Understanding Evolution

[Smidlee]

ERVs insert pretty much randomly. They don't have to be anywhere particularly advantageous, just somewhere where they (if they were functional retroviral RNA) would be used by the cell to generate new virons. The surrounding DNA is, by and large, not that relevant to their purpose. Sometimes, when they mutate to not produce new virons and become ERVs, they might be advantageous to the host cell. Out of the many that have occurred in the history of life on Earth, there are almost definitely going to be a few that serve that purpose. Other than those few, though, they're mostly just non-coding strands of nucleic acid that get passed on randomly because they aren't harmful.

Richard Sternberg recently gave a speech about this subject on the junk DNA myth as in last few years it has been revealed how important on where the so called "junk DNA" are located. The more we learn the more we find purpose in all areas of the living cell including "junk DNA".

It's very hard to accept this since it another nail in the evolution coffin. Instead of finding design in nature is an illusion we are finding "junk DNA" is an illusion.

 

[justlookinla]

A few posts ago, you made the bold claim that no evidence exists to demonstrate that humans were the result of evolutionary processes.

That being said, how do you account for the pattern of ERV insertions in humans and other primates?

Ummmm, I did just quote you. See those quotesy things up there around your words? That's a quote.

You didn't quote me.

So, how do you explain the pattern of ERV insertions in the primates?

What's your point?

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

I do remember a few papers mention in the book The Myth of Junk DNA where they found ERV preform useful functions. One had something to do with our blood. Evolutionist are the ones who jump the gun with ERV assume they were junk. It was they last hope that our DNA is the result of a purposeless, random act of evolution.

ENCODE project has had a lot of resistance from the evolutionist who wanted most of our DNA to be junk. Their religious faith in evolution is more important that discovering the truth about the functions of our DNA.

A few of the ERV insertions have, since being inserted, undergone mutations that incorporated them into useful parts of the DNA. Most of them have not done that. This is exactly what we would expect to happen since evolution is true.

Denial of truly junk DNA remains a creationist fantasy. They think that if they just find one piece of useful DNA that was previously not known to be useful they have proved that ALL junk DNA actually has uses currently unknown.

Which is hardly the case. The actual case is, there are a few pieces of DNA currently considered to be junk for which a purpose will be found eventually, but most of the DNA currently considered to be junk is really junk.

 

[EternalDragon]

A few of the ERV insertions have, since being inserted, undergone mutations that incorporated them into useful parts of the DNA. Most of them have not done that. This is exactly what we would expect to happen since evolution is true.

Denial of truly junk DNA remains a creationist fantasy. They think that if they just find one piece of useful DNA that was previously not known to be useful they have proved that ALL junk DNA actually has uses currently unknown.

Which is hardly the case. The actual case is, there are a few pieces of DNA currently considered to be junk for which a purpose will be found eventually, but most of the DNA currently considered to be junk is really junk.

What is your definition of "functional"?

The Treasure Hunt Continues: More Uses for Non-Coding DNA - Evolution News & Views

Junk DNA: Darwinists Say They Are "Largely Free from Assumptions or Hypotheses" - Evolution News & Views

Junk DNA Is a FANTOM Disappearing Act - Evolution News & Views

 

[Bungle_Bear]

You didn't quote me.

This post is the quote.

Suspect you'll just ignore that because humility and admission of error are not part of your repertoire.

 

[justlookinla]

A few posts ago, you made the bold claim that no evidence exists to demonstrate that humans were the result of evolutionary processes.

That being said, how do you account for the pattern of ERV insertions in humans and other primates?

This post is the quote.

Suspect you'll just ignore that because humility and admission of error are not part of your repertoire.

The poster claimed that I "made the bold claim that no evidence exists to demonstrate that humans were the result of evolutionary processes". I've asked repeatedly for a quote where I made that "bold claim". Actually copy and paste this alleged "bold claim" mine. Of course we both know that you're not going to do it, don't we?

My quote doesn't claim that "no evidence exists to demonstrate that humans were the result of evolutionary processes". Here is is again.....

"There's absolutely no evidence, not even the wisp of a gob, that only naturalistic mechanisms created humanity from an alleged single life form of long long ago. If you have such evidence, post it."​

Of course the repeated requests to actually make a point, a conclusion with ERVs has failed to materialize so far. To be honest, I'm not surprised.

 

[Euler]

The poster claimed that I "made the bold claim that no evidence exists to demonstrate that humans were the result of evolutionary processes". I've asked repeatedly for a quote where I made that "bold claim". Actually copy and paste this alleged "bold claim" mine. Of course we both know that you're not going to do it, don't we?

My quote doesn't claim that "no evidence exists to demonstrate that humans were the result of evolutionary processes". Here is is again.....

"There's absolutely no evidence, not even the wisp of a gob, that only naturalistic mechanisms created humanity from an alleged single life form of long long ago. If you have such evidence, post it."​

Of course the repeated requests to actually make a point, a conclusion with ERVs has failed to materialize so far. To be honest, I'm not surprised.

Oh, I see. Pretending to play dumb is your strategy. And a little hair-splitting of course. Anything at all to shift the focus away from your embarrassment over knowing NOTHING AT ALL about how ERV's absolutely trash your argument about "no evidence".

THEY are the "wisp of a gob" that conclusively show that humans developed from a common ancestor with other primates. And there are other insertions shared by other species.

And here I was, thinking that with age came wisdom.

Pathetic.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

What is your definition of "functional"?

The Treasure Hunt Continues: More Uses for Non-Coding DNA - Evolution News & Views

Junk DNA: Darwinists Say They Are "Largely Free from Assumptions or Hypotheses" - Evolution News & Views

Junk DNA Is a FANTOM Disappearing Act - Evolution News & Views

Oh, of course you can find people who say things like that, I told you they exist already.

 

[bhsmte]

Oh, I see. Pretending to play dumb is your strategy. And a little hair-splitting of course. Anything at all to shift the focus away from your embarrassment over knowing NOTHING AT ALL about how ERV's absolutely trash your argument about "no evidence".

THEY are the "wisp of a gob" that conclusively show that humans developed from a common ancestor with other primates. And there are other insertions shared by other species.

And here I was, thinking that with age came wisdom.

Pathetic.

Age can also mean many years of digging a deeper and deeper hole, that well developed defense mechanisms wont let you out of.

 

[Euler]

Age can also mean many years of digging a deeper and deeper hole, that well developed defense mechanisms wont let you out of.

I'm waiting for the "La la la la, I can't hear you!" play.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

I'm waiting for the "La la la la, I can't hear you!" play.

I've noticed it's that or silence. There's never a gracious "oh, I was wrong."

Until the next thread where all bets are off and the same discredited tripe can be trotted out again, all shiny and polished as if it's something new and ground-breaking.

 

[Euler]

I've noticed it's that or silence. There's never a gracious "oh, I was wrong."

Until the next thread where all bets are off and the same discredited tripe can be trotted out again, all shiny and polished as if it's something new and ground-breaking.

Yep, you got it.

And he simply can't admit he's wrong. Because that would be to admit that perhaps evolution HAS been responsible for the diversity of all life on the planet, including us.

And if that card falls.......

 

[bhsmte]

Yep, you got it.

And he simply can't admit he's wrong. Because that would be to admit that perhaps evolution HAS been responsible for the diversity of all life on the planet, including us.

And if that card falls.......

Fundamentalist beliefs are a house of cards, which is why those people need to build up their defense mechanisms to keep the belief protected, at all costs.

 

[justlookinla]

Oh, I see. Pretending to play dumb is your strategy. And a little hair-splitting of course.

Hair splitting? You quoted me in error, completely changing my words. That's not "hair splitting'.

You claimed that I "made the bold claim that no evidence exists to demonstrate that humans were the result of evolutionary processes". I then asked repeatedly for my quote and of course nothing was forthcoming.

What I actually said was "there's absolutely no evidence, not even the wisp of a gob, that only naturalistic mechanisms created humanity from an alleged single life form of long long ago."

Of course you couldn't provide the evidence I asked for so you attempt to change my request. It's there for all to see.

Anything at all to shift the focus away from your embarrassment over knowing NOTHING AT ALL about how ERV's absolutely trash your argument about "no evidence".

THEY are the "wisp of a gob" that conclusively show that humans developed from a common ancestor with other primates. And there are other insertions shared by other species.

Nothing, and I mean nothing, you've posted offers any evidence that ONLY naturalistic mechanisms created humanity from an alleged single life form of long long ago. And do try to get it straight this time, ok?

 

[PsychoSarah]

Yes, the human/chimp genome shares many of the same building blocks, no doubt about that. But that doesn't lend credibility to creation of the incomprehensible complexity and variety of life forms we observe today by the vehicle of mutation.

Our genomes change. And given that there is a less than 5% difference between a human genome and a chimpanzee, and each generation has a small percentage of its genome being different than the previous generation, how is it hard to understand? If every generation had .000000001% of its genome be different than the previous one, how many generations would it take for 5% difference to be reached? Not only that, but disease and other catastrophes can increase that hugely, so I am being generous to you here.

 

[justlookinla]

Our genomes change.

No doubt about that. But changing genomes do not produce new life forms.

][ And given that there is a less than 5% difference between a human genome and a chimpanzee, and each generation has a small percentage of its genome being different than the previous generation, how is it hard to understand?[/QUOTE]

Similar designs, but totally different life forms.

If every generation had .000000001% of its genome be different than the previous one, how many generations would it take for 5% difference to be reached?

The issue isn't there is a 5% difference in the genome, the issue is that a human is a far different life form than a chimp.

Not only that, but disease and other catastrophes can increase that hugely, so I am being generous to you here.

Thanks.

 

[Loudmouth]

No doubt about that. But changing genomes do not produce new life forms.

Really? Then explain why humans and chimps are different? Last I checked, chimps and humans are different because our genomes are different.

Similar designs, but totally different life forms.

We are the same life form. We are both primates.

 

[Loudmouth]

What is your definition of "functional"?

I define functional as affecting the fitness of the individual.

The Treasure Hunt Continues: More Uses for Non-Coding DNA - Evolution News & Views

Junk DNA: Darwinists Say They Are "Largely Free from Assumptions or Hypotheses" - Evolution News & Views

Junk DNA Is a FANTOM Disappearing Act - Evolution News & Views

"Does something" is not the same as functional. A broken tv does something. A broken tv collects dust. However, a broken tv is still junk.

All your creationist sources have done is redefine functional so that REAL junk would be defined as having function.

 

[justlookinla]

Really? Then explain why humans and chimps are different? Last I checked, chimps and humans are different because our genomes are different.



We are the same life form. We are both primates.

We both breathe oxygen. Manmade labels I'm not interested in.

 

[Loudmouth]

We both breathe oxygen. Manmade labels I'm not interested in.

Says the man who uses the label "different life forms" to describe humans and chimps.

What you are not interested in is evidence, reason, and logic.