The science of creationism: where is it?

[juvenissun]

We see different ERVs all over the animal kingdom, there's not just one type of ERV.

www.google.com

It's your friend, research things*.

Then answer the initial question, how does Creationism explain the ERVs that are found in the exact same places in human and chimp genomes, as well as other species that have a common ancestor?


*From multiple sources, not creationist propaganda, pseudo-scientific sites.

I don't see anything on the link. I am not convinced that similar feature happened to other ape species, and to other animals. This skepticism is quite reasonable. Otherwise, the ERV on chimp and human would not be of any significance.

Let's assume it is a valid data. How would creationism look at it? Very simply, it is still not of any particular significance. You overlooked that 97%(?) of DNA between human and ape(?) is the same. Would this be a more overwhelming "evidence" of having common ancestor? I won't care even if 99.9% of them is the same. The fact (the real data) shows the difference. We are not evolved from ape. The gaps are tooooo big, even it were only 0.1% difference in DNA. We live in houses and they live in the zoo. It does not take any genetic expert to see the difference on this piece of datum.

 

[Alunyel]

I don't see anything on the link. I am not convinced that similar feature happened to other ape species, and to other animals. This skepticism is quite reasonable. Otherwise, the ERV on chimp and human would not be of any significance.

The idea of that link was that you do your own independant, unbias and completely impartial research. Of course, I knew I was expecting too much.

Let's assume it is a valid data. How would creationism look at it? Very simply, it is still not of any particular significance. You overlooked that 97%(?) of DNA between human and ape(?) is the same. Would this be a more overwhelming "evidence" of having common ancestor? I won't care even if 99.9% of them is the same. The fact (the real data) shows the difference. We are not evolved from ape. The gaps are tooooo big, even it were only 0.1% difference in DNA. We live in houses and they live in the zoo. It does not take any genetic expert to see the difference on this piece of datum.

I still don't think you understand how the ERV works. It selects a completely random section of its hosts DNA to embed itself. I'm sure you've got a vague idea of how massive and complex the Human and chimp genomes are?

The chances of the ERV embedding itself in the same area of two seperate species' genomes is virtually impossible. The human and chimp genomes are simply way, way too vast and complex for the ERV to randomly select the same place by chance. The ONLY way the ERV DNA markers can be seen in the same area on two species who have almost identical DNA, is if the ERV embedded itself into the DNA of a common ancestor, leaving its DNA embedded into that common ancestor, which, in turn, gets passed on to the next generation as if it was a normal part of the common ancestor's DNA. And so on, and so on. If that species diverges into two seperate species, via evolution, then the DNA marker of the ERV will be found in the same spot in two very similar genomes.

As for the "our DNA might be almost identical, but we're soooo different." argument followed by "It does not take any genetic expert to see the difference on this piece of datum.", that just shows how little you know about genetics.

 

[biggles53]

Juve, it's hard to believe that you're not being deliberately obtuse over the explanations of this stuff.....

I don't see anything on the link. I am not convinced that similar feature happened to other ape species, and to other animals. This skepticism is quite reasonable. Otherwise, the ERV on chimp and human would not be of any significance.

Juve, the chimp/human shared insertion is not the only one. There have been seven of these found (so far), by the way. However, there are also shared insertions between humans, chimps and gorillas. Others with humans, chimps, gorillas and orangs, and so on...

Let's assume it is a valid data. How would creationism look at it? Very simply, it is still not of any particular significance. You overlooked that 97%(?) of DNA between human and ape(?) is the same. Would this be a more overwhelming "evidence" of having common ancestor? I won't care even if 99.9% of them is the same. The fact (the real data) shows the difference. We are not evolved from ape. The gaps are tooooo big, even it were only 0.1% difference in DNA. We live in houses and they live in the zoo. It does not take any genetic expert to see the difference on this piece of datum.

No, "we are not evolved from ape (sic)". We ARE ape...!

Look, this isn't an argument about how similar our DNA is to the other primates - it's about MARKERS that have been left in our genomes. And the odds that the same marker would be left in EXACTLY the same place in a 3 billion 'unit' long genome is vanishingly small. But it didn't happen just once...it occurred MANY times across the primate species! This is impossible by chance! The ONLY explanation is that these markers were put in place BEFORE the various primate species 'split' off from the ancestor.

There. is. simply. no. other. explanation.

Here's an analogy.

I live on the Gold Coast in Queensland, Australia. The road from here to Cairns in the north is about 1600 km long. Imagine you told me to travel that road and to spit once somewhere along my journey. You tell a friend of mine to take a separate journey and to leave a similar 'spit marker'. You find that, by chance we both happen to spit on the same spot on that 1600km road. Now, you could either conclude that this was just the most amazing coincidence you'd ever heard of, or you would determine that there had to be some 'common' element involved - eg, we both travelled together and chose our 'spitting point' collaboratively, or, before separating for our trip, we conspired to both spit at a pre-arranged place.

Now imagine such an occurrence happened OVER A DOZEN TIMES! Still a coincidence......??

 

[Hespera]

Juve, it's hard to believe that you're not being deliberately obtuse over the explanations of this stuff.....



Juve, the chimp/human shared insertion is not the only one. There have been seven of these found (so far), by the way. However, there are also shared insertions between humans, chimps and gorillas. Others with humans, chimps, gorillas and orangs, and so on...



No, "we are not evolved from ape (sic)". We ARE ape...!

Look, this isn't an argument about how similar our DNA is to the other primates - it's about MARKERS that have been left in our genomes. And the odds that the same marker would be left in EXACTLY the same place in a 3 billion 'unit' long genome is vanishingly small. But it didn't happen just once...it occurred MANY times across the primate species! This is impossible by chance! The ONLY explanation is that these markers were put in place BEFORE the various primate species 'split' off from the ancestor.

There. is. simply. no. other. explanation.

Here's an analogy.

I live on the Gold Coast in Queensland, Australia. The road from here to Cairns in the north is about 1600 km long. Imagine you told me to travel that road and to spit once somewhere along my journey. You tell a friend of mine to take a separate journey and to leave a similar 'spit marker'. You find that, by chance we both happen to spit on the same spot on that 1600km road. Now, you could either conclude that this was just the most amazing coincidence you'd ever heard of, or you would determine that there had to be some 'common' element involved - eg, we both travelled together and chose our 'spitting point' collaboratively, or, before separating for our trip, we conspired to both spit at a pre-arranged place.

Now imagine such an occurrence happened OVER A DOZEN TIMES! Still a coincidence......??

Think of it this way. The theocreos love to pull out stats that prove evolution couldnt be true. Ya wanna get into battling stats?

As for obtuse, "people are not apes" etc. here is the deal, my analogy that one at least of our noted theocreos agrees with.

Its like you have a surveillance camera. You have a video of the thief.
But he doesnt know it. Trusted employee maybe. Well, he will give you wonderful explanations and excuses, be so sincere and convincing, if all you had was his words you could not but agree that he is innocent.

But you have the video. Theocreos think the bible is their "video".

 

[Hespera]

"

Very good. So you noticed the feature of river terraces, which is very common in those areas. This feature gives ADDITIONAL meaning to the geology background. It increases, but not decreases, its complexity.[/quote]


You are of course stating the obvious here. Was there some reason to put in the "very good"?

Could you please explain some things that are not obvious from what you have said? Its a bit hard to tell what we are talking about, you offered to debate, I dunno what we are debating.

lets try this...

how old do you think the earth is, and why

are all geological features of the earth best explained by natural causes?

where if anywhere do you see the "hand of god" at work?

Please be specific.

 

[juvenissun]

Very good. So you noticed the feature of river terraces, which is very common in those areas. This feature gives ADDITIONAL meaning to the geology background. It increases, but not decreases, its complexity.

You are of course stating the obvious here. Was there some reason to put in the "very good"?

Could you please explain some things that are not obvious from what you have said? Its a bit hard to tell what we are talking about, you offered to debate, I dunno what we are debating.

lets try this...

how old do you think the earth is, and why

are all geological features of the earth best explained by natural causes?

where if anywhere do you see the "hand of god" at work?

Please be specific.[/QUOTE]

If so, let me remind you the issue: Name a geologic study in which the data support creationism.

The topic or study is about the entrenched meander. And to summarize, the data is at best very confusing and do not point to an old earth.

 

[juvenissun]

Juve, it's hard to believe that you're not being deliberately obtuse over the explanations of this stuff.....



Juve, the chimp/human shared insertion is not the only one. There have been seven of these found (so far), by the way. However, there are also shared insertions between humans, chimps and gorillas. Others with humans, chimps, gorillas and orangs, and so on...



No, "we are not evolved from ape (sic)". We ARE ape...!

Look, this isn't an argument about how similar our DNA is to the other primates - it's about MARKERS that have been left in our genomes. And the odds that the same marker would be left in EXACTLY the same place in a 3 billion 'unit' long genome is vanishingly small. But it didn't happen just once...it occurred MANY times across the primate species! This is impossible by chance! The ONLY explanation is that these markers were put in place BEFORE the various primate species 'split' off from the ancestor.

There. is. simply. no. other. explanation.

Here's an analogy.

I live on the Gold Coast in Queensland, Australia. The road from here to Cairns in the north is about 1600 km long. Imagine you told me to travel that road and to spit once somewhere along my journey. You tell a friend of mine to take a separate journey and to leave a similar 'spit marker'. You find that, by chance we both happen to spit on the same spot on that 1600km road. Now, you could either conclude that this was just the most amazing coincidence you'd ever heard of, or you would determine that there had to be some 'common' element involved - eg, we both travelled together and chose our 'spitting point' collaboratively, or, before separating for our trip, we conspired to both spit at a pre-arranged place.

Now imagine such an occurrence happened OVER A DOZEN TIMES! Still a coincidence......??

It is impossible to wait for you or Alunyel to give me any useful information.

So, I did a little google search. What I found in few minutes only shows that both of you are honest on this debate. I don't know this stuff. But I do know how to find what I want, no matter what that is.

There has been A LOT discussions and debates on this issue. Many of them are, in fact, focusd on the data. I don't have time to study this thing. Then why don't you pick up one argument from the oppositions and try to answer it?

Here is the focus of issue: Creationists DO look at the data. Is that enough to settle the argument? And I like to repeat what I said: The OP is really ignorant.

 

[Hespera]

You are of course stating the obvious here. Was there some reason to put in the "very good"?

Could you please explain some things that are not obvious from what you have said? Its a bit hard to tell what we are talking about, you offered to debate, I dunno what we are debating.

lets try this...

how old do you think the earth is, and why

are all geological features of the earth best explained by natural causes?

where if anywhere do you see the "hand of god" at work?

Please be specific.

If so, let me remind you the issue: Name a geologic study in which the data support creationism.

The topic or study is about the entrenched meander. And to summarize, the data is at best very confusing and do not point to an old earth.[/quote]


What about it confuses you?
What do you mean by "old earth"
What does any of it have to do with "god"?
What specific geological study do you think supports "creationism"

 

[Alunyel]

It is impossible to wait for you or Alunyel to give me any useful information.

So, I did a little google search. What I found in few minutes only shows that both of you are honest on this debate. I don't know this stuff. But I do know how to find what I want, no matter what that is.

There has been A LOT discussions and debates on this issue. Many of them are, in fact, focusd on the data. I don't have time to study this thing. Then why don't you pick up one argument from the oppositions and try to answer it?

Here is the focus of issue: Creationists DO look at the data. Is that enough to settle the argument? And I like to repeat what I said: The OP is really ignorant.

The smeg you on about?

Both me and Biggles have given you stacks of useful information. We've both described ERVs and the implications of having ERV markers in identical spots, in two seperate species, that share similar DNA. If you chose to ignore that, or don't undersand it, that doesn't mean the information we've given you is useless.

There aren't any debates on it. Any "debates" you've been reading about are likely just "creation scientists" whinging at the real scientists that they're wrong. Without any evidence to show that they're wrong.

You're right in saying that creationists do look at the data. They look at the data that they want to look at, and they look at all the data that contradicts their religious beliefs in the same way people look directly at the sun. They cover their eyes.

But that wasn't the focus of the issue. The focus of the issue was ERV markers in the human and chimp genomes. How does creation explain it?

 

[juvenissun]

The smeg you on about?

Both me and Biggles have given you stacks of useful information. We've both described ERVs and the implications of having ERV markers in identical spots, in two seperate species, that share similar DNA. If you chose to ignore that, or don't undersand it, that doesn't mean the information we've given you is useless.

There aren't any debates on it. Any "debates" you've been reading about are likely just "creation scientists" whinging at the real scientists that they're wrong. Without any evidence to show that they're wrong.

You're right in saying that creationists do look at the data. They look at the data that they want to look at, and they look at all the data that contradicts their religious beliefs in the same way people look directly at the sun. They cover their eyes.

But that wasn't the focus of the issue. The focus of the issue was ERV markers in the human and chimp genomes. How does creation explain it?

In my first response to this feature, I suggested that we should look for similar feature in other animals and other species. You two were so busy in "educate" me about this feature as if I were a dumb, and can never answer my question.

Here is one I found in a few minutes search. It answered my question very well. So should you know what does this piece of data mean.

 

[biggles53]

In my first response to this feature, I suggested that we should look for similar feature in other animals and other species. You two were so busy in "educate" me about this feature as if I were a dumb, and can never answer my question.

[wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth]!? If I try to work my way through that mangled English, what I think you're trying to say is that you weren't given any evidence of ERV's in other species? Well, I mentioned to you that jackals and related species share ERV insertions - you might also like to look at the cat family...you'll find them there also. As science continues to examine the genomes of various species, more knowledge will be uncovered...

Here is one I found in a few minutes search. It answered my question very well. So should you know what does this piece of data mean.

Oh dear....oh dear, dear, dear....

Well done Juve. You've stumbled across the two most common canards that creationists put up in a lame attempt to gainsay the significance of ERV's.

But...at least you're reading...hope springs eternal!

The "hot spots" canard is due to creos clinging to what they think they find in either of these two articles:

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

and,

An Ancient Retrovirus-like Element Contains Hot Spots for SINE Insertion -- Cantrell et al. 158 (2): 769 -- Genetics

Unfortunately, for those who actually bother to study those articles, it is quite clearly shown that the use of mobile units for phylogenic markers is upheld.

The other is the "ERV's have functionality" canard. In their desperation, however, creos fail to distinguish between ERV's being functional, and remnant structures being co-opted for useful purposes. A huge difference! Believe me, you don't want ERV's becoming functional within your genome - ever heard of HIV!?

Force-fitting data to match a preconceived belief system just don't work...!

 

[Alunyel]

One problem is the presence of other ERV's in the chimp and gorilla genome which are NOT Present in the human genome.

That's not a problem. Just because our common ancestor had an ERV, doesn't mean that every species after it can't get ERVs. When the chimps and gorillas evolve further, all of the resulting species will have both the ERV markers from our common ancestor, and the newer ERV markers from the gorrilas and chimps.

Insertions are not random, but are related to HOT SPOTS. And rather than being non-functional, they seem to be involved in highly important regulatory functions.

*Yawn*

More creationist fabrication and stuff they made up. Do some real research, from multiple, renowned, sources. Don't just read one creationist propaganda site and accept that as truth because it clarifies what you want to believe. They twist facts and make up half truths and complete lies just to perpetuate their own religious agenda.

Both me and Biggles have answered your questions (or suggested you do your own research on the topic.), but as is typical with creationists, you choose to ignore our answers.

 

[juvenissun]

Thank you both. Now you are defending the interpretation of the data.

I don't understand even 5% of your argument. So, I am not going to walk into the trap. But, the conclusion of the discussion is obvious: Any piece of data evolutionist brought up, there ARE different interpretations given by creationist. In most cases, the best response an evolutionist can give is saying nonsense, but no more.

I could not judge the quality of argument by creationist on this topic. So, as long as the argument exist, I am satisfied. On the other hand, if the argument is geological, I don't think your argument can even last longer than one post. I will not ignore your answer, I will beat it to death.

 

[Hespera]

Juv- Funny that you would think that being educated out of your ideas is a "trap".

I asked you to explain you ideas about geology earlier, but no response.

earlier i said I could shred you on any aspect of geology but I guess i was wrong if you wont commit yourself to anything.

 

[juvenissun]

[wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth]!? If I try to work my way through that mangled English, what I think you're trying to say is that you weren't given any evidence of ERV's in other species? Well, I mentioned to you that jackals and related species share ERV insertions - you might also like to look at the cat family...you'll find them there also. As science continues to examine the genomes of various species, more knowledge will be uncovered...



Oh dear....oh dear, dear, dear....

Well done Juve. You've stumbled across the two most common canards that creationists put up in a lame attempt to gainsay the significance of ERV's.

But...at least you're reading...hope springs eternal!

The "hot spots" canard is due to creos clinging to what they think they find in either of these two articles:

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

and,

An Ancient Retrovirus-like Element Contains Hot Spots for SINE Insertion -- Cantrell et al. 158 (2): 769 -- Genetics

Unfortunately, for those who actually bother to study those articles, it is quite clearly shown that the use of mobile units for phylogenic markers is upheld.

The other is the "ERV's have functionality" canard. In their desperation, however, creos fail to distinguish between ERV's being functional, and remnant structures being co-opted for useful purposes. A huge difference! Believe me, you don't want ERV's becoming functional within your genome - ever heard of HIV!?

Force-fitting data to match a preconceived belief system just don't work...!

I read them. What you should have done is to give me at least one source, so I can check the data, rather than accept your interpretation. In this case, I did not see a source link, I did not say you are wrong, but only ignored it.

 

[uke2se]

Thank you both. Now you are defending the interpretation of the data.

I don't understand even 5% of your argument. So, I am not going to walk into the trap. But, the conclusion of the discussion is obvious: Any piece of data evolutionist brought up, there ARE different interpretations given by creationist. In most cases, the best response an evolutionist can give is saying nonsense, but no more.

I could not judge the quality of argument by creationist on this topic. So, as long as the argument exist, I am satisfied. On the other hand, if the argument is geological, I don't think your argument can even last longer than one post. I will not ignore your answer, I will beat it to death.

I'd say them's fightin' words. Would you like to back them up? Formal debate on the geological evidence for evolution?

First I'd need to know what geological evidence you think there are to disprove evolution or prove creation, though. Would you like to outline them?

 

[uke2se]

I read them. What you should have done is to give me at least one source, so I can check the data, rather than accept your interpretation. In this case, I did not see a source link, I did not say you are wrong, but only ignored it.

There are two links in the post you quoted that takes you to his sources. It's the underlined words. Hover your mouse over them and you'll see the link in your browser. Click, and you'll see the data.

 

[juvenissun]

Juv- Funny that you would think that being educated out of your ideas is a "trap".

I asked you to explain you ideas about geology earlier, but no response.

earlier i said I could shred you on any aspect of geology but I guess i was wrong if you wont commit yourself to anything.

You have to do better if you wish me to respond to your request. I don't care if you laugh at me on other things. But if you want to learn geology, you need to show some sincereness. I do not charge any answer I give in this forum.

 

[juvenissun]

There are two links in the post you quoted that takes you to his sources. It's the underlined words. Hover your mouse over them and you'll see the link in your browser. Click, and you'll see the data.

Possible.

That is one consequence of a long and scattered argument. I might have ignored the link and took on a more obvious weakness. This is not my stuff. If I can give an easier argument, why should I take a harder one?

 

[juvenissun]

I'd say them's fightin' words. Would you like to back them up? Formal debate on the geological evidence for evolution?

First I'd need to know what geological evidence you think there are to disprove evolution or prove creation, though. Would you like to outline them?

To disprove evolution is very very simple. Simply raise a question which they can not answer. That is all it takes.

My recognition is: if I disproved evolution, then I proved creation. Because there is not a third possibility.