Viruses that prove common descent

pshun2404

Newbie
Jan 26, 2012
6,026
620
✟78,299.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
I must have missed this! It's hard to keep track of all posts in a busy thread. Do you have a post number? This is a must-see! Nobody has succeeded before.

No you didn't miss anything. You responded by repeating your point. The explanations in posts 211 and 228 are reasonable alternative explanations for what you produced so long as one is able to divorce themselves from the undemonstrated indoctrination (assumption) of a Common Ancestor (which is imagined as one possibility, not factually known, and has been only that ever since Chuck the D first imagined the possibility).

(See Darwin pg 484 O o S, which says, "Therefore I should infer from analogy that probably all the organic beings which have ever lived on this earth have descended from some one primordial form, into which life was first breathed.")

Ever since he expressed this theoretical possibility people have clung to it as if it is a fact, but the real evidence which could demonstrate this has never been produced for scientific examination and analysis. It is to this day a primary assumption that colors interpretations made. My responses in the two afore mentioned posts can only be understood because I have learned to separate the data and the story told to explain it in light of the presupposed idea. The two must be separated for true objectivity to surface.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

pshun2404

Newbie
Jan 26, 2012
6,026
620
✟78,299.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
I haven't seen it either.
I admit I'm making assumptions in my previous post in which I replied to that claim.

I think those are very reasonable assumptions and I predict that they will spot on, if pshun comes through with that post number (not counting on that one though).

First note that I did come through, and one explained Barry's first example (the first example CERV 30 not making his point at all because if one does not ASSUME common descent, my explanation is equally plausible) and the second is a general statement that offers and other way of looking at the masses of shared alleged ERVS that are in the exact same place (not insertions at all but simply always present natural parts of both distinct creature's genomes). I posed two scenarios by which the assumption could be objectively reviewed (a common descendant these alleged ERVs allegedly CONFIRM) and he could not produce one iota, no examples to discuss, NADA...ZIP...ZERO and is still trying to squirm around that with more of his own blogs...

It was made up...it was a good idea...even one possibility...but NOT a fact, and therefore TM it should not be a filter through which data is interpreted...let the data speak for itself and drop the indoctrinated presupposition of a CA (or UCA) if you are able and you will see the point I made.

I know how hard this is once one's opinion has been successfully shaped.
 
Upvote 0
Oct 4, 2015
348
230
74
✟7,902.00
Country
France
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
No you didn't miss anything. You responded by repeating your point. The explanations in posts 211 and 228 are reasonable alternative explanations for what you produced so long as one is able to divorce themselves from the undemonstrated indoctrination (assumption) of a Common Ancestor (which is imagined as one possibility, not factually known, and has been only that ever since Chuck the D first imagined the possibility).

(See Darwin pg 484 O o S, which says, "Therefore I should infer from analogy that probably all the organic beings which have ever lived on this earth have descended from some one primordial form, into which life was first breathed.")

Ever since he expressed this theoretical possibility people have clung to it as if it is a fact, but the real evidence which could demonstrate this has never been produced for scientific examination and analysis. It is to this day a primary assumption that colors interpretations made. My responses in the two afore mentioned posts can only be understood because I have learned to separate the data and the story told to explain it in light of the presupposed idea. The two must be separated for true objectivity to surface.
Nope. Sorry. I don't get it. An ERV found in chimps but not in humans means that all commonly located ERVs could be where they are by coincidence? You'll have to try harder to explain your thinking.
 
Upvote 0

pshun2404

Newbie
Jan 26, 2012
6,026
620
✟78,299.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Nope. Sorry. I don't get it. An ERV found in chimps but not in humans means that all commonly located ERVs could be where they are by coincidence? You'll have to try harder to explain your thinking.

First off that is not anything like what I said at all, and how you can read that into my response is not only shameful, but it again shows your lack of intellectual integrity.That figures! The old 'I do not understand what you are saying' default I asked you not to go to (but predicted you would).

Who are you chubby checker? You like to do "The Twist"? yet another example that you cannot provide the necessary proof for your "confirms Common Descent" claim..Don't you understand how predictable this was? Ah-ha-ha...AHH HA HA!!!! Sad, so sad....
 
Upvote 0
Oct 4, 2015
348
230
74
✟7,902.00
Country
France
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
First off that is not anything like what I said at all, and how you can read that into my response is not only shameful, but it again shows your lack of intellectual integrity.That figures! The old 'I do not understand what you are saying' default I asked you not to go to (but predicted you would).

Who are you chubby checker? You like to do "The Twist"? More proof you cannot provide the necessary proof for your "confirms Common Descent" claim..Don't you understand how predictable this was? Ah-ha-ha...AHH HA HA!!!! Sad, so sad....
So what is your point, pshun2404? Try to give a coherent explanation.
 
Upvote 0

TagliatelliMonster

Well-Known Member
Sep 22, 2016
4,292
3,373
44
Brugge
✟66,672.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
and the same evidence can also be explain by a retrovirus that get its genes from the host. so how do you know what is the correct option if both are possible? the answer of course is that you need to believe in one of those options.

No need to "believe" anything. I just go by the evidence.
And the evidence demonstrates that these viruses insert in DNA and are then inherited by off spring.

what no? host genes can be add to the retrovirus genome. if so: its also possible that the retrovirus was created from the host genes and not the opposite.

Dude, for the bazillionth time....
The science is very clear on how retroviruses work. And it doesn't work the way you pretend it does.

so you can prove that a fish can evolve into a cat for instance?

We can study random DNA samples and demonstrate common ancestry through that study.
Just like we can demonstrate that your biological dad is your actual biological dad. And all we require for that demonstration is a DNA sample from both you and your dad.

if not- then you are wrong and its only a belief. as the rest of your claims.

It's not a "belief", just like paternity DNA tests aren't a "belief".
 
Upvote 0

TagliatelliMonster

Well-Known Member
Sep 22, 2016
4,292
3,373
44
Brugge
✟66,672.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Right, just as I thought...your house has an imaginary foundation. The basic reality that must exist (a Common Ancestor) for these two creatures to have diverged from it...does not exist and your avoidance demonstrates you know this but cannot admit it. You MUST suppose or speculate one (stuff of the imagination) or else the rest of the story does not fit.

False. Common ancestry is a genetic fact.

If both your parents are missing, we can still easily determine that you and your sister are siblings (and thus share parents), just by your collective DNA.

This is the exact same thing, just a different scale.

No Barry, that is NOT the only possibility.

Depends on how you define "possibility".
If you include as "possibility" anything that you can imagine that can't be demonstrated to be false, then it's also a "possibility" that undectable gene pixies are fabricating every individual ERV in all genomes.

However, if by "possible" you mean those things that are actually in evidence... then yes, it very much is the ONLY possibility.

I already showed you that (but it MUST be dismissed or explained away because it may not fit the hypothesis and in fact i does not).

If by "showing" you mean "claiming", then I agree... you indeed claimed that the science is false and that, somehow, you folks know better.

The "belief" (Common Ancestry) preceded the interpretation.

Nope.

The explanation seeks support for the already assumed sci fi...

Nope.
 
Upvote 0

TagliatelliMonster

Well-Known Member
Sep 22, 2016
4,292
3,373
44
Brugge
✟66,672.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
First note that I did come through, and one explained Barry's first example (the first example CERV 30 not making his point at all because if one does not ASSUME common descent, my explanation is equally plausible)

Again: common descent is not an assumption. It's a genetic fact.

and the second is a general statement that offers and other way of looking at the masses of shared alleged ERVS that are in the exact same place

"another way" as opposed to the way that actual science looks at it.

Sounds like how homeopathy or crystal healing is "another way" of looking at medical science.

(not insertions at all but simply always present natural parts of both distinct creature's genomes)

Which is demonstrably false.


It was made up...it was a good idea...even one possibility...but NOT a fact, and therefore TM it should not be a filter through which data is interpreted...let the data speak for itself

Knowledge of what ERV's are, is exactly the result of letting data speak for itself.

and drop the indoctrinated presupposition of a CA (or UCA) if you are able and you will see the point I made.

Again, it's not a presupposition. It's a genetic fact.

I know how hard this is once one's opinion has been successfully shaped.

Irony alert.
 
Upvote 0
Oct 4, 2015
348
230
74
✟7,902.00
Country
France
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
False. Common ancestry is a genetic fact.

If both your parents are missing, we can still easily determine that you and your sister are siblings (and thus share parents), just by your collective DNA.

This is the exact same thing, just a different scale.



Depends on how you define "possibility".
If you include as "possibility" anything that you can imagine that can't be demonstrated to be false, then it's also a "possibility" that undectable gene pixies are fabricating every individual ERV in all genomes.

However, if by "possible" you mean those things that are actually in evidence... then yes, it very much is the ONLY possibility.



If by "showing" you mean "claiming", then I agree... you indeed claimed that the science is false and that, somehow, you folks know better.



Nope.



Nope.
Glad I'm not the only one who can't make any sense of pshun2404's claimed "explanation".

As to it all being bases on the assumption of common ancestry, or of evolution, see Veritas: ERV FAQ: Isn't this just circular reasoning, assuming evolution to 'prove' evolution?
 
Upvote 0

TagliatelliMonster

Well-Known Member
Sep 22, 2016
4,292
3,373
44
Brugge
✟66,672.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
First off that is not anything like what I said at all, and how you can read that into my response is not only shameful, but it again shows your lack of intellectual integrity.That figures! The old 'I do not understand what you are saying' default I asked you not to go to (but predicted you would).

Who are you chubby checker? You like to do "The Twist"? yet another example that you cannot provide the necessary proof for your "confirms Common Descent" claim..Don't you understand how predictable this was? Ah-ha-ha...AHH HA HA!!!! Sad, so sad....

Instead of this thrash talk, perhaps you could just try to clarify your point.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

xianghua

Well-Known Member
Feb 14, 2017
5,215
554
43
tel aviv
✟111,545.00
Faith
Judaism
Marital Status
Single
Yes, we know they can. (That's science, not "creation" science for you). But so what?
then why you said "There is no evidence for this nonsense"?

if they can add host genes to their genome, its also possible the other way. so we cant know if those ervs are the product of viral insertion, or that retroviruses themself are the product of host genes. therefore the entire argument base upon belief.
 
Upvote 0
Oct 4, 2015
348
230
74
✟7,902.00
Country
France
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Someone said (without any evidence, of course), that maybe all the possible integration loci had been taken up by ERVs, and that's why we and chimps have ERVs in mostly the same locations.

I must have been having a slow day when I first read that idea. - If all possible integration sites were occupied, it would mean that retroviruses couldn't possibly infect our somatic cells. There would be no such things as AIDS, T-cell leukaemia, hairy cell leukaemia or tropical spastic paraparesis!
 
Upvote 0

pshun2404

Newbie
Jan 26, 2012
6,026
620
✟78,299.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
It's a genetic fact.
You claim that "common descent is not an assumption. It's a genetic fact." Yet the truth is that the premise was totally accepted as true long before we could access the genome.

So why in order to make it appear as such, do we need to develop computer programs to pull apart the human and chimp genomes at certain places to allow for the bases to look as if they line up leaving apparent differences in sequences contained in one and not the other which are then explained as insertions and deletions?

You can CLAIM a deletion in these intelligently manipulated versions of the actual genomes but to actually demonstrate a deletion you must first show where they once were there and now are not....as for alleged insertions you must show when they once were not and now are, and you cannot, therefore the devised conclusion IS assumption based.

Some actual insertions and deletions do in fact occur but many (not all) are just an illusion created by this intended program.

One researcher (I forget his name at the time but I will look for the study) eliminated the matching "program" (devised by people already convinced) and strung the sequence of bases side by side and when this is done you end up with about a 24% difference in comparative base pairs (that's about 750,000,000 differences). Another taking into account other factors seemingly ignored was suggesting as much as a 70+% amount of differences.

So though in the second example in Barry's article (which had the CERV30 example) we see in the chimp genome a blank space about five letters long (which space is contrived via the program which pulled it apart here to create a match) in reality that space does not exist, it is one continuous unique stream of base pairs, which if undisturbed by those trying to create the Common Ancestor illusion (which may OR may not be true) throws off the order and alleged synchronicity of all that follow...

I am suggesting (and for such reasons as just mentioned) that there may be no deletion here at all (unless you can show something to previously having been there in that genome) and that this (without the false space) is just a normal sequence in their genome which is different in the human genome...

and that this same reasoning should be applied to insertions as well (as many are NOT anything more than normal, ever present, parts of the respective creature's genome). And to show them as actual "INSERTions" one has to show examples of when they were not there previously and now are.


If it is true then this should be no problem. So I am willing to concede I am incorrect (as I have sometimes done even on this forum which I believe Barry cannot do) if you can show me these "deletions" were actually there once, and/or that the "insertions" were previously not.

AND if this discrepancy or alternative yet totally logical reasoning alludes you so much as to fall back on "It must mean there was a Common Ancestor of both creatures" then fine I am willing to concede that point as soon as you produce your example of this so we can compare and see the same criteria met in that creature (not there then there, or once there and then not there)...

Simple right? If a truth, then there should be no problem on your part, so let's SEE? I will await either of you producing this PROOF of your claim.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

xianghua

Well-Known Member
Feb 14, 2017
5,215
554
43
tel aviv
✟111,545.00
Faith
Judaism
Marital Status
Single
Dude, for the bazillionth time....
The science is very clear on how retroviruses work. And it doesn't work the way you pretend it does.

not realy:

The Origin of Virions and Virocells: The Escape Hypothesis Revisited - Springer

so again: how do you know that those retroviruses arent the product of host genes?

We can study random DNA samples and demonstrate common ancestry through that study.
Just like we can demonstrate that your biological dad is your actual biological dad. And all we require for that demonstration is a DNA sample from both you and your dad.

again: can you prove that a fish can evolve into a cat? if its a scientific fact like you said it will be easy for you to demonstrate that. if not- its just a belief.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

pshun2404

Newbie
Jan 26, 2012
6,026
620
✟78,299.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
And Barry...trying to misrepresent one who thinks differently is also a common default strategy extremists in both camps frequently rely on when they know they have been spotted...I did not claim my explanation is true I said equally plausible and reasonable. You love that twisting don't you.
 
Upvote 0

TagliatelliMonster

Well-Known Member
Sep 22, 2016
4,292
3,373
44
Brugge
✟66,672.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
not realy:

The Origin of Virions and Virocells: The Escape Hypothesis Revisited - Springer

so again: how do you know that those retroviruses arent the product of host genes?

Again: because we understand how they end up in, and become a part of, the host DNA. We also understand how those sequences are then inherited by off spring.

again: can you prove that a fish can evolve into a cat?

When you say "fish", do you mean like modern fish? Like salmon etc? Because that's not gonna happen.

Can we prove that the ancestors of mammals lived in the sea? Yes. Again, common ancestry is a genetic fact.

if its a scientific fact like you said it will be easy for you to demonstrate that. if not- its just a belief.

It's demonstrable in the exact same way that it is demonstrable that you and sister are siblings, merely by comparing your DNA.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tyke
Upvote 0

xianghua

Well-Known Member
Feb 14, 2017
5,215
554
43
tel aviv
✟111,545.00
Faith
Judaism
Marital Status
Single
If all possible integration sites were occupied, it would mean that retroviruses couldn't possibly infect our somatic cells. There would be no such things as AIDS, T-cell leukaemia, hairy cell leukaemia or tropical spastic paraparesis!

no. the problem here isnt about integration sites but about fixation event. if we need an erv to be fixed its need to be beneficial or at least neutral. so if the entire genome is already functional, there only about few places in the genome that we can actually add an erv to the genome.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

xianghua

Well-Known Member
Feb 14, 2017
5,215
554
43
tel aviv
✟111,545.00
Faith
Judaism
Marital Status
Single
Again: because we understand how they end up in, and become a part of, the host DNA.

but we also understand that the opposite can be true- a retrovirus can add host genes to its genome. so again: its only a belief, not a fact.


Can we prove that the ancestors of mammals lived in the sea? Yes. Again, common ancestry is a genetic fact.It's demonstrable in the exact same way that it is demonstrable that you and sister are siblings, merely by comparing your DNA.

not realy. this is the argument from similarity. but common similarity can also be explain by a common designer (two objects like cars are similar because they shared a common designer- human). so again: not a fact, just a belief.
 
Upvote 0