Viruses that prove common descent

[Barry Desborough]

If God created a loaf of raisin bread in the wink of an eye, would that falsify YEC; since raisins are considered aged grapes?

Furthermore, if He documented where He did that, how He did that, why He did that, how long it took Him to do that, why it took Him that long, and mentioned some eyewitnesses by name, it would be wrong to argue against it, would it not?

Ah. The God as liar argument. You are getting very close to blasphemy.

Dear readers, this the insanity and degradation that reality-denying creationism leads one. Take heed, and come to your senses.

 

[dad]

Sorry, you have no right to tell me, a Christian, that my understanding is Godless.

The belief in man evolving, or other godless views of the universe, whether held by christians or pagans is godless. A godly view would be doing as the creed one signs before getting called a christian on these forums says..believing God is the creator of all things.

Views expressed on creation and origins can be called devoid of any god if they are. As for your personal views in general, or bible interpretations, I will not comment on this forum on that...it is against the rules.

 

[dad]

Ah. The God as liar argument. You are getting very close to blasphemy.

Dear readers, this the insanity and degradation that reality-denying creationism leads one. Take heed, and come to your senses.

Let me get this straight, reality is that there was no creation? Good luck with that.

 

[Barry Desborough]

The belief in man evolving, or other godless views of the universe, whether held by christians or pagans is godless. A godly view would be doing as the creed one signs before getting called a christian on these forums says..believing God is the creator of all things.

You have a very limited view of what it means to be a Christian. It excludes probably most living Christians. One can believe God is the creator of all things, but you do not have the right to tell Him how to create.

Now how about a post on-topic for the OP before I have to appeal to the moderators. ERVs, remember?

 

[dad]

Spare us God's ventriloquists.

No. If we were free to make up any fantasy past we like, that would include a past in which evil demons invented false scripture and created contradictory false evidence just to confound us. That way, madness lies.

Demons? If Jesus said His Spirit would bring the words to remembrance and you say it was demons, guess where that leaves you?

 

[Barry Desborough]

Demons? If Jesus said His Spirit would bring the words to remembrance and you say it was demons, guess where that leaves you?

Do you believe everything you read?

 

[Barry Desborough]

Let me get this straight, reality is that there was no creation? Good luck with that.

Reality is that you, me and Charlie the chimp are cousins. Address the OP, FFS.

 

[dad]

You have a very limited view of what it means to be a Christian. It excludes probably most living Christians. One can believe God is the creator of all things, but you do not have the right to tell Him how to create.

Now how about a post on-topic for the OP before I have to appeal to the moderators. ERVs, remember?

I do not care what it means (to posters here) to 'be a christian'. I care about the claims that man was not created but was born of an animal, and that the stars were not created but are part of some godless fluke of stellar evolution. As for the christian thingie, you will need to stand before God on that one, not me.

 

[dad]

Do you believe everything you read?

I consider the source.

 

[dad]

Reality is that you, me and Charlie the chimp are cousins. Address the OP, FFS.

In your head that looms large as reality, we know. Don't try to impose your beliefs on others pal.

 

[Barry Desborough]

I do not care what it means (to posters here) to 'be a christian'. I care about the claims that man was not created but was born of an animal, and that the stars were not created but are part of some godless fluke of stellar evolution. As for the christian thingie, you will need to stand before God on that one, not me.

Who cares what you care about (other than you)?

 

[Barry Desborough]

In your head that looms large as reality, we know. Don't try to impose your beliefs on others pal.

I'm not. I'm trying to present the facts. The fact that you cannot cope with them is neither here nor there.

 

[dad]

Who cares what you care about (other than you)?

The issue is whether God agrees, and that is known by His word. As for your fluffy hit and run so called science thoughts, they hardly merit a flick of the finger.

 

[AV1611VET]

The issue is whether God agrees, and that is known by His word. As for your fluffy hit and run so called science thoughts, they hardly merit a flick of the finger.

Dad, do you get the same creepy feeling as I get when he posts?

Like ... you know ... we're actually conversing with someone "under the hood," and not he, himself? if you know what I'm asking?

 

[xianghua]

It is irrelevant whether or not viruses get genes from their hosts.

its actually very relevant. because under the design model those viruses may created from the host genes. so if we have evidence that the virus can be created from the host genes the entire argument of shared ervs is gone.

When they integrate with host DNA, they do not target specific host DNA loci.

see above. you again assume that those ervs are the product of viral insertions when the opposite can be true too.

Re. molecular clocks, these are measurements taken from current exogenous retroviruses.

so where all the suppose old viruses gone? and secondly: why the paper researchers try to solve this by a different mutation rate and not just claiming that those viruses just got extincted.

 

[Barry Desborough]

its actually very relevant. because under the design model those viruses may created from the host genes. so if we have evidence that the virus can be created from the host genes the entire argument of shared ervs is gone.





see above. you again assume that those ervs are the product of viral insertions when the opposite can be true too.





so where all the suppose old viruses gone?

1) "Viruses created from host genes" does not explain why they are there in the first place.

2) "Viral insertions are the product of ERVs"? Again, what for?

3) Where did the old viruses go? They either went completely extinct, or, in the case of ERVs, they left their traces in our genomes.

None of your speculations are supported by any evidence, and neither do they provide any intelligible explanation for shared ERVs.

 

[Barry Desborough]

The issue is whether God agrees, and that is known by His word. As for your fluffy hit and run so called science thoughts, they hardly merit a flick of the finger.

If your God disagrees, Mr God Ventriloquist, get Him to address the evidence and post here.

 

[Barry Desborough]

Dad, do you get the same creepy feeling as I get when he posts?

Like ... you know ... we're actually conversing with someone "under the hood," and not he, himself? if you know what I'm asking?

Someone "under the hood" would be very amused by your desperate squirming and attempts to divert from the topic. Me, I just find it pitiable.

 

[xianghua]

1) "Viruses created from host genes" does not explain why they are there in the first place.

the simple answer (under the creation model) is that they are an integral part of the genome. created by the designer. many of the ervs part are functional, so its easy to explain those ervs by a desgin.

3) Where did the old viruses go? They either went completely extinct, or, in the case of ERVs, they left their races in our genomes.

but you have another problem too:

Molecular Clocks and the Puzzle of RNA Virus Origins

"However, one major problem remains; how can we explain the match between virus and host phylogenies that has been taken as evidence for cospeciation over millions of years?"

so if those viruses are indeed so young how the viral-host phylogeny showing us milions of years?

 

[Barry Desborough]

the simple answer (under the creation model) is that they are an integral part of the genome. created by the designer. many of the ervs part are functional, so its easy to explain those ervs by a desgin.




but you have another problem too:

Molecular Clocks and the Puzzle of RNA Virus Origins

"However, one major problem remains; how can we explain the match between virus and host phylogenies that has been taken as evidence for cospeciation over millions of years?"

so if those viruses are indeed so young how the viral-host phylogeny that showing us milions of years?

1) Nope. ERVs can, rarely, generate exogenous retroviruses. But the question is, what for? What would be the design purpose?

2) You did not get what I said about extant exogenous retroviruses and endogenous retrovirus. Your "puzzle" is like saying, "Rabbits are supposed to be recently evolved organisms, yet you claim that they are descended from ancient reptiles." It's a nonsense argument.