The evidence for Evolution.

[TagliatelliMonster]

Simply untrue, but just what I would expect of you. If I didn't care I would have asked you to show me some evidence, some fact, something other than opinion?

I already explained at length how what I gave you were facts/evidence and not mere opinion.

And if my conclusion of that post is "simply untrue", then I have no idea what that post was about. I even quoted the very passage where you literally state that your literal interpretation of the book gets priority over the "worldly explanations". And that you want it like that.

I don't see how your post could mean anything but that ....
I mean.... it's right there...

I'll give you a few minutes to get that all together for me. And bring it here, don't just send me somewhere to read something and automatically see it as you do.

I, and several others, have been doing that repeatedly.

I think Einstein once said that "insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results".

I must be insane then.

 

[Loudmouth]

Have you honestly convinced yourself you are an Einstein? lol

Now explain exactly how that proves evolution is no doubt a fact.

"Given the size of vertebrate genomes (>1 × 10^9 bp) and the random nature of retroviral integration (22, 23), multiple integrations (and subsequent fixation) of ERV loci at precisely the same location are highly unlikely (24). Therefore, an ERV locus shared by two or more species is descended from a single integration event and is proof that the species share a common ancestor into whose germ line the original integration took place (14)."
http://www.pnas.org/content/96/18/10254.full

That is the test. Of the ERVs found in the human genome, are they found at the same position in the chimp genome as we would expect from common ancestry? Or are the vast majority of ERVs found at different positions, which is what we would expect from independent insertion and a lack of a common ancestor?

The first part of the test is to find out how many ERVs there are in the human genome. As it turns out, there are over 200,000 places where retroviruses have inserted into the genome of our ancestors and have been inherited vertically since then. From the human genome paper:

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v409/n6822/full/409860a0.html

After the human genome project published their first draft, the chimp genome project was next. They searched the chimp genome for ERVs and then compared them to the human genome. Here is what they found:

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v437/n7055/full/nature04072.html

Of the 200,000 ERVs found in the human genome, all but 82 were found at the same spot in the chimp genome. This is over 200,000 pieces of proof demonstrating the fact of shared ancestry between humans and chimps.

 

[Kenny'sID]

Common ancestry of life is a genetic fact. This is demonstrated by the nested structure or DNA.

That the first I've heard about that being your evidence...that's all, I have no doubt there are facts in there.

It's how we can determine that your mom and dad are your biological mom and dad.

Fine, and how does that prove evolution? y'all still haven't given me anything.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Bring em' out here and lets discuss your tests.

Find me a mammal with feathers.
Find me an amphibian with hair.
Find me a reptile with an inner earbone.
Find me a primate without a blind spot.
Find me any non-primate with which we share more ERV's (or any other genetic markers) then with primates.

In short: find me any organism that breaks the nested hierarchy of life.

 

[Kenny'sID]

Of the 200,000 ERVs found in the human genome, all but 82 were found at the same spot in the chimp genome. This is over 200,000 pieces of proof demonstrating the fact of shared ancestry between humans and chimps.

No, it's not proof of evolution at all. It could just as well be proof God used the same materials to create what he created. Or what has been concluded by these scientist is only what those facts mean to them, nothing more. Opinions of what the findings mean. The evolution part is read into it, not out of it.

 

[Kenny'sID]

Find me a mammal with feathers.
Find me an amphibian with hair.
Find me a reptile with an inner earbone.
Find me a primate without a blind spot.
Find me any non-primate with which we share more ERV's (or any other genetic markers) then with primates.

In short: find me any organism that breaks the nested hierarchy of life.

Sorry, that doesn't do a whole lot for me. you'll have to be a bit more specific on your point.

 

[Speedwell]

No, it's not proof of evolution at all. It could just as well be proof God used the same materials to create what he created. Or what has been concluded by these scientist is only what those facts mean to them, nothing more. Opinions of what the findings mean. The evolution part is read into it, not out of it.

OK, so He used large segments of Chimpanzee genome bearing what are, in effect, the scars of viral infections, to make man. If that's your story, you'd better stick to it.

 

[Speedwell]

Sorry, that doesn't do a whole lot for me. you'll have to be a bit more specific on your point.

That any of those findings would destroy the theory of evolution unequivocally.

 

[Kenny'sID]

I must be insane then.

Now you might just be on to something there. You keep throwing the same conclusion derived of opinion and calling it fact, and I keep seeing it as just that, yet you continue to do it over and over again.

 

[Loudmouth]

No, it's not proof of evolution at all. It could just as well be proof God used the same materials to create what he created.

How could it be proof that God did anything?

Is there any observation that you wouldn't use that argument against?

What if we find a suspect's DNA, fingerprints, fibers, tire tracks, and shoe prints at a crime scene. Would you say that we should just ignore all of that evidence because God could have put that all of that stuff there?

Or what has been concluded by these scientist is only what those facts mean to them, nothing more. Opinions of what the findings mean. The evolution part is read into it, not out of it.

Please point to a single opinion in what I presented. I bet you can't do it. Everything I presented are empirical facts.

 

[Kenny'sID]

OK, so he used large segments of Chimpanzee genome bearing what are, in effect, the scars of viral infections, to make man.

Or was it the other way around?

No, that's just what you choose to turn what I said into.

 

[Speedwell]

Or was it the other way around?

No, that's just what you choose to turn what I said into.

So He created man first, then used segments of human DNA to make chimpanzees? How does that square with your Bible?

 

[Kenny'sID]

Is there any observation that you wouldn't use that argument against?

Of course not.

Please point to a single opinion in what I presented. I bet you can't do it. Everything I presented are empirical facts.

I explained my point quite well, even repeated myself to make things clear.

 

[Loudmouth]

Of course not.

That's not very clear at all.

If ERVs exactly match what common ancestry should produce, then how is that not evidence for common ancestry?

I explained my point quite well, even repeated myself to make things clear.

You didn't explain anything. You made an accusation with no evidence to back it.

How is the evidence I presented inconsistent with common ancestry? You claim that common ancestry is just being read into it, so how is it being read into it?

 

[Kenny'sID]

So He created man first, then used segments of human DNA to make chimpanzees? How does that square with your Bible?

The Bible doesn't go into depth. And in case you didn't get what I was saying, those are your own twists, words you are trying to put into my mouth. Or your imagination getting the best of you.

 

[Loudmouth]

Or was it the other way around?

No, that's just what you choose to turn what I said into.

Then be clear. What do you mean by, "Or was it the other way around"?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Fine, and how does that prove evolution? y'all still haven't given me anything.

Eum....
If we can determine common ancestry based on DNA, then we can determine common ancestry based on DNA.

What about this is so confusing to you?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

No, it's not proof of evolution at all. It could just as well be proof God used the same materials to create what he created. Or what has been concluded by these scientist is only what those facts mean to them, nothing more. Opinions of what the findings mean. The evolution part is read into it, not out of it.

LOL!

Denial: not just a river in Egypt.

 

[Speedwell]

The Bible doesn't go into depth. And in case you didn't get what I was saying, those are your own twists, words you are trying to put into my mouth. Or your imagination getting the best of you.

So what are your words? How do you explain the identical viral scarring?

 

[Kenny'sID]

That's not very clear at all.

If ERVs exactly match what common ancestry should produce, then how is that not evidence for common ancestry?

You lost me there, please explain in detail what you mean, using easily understood terminology.