Nothing changes in this forum.

[rjs330]

"Common ancestry" is a reasonable inference from the data. It does not preclude more than one abiogenesis event. But while it remains merely an inference, framing it as a single event has a certain elegance,even though scientists understand that multiple abiogenesis events remain possible given the present state of our knowledge. The problem is, that the creationist version of multiple creation contemplates the creation of creatures in pretty much their modern form. That possibility is what is being dismissed by science.

Those that really think about these things don't necessarily think that everything was created in it's current state. There are millions of believers who just know God created like he said in Genesis. They really don't think about it anymore than that. That's good enough for them and it doesn't really matter.

Then there are creationists like myself who consider that all things were created unique and that due to environmental circumstance they may have done some evolving in order to survive or better fit the environment. Which would obviously be part if the design.

 

[rjs330]

I asked you this earlier and don't think I received a reply:

Those in biology-related industries have a vested interest in the best understanding of biology possible. So if evolution was as false as creationists claim it is, why aren't those in industry pushing for a better understanding of biology to be taught? Keeping in mind that biology-related industries rely on individuals being taught biology to fill skilled positions in said industries.

Suggesting that people just believe what they are taught because that's what they are taught, also implies that nobody is capable of free thought or bucking against the trend. But that obviously does happen, since without which we wouldn't have advancement of scientific knowledge in the first place.

The real question you should be asking is why are the only people who take issue with biological evolution doing so for religious reasons?

Bucking the trend? You've seen what happens to those who buck the trend right? I remember in school I spoke up and was laughed out of the classroom. You see on this board how people are called non science advicators and not real scientists etc. It's not in human nature to buck the trend. Especially if the trend is supported in such a great measure as it is today.

Look at what happens to those who buck the trend on global climate change. If they don't believe in catastrophic change they are ridiculed and sometimes lose their jobs and are not funded.

It's so easy to look at ERVs and say see evidence of common ancestry and everyone claps and supports you. If you were to say look evidence of common design you would be ridiculed and cast out .

 

[pitabread]

Bucking the trend? You've seen what happens to those who buck the trend right? I remember in school I spoke up and was laughed out of the classroom. You see on this board how people are called non science advicators and not real scientists etc. It's not in human nature to buck the trend. Especially if the trend is supported in such a great measure as it is today.

Maintaining the status quo doesn't make any sense for two reason:

1) In academia, scientific advancement would grind to a halt. All it takes is a quick skim of the history of scientific advancement to see that those who challenge the status quo are those who sometimes forge an entirely new path that everyone else ends up following.

2) In industry (which is what I'm talking about in my prior questions), you see the same. In fact you want to know what happens in industry to people who buck the trend? They're the trailblazers, the risk-takers, and the ones more likely to become billionaires.

Arguing that people want to maintain the status quo for the sake of maintaining the status quo makes no sense. Especially when you're talking about industry (as I am) where there is money to be made via competitive advantage.

In fact, the best recent example of that has been cryptocurrency and blockchain technology. On the one hand, lots of people have laughed at the idea. On the other hand, you have people who have started businesses based on the concept.

If the best argument you have is that people don't want to be laughed at, that doesn't hold water at all.

Look at what happens to those who buck the trend on global climate change. If they don't believe in catastrophic change they are ridiculed and sometimes lose their jobs and are not funded.

Lose their jobs or funding doing what though?

It's also strange to bring up climate change when you're talking about maintaining the status quo, since arguing against climate change is doing just that (particularly for those in oil&gas industries which are typically at odds with environmental protection). Climate change science is an example of something disrupting the status quo, not preserving it. It's a contradiction to your prior argument.

It's so easy to look at ERVs and say see evidence of common ancestry and everyone claps and supports you. If you were to say look evidence of common design you would be ridiculed and cast out .

Cast out from what though? It may come as a shock, but evolution isn't a secret club people get membership to. There's no secret handshake or clubhouse here.

Again, I'm referring to profit-driven industries here. If those in biology-related industries have a vested interest in the best understanding of biology possible, why wouldn't they want the best understanding of biology taught (if evolution is as false as you and other creationists claim)?

 

[Aman777]

It's so easy to look at ERVs and say see evidence of common ancestry and everyone claps and supports you.

ERVs are evidence that Humans descended from the common ancestor of apes who descended from the last universal common ancestor....BUT when did we inherit Adam's intelligence which is like God's? Gen 3:22 It was when Noah's grandsons, like Cain, had NO other Humans to marry, so they married the prehistoric people who had been on Planet Earth for some 6 Million years before the Ark arrived.

The combination of the sons of God (prehistoric people) and Humans makes mighty men since we now have the mind of God in a body of flesh Gen 6:4 with the DNA and ERVs of the common ancestor of apes. That's God's Truth Scripturally, scientifically and historically. Amen?

 

[rjs330]

I asked you this earlier and don't think I received a reply:

Those in biology-related industries have a vested interest in the best understanding of biology possible. So if evolution was as false as creationists claim it is, why aren't those in industry pushing for a better understanding of biology to be taught? Keeping in mind that biology-related industries rely on individuals being taught biology to fill skilled positions in said industries.

Suggesting that people just believe what they are taught because that's what they are taught, also implies that nobody is capable of free thought or bucking against the trend. But that obviously does happen, since without which we wouldn't have advancement of scientific knowledge in the first place.

The real question you should be asking is why are the only people who take issue with biological evolution doing so for religious reasons?

I've been asking for over a month now to tell us how "common design" explains things we observe that are more consistent with common ancestry.

You appear to be struggling with common design. It's pretty simple really. It's very observable. All creatures were created with commonality. It's the exact same similarities and commonalities you like to point to in evolution. Why do fish have gills? Why do mammals have milk? Why does everything have DNA which guides the creature. Why do air breathers breathe air and dorwn in water? Common design. It's the only observable testable and verifiable answer. It's just that evolutionists look at mammals and interpret it to be evolution. Yet there is no evidence that the changes that need to take place to get from one thing to all things could even happen. You see design in EVERYRHING ELSE on this planet, but do not see it in nature. It's interesting that man would do that.

 

[pitabread]

You appear to be struggling with common design. It's pretty simple really. It's very observable. All creatures were created with commonality. It's the exact same similarities and commonalities you like to point to in evolution. Why do fish have gills? Why do mammals have milk? Why does everything have DNA which guides the creature. Why do air breathers breathe air and dorwn in water? Common design. It's the only observable testable and verifiable answer. It's just that evolutionists look at mammals and interpret it to be evolution. Yet there is no evidence that the changes that need to take place to get from one thing to all things could even happen. You see design in EVERYRHING ELSE on this planet, but do not see it in nature. It's interesting that man would do that.

Your entire argument for common design boils down to branding: "It's the exact same as evolution, but called design". So congrats. You've created a marketing campaign.

Now from a scientific POV, you'd need to describe common design in terms of a scientific theory, how that theory would be applied in biological research, and most importantly how it would differentiate itself from biological evolution in terms of explanatory power and application.

But based on precedent, I don't expect you to be able to do the above. No creationist has been able to.

 

[rjs330]

ERVs are evidence that Humans descended from the common ancestor of apes who descended from the last universal common ancestor....BUT when did we inherit Adam's intelligence which is like God's? Gen 3:22 It was when Noah's grandsons, like Cain, had NO other Humans to marry, so they married the prehistoric people who had been on Planet Earth for some 6 Million years before the Ark arrived.

The combination of the sons of God (prehistoric people) and Humans makes mighty men since we now have the mind of God in a body of flesh Gen 6:4 with the DNA and ERVs of the common ancestor of apes. That's God's Truth Scripturally, scientifically and historically. Amen?

Sorry I don't believe that. You make a few assumptions here that are not contained or described in scriptures. There are things written in scripture that are not explained by scripture. You really should not force your own ideas into scripture. Sometimes we just have to be able to say, we don't really know, God didn't explain it. And he doesn't have to. He is God after all.

ERVs are only evidence of commonalities. They are not evidence common ancestry. It is interpreted to mean common ancestry. Creationists interpret it to mean common design. Which is actually the most observable interpretation.

 

[rjs330]

Your entire argument for common design boils down to branding: "It's the exact same as evolution, but called design". So congrats. You've created a marketing campaign.

Now from a scientific POV, you'd need to describe common design in terms of a scientific theory, how that theory would be applied in biological research, and most importantly how it would differentiate itself from biological evolution in terms of explanatory power and application.

But based on precedent, I don't expect you to be able to do the above. No creationist has been able to.

Ok how about this. Common design would predict that ERVs would gather in the same or similar places based upon commonalities in creatures. The closer a creature is with it's commonality the closer the ERVs would be. Because the designs are common. And guess what we find. We find that it happened!

 

[pitabread]

Ok how about this. Common design would predict that ERVs would gather in the same or similar places based upon commonalities in creatures. The closer a creature is with it's commonality the closer the ERVs would be. Because the designs are common. And guess what we find. We find that it happened!

You're getting ahead of yourself here. In order to have any testable predictions of "common design", you first need a coherent scientific theory or model of common design. Show me that first.

Just saying "common design predicts ERV patterns because common design" tells me nothing.

 

[Aman777]

Sorry I don't believe that. You make a few assumptions here that are not contained or described in scriptures. There are things written in scripture that are not explained by scripture. You really should not force your own ideas into scripture. Sometimes we just have to be able to say, we don't really know, God didn't explain it. And he doesn't have to. He is God after all.

Amen and He told us that the Holy Spirit would lead us into ALL Truth. Looks like you have stopped searching.

Jesus:>>Jhn 16:13 Howbeit when He, the Spirit of Truth, is come, He will guide you into all truth:

ERVs are only evidence of commonalities. They are not evidence common ancestry. It is interpreted to mean common ancestry. Creationists interpret it to mean common design. Which is actually the most observable interpretation.

It's common design by Jesus. The ERVs we inherited from our prehistoric ancestors contaminated our Human blood when Noah's grandsons married and produced children with prehistoric women...UNLESS you can explain WHO they married.

The Lord told Daniel that the people of the last days, with the increased knowledge of our time, would unseal God's scientific Truth, which has been hidden in Genesis for thousands of years. Dan 12:4 Can you tell us HOW God will show the entire world His Truth, which agrees with Science, in the last days? Including Atheists? Scripturally?

 

[Speedwell]

If we all came from the same thing then that is false. That thing evolved into spider and guinnea pigs eventually it was the original crossover.

No "crossovers." The taxa did not exist until creatures evolved to fill them. No creature has ever been known to evolve from one taxa into another, already existing taxa. No crossovers, just repeated branching.

 

[Speedwell]

Ok how about this. Common design would predict that ERVs would gather in the same or similar places based upon commonalities in creatures. The closer a creature is with it's commonality the closer the ERVs would be. Because the designs are common. And guess what we find. We find that it happened!

ERVS are random virus infections. Why would your designer do that? Why would the designer using common components use infected ones instead of the components as originally designed? Unless he was doing it with evolution.

 

[Speedwell]

You see design in EVERYRHING ELSE on this planet, but do not see it in nature. It's interesting that man would do that.

Which meaning of "design" are you talking about? Purpose or function?

 

[Speedwell]

So you can't say the heart does not have a purpose. Just what I thought.

I believe it does, but I can't prove it with science. I am certainly not interested in proving it with science just to shove my ideas about the Bible up somebody else's nose.

Could you say a door or a window has a purpose?

I infer a purpose because they are man-made objects.

The heart, the door and the window all have observable function, of course.

 

[xianghua]

ERVS are random virus infections.

actually many of them arent:

Retroviral DNA Integration: ASLV, HIV, and MLV Show Distinct Target Site Preferences

 

[pitabread]

actually many of them arent:

Retroviral DNA Integration: ASLV, HIV, and MLV Show Distinct Target Site Preferences

This paper talks about insertion preferences for different types of viruses, but it doesn't state that viruses will insert into the exact same spots within respective genomes. In that sense, the pattern of ERV insertions shared between different species still support hereditary origins as opposed to independent insertion events in respective species.

 

[xianghua]

This paper talks about insertion preferences for different types of viruses, but it doesn't state that viruses will insert into the exact same spots within respective genomes. In that sense, the pattern of ERV insertions shared between different species still support hereditary origins as opposed to independent insertion events in respective species.

1) speedwell say its a random insertion so i showed its not.
2) i also doesnt talke about independent insertions but about the possibility that those retroviruses created from a genome parts.

 

[pitabread]

1) speedwell say its a random insertion so i showed its not.

They're still 'random' in the sense that they aren't inserting into identical locations each and every time. If you look at the graph in that paper you linked (Figure 1), it shows the insertion points for HIV, MLV and ASLV. They're all over the genome.

i also doesnt talke about independent insertions but about the possibility that those retroviruses created from a genome parts.

Really? You're going to try to argue that retroviral insertions aren't insertions at all?

Good luck with that.

 

[rjs330]

You're getting ahead of yourself here. In order to have any testable predictions of "common design", you first need a coherent scientific theory or model of common design. Show me that first.

Just saying "common design predicts ERV patterns because common design" tells me nothing.

Well look if you asking me to write a scientific paper on common design your in for a disappointing time. I have neither the time nor the inclination to do so. I'm not a scientist who has gone to school as a career, but I am a thinker. I am an observer. I have common sense and I do read.

How long did it take Darwin to come up with the theory and write it down?

I've got a sneaking suspicion that if I wrote the theory down on this board you wouldn't accept it as scientific enough and start asking me to have it peer reviewed and stuff. So no thanks.

Now if you would be willing to accept my wording and my explanation then I might take a crack at it. But I highly doubt you would be satisfied as it wouldn't be "scientific" enough for you.

 

[rjs330]

Which meaning of "design" are you talking about? Purpose or function?

Both. Because things are designed with purpose and function. Such as a door or window in a house or a motor in a car.