Watch and consider IV

[pshun2404]

Evolution is supported by facts and experiment literally every single day. Every time a new genome is sequenced, a new fossil is found, a new living species is found, a new embryo is studied, and many, many other things, every time, it is being tested against the nested hierarchies which have been established through multiple completely independent fields of study, which agree with fantastic consilience. That is millions of observable facts, and thousands of upon thousands of experiments.

Yes undoubtedly much of it is true, and that is why I believe in evolution (however not everything evolutionists claim). In fact, I was raised on it and defended all of it vehemently for about 20 years...now I separate what the data is from the historical narrative attached (and the pretty art work) and in some cases (like this one) I see justifiable reason to question the veracity of some of the claims.

 

[pshun2404]

There is no such thing as "ancestor of the gaps". What there is, is the genetic facts of common ancestry.

We don't need to have access to your parents to determine that you and your siblings share the same parents. All we need for determining that you share ancestors, is a sample of both your DNA.

Obviously it is not possible to come up with the remains of a specific creature that lived millions of years ago. The part you don't seem to be getting is that we don't need to find that in order to determine the biological relationship between two creatures.

Yes, like genetics.

Nope. Common ancestry of living things, definatly is a genetic fact.
You also don't seem to be realising that common ancestry of life is one of the facts that evolution theory explains.

Evolution theory explains the mechanism by which the divergence of life into all the variety we see, happened. That this divergence took place one way or another, is not really debateable any longer.

There is no such thing as "ancestor of the gaps". What there is, is the genetic facts of common ancestry.

Yes there definitely is. Whenever somethings cannot be adequately demonstrated the default position is it happened in our common ancestor. The ancestor of the gaps (the ultimately unfounded unevidenced explanation) goes WAY FARTHER back than genetics. And this preconceived notion (which we all have been indoctrinated with in Outcome Based Education) is a filter through which actual evidence is interpreted.

Now don’t get me wrong...it is a perfectly plausible POSSIBILITY but it is shaping interpretation of the data based on the hypothesis (we see religious oriented ID theorists do this as well). A perfect example where this takes place is in the area of indels (insertions and deletions). They are interpreted as insertions and deletions (and some are just that) most of which are actually just a normal part of the genome for different organisms and very few have actually been shown to have ever been INSERTED or DELETED.

We don't need to have access to your parents to determine that you and your siblings share the same parents. All we need for determining that you share ancestors, is a sample of both your DNA.

Exactly, and this makes MY case. I am MY totally human parent’s offspring. Y-Chromosomal studies done on the DNA of 230,000 year old Sapiens from Spain (35,000 years before OMO), who were socially and sexually interactive and able to produce fertile offspring, we still find a totally human Y-Chromosome (no quasi-ape or apeish-human...just HUMAN). And the way we determine parental sources (and I have been used to do these tests many times) is by the comparison of specific markers and having a sample of the DNA of both parents is best (but not required to identify one or the other).

So show me the quasi-ape source genome for comparison and then we can know...until then it is merely hypothesis driven interpretation.

Obviously it is not possible to come up with the remains of a specific creature that lived millions of years ago. The part you don't seem to be getting is that we don't need to find that in order to determine the biological relationship between two creatures.

No! We do not need it to establish relatedness in terms of similarity of form or function but we would require it to establish the veracity of lineal claims. Because all mammals have a face, hair, and feeds their young from their own bodies does not mean one came from the other OR that there was a creature they both came from (those are totally assumptive in nature).

Nope. Common ancestry of living things, definitely is a genetic fact. You also don't seem to be realising that common ancestry of life is one of the facts that evolution theory explains.

First and again, it was totally believed to be true BEFORE the evidence was interpreted and thus what we have is a case of confirmation bias (which is not an intentional act...it is always quite subconscious).

Next, I totally understand it and no genetics does not prove common ancestry. It only PROVES similarity in form or function between different organisms.

Evolution theory explains the mechanism by which the divergence of life into all the variety we see, happened. That this divergence took place one way or another, is not really debateable any longer.

That is your opinion I know but I disagree. I say YES it must continue to be debatable because NO it only offers a viable "explanation" but one that has NOT been proven (just already accepted to be true before the evidence comes in...and that IMO is not good science). In other words, it has NEVER been verified that fish become amphibians, amphibians become Reptiles, reptiles become birds and mammals and so on up to humans....never.

As an example, in What Makes Biology Unique? (p. 198, Cambridge University Press, 2004), Ernst Mayr revealed to us that “The earliest fossils of Homo… are separated from Australopithecus by a large, unbridged gap. How can we explain this seeming saltation? Not having any fossils that can serve as missing links, we have to fall back on the time-honored method of historical science, the construction of a historical narrative.”

Now surely he believes there are reasons for this gap, which he probably does not believe exists in reality, but his honesty here is important because this profound evolutionist is admitting that when the actual evidence fails to support the hypothesis, instead of letting it shape the hypothesis (which is what objectivity and the pursuit of truth in Science demand) they make up a hypothesis based story to explain it away. Around 30 years ago I became painfully aware of this and slowly was able to break out of the programming and see the difference between the two (the actual data and the story attached to explain it in light of the hypothesis).

 

[pshun2404]

The evidence says so.
It's not "artwork". It's a graph on wich real-world data is mapped out.
That's not a mere idea, that's a genetic fact.
Yes, on the count that that common ancestor has been dead for millions of years.
No, because it's been dead for millions of years.
Can you show me the remains or the name of your great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-grandmother? No? Do you feel like that is a good reason to suggest that you don't actually have a great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-grandmother?

That's foolish. Of course I have a TOTALLY HUMAN g-g-g-g-g-great grandmother....nothing I have said would suggest such a nonsense form of reasoning....there is NOTHING in such a scenario to imply a semi ape/quasi ape/ape-like common ancestor in fact mtDNA studies indicate the exact opposite.

 

[46AND2]

Yes undoubtedly much of it is true, and that is why I believe in evolution (however not everything evolutionists claim). In fact, I was raised on it and defended all of it vehemently for about 20 years...now I separate what the data is from the historical narrative attached (and the pretty art work) and in some cases (like this one) I see justifiable reason to question the veracity of some of the claims.

So the question you have to ask yourself is why God would make everything look exactly like what we would expect evolution to look like? With a consistent family tree derived from morphology, to the fossil record, to embryology, to biodiversity, to genetics, and many other scientific disciplines.

Why would he place what obviously appears to be a broken Vitamin C gene in several mammals consistent with all the other family trees we have developed? For example, guinea pigs and old world monkeys (including humans) cannot produce Vitamin C, and need to supplement it in their diets. Since guinea pigs are much farther away in our family tree than many other animals which CAN produce Vitamin C, we would expect their gene to be broken in a different manner than that of the old world monkeys. And, of course, it is. We would also expect to see the same break in the gene among old world monkeys, and, of course, we do.

Why would God create parts of our genomes which look exactly like remnants of retroviruses (with gag, pol, and env proteins flanked by LTRs), in such a pattern as to fit nicely into the tree of life, if they were actually never retroviruses?

 

[Subduction Zone]

That's foolish. Of course I have a TOTALLY HUMAN g-g-g-g-g-great grandmother....nothing I have said would suggest such a nonsense form of reasoning....there is NOTHING in such a scenario to imply a semi ape/quasi ape/ape-like common ancestor in fact mtDNA studies indicate the exact opposite.

But you mtDNA indicates that you are an ape. What else would you expect? Your mtDNA shows that you are a human, and humans are apes. When you use incorrect terms like "quasi apes" of course you are going to be wrong.

 

[Astrophile]

Exactly, and this makes MY case. I am MY totally human parent’s offspring. Y-Chromosomal studies done on the DNA of 230,000 year old Sapiens from Spain (35,000 years before OMO), who were socially and sexually interactive and able to produce fertile offspring, we still find a totally human Y-Chromosome (no quasi-ape or apeish-human...just HUMAN). And the way we determine parental sources (and I have been used to do these tests many times) is by the comparison of specific markers and having a sample of the DNA of both parents is best (but not required to identify one or the other)

What were your ancestors of 2.3 million years ago? Did their males have 'totally human Y-chromosomes'? What about your ancestors of 23 million years ago? Were they 'totally human', and, if so, why haven't we found their fossils?

 

[pshun2404]

So the question you have to ask yourself is why God would make everything look exactly like what we would expect evolution to look like? With a consistent family tree derived from morphology, to the fossil record, to embryology, to biodiversity, to genetics, and many other scientific disciplines.

Why would he place what obviously appears to be a broken Vitamin C gene in several mammals consistent with all the other family trees we have developed? For example, guinea pigs and old world monkeys (including humans) cannot produce Vitamin C, and need to supplement it in their diets. Since guinea pigs are much farther away in our family tree than many other animals which CAN produce Vitamin C, we would expect their gene to be broken in a different manner than that of the old world monkeys. And, of course, it is. We would also expect to see the same break in the gene among old world monkeys, and, of course, we do.

Why would God create parts of our genomes which look exactly like remnants of retroviruses (with gag, pol, and env proteins flanked by LTRs), in such a pattern as to fit nicely into the tree of life, if they were actually never retroviruses?

So the question you have to ask yourself is why God would make everything look exactly like what we would expect evolution to look like? With a consistent family tree derived from morphology, to the fossil record, to embryology, to biodiversity, to genetics, and many other scientific disciplines.

Well first off there is no “consistent family tree from morphology”! It is contrived.

a) The already pre-conceived belief that has been accepted since Darwin first postulated the possibility rules the development of the presentation.

b) The alleged lines connecting them through Common ancestry do not exist in reality and if removed show what we actually HAVE (you are far too smart not to realize this)

c) Thirdly, as I have said and challenge there are NO SUCH CREATURES (never have been and never will be) and the burden of proof lays upon the shoulders of the claimant ho says they are real.

d) Finally, there have been a dozen or more DIFFERENT trees and even a couple of bushes and if Ventor and Woerse are correct in their considerations (like the genome of archae being toxic to prokaryote, there may be more than one interacting tree.

Embryology is an absurd assumption since all animal life goes through such a stage but since we KNOW now that “ontogeny does NOT recapitulate phylogeny” and human Embryos (for example) clearly do not go through a fishy stage, then an amphibious stage, a reptilian stage, etc. (Haeckel was a fraud and was caught) we no longer need to interpret this evidence in this way.

Biodiversity (glad you brought that up) actually proves MY hypothesis and reaffirms the production of VARIETY not Darwinian morphology.

Genetics proves that all living things share commonalities, and sub-commonalities, and does not necessitate a lineal morphology (or say anything about time in some pseudo-superpositional sense). In fact, (pay attention to this because it is important) when you ignore intelligently designed computer programs used to isolate, separate, and line-up common areas (which creates the illusion of many so-called insertions and deletions) and just do a straight comparison of base pairs in their natural order (even between chimps and humans which are the closest) there are literally many millions of differences between even the closest two genomic systems.

Why would he place what obviously appears to be a broken Vitamin C gene in several mammals consistent with all the other family trees we have developed? For example, guinea pigs and old world monkeys (including humans) cannot produce Vitamin C, and need to supplement it in their diets. Since guinea pigs are much farther away in our family tree than many other animals which CAN produce Vitamin C, we would expect their gene to be broken in a different manner than that of the old world monkeys. And, of course, it is. We would also expect to see the same break in the gene among old world monkeys, and, of course, we do.

They are not "broken" just different, but also, just because some animals produce VC naturally and others do not does not necessitate one came from the other, or one became the other...this again is Hypothesis driven conclusionism.

Why would God create parts of our genomes which look exactly like remnants of retroviruses (with gag, pol, and env proteins flanked by LTRs), in such a pattern as to fit nicely into the tree of life, if they were actually never retroviruses?

Wait a minute, first I certainly believe that many are/were retroviruses, but that is another very lengthy conversation...

Also some are present in more than one creature because they were infected at the same time, others were infected more than once, some are probably the source of some viruses (if viruses are not alive and simply the smallest parts of disintegrated living creatures floating freely in the multi-billions), and some laballed this are just natural parts of that creature’s natural genome. Besides even the presence of the real ERVs do not prove Common descent just common infection or common ingestion. Say apes were infected, and then bit humans, or perhaps early humans ate infected apes and in rare cases over 100s of 1000s of years some became acquired and incorporated as the genome developed defenses against them.

 

[pshun2404]

But you mtDNA indicates that you are an ape. What else would you expect? Your mtDNA shows that you are a human, and humans are apes. When you use incorrect terms like "quasi apes" of course you are going to be wrong.

But your mtDNA indicates that you are an ape.

No it does not. Apes have a distinctly different mtDNA than humans (see Gagneux, P. and Varki, A. 2001. ‘Genetic differences between humans and great apes.’ Mol Phylogenet Evol 18:2–13.). Your hypothesis in recent times has placed humans into the same taxonomical category, but that is just an intelligently designed (hypothesis based) system of classification based mostly on homology (which is not actually "science", though accepted thinking by most scientists which is not the same).

 

[Subduction Zone]

So the question you have to ask yourself is why God would make everything look exactly like what we would expect evolution to look like? With a consistent family tree derived from morphology, to the fossil record, to embryology, to biodiversity, to genetics, and many other scientific disciplines.

Well first off there is no “consistent family tree from morphology”! It is contrived.

Whoa! That is quite a statement. You are going to need some strong evidence to support it. Worse yet the "consistent family tree from morphology" seems to match that of the fossil record, that of DNA, that of ERV's, that of embryolgy etc. and so on.

a) The already pre-conceived belief that has been accepted since Darwin first postulated the possibility rules the development of the presentation.

Well you are somewhat right. Linnaeus had already recognized that tree, even though the theory of evolution had not been proposed yet. But that does not make the tree "contrived".

b) The alleged lines connecting them through Common ancestry do not exist in reality and if removed show what we actually HAVE (you are far too smart not to realize this)

Another affirmative claim that is going to take a lot of work to support.

c) Thirdly, as I have said and challenge there are NO SUCH CREATURES (never have been and never will be) and the burden of proof lays upon the shoulders of the claimant ho says they are real.

But there are, if you are talking about transitional forms. The fossil record is ripe with them. Covering your eyes and shouting "No they aren't" is not a reasonable refutation.

d) Finally, there have been a dozen or more DIFFERENT trees and even a couple of bushes and if Ventor and Woerse are correct in their considerations (like the genome of archae being toxic to prokaryote, there may be more than one interacting tree.

Umm, no. You are merely misinterpreting their work. At the base, there is more gene trading between species, that gives us the "bush" claim. Their still is the LUCA. No one has proposed multiple abiogenesis events as far as I know.

Embryology is an absurd assumption since all animal life goes through such a stage but since we KNOW now that “ontogeny does NOT recapitulate phylogeny” and human Embryos (for example) clearly do not go through a fishy stage, then an amphibious stage, a reptilian stage, etc. (Haeckel was a fraud and was caught) we no longer need to interpret this evidence in this way.

No, Haeckel was not a fraud. He was a bit sloppy, but that is not the same thing. The stories about him being convicted are not supported by reality.

Biodiversity (glad you brought that up) actually proves MY hypothesis and reaffirms the production of VARIETY not Darwinian morphology.

How so? Another ridiculous claim that I am betting that you cannot support.

Genetics proves that all living things share commonalities, and sub-commonalities, and does not necessitate a lineal morphology (or say anything about time in some pseudo-superpositional sense). In fact, (pay attention to this because it is important) when you ignore intelligently designed computer programs used to isolate, separate, and line-up common areas (which creates the illusion of many so-called insertions and deletions) and just do a straight comparison of base pairs in their natural order (even between chimps and humans which are the closest) there are literally many millions of differences between even the closest two genomic systems.

Why would he place what obviously appears to be a broken Vitamin C gene in several mammals consistent with all the other family trees we have developed? For example, guinea pigs and old world monkeys (including humans) cannot produce Vitamin C, and need to supplement it in their diets. Since guinea pigs are much farther away in our family tree than many other animals which CAN produce Vitamin C, we would expect their gene to be broken in a different manner than that of the old world monkeys. And, of course, it is. We would also expect to see the same break in the gene among old world monkeys, and, of course, we do.

They are not "broken" just different, but also, just because some animals produce VC naturally and others do not does not necessitate one came from the other, or one became the other...this again is Hypothesis driven conclusionism.

Why would God create parts of our genomes which look exactly like remnants of retroviruses (with gag, pol, and env proteins flanked by LTRs), in such a pattern as to fit nicely into the tree of life, if they were actually never retroviruses?

Wait a minute, first I certainly believe that many are/were retroviruses, but that is another very lengthy conversation...

Also some are present in more than one creature because they were infected at the same time, others were infected more than once, some are probably the source of some viruses (if viruses are not alive and simply the smallest parts of disintegrated living creatures floating freely in the multi-billions), and some laballed this are just natural parts of that creature’s natural genome. Besides even the presence of the real ERVs do not prove Common descent just common infection or common ingestion. Say apes were infected, and then bit humans, or perhaps early humans ate infected apes and in rare cases over 100s of 1000s of years some became acquired and incorporated as the genome developed defenses against them.

Too much wrong in one post to deal with. Instead of doing a Gish Gallop you should concentrate on one point at a time. Otherwise when you do this dishonest technique your entire post can be refuted by finding one small flaw in it. Are you sure that you want to go that route?

 

[pshun2404]

What were your ancestors of 2.3 million years ago? Did their males have 'totally human Y-chromosomes'? What about your ancestors of 23 million years ago? Were they 'totally human', and, if so, why haven't we found their fossils?

You produced these dates so why don't you tell us? I believe that IF there were humans around those times (which we have no evidence for at this time), THEN they would certainly have had human Y-Chromosomes.

You do realize that various lines of Ape Y-Chromosomes, as far as we can analyze these, is also equally consistent?

 

[Astrophile]

Of course I have a TOTALLY HUMAN g-g-g-g-g-great grandmother.

Of course you had a 'TOTALLY HUMAN' 8-greats-grandmother; nobody is disputing that.

First, the important point is that the fact that you can't name her or say anything about her doesn't cast any doubt on her existence. Likewise the fact that you can't say anything about your 8,000-greats-grandmother, of about 200,000 years ago, or your 8-million-greats-grandmother, of a few tens of millions of years ago, doesn't mean that she didn't exist.

Second, was your 8,000-greats-grandmother 'TOTALLY HUMAN'? What about your 8-million-greats-grandmother? Was she 'TOTALLY HUMAN' as well?

 

[46AND2]

Also some are present in more than one creature because they were infected at the same time, others were infected more than once, some are probably the source of some viruses (if viruses are not alive and simply the smallest parts of disintegrated living creatures floating freely in the multi-billions), and some laballed this are just natural parts of that creature’s natural genome. Besides even the presence of the real ERVs do not prove Common descent just common infection or common ingestion. Say apes were infected, and then bit humans, or perhaps early humans ate infected apes and in rare cases over 100s of 1000s of years some became acquired and incorporated as the genome developed defenses against them.

I will reply to the rest of your post, but I wanted to start with this...

Common infection or ingestion, or any other type of independent contraction does not explain what we see. We see these ERVs fixed in our genomes. You have the same ERVs as your parents because you inherited them from your parents. More importantly, you have them in the exact same location in your genome as do they. You did not get infected with 200,000+ separate viruses independently from your parents, they passed them on to you.

When we compare the genome of chimps, we share 99.9+% of those 200,000 ERVs. We share a smaller percentage with gorillas, and smaller still with orangutans. We observe that there are literally millions of potential integration sites for retroviruses. What explanation do you have for the vast, vast majority of our ERVs integrating in the same spot as chimps, if not inheritance from a common ancestor? The thought that it could have happened through independent contraction is exceedingly unlikely (cannot overstate that enough).

 

[pshun2404]

But your mtDNA indicates that you are an ape.

No it does not. Apes have a distinctly different mtDNA than humans (see Gagneux, P. and Varki, A. 2001. ‘Genetic differences between humans and great apes.’ Mol Phylogenet Evol 18:2–13.). Your hypothesis in recent times has placed humans into the same taxonomical category, but that is just an intelligently designed (hypothesis based) system of classification based mostly on homology (which is not actually "science", though accepted thinking by most scientists which is not the same).

In fact in the most recent study in the Journal Genome Research in “A time- and cost-effective strategy to sequence mammalian Y Chromosomes: an application to the de novo assembly of gorilla Y”

Marta Tomaszkiewicz, Samarth Rangavittal, Campos Sanchez, Howard W. Fescemyer, Robert Harris, Danling Ye, Patricia Brien, Rayan Chikhi, Oliver A. Ryder, Malcolm A. Ferguson-Smith, Paul Medvedev, and Kateryna D. Makova

It turn out as not expected by evolutionists “Surprisingly, we found that in many ways the gorilla Y chromosome is more similar to the human Y chromosome than either is to the chimpanzee Y chromosome,” an that is because each is actually quite distinct and unique to each of these unique organisms (which in no wise come from or became one another)

 

[Subduction Zone]

But your mtDNA indicates that you are an ape.

No it does not. Apes have a distinctly different mtDNA than humans (see Gagneux, P. and Varki, A. 2001. ‘Genetic differences between humans and great apes.’ Mol Phylogenet Evol 18:2–13.). Your hypothesis in recent times has placed humans into the same taxonomical category, but that is just an intelligently designed (hypothesis based) system of classification based mostly on homology (which is not actually "science", though accepted thinking by most scientists which is not the same).

Technically they meant "other great apes". Humans are great apes.

 

[pshun2404]

Of course you had a 'TOTALLY HUMAN' 8-greats-grandmother; nobody is disputing that.

First, the important point is that the fact that you can't name her or say anything about her doesn't cast any doubt on her existence. Likewise the fact that you can't say anything about your 8,000-greats-grandmother, of about 200,000 years ago, or your 8-million-greats-grandmother, of a few tens of millions of years ago, doesn't mean that she didn't exist.

Second, was your 8,000-greats-grandmother 'TOTALLY HUMAN'? What about your 8-million-greats-grandmother? Was she 'TOTALLY HUMAN' as well?

If she was extant, than YES! I realize fully that the accepted claim is she was not, so demonstrate this with actual evidence otherwise why must anyone believe the claim is true? If she was not then show me something real to cause me to believe it also...IMO it is an assumption based on the pre-concieved "belief" that we were both emphatically and repeatedly taught.

 

[Astrophile]

You produced these dates so why don't you tell us? I believe that IF there were humans around those times (which we have no evidence for at his time), THEN they would certainly have had human Y-Chromosomes.

Since all life comes from life, that is, every living thing has an unbroken line of ancestors extending indefinitely far back in time, we must have had ancestors that lived 2.3 million, 23 million, 230 million etc. years ago. Since we don't have fossils of Homo sapiens from 2.3 million years ago (in Late Pliocene time), it is reasonable to suppose that our ancestors of that time were the animals that were most like us, such as Homo rudolfensis or one of the species of Australopithecus. The same argument applies to our ancestors of 23 million years ago (Early Miocene). There are no fossils of Homo or Australopithecus dating from that time, but since biologists agree in classifying us with the simian primates, it is reasonable to suppose that our ancestors of 23 million years ago were one of the the species of apes or monkeys that lived at that time.

The essential point is that we must have had ancestors. If you think that our Pliocene or Miocene ancestors were not australopithecines or some sort of Miocene apes, you ought to present the evidence that we are descended from some other order of mammals, or some other class of vertebrates.

 

[Subduction Zone]

In fact in the most recent study in the Journal Genome Research in “A time- and cost-effective strategy to sequence mammalian Y Chromosomes: an application to the de novo assembly of gorilla Y”

Marta Tomaszkiewicz, Samarth Rangavittal, Campos Sanchez, Howard W. Fescemyer, Robert Harris, Danling Ye, Patricia Brien, Rayan Chikhi, Oliver A. Ryder, Malcolm A. Ferguson-Smith, Paul Medvedev, and Kateryna D. Makova

It turn out as not expected by evolutionists “Surprisingly, we found that in many ways the gorilla Y chromosome is more similar to the human Y chromosome than either is to the chimpanzee Y chromosome,” an that is because each is actually quite distinct and unique to each of these unique organisms (which in no wise come from or became one another)

Yes, that has been discussed here before. The split between humans and chimps was not long after the split between gorillas and our shared common ancestor with chimps. There are biologists here that can explain this to you. I am not one of them, but I trust their knowledge.

 

[pshun2404]

I will reply to the rest of your post, but I wanted to start with this...

Common infection or ingestion, or any other type of independent contraction does not explain what we see. We see these ERVs fixed in our genomes. You have the same ERVs as your parents because you inherited them from your parents. More importantly, you have them in the exact same location in your genome as do they. You did not get infected with 200,000+ separate viruses independently from your parents, they passed them on to you.

When we compare the genome of chimps, we share 99.9+% of those 200,000 ERVs. We share a smaller percentage with gorillas, and smaller still with orangutans. We observe that there are literally millions of potential integration sites for retroviruses. What explanation do you have for the vast, vast majority of our ERVs integrating in the same spot as chimps, if not inheritance from a common ancestor? The thought that it could have happened through independent contraction is exceedingly unlikely (cannot overstate that enough).

Common infection or ingestion, or any other type of independent contraction does not explain what we see. We see these ERVs fixed in our genomes. You have the same ERVs as your parents because you inherited them from your parents. More importantly, you have them in the exact same location in your genome as do they. You did not get infected with 200,000+ separate viruses independently from your parents, they passed them on to you.

Of course I inherited them just as they did...

When we compare the genome of chimps, we share 99.9+% of those 200,000 ERVs. We share a smaller percentage with gorillas, and smaller still with orangutans. We observe that there are literally millions of potential integration sites for retroviruses. What explanation do you have for the vast, vast majority of our ERVs integrating in the same spot as chimps, if not inheritance from a common ancestor?

No we actually don't share them as commonly as you are convinced. We share many (hence common infections but actually most are on different places if you do not use intelligently designed programs and algorithms to chop up and align those that are similar) and as for why the genomes store these in similar places is now being explored by the Encode consortium (their placement by apparent movement of some may have to do with purpose). Secondly not all are retroviruses at all but MAY BE sections of our natural genomes that are similar to ERVs.

As I pointed out when you ignore the confirmation bias of the programmers and just line up the genomes as they naturally are far far less appear in the same place...and then some appear as partials in one and not in the other, and one has some the other does not, and so on...

The thought that it could have happened through independent contraction is exceedingly unlikely (cannot overstate that enough).

As is the ancestor of the gaps but you accept that and thanks for admitting many are actually "potential integration sites" most would not even concede that.

 

[46AND2]

So the question you have to ask yourself is why God would make everything look exactly like what we would expect evolution to look like? With a consistent family tree derived from morphology, to the fossil record, to embryology, to biodiversity, to genetics, and many other scientific disciplines.

Well first off there is no “consistent family tree from morphology”! It is contrived.

Of course there is. Obviously, as you go back further in time, the lack of data makes the tree a bit muddy. However, our relationship to other apes and mammals has remained remarkably consistent through all of those disciplines and more.

a) The already pre-conceived belief that has been accepted since Darwin first postulated the possibility rules the development of the presentation.

Is it just a pre-conceived belief, or could it also be the remarkable consistency in the positive test results of Darwin's hypothesis?

b) The alleged lines connecting them through Common ancestry do not exist in reality and if removed show what we actually HAVE (you are far too smart not to realize this)

I'm assuming you are referring to missing links or whatever you want to call it. The lack of daisy-chained ancestors does not in any way mean that the lines between species don't exist. Even Darwin knew this. It's a problem with the fossil record, not with the theory. And we have so much more data than Darwin could have ever imagined confirming that those lines do indeed exist.

c) Thirdly, as I have said and challenge there are NO SUCH CREATURES (never have been and never will be) and the burden of proof lays upon the shoulders of the claimant ho says they are real.

The proof is there if you look for it. It's just not the unreasonable type of proof you request.

d) Finally, there have been a dozen or more DIFFERENT trees and even a couple of bushes and if Ventor and Woerse are correct in their considerations (like the genome of archae being toxic to prokaryote, there may be more than one interacting tree.

Oh, there have been many more than a dozen, technically. Nature is complex. The further back we go in history, the harder it is to determine lineages. But the changes, or areas which are debated, are in areas where it is extremely difficult to place an organism. We never see chimeras where we have NO IDEA where to place them. There is no creature, no matter how debated, that could be placed in either, say the mammal portion or the bird portion of the tree. Every debated creature, is argued among closely related portions of the tree.

Embryology is an absurd assumption since all animal life goes through such a stage but since we KNOW now that “ontogeny does NOT recapitulate phylogeny” and human Embryos (for example) clearly do not go through a fishy stage, then an amphibious stage, a reptilian stage, etc. (Haeckel was a fraud and was caught) we no longer need to interpret this evidence in this way.

The only thing Haeckel did wrong is embellish his drawings. The idea was sound. So sound, in fact, that many textbooks have replaced his drawings with ACTUAL PICTURES.

Biodiversity (glad you brought that up) actually proves MY hypothesis and reaffirms the production of VARIETY not Darwinian morphology.

You'll have to explain further.

Genetics proves that all living things share commonalities, and sub-commonalities, and does not necessitate a lineal morphology (or say anything about time in some pseudo-superpositional sense). In fact, (pay attention to this because it is important) when you ignore intelligently designed computer programs used to isolate, separate, and line-up common areas (which creates the illusion of many so-called insertions and deletions) and just do a straight comparison of base pairs in their natural order (even between chimps and humans which are the closest) there are literally many millions of differences between even the closest two genomic systems.

Then we should probably stop using it in paternity tests and murder cases, right?

Why would he place what obviously appears to be a broken Vitamin C gene in several mammals consistent with all the other family trees we have developed? For example, guinea pigs and old world monkeys (including humans) cannot produce Vitamin C, and need to supplement it in their diets. Since guinea pigs are much farther away in our family tree than many other animals which CAN produce Vitamin C, we would expect their gene to be broken in a different manner than that of the old world monkeys. And, of course, it is. We would also expect to see the same break in the gene among old world monkeys, and, of course, we do.

They are not "broken" just different, but also, just because some animals produce VC naturally and others do not does not necessitate one came from the other, or one became the other...this again is Hypothesis driven conclusionism.

You missed the point. What we see is entirely consistent with genes broken through mutation, and passed down from there through the tree of life. It is, once again, A POSITIVE TEST of evolution. If evolution is true, we should see exactly what I stated, and we do. A single positive test, of course, does not prove that evolution is true, it simply increases the probability that it is. That's what science is about. Not proof; either disproof, or increasing the probability that a certain theory or hypothesis is true. Evolution has millions of positive tests versus very few negative tests, none of which are the disproving variety.

 

[pshun2404]

Since all life comes from life, that is, every living thing has an unbroken line of ancestors extending indefinitely far back in time, we must have had ancestors that lived 2.3 million, 23 million, 230 million etc. years ago. Since we don't have fossils of Homo sapiens from 2.3 million years ago (in Late Pliocene time), it is reasonable to suppose that our ancestors of that time were the animals that were most like us, such as Homo rudolfensis or one of the species of Australopithecus. The same argument applies to our ancestors of 23 million years ago (Early Miocene). There are no fossils of Homo or Australopithecus dating from that time, but since biologists agree in classifying us with the simian primates, it is reasonable to suppose that our ancestors of 23 million years ago were one of the the species of apes or monkeys that lived at that time.

The essential point is that we must have had ancestors. If you think that our Pliocene or Miocene ancestors were not australopithecines or some sort of Miocene apes, you ought to present the evidence that we are descended from some other order of mammals, or some other class of vertebrates.

Since all life comes from life, that is, every living thing has an unbroken line of ancestors extending indefinitely far back in time, we must have had ancestors that lived 2.3 million, 23 million, 230 million etc. years ago.

Nope! You are not separating the data from the historical narrative attached. You have admitted the first half of what we observe and tests prove (that all living things come from previously living things) but you left off the other half which states "they all come from parental hosts of the same type of organism" and no other way has EVER been observed (NOT an observable fact) and NO TESTS have ever demonstrated anything but this reliable verifiable fact (an observable fact that experiments confirm).

So why would I automatically accept this nonsense (nonsense because it makes NO sense that I should accept the non-observed assumption that contradicts the observed and tested reality)? Why? Because some alleged authority say it is true or a bunch of them...I am going to give you a Geobbels quote and take it from politics and apply it to swallowing any narrative whole (especially one not demonstrated)

“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State (the alleged authorities) can shield the people from the...consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important...to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie...”