Viruses that prove common descent

[Barry Desborough]

Fair enough.

You say ERVs show common descent.

Fine ... let ERVs show I came from my father, who came from his father, who came from his father ... all the way back to Adam.

But if by "common descent," you mean we came from something that wasn't what you would call a "Homo sapiens," then you're wrong.

Why do you think that? And what, specifically, do you think is the flaw in the case I have presented? Technical detail, please. No manic street preacher ranting.

 

[AV1611VET]

Why do you think that?

Because the Bible says otherwise, and It overrides any science you can produce to support any claim you make.

And what, specifically, do you think is the flaw in the case I have presented?

Um ... I thought I agreed with you ... did I not?

If not, let me repeat myself:

Let ERVs show I came from my father, who came from his father, who came from his father, all the way back to Adam.

But if by "common descent," you mean we came from something that wasn't what you would call a "Homo sapiens," then you're wrong.

You haven't told me which side of that "if" you're on.

Technical detail, please.

I'll play along, until you try and talk over my head ... (which means you use anything more than two syllable words) ... then your science can take a hike.

I'm not gong to let you drag me into your laboratory then vegomatic me with your science.

I'm wiser than that.

No manic street preacher ranting.

Meaning what? I happened to quote a verse or two of Scripture now and then?

If you want me to speak only your language (viz., technospeak), you've got another think coming.

 

[TheBear]

On a clear day, everyone observes a blue sky ... unless their ancient writings state that on a clear day the sky is always brown. IOW - trust ancient writings, not your lying eyes.

 

[AV1611VET]

On a clear day, everyone observes a blue sky ... unless their ancient writings state that on a clear day the sky is always brown. IOW - trust ancient writings, not your lying eyes.

Our "ancient writings" wouldn't disrespect nature by calling a blue sky "brown."

 

[TheBear]

Hey, AV!

How are you these days?

 

[AV1611VET]

Hey, AV!


How are you these days?

Fine, Bear!

I was just wondering about you the other day!

 

[bhsmte]

Why do you think that? And what, specifically, do you think is the flaw in the case I have presented? Technical detail, please. No manic street preacher ranting.

Welcome back.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Actually they show just the opposite. They are foreign invaders known to bring genomes from one species into another. What you take to be common descent is merely when they invaded the host and inserted that foreign genome which the host uses to produce proteins.

No, viruses don't drag pieces of genes from other species along with them. They just insert themselves into the genome. Sometimes they just get stuck there and we see them still there. Sometimes it happened so long ago that multiple species have evolved from the species where they first got stuck and we can see them in all those species, showing how evolution happened.

There are thousands of them in our genome. Shared with other primates. We have accumulated a few hundred unique to our own species.

 

[Barry Desborough]

Because the Bible says otherwise, and It overrides any science you can produce to support any claim you make.Um ... I thought I agreed with you ... did I not?

If not, let me repeat myself:

Let ERVs show I came from my father, who came from his father, who came from his father, all the way back to Adam.

But if by "common descent," you mean we came from something that wasn't what you would call a "Homo sapiens," then you're wrong.

You haven't told me which side of that "if" you're on.I'll play along, until you try and talk over my head ... (which means you use anything more than two syllable words) ... then your science can take a hike.

I'm not gong to let you drag me into your laboratory then vegomatic me with your science.

I'm wiser than that. Meaning what? I happened to quote a verse or two of Scripture now and then?

If you want me to speak only your language (viz., technospeak), you've got another think coming.

Translation: "I want to believe in a particular fairy story of my choosing and reality can take a hike."

OK. live your fantasy, but don't try to impose it on us sane people.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Because the Bible says otherwise, and It overrides any science you can produce to support any claim you make.Um ... I thought I agreed with you ... did I not?

How can anybody decide you are right about that, in view of the fact you are disregarding plain evidence in order to keep your current opinion?

 

[dad]

It's not an assumption, but the most reasonable position.

It is not only unreasonable but foolish to predicate all models of the past and future on the present nature unless we know it existed or will exist. Elementary.

You would need a reason why things were the same then, and evidence that they were. Any other 'assumption' without such reasoning and evidence would be crazy...especially when the Almighty disagrees with you.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

It is not only unreasonable but foolish to predicate all models of the past and future on the present nature unless we know it existed or will exist. Elementary.

You would need a reason why things were the same then, and evidence that they were. Any other 'assumption' without such reasoning and evidence would be crazy...especially when the Almighty disagrees with you.

Some of us believe that observations of similar chemistry and similar structures across millions of light years helps establish constancy of chemistry and physics over millions of years. Some of us believe observations of consistent layers of things like summer and winter ice accumulating in Greenland and Antarctica over hundreds of thousands of such layers make the inference of hundreds of thousands of years of steady natural law a reasonable conclusion.

Those like you who deny such evidence we regard as being unreasonable; mere stubborn repeating of such unreasonable doubt is not convincing to us.

 

[dad]

Some of us believe that observations of similar chemistry and similar structures across millions of light years helps establish constancy of chemistry and physics over millions of years.

"Believe" being the operative word. The assigning of distances and time (years) to stars is based on the belief time exists homogeneously in all the universe. That could never be proven. So whatever we see might be so close and small, that a similar chemistry might lose a lot of meaning. Also, we do not know what else is out there we cannot see. Also, any chemical REACTION that involves time is ONLY and always seen HERE in the solar system area. (if you want to quivel over exact boundaries, we could even go a little it bigger than the solar system, where the Voyager has never been)

If a reaction took, say, 3 days to happen as seen here...that could represent an unimaginable difference in time in the far universe.

Some of us believe observations of consistent layers of things like summer and winter ice accumulating in Greenland and Antarctica over hundreds of thousands of such layers make the inference of hundreds of thousands of years of steady natural law a reasonable conclusion.

Yes, and other believe that the former nature allowed a rapid deposition of layers. If you get more than a godless belief, tune us in eh?

Those like you who deny such evidence we regard as being unreasonable;

Those who think dening fantasy is unreasonable are unreasonable. Besides, who cares what people with other beliefs think?
We the sane cannot agree. Sorry

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

.... If you get more than a godless belief, tune us in eh?
....

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

 

[Barry Desborough]

the Almighty disagrees with you.

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.

 

[AV1611VET]

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.

You a Youth Protection Advocate, are you?

 

[Barry Desborough]

You a Youth Protection Advocate, are you?

Too late in this particular case.

 

[xianghua]

I just told you that retroviruses can transfer native genetic information between host organisms.

if so the entire argument is problematic. because its possible that those viruses get their own genes from the host and not the opposite direction. combine it with the fact that a tipical retrovirus have about 3-4 genes, combine it with the evidence from molecular clocks that retroviruses suppose to be no more then 50,000 years old (from the article in your own link), combine it with the fact that a retrovirus cant suurvive without an host (so its need to evolve from the host and not the opposite), and we have a very good evidence that those ervs arent at all a product of a viral inseriton.

 

[Barry Desborough]

if so the entire argument is problematic. because its possible that those viruses get their own genes from the host and not the opposite direction. combine it with the fact that a tipical retrovirus have about 3-4 genes, combine it with the evidence from molecular clocks that retroviruses suppose to be no more then 50,000 years old (from the article in your own link), combine it with the fact that a retrovirus cant suurvive without an host (so its need to evolve from the host and not the opposite), and we have a very good evidence that those ervs arent at all a product of a viral inseriton.

It is irrelevant whether or not viruses get genes from their hosts. When they integrate with host DNA, they do not target specific host DNA loci. Yet ERVs occur in common locations in the germline DNA of different species. This is what requires explanation. The only available one is that they are in common locations due to common inheritance.

Re. molecular clocks, these are measurements taken from current exogenous retroviruses. To pretend that the dates apply to extinct exogenous retroviruses and to endogenous retroviruses is an excercise in attempted deception. All too common in creationist material, I'm afraid. You have been had.

Mind you, 50,000 years falsifies YEC, does it not?

 

[AV1611VET]

Mind you, 50,000 years falsifies YEC, does it not?

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?