The Dover trial

[Kenny'sID]

Why are ERVs not an answer, do you not know what ERVs are and how they demonstrate evolution and common descent beyond any reasonable doubt?

Before I dump all the videos here that debunk the retrovirus theory (or is it proof beyond doubt?) do you have anything else we can move on to so I can save myself the time?

And no, I don't understand it. I've offered to listen a few time if someone wishes to dumb it down, and explain it but it never really went anywhere. Other than that, as I've mentioned before, I'm not going to research something that refutes something I already have a satisfactory answer for. It's like researching a flat earth to me...a waste of time.

 

[Kenny'sID]

No, much of creationists' 'science' is at odds with reality. It is not science, it is pseudoscience

You mean the reality that things just happened from nothing, something we have never seen happen, as opposed to the bizarre idea things were created like we see happen all the time?

 

[HereIStand]

In what way is it 'religious'? And are you acknowledging that religion is not a desirable position on matters of fact??

Assuming that life generated itself, or was imported from another planet, is a religious mindset. God is removed from the equation. Yes, it would be helpful if believers in evolution would identify their religious prejudice, and stop trying to pass themselves off as disinterested seekers of truth in white lab coats.

 

[Speedwell]

Well, it looks like creationism is clearly in the minority. As First Things has noted, liberal Protestantism is dead organizationally, but culturally it has won.

Is that what you think this is about? An internecine struggle within Protestantism for control of America's civil religion?

 

[Speedwell]

Assuming that life generated itself, or was imported from another planet, is a religious mindset. God is removed from the equation. Yes, it would be helpful if believers in evolution would identify their religious prejudice, and stop trying to pass themselves off as disinterested seekers of truth in white lab coats.

Except that the theory of evolution does not deny the existence of God or His ultimate authorship of the universe. It makes no statement one way or the other about the existence of God.

 

[HereIStand]

Except that the theory of evolution does not deny the existence of God or His ultimate authorship of the universe. It makes no statement one way or the other about the existence of God.

To omit God from a framework means that He is in effect excluded from it. To allow Him in at all subverts the whole framework.

 

[Speedwell]

To omit God from a framework means that He is in effect excluded from it. To allow Him in at all subverts the whole framework.

That doesn't make any sense. Does the germ theory of disease exclude God? Does the theory of relativity? Why should the theory of evolution? I suspect that what you are on about is not the existence of God but about your interpretation of scripture--if so, you should own up to it.

 

[HereIStand]

Is that what you think this is about? An internecine struggle within Protestantism for control of America's civil religion?

It's not much of a struggle anymore. We are basically a liberal Protestant culture. Try to locate a positive story on evangelicals in the mainstream press. The more important issue is the theological murkiness within evangelical culture on so many fronts, evolution being one of them. Others being hell and homosexuality. Convictions are quietly weakening and conforming to the broader culture.

 

[HereIStand]

That doesn't make any sense. Does the germ theory of disease exclude God? Does the theory of relativity? Why should the theory of evolution? I suspect that what you are on about is not the existence of God but about your interpretation of scripture--if so, you should own up to it.

Not all science deals with the origin life. Medicine and engineering for instance. To the extent though that a science touches on the origin of life, then it can't be (from a secular standpoint) extricated from evolution. Yes, I plead guilty to an interpretation of Scripture confirming God-created life.

 

[Speedwell]

Not all science deals with the origin life. Medicine and engineering for instance. To the extent though that a science touches on the origin of life, then it can't be (from a secular standpoint) extricated from evolution. Yes, I plead guilty to an interpretation of Scripture confirming God-created life.

So do I, yet we disagree about evolution.

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

Before I dump all the videos here that debunk the retrovirus theory (or is it proof beyond doubt?) do you have anything else we can move on to so I can save myself the time?

I've seen your videos, they're dishonest, purport false things to be true and therefore would be a waste of time, so save us all the effort.

And no, I don't understand it. I've offered to listen a few time if someone wishes to dumb it down, and explain it but it never really went anywhere. Other than that, as I've mentioned before, I'm not going to research something that refutes something I already have a satisfactory answer for. It's like researching a flat earth to me...a waste of time.

Great! Well, here's one I did earlier that was totally wasted on someone who had a vested interest in 'not' understanding it, so hopefully if you're honest, you'll get better use of it? Keep in mind these concepts are as rudimentary as I can make them,

Okay, let me have a crack... As mentioned, they are indeed viruses. We can see them in their original form and can (and have already) observed them infecting uninfected cells in a lab. The following ascii art is rudimentary, but hopefully it makes sense.

Imagine this is the dna strands of a handful of cells in a petrie dish...:
1 aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
2 aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
3 aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
4 aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
5 aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

Then, we introduce our retrovirus(R) to see how it infects cells in our dish, this is what we see...:
1 aaaaRaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
2 aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaRaaaaaaa
3 aaaaaaaaaRaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
4 aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaRaa
5 aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaRaaaaaaaaa

In short, the retrovirus can infect the cell's dna at any point, and this bears out in every test we've ever done. If we isolate one cell that the retrovirus doesn't kill via infection and culture it, we get a unique identifying marker in all of its offspring...:
1a aaaaRaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
1b aaaaRaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
1c aaaaRaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
1d aaaaRaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
1e aaaaRaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

If we introduce another retrovirus(X) to this new dish of cells, we see this...:
1a aaaaRaaaaaaaaaaaaaaXaaaaaaa
1b aaXaaRaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
1c aaaaRaaaXaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
1d aaaaRaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaXaaa
1e aaaaRaaaaaaaaaXaaaaaaaaaaaa

Again, the new retrovirus is infecting the cells at random locations, exactly the same as retrovirus(R) did previously. Providing the new retrovirus doesn't kill the cell, we now have Two unique genetic markers (ERVs) that will be inherited by subsequent offspring of these cells. Knowing how viruses infect cells dna and knowing how dna is copied on reproduction, we can work out the odds of any given cell's dna profile being the progeny of any of these cells above. Here's some examples of cell dna we can reasonably calculate to be the offspring of our experimental cells above...:

Example A - aaaaRaaaXaaaaaaaaYaaaaaaaaaa - This cell has a new unique endogenous retroviral remenant(Y), but we can calculate the odds of this cell to be the offspring of the cell experiment 1c to be around 625:1, or 99.984% (calculated on 1 in 25(squared) chance for each infection to be a coincidental infection at the same locus instead of inherited). Let's call this new sample 1c1.

Example B - aaXaaRaaaaaaaaaaaaaaXaaaaaaa - So, this cell has something different.... almost as if it's the progeny of two cells mating(?) In this case, we can see the DNA profile is likely to be the product of sexual reproduction of 1a and 1b! By using our 1 in 25 chance of coincidental infection versus inherited trait, we can calculate the odds of this cell's parentage - in this case, 1a is 96% likely a parent (with one matched marker) and 1b is 99.984% likely a parent (with two matched markers). So, we can name this sample 1ab!

So, now you've seen this very rudimentary layman's explanation, let's test your understanding & see what you can tell us about the following cell dna profiles.... ;
Example C - aaaaRaaaXaaaaaaaaYaaaaaZaaaaa
Example D - aaaaRaaaaZaaaaaXaaaaaaaaaXaaa
Example E - aaaaRaaaXaaaaaaXaaYaaaaaaaaaa

I'm happy to give you the answer to the Examples questions for Examples C, D and E if you're interested, but hopefully you'll understand it well enough?

The odds of the examples I gave above are 1 in 25, a vastly smaller number than the 3.2 billion loci we contain in our DNA, so the odds of an identical independent viral insertion is as low as 1 in 25 (or 4%) As mentioned, I've seen your alleged 'debunk' videos and in your videos 'debunking' ERVs, there's one that talks about hot spots for viral integration, just to point it out, the 'hot' spots are made out by the video presenter to be some massive gravitational field that near on guarantees an insertion in the same loci by independent insertions where this just isn't the case. The actual scientific research paper that studied this point identified some 280,000 'hot spots' where the likelihood of integration into any one of them was something like 0.028% more likely (as in just above background noise on a good day). Even if it were 100% likely for a retroviral insert at a hot spot loci, THERE ARE STILL 280,000 HOT SPOTS! so even considering only hot spot insertions for just One hotspot retroviral insert, the liklihood of an independent identical insertion is still 280,000 to 1! Now, square that by each of the 200,000 other ERV analogues we share with the other great Apes and the odds are still next to impossible that we aren't related!

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

Not all science deals with the origin life. Medicine and engineering for instance. To the extent though that a science touches on the origin of life, then it can't be (from a secular standpoint) extricated from evolution. Yes, I plead guilty to an interpretation of Scripture confirming God-created life.

Wait, Evolution doesn't touch on the origin of life question at all...! It doesn't matter to Evolution how life got started, it only deals with the fact afterwards. Whether life came about naturally by Abiogenesis, or by Fiat Creation by an almighty Creator, or even by Invisible Pink Unicorns farting the first life forms into this universe, it matters not one whit to the Theory of Evolution.

However life came about here, it's a fact that Evolution has been in full-swing ever since.

 

[mark kennedy]

Thank you for the most interesting commentary. Sadly, I'm aftraid that those who most need to read it simply won't.

I'm kind of a history buff with an interest in philosophy, it's an acquired taste to say the least. If I would add anything to school curriculum it would be more Mendelian genetics and less Darwinian evolution. There are very important issues at stake here, climate change for instance. The CRISPR gene (Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeat) has the ability to find and change any sequence of DNA in a living organism, there are serious ethical issues involved and a basic understanding of genetics could prove to be vital. Are we going to allow designer babies, are the political agendas of the Paris accords really going to pull us back from the brink. Most importantly, how do we educate our children on how to come to an informed decision.

Whether or not we are going to teach the controversy isn't a question, the question is how do we teach it responsibly.

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

I'm kind of a history buff with an interest in philosophy, it's an acquired taste to say the least. If I would add anything to school curriculum it would be more Mendelian genetics and less Darwinian evolution. There are very important issues at stake here, climate change for instance. The CRISPR gene (Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeat) has the ability to find and change any sequence of DNA in a living organism, there are serious ethical issues involved and a basic understanding of genetics could prove to be vital. Are we going to allow designer babies, are the political agendas of the Paris accords really going to pull us back from the brink. Most importantly, how do we educate our children on how to come to an informed decision.

Whether or not we are going to teach the controversy isn't a question, the question is how do we teach it responsibly.

I'd be interested to hear your opinions on the 'serious ethical issues' of designer babies...

Also, what controversy should we be teaching in science classes??

 

[Kenny'sID]

Great! Well, here's one I did earlier that was totally wasted on someone who had a vested interest in 'not' understanding it, so hopefully if you're honest, you'll get better use of it? Keep in mind these concepts are as rudimentary as I can make them,

Does it prove evolution? And does it use assumptions to to make points?

Though I never cared to bother looking into it, when we did discuss it, I was able to pick out the assumptions that ended one conversation as I recall. I just don't want to waste my time with something that doesn't prove evolution or that is based on assumptions, hence my prior question.

I've seen your videos, they're dishonest, purport false things to be true and therefore would be a waste of time, so save us all the effort.

Are you saying there is nothing honest about them or are you just conveniently picking out what you think dishonest and not mentioning the rest?

 

[mark kennedy]

I'd be interested to hear your opinions on the 'serious ethical issues' of designer babies...

Let's start with this one:

In contrast, the genetic changes created by germ-line engineering would be passed on, and that’s what has made the idea seem so objectionable. So far, caution and ethical concerns have had the upper hand. A dozen countries, not including the United States, have banned germ-line engineering, and scientific societies have unanimously concluded that it would be too risky to do. The European Union’s convention on human rights and biomedicine says tampering with the gene pool would be a crime against “human dignity” and human rights.(Engineering the Perfect Baby. Scientists are developing ways to edit the DNA of tomorrow’s children. Should they stop before it’s too late? Technology Review)​

Also, what controversy should we be teaching in science classes??

Climate change comes to mind as well as the enormous power of genetic engineering. We can't build more missiles armed with nukes because of the START treaty so we are spending a trillion dollars over the next ten years (A Nuclear Arsenal Upgrade, New York Times).

Where ever you stand on these issues I think learning how data is accumulated and decisions are made is vital to understanding highly technical issues. I think the teaching of Creationism is a bad idea, there's too much theology involved. Skepticism about Darwinism, or climate change or genetic engineering are all important. The most important thing isn't telling school age children what to think but how to navigate the information and come to an informed opinion.

 

[Speedwell]

The most important thing isn't telling school age children what to think but how to navigate the information and come to an informed opinion.

And it is the "Bible-believers" who oppose such teaching.

 

[HereIStand]

Wait, Evolution doesn't touch on the origin of life question at all...! It doesn't matter to Evolution how life got started, it only deals with the fact afterwards. Whether life came about naturally by Abiogenesis, or by Fiat Creation by an almighty Creator, or even by Invisible Pink Unicorns farting the first life forms into this universe, it matters not one whit to the Theory of Evolution.

However life came about here, it's a fact that Evolution has been in full-swing ever since.

But Darwin explicitly excludes a Creator, calling it "erroneousness" that "each species has been independently created." That doesn't leave much wiggle room. Evolution tacitly approves of the idea of idea of a closed-system in which the here and now is all there is.

 

[Speedwell]

But Darwin explicitly excludes a Creator, calling it "erroneousness" that "each species has been independently created." That doesn't leave much wiggle room. Evolution tacitly approves of the idea of idea of a closed-system in which the here and now is all there is.

The independent creation of each species is not the only option for a creator. More broadly, identifying a natural cause for a phenomenon does not deny or rule out simultaneous divine causality. I fully expect that the same will be found for abiogenesis and in general that the universe will appear to us to be a "closed system" of natural causality. You are the one who is assuming that anyone who comes to such a conclusion does so in order to eliminate the necessity for a God.

 

[Go Braves]

That article blew my mind. I can't believe people are wanting to teach kids to be ignorant. That doesn't give glory to God. Just graduated from a Christian school that taught actual science, not that anti-science baloney. Do these folks think the earth is flat too? Smh.