- Jun 4, 2013
- 10,132
- 996
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Widowed
- Politics
- US-Others
I don't believe anyone has tested a sample for 1/2 million years and actually verified any half-life.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
I don't believe anyone has tested a sample for 1/2 million years and actually verified any half-life.Physics, chemistry, the way atoms work (atomic decay),...
What they are not bothering to mention is that we use virus to target specific cells for gene therapy. That virus commonly bring DNA from foreign hosts across species all the time. That an ERV is a foreign invader to begin with, that all the shared markers are from ERV sites.Yeah, if they lost it, it would be irrelevant. But if they never acquired it, and they are in the line, it makes me wonder if it could not be due to parralel insertio .
I asked earlier about the mutation over time of these retroviruses being used as a time stamp. Apparently it does act as a time stamp, just not the way I imagined. According to Pauls link the insertion of a retrovirus is identical upon insertion, so we can get a timeline based on mutation after that initial insertion. And if we look it matches your chart. From Pauls link "Since LTRs are identical upon reverse transcription and subsequent insertion, greater divergence correlates to an older insertion. Thus the patterns of discontinuity indicate sequences of divergences consistent with those indicated by distribution." But I wonder if retroviruses can go through mutations that alter their gene insertion, because if that's possible it could alternatively explain the divergences. There is a lot here for me to think about, and a lot more to read about. Thank you for your help.
What they are not bothering to mention is that we use virus to target specific cells for gene therapy. That virus commonly bring DNA from foreign hosts across species all the time. That an ERV is a foreign invader to begin with, that all the shared markers are from ERV sites.
No one is certainly denying that after infection, the body incorporates the foreign DNA to use in protein manufacture, and is THEN passed to future generations vertically.
There would be divergences whether they shared ancestry or whether it came from foreign infection. All the divergence can do is tell you when the foreign infection occurred, not if they share a common ancestor. And this is based solely upon mutation rates, while ignoring the more fundamental truth.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28568290
"Hybridization increased additive genetic and environmental variances, increased heritabilities to a moderate extent, and generally strengthened phenotypic and genetic correlations. New additive genetic variance introduced by hybridization is estimated to be two to three orders of magnitude greater than that introduced by mutation."
So simple mating between different humans would have affected the appearance of time by two to three orders of magnitude greater than mutation alone. The same with apes. Therefore the actual infection time would be much, much closer in the past than they account for, being they neglect the changes due to mating which has a 2 to 3 times greater magnitude of producing changes.
I understand how they come to their incorrect conclusions of time, they ignore what is two to three times greater in magnitude.
Yeah, if they lost it, it would be irrelevant. But if they never acquired it, and they are in the line, it makes me wonder if it could not be due to parralel insertio .
I asked earlier about the mutation over time of these retroviruses being used as a time stamp. Apparently it does act as a time stamp, just not the way I imagined. According to Pauls link the insertion of a retrovirus is identical upon insertion, so we can get a timeline based on mutation after that initial insertion. And if we look it matches your chart. From Pauls link "Since LTRs are identical upon reverse transcription and subsequent insertion, greater divergence correlates to an older insertion. Thus the patterns of discontinuity indicate sequences of divergences consistent with those indicated by distribution." But I wonder if retroviruses can go through mutations that alter their gene insertion, because if that's possible it could alternatively explain the divergences. There is a lot here for me to think about, and a lot more to read about. Thank you for your help.
Thank you. So if we take the chart mentioned earlier. And we say that we are ancestors because gene insertion is identical at the start, and the standard mutation rate lineates a time line in perfect accordance with our expectations of common ancestry then we must be ancestors. Then it seems to me like we are locked into that rate. If there are unforseen accelerants, as you suggest, then it becomes very problematic toward this line of evidence. If the standard mutation rate is in perfect accordance with the common ancestry tree, then it's no longer flexible to withstand the discovery of additional variables which might act as an accelerant. If this is true, and I need to study it some more because I can't quite tell from the abstract, it seems like it could take this evidential line and reverse it against common ancestry because it put all it's chips on the standard mutation rate to get a time line that matches the hypothesis.
Exactly, they use a timeline that matches their beliefs. But if the age they believe is wrong, based upon their timeline for mutational change, because they didnt factor in changes from mating........
Then those changes could have occurred much sooner than they believe. Mutation is a random process, there is no such thing as a precise way to measure the amount of time it takes for any mutational change to occur. I mean it is random. It's simply a case of making a belief, fit a set of data they want to say one thing, when if factors they havent accounted for are in effect, then their belief fails to match the real data. If mating caused a change in 9 months, that they mistrue to mutation which they believe took thousands........
I don't understand the possibility you're raising here. Could you expand on your suggestion?But I wonder if retroviruses can go through mutations that alter their gene insertion, because if that's possible it could alternatively explain the divergences.
It seems to me that the coccyx might cause some discomfort if sitting too long, especially for women. If so then God didn't intend for us to sit on our butts for long periods, and so provided a warning system.
Oh that reminds me of the reason suggested for mosquitoes. It seems they are particularly virulent against loggers of the rain forests and so they are a tool for slowing the destruction of that habitat.
Because that phase of evolution happened before and during the Cambrian era, 600 million years and more ago--not 65 million--and there was very little hard stuff in those creatures to fossilize.But you have 65 million year old fossils. Why not the goofy ones? Why wouldn't those creatures with two heads grow to maturity and leave fossil evidence, or did evolution decide they were unfit when they were 'soft and squishy'? And if so why do malformed and unfit animals grow to maturity today?
Yeah.I don't understand the possibility you're raising here. Could you expand on your suggestion?
Because that phase of evolution happened before and during the Cambrian era, 600 million years and more ago--not 65 million--and there was very little hard stuff in those creatures to fossilize.
No, just no more trial and error with respect to how many limbs creatures have.So intelligent design took over after 600 million years ago? No more trial and error?
No, just no more trial and error with respect to how many limbs creatures have.
Unsuccessful creatures failed to have oodles and oodles of descendants. They had few or none. So since only about one in a million creatures ever leave a fossil, that's why you don't see such fossils.The question remains. Where are the fossils of 'unsuccessful' designs?
Unsuccessful creatures failed to have oodles and oodles of descendants. They had few or none. So since only about one in a million creatures ever leave a fossil, that's why you don't see such fossils.
And if you saw one, would you recognize it for what it was?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?