstly if creation were true we would expect bacteria to remain bacteria, for random mutation to be sterile, and for there to be a limit. And this is what we find. Basing an observation of the fossil records on the aforementioned scientific facts, defeats it. Further, the major phyla start at the bottom, with later entries, not the other way around. This has nothing to do with Darwinism. And we do have a mixing of certain fossils some which were given and you have not addressed.

Even if we accepted the idea that animals can evolve within 'kinds' we would still see a departure with the observed fossil record.

This is no different than saying if chemical evolution were not true then we would not find the earth before life forms. If Creationism were true then we should find herbivorous before plants. Or we should find man first, then bacteria. All these are baseless assertions. You are not aware of the separation of planes organisms dwell on, nor the constraints of the creation of a self sustaining system, the sequence of the creation, and the manifestation of mind in accordance with the different planes of consciousness is in the process being unraveled. Nor is the record complete. The coelacanth was declared extinct because it disappeared from the fossil record for millions of years. Just recently, a fisherman pulled a living one up. With bacteria remaining bacteria, and completely legitimate findings labeled as anomalous because they do not jive with Darwinism, what we find is an insertion of life forms.

 

[Skaloop]

Originally Posted by Greg1234

Bacteria remaining bacteria. Oh. The sterility of random mutation. Ouch. The encoding of an adaptation feature in DNA, yow zerrs Batman. The limits of adaptation. zoinks. Yes, so much denial of modern science. Lol.​

Would you mind elaborating on points 2, 3, and 4?

Well? Would you?

 

[Anaximander]

Points 2, 3, and 4 please...

 

[Anaximander]

...Darwin was a "Johnny-come-lately" disconnected from reality. He wasn't involved in anything resembling real science. There has been one hoax after another to defend his wild hypothesis. All of the hoaxes tied together are still a hoax. It's a dead theory that needs to be buried.

By the way, I don't think you realize that Darwin did not come up with biological evolution. The first person in recorded history to discuss the idea of evolution was a man named Anaximander of Miletus 2,600 years ago.

What made Darwin famous was he discovered one of the primary mechanisms for evolution, called natural selection, and he used empirical evidence to support it (contrary to your factless rhetoric). Read the following and tell me why your claim is unfounded: Early Theories of Evolution: Darwin and Natural Selection

It sounds like you are an expert on how proper science is done. Could you please list your scientific profession and all of your published research in order for me to support you?

Best,

 

[kharisym]

Yes and the full article was linked. There is no attempt at deception, though you will seek to paint one. And we are finding more and more functions for junk DNA. This is relevant to the topic as there have been debates where Dawinists have brought it up as a storehouse or a viral wasteland where mutations are accumulating.

No there is no "money quote" and the entire argument is not based on the first premise but a series of occurrences which result in some integration sites being identical in similar genotypes.

The authors also used words like favored.

"We compared the distribution of HERV-KCon, ERV2, and HML2(85) versus a variety of genomic features. As described above, de novo HERV-KCon
integration is modestly favored within transcription units. Both ERV2 and HML2(85) were less frequently present within transcription units than expected by chance"
​

"HERV-KCon integration was more frequent near epigenetic marks associated with active transcription, H3K4 me1 and me2, H3K9 me1, H3K36 me3, and H4K20 me1, and also bound RNA Pol II. MLV and the lentivirus integration showed a stronger positive association with chromatin features linked to active transcription, consistent with the stronger biases away from random for their integration site distributions. H2AZ, a histone variant associated with promoters, was positively associated with MLV integration frequency but negatively associated with HIV-1 integration frequency, paralleling the integration frequencies of the two viruses near CpG islands. The presence of H2AZ did not have a detectable effect on HERV-KCon integration frequency."
​

Further, this is not the sole feature responsible for the observed distribution of integration. We are seeing there is indeed a bias, and a higher frequency of HERV-K in certain regions, than in others.
Put down the straw man chief. Fire hazard. There is a tendency for HERV-K to target actively transcribed locations. This is exactly what the authors found. Also there is a 5 step purification process and the observed results is not "100% dependent" the first one. You isolate the first process, then isolate a word, then remove the rest of the sequence, lay the task entirely upon the first process, and from there, you make your argument.

Here's the transcript from that video from the point that it starts the argument to the point that it posits its final proof (I tried to preserve the grammar and spelling errors for fun) I added flags (A, 1, etc) to pinpoint the premise and conclusions:

1)[ Interestingly the authors found that the resurrected virus called HERV-Kcon choose to integrate itself into genes being actively trascribed. That is genes currently in the process of making proteins ]

2)[ It is estimated that at any one time only a couple of hundred genes are active inside the cell and in the phase of active transcription ]

A)[ Thus clearly HERV-K integration is a very specific event. ]

What is even more suprising is that when the scientists looked at where current HERV-K are located in the genome as opposed to where the HERV-Kcon resurrected virus inegrates they found this:

B)[ They found that the sites wher the endogenous retroviruses inserted have been purified by "natural selection" ] (ie- the sites of insertion cause mutations which produce cell or animal death- a more specific statement of B from premise 3)

3)[ As an example: because HERV-K tend to target actively prescribed genes, they may insert in a manner that causes a mutation in these genes. Tha vast majority of these mutations are detrimental, leading to gene dysfunction.

Why would these insertion be detrimental? A couple of scenarios may occur:

A retrovirus may insert in the promoter or the regulatory elements of the gene; This gene will no longer be transcribed. Alternatively it may over-transcribed.

A virus may insert into the coding portion of the gene causing a frameshift mutation, and therefor a dysfunctional protein being produced.

Thus if a dysfunctional protein is produced in most cases cell death will occur.

<random picture>

Second, a retrovirus may insert near genes involved in regulating the cell cycle. Such an example is cyclin and cyclin dependent kinase.

If they integrate into these genes, they will cause loss of cell cycle regulation, and therefore uncontroled growth. Uncontroled cellular growth and replication is otherwise known as cancer.

Many current retroviruses which insert into regulators of the cell cycle (or alternatively tumor supressor genes or proto-oncogenes) cause cancer.

Lastly because these viruses target actively transcribed genes, the viral proteins will be expressed on the cell surface as MHC-class I molecules.

The immune system, specifically natural killer cells recognize viral proteins and destroy the cells infected with the retrovirus

These four processes work in conjunction to "purify" and determine where current HERV-Ks are found in our genome.

In summary the four processes are: a. specific site selection by HERV-K

b. death of cells in which virus integration results in lack of gene expression

c. death of cells in which an abnormal protein is formed

d. death of cells where retroviruses activate cancer causing genes

e. death of cells where the immune system recognizes that they've been infected by a retrovirus ]

4)[ We share 98% of our genes with apes. Therefore we share 98% of our DNA sequence. Since retrovirus integrase enzym targets specific DNA sequences ]

C)[ They're likely to target the same genes in both humans and apes. ]

D)[ Because we share most of our physiology and molecular genetics with apes, the same kind of purification process will undergo in humans and apes. ]

E)[ Therefore seperate infections will produce HERV-K integrations in some of the same places. ]

F)[ These infections do not necessarily have to be in a "common ancestor" ]

G)[ Rather they can be in two individuals, and the site selection mechanisms of the retroviruses and the "purification" process will ensure that a lot of retroviruses will end up in the same place. ]

Here's the logical flow of the argument:

1 + 2 = A
3 = B
A + 4 = C
B + C = D
D = E = G = F

premise 1 ( Interestingly the authors found that the resurrected virus called HERV-Kcon choose to integrate itself into genes being actively transcribed. That is genes currently in the process of making proteins ) is critical to the conclusion 'F' ( These infections do not necessarily have to be in a "common ancestor" ) because without premise 1 being true, A and therefore C, D, E, and G are all false.

Since premise 1 is false, we can conclude that F is false within any reasonable value.

To be more precise, since 1 is false, running down the line, E is false because non-actively transcribed sites are not going to be selected against by the mechanisms established in premise 3, giving plenty of potential insertion sites that dramatically reduce the chances of any two insertions being in the same place.

premise 1 is false because it relies upon a significant preponderance of insertion events being in areas of active transcription. The phrase "HERV-KCon and the other viruses (except AAV and MMTV) integrated more frequently in genes that were actively expressed as measured by Affymetrix microarrays." does not contain any wordage specifying a significant preponderance. If you look at the data set, you'll see that the ratio of actively transcribed to non-actively transcribed insertions for HERV-K(con) is roughly 2.5:1, which is not a ratio deserving of the affirmative language used in premise 1.

What does that have to do with Darwinism.

Read one line further. You know, the one you cut out so you wouldn't have to argue it.

Firstly if creation were true we would expect bacteria to remain bacteria, for random mutation to be sterile, and for there to be a limit. And this is what we find. Basing an observation of the fossil records on the aforementioned scientific facts, defeats it. Further, the major phyla start at the bottom, with later entries, not the other way around. This has nothing to do with Darwinism. And we do have a mixing of certain fossils some which were given and you have not addressed.

Way to totally side-step my argument. Fact is, the preponderance of fossils match what we'd expect from evolution. With such a large number of them, however, there are naturally going to be some outliers resultant from external influences, and pointing out a few outliers is not going to subvert the greater bulk of evidence. It's kind of like baking cookies, sometimes you get a few weird shaped ones. I'm not a paleontoligist, so I'm not going to attempt to rationalize some argument just because you can't wrap your mind around the idea that sometimes crazy stuff happens to bones in the ground, however the fact remains (since you didn't address it) that if creationism were true, the overwhelmingly obvious pattern of the fossil record would have to be the outlier and not the primary.

Here, I'll help you out. Use creationism to explain the sorting pattern we see in the fossil record.

You are not aware of the separation of planes organisms dwell on, nor the constraints of the creation of a self sustaining system, the sequence of the creation, and the manifestation of mind in accordance with the different planes of consciousness is in the process being unraveled.

...wut? Why don't you explain to me in detail your version of creationism including these different planes and the manifestation of mind in accordance with the different planes of consciousness. In a matter of fact, please explain all this before you answer anything else, I think it might clear up a lot of disagreements between us.

 

[Greg1234]

(I tried to preserve the grammar and spelling errors for fun)

Of course. Darwinist believes he is most intelligent.

1 + 2 = A
3 = B
A + 4 = C
B + C = D
D = E = G = F

premise 1 ( Interestingly the authors found that the resurrected virus called HERV-Kcon choose to integrate itself into genes being actively transcribed. That is genes currently in the process of making proteins ) is critical to the conclusion 'F' ( These infections do not necessarily have to be in a "common ancestor" ) because without premise 1 being true, A and therefore C, D, E, and G are all false.

Its not critical. A non active becomes active. Junk DNA is not junk but active as well. There is a high affinity towards actively transcribed locations and contributes to the location in which retro viral like insertions are found. Therefore finding similar locations in both humans and chimps is not unlikely seeing that locations of active transcription would also share similarities, as with those which become active at different points in time.

Since premise 1 is false, we can conclude that F is false within any reasonable value.

Premise 1 is not false as previously outlined. There is in fact a bias towards active transcription locations. Nobody said that this was the only target, but that there was a tendency towards these sites. The full measure of observing similar site locations is not dependent on there being an isolation to actively transcribe locations. Only that there be an affinity, which is then acted upon by further purification occurrences.

To be more precise, since 1 is false, running down the line, E is false because non-actively transcribed sites are not going to be selected against by the mechanisms established in premise 3, giving plenty of potential insertion sites that dramatically reduce the chances of any two insertions being in the same place.

Again premise 1 is not false. HERV-K does indeed tend to target actively transcribed locations and therefore they are subjected to premise 3. Further, thats precisely the point being made. Insertions in active locations will be acted upon by 3 and therefore influence a specificity in other locations. There are other points which are acted upon by a purification process including near regulators, which will cause uncontrolled growth and death. Integration within the non coding part of DNA or the "junk DNA" which is important will also cause anomalies, and be either recognized by the immune system, or die. And because humans and Apes share most of their DNA then this due to these purification processes, you will find some similar target sites. The "non-actively transcribed sites" at a given point in time will become active at another point in time, for example, placental growth and differentiation which are active in the early stages of development. Out of 98000 erv like locations including ltrs etc, about 14-60 are in the same location. Thats is about 0.056%. Which means that 99.944% of retroviral like locations are different. This is not evidence for common ancestry. With the tendency to target sites being actively transcribed, with humans and chimps sharing 98% of their DNA, and with the increasing identification of function of these these erv like locations (the contention being linked to "junk dna")similarities are just another part of the equation. And along with the purification process, can occur independent of each other.

premise 1 is false because it relies upon a significant preponderance of insertion events being in areas of active transcription.

Along with the previously explained,there is in fact an affinity. For example:

(*) 0.05 > P > 0.01; (**) 0.01 > P > 0.001; (***) P < 0.001.

"HERV-KCon integration was less frequent near histone methylation marks negatively associated with transcription, including H3K9 me2, H3K9 me3, and H3K27 me2. H3K9 me2 and me3 are associated with pericentromeric heterochromatin and were negatively correlated with integration by all the elements studied except MMTV and AAV. HERV-KCon integration was more frequent near epigenetic marks associated with active transcription, H3K4 me1 and me2, H3K9 me1, H3K36 me3, and H4K20 me1, and also bound RNA Pol II. MLV and the lentivirus integration showed a stronger positive association with chromatin features linked to active transcription, consistent with the stronger biases away from random for their integration site distributions. H2AZ, a histone variant associated with promoters, was positively associated with MLV integration frequency but negatively associated with HIV-1 integration frequency, paralleling the integration frequencies of the two viruses near CpG islands. The presence of H2AZ did not have a detectable effect on HERV-KCon integration frequency."
​

Way to totally side-step my argument. Fact is, the preponderance of fossils match what we'd expect from evolution.

And what do we expect from evolution. Lets look at the data. Bacteria remains bacteria, random mutation is sterile, adaptation is limited with trade offs, decreases in fitness, and adaptation is a programed feature within DNA. What is predicted by random mutational origins, if there were only bacteria, is bacteria, if not dead bacteria. This is not a problem for creationism as life is created, hence the scientific findings are not a problem. We do not use the fossil records to refute Darwinism, nor does the request to leap over the aforementioned facts seriously entertained. It is refuted long before any bone is uncovered. Further, we have fossils which do not match Darwinian speculation, the tree of life upside down, and more, all of which are just supplementary.

...wut? Why don't you explain to me in detail your version of creationism including these different planes and the manifestation of mind in accordance with the different planes of consciousness.

How about I don't. My "version" of creationism is the same as man was created as man.

 

[kharisym]

Of course. Darwinist believes he is most intelligent.

Its not critical. A non active becomes active. Junk DNA is not junk but active as well. There is a high affinity towards actively transcribed locations and contributes to the location in which retro viral like insertions are found. Therefore finding similar locations in both humans and chimps is not unlikely seeing that locations of active transcription would also share similarities, as with those which become active at different points in time.
Premise 1 is not false as previously outlined. There is in fact a bias towards active transcription locations. Nobody said that this was the only target, but that there was a tendency towards these sites. The full measure of observing similar site locations is not dependent on there being an isolation to actively transcribe locations. Only that there be an affinity, which is then acted upon by further purification occurrences.

Again premise 1 is not false. HERV-K does indeed tend to target actively transcribed locations and therefore they are subjected to premise 3. Further, thats precisely the point being made. Insertions in active locations will be acted upon by 3 and therefore influence a specificity in other locations. There are other points which are acted upon by a purification process including near regulators, which will cause uncontrolled growth and death. Integration within the non coding part of DNA or the "junk DNA" which is important will also cause anomalies, and be either recognized by the immune system, or die. And because humans and Apes share most of their DNA then this due to these purification processes, you will find some similar target sites. The "non-actively transcribed sites" at a given point in time will become active at another point in time, for example, placental growth and differentiation which are active in the early stages of development. Out of 98000 erv like locations including ltrs etc, about 14-60 are in the same location. Thats is about 0.056%. Which means that 99.944% of retroviral like locations are different. This is not evidence for common ancestry. With the tendency to target sites being actively transcribed, with humans and chimps sharing 98% of their DNA, and with the increasing identification of function of these these erv like locations (the contention being linked to "junk dna")similarities are just another part of the equation. And along with the purification process, can occur independent of each other.
Along with the previously explained,there is in fact an affinity. For example:

(*) 0.05 > P > 0.01; (**) 0.01 > P > 0.001; (***) P < 0.001.

"HERV-KCon integration was less frequent near histone methylation marks negatively associated with transcription, including H3K9 me2, H3K9 me3, and H3K27 me2. H3K9 me2 and me3 are associated with pericentromeric heterochromatin and were negatively correlated with integration by all the elements studied except MMTV and AAV. HERV-KCon integration was more frequent near epigenetic marks associated with active transcription, H3K4 me1 and me2, H3K9 me1, H3K36 me3, and H4K20 me1, and also bound RNA Pol II. MLV and the lentivirus integration showed a stronger positive association with chromatin features linked to active transcription, consistent with the stronger biases away from random for their integration site distributions. H2AZ, a histone variant associated with promoters, was positively associated with MLV integration frequency but negatively associated with HIV-1 integration frequency, paralleling the integration frequencies of the two viruses near CpG islands. The presence of H2AZ did not have a detectable effect on HERV-KCon integration frequency."
​

And what do we expect from evolution. Lets look at the data. Bacteria remains bacteria, random mutation is sterile, adaptation is limited with trade offs, decreases in fitness, and adaptation is a programed feature within DNA. What is predicted by random mutational origins, if there were only bacteria, is bacteria, if not dead bacteria. This is not a problem for creationism as life is created, hence the scientific findings are not a problem. We do not use the fossil records to refute Darwinism, nor does the request to leap over the aforementioned facts seriously entertained. It is refuted long before any bone is uncovered. Further, we have fossils which do not match Darwinian speculation, the tree of life upside down, and more, all of which are just supplementary.

How about I don't. My "version" of creationism is the same as man was created as man.

Talking with you is like talking to a wall, it doesn't matter what I say the scrawlings don't change. I've already covered the points you've raised, squealing them again and ignoring the evidence I provide doesn't disprove my point. As I said, conclusion A (herv-k integration is a very specific event) is dependent upon premise 1 that herk-k preference for actively transcribed locations shows a very high preponderance. I even gave you numbers: 2.5:1 as a ratio. This number came from the actual research and is a result of the last chart, "Gene Expression". Would you like me to explain the math to you too? It doesn't matter, you'll just ignore it.


As I said, the rate of preference between active and non-active is only 2.5:1. This is not a significant preponderance, and given your own argument's (the video) making the claim that insertion events in actively transcribed areas are selected against via cell death, the actual observed ratio will be much lower than 2.5:1 though the generations. Ofcourse you won't pay attention, you'll ignore this fact and go on the same rant "PREFERENCE! PREFERENCE!" and ignore the arguments against it even though I've already covered that fact. I swear, I have to color code my points just so you see them, I feel like I'm talking to a preschooler. Will I have to explain this in terms of the easter bunny next?

Let's do that. If I have an easter bunny that likes to put eggs in easter baskets but occasionally misses at a rate of 2.5:1 preference for baskets, then out of every 7 eggs 2 are not in a basket. If children run up and grab the baskets at a rate of 85% ( the vast majority ) , then I have 1 egg in a basket and 2 eggs not in baskets. Given this, I have a generational preference for non-baskets even though the insertion preference of eggs is for baskets. This sorting method is exactly what the paper is claiming is happening.

Now to the only new point you raised in your argument:
Let's imagine you're right and all non-active DNA can become active DNA. This goes against premise 2, and so premise 2 would fail and all conclusions drawn from premise 2 including the final conclusion F.

Still though, it's becoming quite clear that you don't understand the argument you're making. You are truly an example of the tortucan mind. Your argumentative method seems to be "If I say it enough, and ignore the other's point enough, then its true!"

"How about I don't. My "version" of creationism is the same as man was created as man."

Feeling belief shy? I'd really love to know your thoughts on creationism. There are quite a few creationist proposals floating around out there and I've never heard of one that proposes some of the details you stated. Since I know nothing about your beliefs, and since the arguments your making about the fossil record are based on those beliefs, I cannot properly understand the arguments you're making because the context they're nestled in (your beliefs) are not available to me.

 

[Tomatoman]

I swear, I have to color code my points just so you see them, I feel like I'm talking to a preschooler. Will I have to explain this in terms of the easter bunny next?

Let's do that. If I have an easter bunny that likes to put eggs in easter baskets but occasionally misses at a rate of 2.5:1 preference for baskets, then out of every 7 eggs 2 are not in a basket. If children run up and grab the baskets at a rate of 85% ( the vast majority ) , then I have 1 egg in a basket and 2 eggs not in baskets. Given this, I have a generational preference for non-baskets even though the insertion preference of eggs is for baskets. This sorting method is exactly what the paper is claiming is happening.

This reminded of a recent article in that much esteemed publication The Daily Mash. I've highlighted the bit your post reminded me of in red:

RELIGIOUS BELIEF LINKED TO BEING A BIT DIM

PEOPLE who describe themselves as religious may also be a bit thick, according to new research.

​

As a study found that atheists know more about religion than religious people, experts said that in all fairness that should not really count as news and it was actually rather cruel to ask them complicated questions of that nature.

Professor Henry Brubaker, of the Institute For Studies, said: "Are you religious because you're stupid or does being religious make you stupid? It's the classic chicken and egg scenario.

"For any religious people who may be reading this, a chicken is a domesticated bird, roughly the size of a football while an egg is the small, beige oval thing that comes out of it and then goes into your tummy - probably in the form of mayonnaise.

Most religious people would believe you if you told them God was this chicken​

"You think all three were made by a character you know as God, Jehovah, Allah, Brahma or L. Ron Hubbard."

According to the study, Jews and Mormons were the least stupid believers, mainly because of all the money and the wives, while Southern US Baptists had to have the questions explained to them using bits of fruit.

Most protestants believe their church was founded by Space 1999 actor Martin Landau, while many Roman Catholics thought that holy communion symbolised St Peter's fondness for Vimto and ready salted Pringles.

Meanwhile only half of those surveyed could identify the Koran as being the holy book of Islam, while the other half said that whatever it was they were terrified of it and wanted to shoot it in the face.

The Daily Mash - RELIGIOUS BELIEF LINKED TO BEING A BIT DIM

 

[kharisym]

I've got a question for those not participating in my discussion with Greg. I'm sometimes too generous and give my opponents more credit than they're due. In situations like that an outside opinion is helpful. Do you think he's ignoring my points or am I arguing over his head?

My experience has been, in debates with rational people, when it seems like you're hitting a brick wall it usually means there's some form of miscommunication.

 

[Naraoia]

Do you have any idea what Darwin did study?

The funny thing is, I'm not sure how many evolution supporters do. That guy did an amazing amount of work. From bees to carnivorous plants to barnacles to atolls... really, coming up with natural selection is just the tip of the iceberg.

This is the money-quote of the you-tube video, that the entire argument is based on: "Interestingly, the authors found that the resurrected virus called HERV-K(con) choose to integrate itself into genes being actively transcribed. That is genes currently in the process of making proteins."

This is what the authors actually say: "HERV-KCon and the other viruses (except AAV and MMTV) integrated more frequently in genes that were actively expressed as measured by Affymetrix microarrays."

"More frequently" is not the same as "choose", and the data provided clearly shows that HERV-K(con) did indeed insert in sites of nonactive transcription. Since the you-tube video's argument is dependent upon 100% of HERV-K(con)'s integration being in actively transcribed locations, and since this is NOT what the authors found, we can conclude that the video's argument fails due to faulty premise.

I think it's something of a no-brainer that a retrovirus would preferentially insert in transcribed regions. To insert, it has to access the DNA, which one would think is easier if the host has opened the chromatin up for it...

And also, in a real animal, "genes that are actively transcribed" still number in the thousands in any given cell, and could differ by cell type/time of day/developmental stage/species/[insert variable here]. (I deliberately looked for germ line estimates, since that's where we need RV insertion for an ERV to have any bearing on genome evolution)

Not to mention that "inserting in gene G" can still mean anywhere in thousands or even millions of base pairs.

And that, it seems, a retrovirus insertion typically screws up the gene (see Brady et al's comparison of live HERV-K insertions with the actual distribution of fixed HERV-Ks...). Doesn't seem like the most intelligent adaptation mechanism ever.

Add to that the fact that the Brady et al paper actually concludes a preference for pretty much any genomic region remotely associated with transcriptional activity, not just genes.

So, yeah.

 

[Greg1234]

As I said, conclusion A (herv-k integration is a very specific event) is dependent upon premise 1 that herk-k preference for actively transcribed locations shows a very high preponderance. I even gave you numbers: 2.5:1 as a ratio.

This ratio is irrelevant to the fact that there is indeed a preference to sites being actively transcribed. Nobody is arguing about a ratio. The ratio is only relevant if you can show that there is a random insertion in non active sites, the the non active sites are junk, and that the non active will never become active. A preference shows that a larger amount of insertions will take place with the actively transcribing regions.

This number came from the actual research and is a result of the last chart, "Gene Expression". Would you like me to explain the math to you too? It doesn't matter, you'll just ignore it.

The last chart is this chart.

This about an orientation bias within the site, and not about site selection itself. If you look at the very top you will see the difference in orientation outlined. This is not relevant to the issue. The last section actually references the heat chart provided.

Now to the only new point you raised in your argument:
Let's imagine you're right and all non-active DNA can become active DNA. This goes against premise 2, and so premise 2 would fail and all conclusions drawn from premise 2 including the final conclusion F.

Lol you typed that entire rebuttal and now you realize that your point is addressed. Yes , erv sections are being discovered have to have functions and integration within certain sites are not only expression specific but also biased to certain chromosome regions. There are also different factors other than that based solely on expression, which influence specificity (like sequence). In premise 2 the author of the video outlines that at any point in time there are several hundred active sites. If non active can become active this does not change the fact that at any point in time not all sites, in all cells, are active all the time (which would be detrimental to the organism). No, it does not go against premise two.
​

Feeling belief shy? I'd really love to know your thoughts on creationism.

My beliefs are Genesis 1. Man was created as man. Seeing the actual predictions of Darwinism is dead bacteria, and that your interpretation of the fossil records is planted on random mutational origin being true,, then the fossil record is not relevant. Its no different than approaching a distant planet and finding that there are simple bicycles in the lower strata and more complex airplanes in the higher, and working vehicles on the surface.

Darwinist: The fossil records clearly shows that random mutations turned bicycles into airplanes.

Creationist: But bicycle remains bicycles

D: What we are wondering is when airplanes diverged from cars, we assume that it was about 20 million years ago

C: But random variations in the code governing the re-production of vehicles indicate that it is sterile.

D: We have uncovered another transitional fossil and it is exciting.

C:The convertible top is actually a result of designed adaptive feature. So is the retractable undercarriage. And there is more.

D:What we have is an increase in complexity across a wide range of vehicles.

C: Which is not tied to random mutations and is also a feature of intelligent design. We observed that on earth.

D: Its truly amazing how when we line up these bones we see a random mutational origin

C:We also have completely legitimate "anomalous" fossils in strata which defies Darwinism

D:So how did the 747 get there? Poof? Engineer did it? Too simple for me.

C:Actually, the building of a 747 is a very complex procedure and study of..

D: ...The level of scientific engineering we have not grasped but random mutations will allow us to regain and maintain that sense of human accomplishment.

C: But it is not correct

D: Please let me speculate

C: OK
​

I've already asked you if you have ever built an eco system, if you are aware of the record in its entirety and that man is much older than presumed.

I feel like I'm talking to a preschooler.

You are truly an example of the tortucan mind.

Don't forget how sensitive you guys are. Telling you that your inherent sense of superiority is outweighed by the ease of being a materialist in a material universe is an insult. Don't forget.

 

[Split Rock]

I've got a question for those not participating in my discussion with Greg. I'm sometimes too generous and give my opponents more credit than they're due. In situations like that an outside opinion is helpful. Do you think he's ignoring my points or am I arguing over his head?

My experience has been, in debates with rational people, when it seems like you're hitting a brick wall it usually means there's some form of miscommunication.

There is no miscommunication. He is deliberately ignoring your points. He does that with everyone, which is why I put him on Ignore along with A of S.

In the old days, trolls were ignored until they got bored and left... or they were banned from forums like this. Nowadays, it seems to be a Troller's Paradise. No matter how obvious they are (like A of S quoting dead greek philosophers and claiming planets are gods) there is always someone who will take them seriously and respond and give them the laugh or attention they are seeking.

 

[kharisym]

This ratio is irrelevant to the fact that there is indeed a preference to sites being actively transcribed. Nobody is arguing about a ratio. The ratio is only relevant if you can show that there is a random insertion in non active sites...

I think this spells the end of this discussion. If you don't understand ratios... well, let's just say I'm not about to explain middle-school math to you.

Were easter bunnies and eggs too complex for you? You cut out and ignored the explanation that deals directly with this issue. Seriously, if a ratio exists, then there is inherently a measurable quantity of all sides of the ratio The gene expression/frequency chart in and of itself shows that they measured insertions in sites of non-active transcription. You are quite literally spouting gibberish now.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2658518/figure/F1/

I suggest you go back to grade school, you clearly have an unhinged understanding of logic, science, and math.

My beliefs are Genesis 1.

Last I read, Genesis 1 doesn't stipulate anything that matches this statement by you: "You are not aware of the separation of planes organisms dwell on, nor the constraints of the creation of a self sustaining system, the sequence of the creation, and the manifestation of mind in accordance with the different planes of consciousness is in the process being unraveled."

So please explain to me how you get from genesis to cheezy mid-90's scifi thriller.

 

[kharisym]

See what I mean?

People like this erode my faith that humanity is inherently rational. It is interesting, however, to consider what this says about the play between Socratean origin of knowledge and Plato's Tabula Rasa.

I did get one good thing out of it. The article we've been discussing was quite a neat read, even if Greg showed how little he understands about it.

 

[nChrist]

If you want a real eye-opener, read Genesis 1-2. You'll have everything you need to know about Creation. Until then, you'll have an impossible theory.

 

[Greg1234]

I think this spells the end of this discussion. If you don't understand ratios... well, let's just say I'm not about to explain middle-school math to you.

Were easter bunnies and eggs too complex for you? You cut out and ignored the explanation that deals directly with this issue. Seriously, if a ratio exists, then there is inherently a measurable quantity of all sides of the ratio The gene expression/frequency chart in and of itself shows that they measured insertions in sites of non-active transcription. You are quite literally spouting gibberish now.

PubMed Central, : Genes Dev. 2009 March 1; 23(5): 633–642. doi: 10.1101/gad.1762309.

I suggest you go back to grade school, you clearly have an unhinged understanding of logic, science, and math.

Last I read, Genesis 1 doesn't stipulate anything that matches this statement by you: "You are not aware of the separation of planes organisms dwell on, nor the constraints of the creation of a self sustaining system, the sequence of the creation, and the manifestation of mind in accordance with the different planes of consciousness is in the process being unraveled."

So please explain to me how you get from genesis to cheezy mid-90's scifi thriller.

Massive, massive cop out. Did you even read past the first line? Did you even look into the other determinants of selectivity, did you read into the increasing finds in functionality? Or the fact that erv like sequences and segments did not have to be inserted at all but are latent in the genome. You present an irrelevant ratio counter argument without even outlining in the first place why you believe that the similar retro viral locations in human and chimps are at non active sites, or why they would remain non active, non functional, or "junk". How far exactly do you think ad hom is going to take you?

 

[LifeToTheFullest!]

If you want a real eye-opener, read Genesis 1-2. You'll have everything you need to know about Creation. Until then, you'll have an impossible theory.

I've read it. As science compared to what we know, not impressed. As a nice bedtime story, it's ok.

BTW, how do you reconcile the discrepency in the order of events between G1 & 2?

 

[kharisym]

Massive, massive cop out. Did you even read past the first line? Did you even look into the other determinants of selectivity, did you read into the increasing finds in functionality? Or the fact that erv like sequences and segments did not have to be inserted at all but are latent in the genome. You present an irrelevant ratio counter argument without even outlining in the first place why you believe that the similar retro viral locations in human and chimps are at non active sites, or why they would remain non active, non functional, or "junk". How far exactly do you think ad hom is going to take you?

"I present argument A."

"Okay, but I give you counter-argument B."

"I present argument A."

"You never answered counter-argument B, here's counter-argument C as well."

"I PRESENT ARGUMENT A!!!!! Plus here's additional irrelevant information D that disproves my own point. "

"Repetition doesn't make an argument, and D disproves your own point. You still haven't answered B or C."

"I PRESENT ARGUMENT A!!!!! Plus gibberish."

"I don't negotiate with brick walls."

"I win! You copped out! HAHAHAHAHA!"

Believe what you want, all you've shown me is that you don't understand the material you purport to discuss. You didn't truly debate, you relied upon repetition of the same point, ignoring my arguments, and at one point even disproved your own point. The only conclusion I can draw is that your opinion is based upon working from a preconceived conclusion and using confirmation bias to illogically build an undeserved assurance of your desired opinion. I engaged in this conversation with you in the hopes that you would become an outlier in the creationist rhetoric, instead what I found is just another creationist using every logical fallacy and debate mistactic to reinforce their sense of superiority and unsupported belief.

 

[Greg1234]

"I present argument A."

"Okay, but I give you counter-argument B."

"I present argument A."

"You never answered counter-argument B, here's counter-argument C as well."

"I PRESENT ARGUMENT A!!!!! Plus here's additional irrelevant information D that disproves my own point. "

"Repetition doesn't make an argument, and D disproves your own point. You still haven't answered B or C."

"I PRESENT ARGUMENT A!!!!! Plus gibberish."

"I don't negotiate with brick walls."

"I win! You copped out! HAHAHAHAHA!"

Believe what you want, all you've shown me is that you don't understand the material you purport to discuss. You didn't truly debate, you relied upon repetition of the same point, ignoring my arguments, and at one point even disproved your own point. The only conclusion I can draw is that your opinion is based upon working from a preconceived conclusion and using confirmation bias to illogically build an undeserved assurance of your desired opinion. I engaged in this conversation with you in the hopes that you would become an outlier in the creationist rhetoric, instead what I found is just another creationist using every logical fallacy and debate mistactic to reinforce their sense of superiority and unsupported belief.

Massive, massive cop out. Did you even read past the first line? Did you even look into the other determinants of selectivity, did you read into the increasing finds in functionality? Or the fact that erv like sequences and segments did not have to be inserted at all but are latent in the genome. You present an irrelevant ratio counter argument without even outlining in the first place why you believe that the similar retro viral locations in human and chimps are at non active sites, or why they would remain non active, non functional, or "junk". How far exactly do you think ad hom is going to take you?