Watch and consider IV

[pshun2404]

“And I was asking what the difference is, between paternity tests, and other markers you don't accept. I was hardly arguing for paternity tests, because I know their limitations, and WHY.

Perhaps you should actually learn why it is limited before accusing scientists of being purely conjectural.....If they were purely conjectural, why would they put a limit on how far back it can test. Seriously, think about that.”


I accept other markers only not as proving a lineal relationship...some are there because they play out as arms, legs, lungs, etc...some just make us mammal as opposed to fish, some are parts of general or specific promoters, some cause other genes to function in particular ways in all living creatures, and so on.

And I did not “accuse scientists of being purely conjectural” I said (and know) that some of the conclusions are conjecture based on the preconceived “historical narrative attached”! SOME creationists do the exact same thing...maybe it is a human dilemma.

Where it is conjecture is where the actual evidence we do have does not say what the narrative says. Right wing evangelicals and orthodox rabbinics says either the earth is 6000 years old or if a day is a literal 1000 years maybe 60,000 years old but the evidence for this is simply not there...it is "interpreted" according to the hypothesis (but that does not make it true even of all the alleged experts insist it is).

Hope that clears up your misunderstanding of my position!

 

[Astrophile]

Not at all! There is not one iota of evidence or proof that Australopithecus ever became Homo.

This is not what I said. You said

The problem is that over 100,000 generations and nothing indicates such morphological change!

I pointed out that the individual species of Australopithecus existed for about 900,000 years, implying that about 60,000 generations produced enough morphological change for members of the same lineage to be classified as different species.

By the way, what would you accept as evidence that a species of Australopithecus became a species of Homo?

 

[pshun2404]

Do YOU really think I believe scientists are stupid? Wow! Do you realize that thinking differently or having original insight is NOT a bad thing? That disagreement or having an alternate perspective does NOT equal better or worse, superior/inferior, more true less true, and so on? Apparently you must think I am stupid...fine...

Now can we get back to the OP discussion? What "other markers" demonstrate a lineal relationship that could not be interpreted otherwise?

 

[bhsmte]

Do YOU really think I believe scientists are stupid? Wow! Do you realize that thinking differently or having original insight is NOT a bad thing? That disagreement or having an alternate perspective does NOT equal better or worse, superior/inferior, more true less true, and so on? Apparently you must think I am stupid...fine...

Now can we get back to the OP discussion? What "other markers" demonstrate a lineal relationship that could not be interpreted otherwise?

In science, nothing wrong with thinking differently. What it gets down to eventually though, are the conclusions one comes to and whether they have evidence to support the same.

 

[pshun2404]

This is not what I said. You said


I pointed out that the individual species of Australopithecus existed for about 900,000 years, implying that about 60,000 generations produced enough morphological change for members of the same lineage to be classified as different species.

By the way, what would you accept as evidence that a species of Australopithecus became a species of Homo?

Ahhh! I thought you were implying they became Homo. Thus including both creatural timelines 100,000 generations is not un-imaginable. No one can speculate how many changes it would take for this transformation if it were possible. but we do KNOW from examples in nature and the lab that speciation only produces varieties of the same type of organism.

Birds become other birds, fish become other fish, monkeys become monkeys, and so on...nothing more...birds a million or more years ago (though very different anatomically) are still birds...

 

[pshun2404]

In science, nothing wrong with thinking differently. What it gets down to eventually though, are the conclusions one comes to and whether they have evidence to support the same.

I agree and in the case we were discussing there is none (just speculation or theorizing based on the presupposition that the hypothesis is true)...

 

[46AND2]

Either you cannot read or your programming is so fixed you are unable to reason any position or argument outside the box...I answered your question in three posts and YOU simply do not want to reason or consider the argument or logic (which you will now think "there is none" because it does not agree with the position you have been educated to believe...which I get...been there, done that, got a whole bunch of T-shirts). I never said you have ti agree but you were answered...the answer IS...IF that were true we should be able to see reasonably indicative FAMILIAL markers (which we do not)

You didn't answer the question, I asked if it is reasonable to conclude that there may be markers we could use to demonstrate common inheritance, if indeed humans and chimps have a common ancestor.

All you went on about is that we don't see a relationship using paternity/YDNA/mitochondrial DNA tests. I've already agreed that we do not have sufficient resolution using those tests.

So, is it reasonable that we may be able to find ALTERNATE markers, which are not limited the way those tests are? Why or why not?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

No familial markers

I just told you that there are PLENTY of such markers.
ERV's for example, to give you just one popular example.
There's thousands of others to choose from.

For example, the broken GULO gene to produce vitamin C. We and all other primates have that gene - broken in exactly the same way in all of them.

Dogs for example, don't have this broken gene. They have a working one.
Somewhere in an ancestor of primates, a mutation broke it. All primates have that broken version.

Please note, once more, that this is just another example among many thousands.

...no ape like daddys or mommys...!!!

Humans are apes.
You can argue about it all you want. It won't change the fact. Humans have been categorized as primates even long before Darwin existed. By a christian priest, even. Somehwere in the 1600s, if I remember correctly.

I use to run these tests many times so I am not "ignorant of the science"

I don't consider that a problem per say.
I operate a computer everyday - it's my job as a software engineer. And I know a thing or two about hardware as well and am quite good at troubleshooting it.
But that doesn't mean I understand the underlying quantum mechanics that made it possible to build these motherboards and monitors...

In other words, being able to use an application of science, doesn't necessarily require you to understand the actual science.

Having said that, you wouldn't be the first either who holds such conflicting views in his head. I remember a quote by some harvard geology graduate, who plainly said that indeed, ALL the evidence points to an old earth - but he's a YEC and therefor believes the bible anyway. Despite the evidence.

Now a common quick analysis uses 16 markers and a more complete one (more exact) many more...at these levels there is no mistake only interpretation...no ape daddy indications at this level...

Simple question for you:
When 2 individuals share the exact same ERV, what does it mean, in your opinion?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

So how do we get a the 99.9% accuracy reading for who the parents are (which still leaves a .1% error margin)? We need the DNA from both potential parents (this REQUIRES the closest ancestral hosts) and the offspring, to ALL be analyzed more fully...

We must look at whole strands as they are, not selected sections (sometimes "aligned" or disturbed to give appearance of a match via ID'd programs contrived to do this, like demonstrated in post #52).

Just line them up side by side and look at what is REALLY THERE as it actually is in NATURAL reality.

Now the peanut gallery yells "But if we are talking 8,000 to 80,000 generations ago you cannot say this did not happen!" Well correct you cannot say it did not happen, but also you CANNOT say it DID. Is it possible? Yes! Is it plausible? Not likely!

Here's another yes/no question for you.

Let's say we have 20 DNA samples from 20 random people around the world.
All the samples are anonymous.

If 2 of the samples are from siblings and all the others are unrelated, are you going to stand there and tell me that we wouldn't be able to find out which 2 are siblings?


Really?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Now can we get back to the OP discussion? What "other markers" demonstrate a lineal relationship that could not be interpreted otherwise?

Sharing thousands of ERV's, would do the job.

 

[pshun2404]

Here's another yes/no question for you.

Let's say we have 20 DNA samples from 20 random people around the world.
All the samples are anonymous.

If 2 of the samples are from siblings and all the others are unrelated, are you going to stand there and tell me that we wouldn't be able to find out which 2 are siblings?


Really?

No! In fact all I said would confirm you could (I do not understand how you guys can just read the express language and then twist it to MEAN something else). Of course if there were two siblings among 20 random samples we could tell which two are siblings...(because of familial markers)

Your assumptive twist is incomprehensible based on what I posted...as for ERVs these are not familial markers. All humans have them, all apes have them, and many are shared in common with many creatures, some TRULY in the same place many only made to appear to be so via intelligemntly designed programs that manipulate the genomes (which is left as is do not match up). Some are true residue ERVs, others are not. Some are actually normal genomic segments functionally essential to what makes a primate a primate. or a human a human...some exhibit NO EVIDENCE of ever having been INSERTED (so it is assumed to fit the hypothesis)....

Now in all fairness I will examine some of what YOU consider other markers implying a familial link but I cannot do that now (busy)....however what we were looking for were markers that would demonstrate the "common ancestor"...not just be interpreted through the hypothesis. So I will get back on one or more later...

 

[46AND2]

No! In fact all I said would confirm you could (I do not understand how you guys can just read the express language and then twist it to MEAN something else). Of course if there were two siblings among 20 random samples we could tell which two are siblings...(because of familial markers)

Your assumptive twist is incomprehensible based on what I posted...as for ERVs these are not familial markers.

Of course they are. You have them, in the same location in your genome, as your parents do. It's the ONLY REASON YOU HAVE THEM.

All humans have them, all apes have them, and many are shared in common with many creatures, some TRULY in the same place many only made to appear to be so via intelligemntly designed programs that manipulate the genomes (which is left as is do not match up). Some are true residue ERVs, others are not. Some are actually normal genomic segments functionally essential to what makes a primate a primate. or a human a human...some exhibit NO EVIDENCE of ever having been INSERTED (so it is assumed to fit the hypothesis)....

You merely assert that some are in the same place and some manipulated. How many? Which ones? When was this study performed? You merely assert that some are not actually ERVs. How many? How do you know? You merely assert that some were never inserted. How many? How do you know? Are there ANY ERVs which you think are 1. truly in the same place, 2. are actually ERVs, and 3. were actually inserted? How many? What reason do you have to offer for excluding some, other than your desire for human-chimp familial relationship to be false?

Now in all fairness I will examine some of what YOU consider other markers implying a familial link but I cannot do that now (busy)....however what we were looking for were markers that would demonstrate the "common ancestor"...not just be interpreted through the hypothesis. So I will get back on one or more later...

Here, would be a good place to start:

ERVs

 

[DogmaHunter]

No! In fact all I said would confirm you could (I do not understand how you guys can just read the express language and then twist it to MEAN something else). Of course if there were two siblings among 20 random samples we could tell which two are siblings...(because of familial markers)

Right. So, now, we can expand on that.
So we can infer bloodties from genetic markers. This makes sense off course, since genetic markers are inherited from ancestors. So yes, the way we do it is we scan genomes and map out the matches of the markers. This gives us a hierarchical tree et voila, there's the infered familial relationship.

Here's where you explain why we couldn't do this cross species...

Let's ask a slightly different question...
I hope you do realise that if evolution is true, that we SHOULD be able to find such markers in extant animals, which ties related species together, right?
Do you acknowledge the fact that if we map out genomes based on genetic marker matches (like ERV's for example), we get a sensible hierarchical tree?

...as for ERVs these are not familial markers.

Why not? Are they not passed on to off spring?
Do they not end up in genomes by inserting in a single individual, who then passes it on to off spring and which from there, with a bit of luck, spread throughout the population?

All humans have them, all apes have them, and many are shared in common with many creatures,

Exactly. Many are shared.
And the pattern of distribution thereof, ends up in the exact same phylogenetic tree that any other independend line of evidence leads to.

some TRULY in the same place many only made to appear to be so via intelligemntly designed programs that manipulate the genomes (which is left as is do not match up).

Wow. Are you now flat out accusing all geneticists of publishing fraudulent data?

Some are true residue ERVs, others are not. Some are actually normal genomic segments functionally essential to what makes a primate a primate. or a human a human...some exhibit NO EVIDENCE of ever having been INSERTED (so it is assumed to fit the hypothesis)....

An identified ERV by definition got inserted in an ancestor.
And nobody says that ERV's can't take up a function once they are part of the genome.
All that is irrelevant. The point is that dna is inherited. It mutates, and it can be traced in bloodties in a multitude of ways.

And all ways converge on the exact same thing: evolution, evolution, evolution.

Now in all fairness I will examine some of what YOU consider other markers implying a familial link but I cannot do that now (busy)....however what we were looking for were markers that would demonstrate the "common ancestor"...not just be interpreted through the hypothesis. So I will get back on one or more later...

All matched markers pretty much by definition demonstrate common ancestry.
That's kind of the thing with inheritance of genetic material.

 

[pshun2404]

Of course they are. You have them, in the same location in your genome, as your parents do. It's the ONLY REASON YOU HAVE THEM.

You merely assert that some are in the same place and some manipulated. How many? Which ones? When was this study performed? You merely assert that some are not actually ERVs. How many? How do you know? You merely assert that some were never inserted. How many? How do you know? Are there ANY ERVs which you think are 1. truly in the same place, 2. are actually ERVs, and 3. were actually inserted? How many? What reason do you have to offer for excluding some, other than your desire for human-chimp familial relationship to be false?

Here, would be a good place to start:

ERVs

First off I have read 100s of papers on ERVs including this one (more than once) and as for your first comment yes that is exactly right and my point, thanks....

Then you say "You merely assert that some are in the same place and some manipulated. How many? Which ones? When was this study performed? You merely assert that some are not actually ERVs. How many? How do you know? You merely assert that some were never inserted. How many? How do you know?

Are there ANY ERVs which you think are 1. truly in the same place, 2. are actually ERVs, and 3. were actually inserted? How many? What reason do you have to offer for excluding some, other than your desire for human-chimp familial relationship to be false?"

This would tale a small book to fully address but considering how comparative Genome studies take apart the respective genomes and in one or the other create ALL SORTS of gaps that do not actually exist I would think you would get the answer to some of your query without my having to explain.

Next why some may not have been "inserted", to demonstrate (in any field other than this one) confirmation of insertions (not just shared opinion) is REQUIRED. Confirmation is only possible when can demonstrate it one was not there, and now IS...only, as far back as we can go, many of these segments were already there as a normal part of our genomes (in science we should not assume it was inserted at some time until we can confirm it was not there in the first place but in Genetics if interpreted through the Evolutionary Biology perspective, it is assumed...assumed...assumed).

Some of these segments are a normal part of the Chimp and Human genomes other are a normal part of the chimp, human, and other species' genome, some are specific only to chimps, some only to humans, and some only to other types of organisms...

Now I am not saying there are none. Certainly we can see some are (like HIV for example), and in some other cases they are NOT PRESENT in the studies of early genomes, but now are (hence inserted), but when they are present across the board in the entire species as far as we can actually determine, we must demonstrate that at one time they were not there (and now are) rather than to label them as such...to do so without evidence of the event is ASSUMPTION not fact.

Believe it as one hypothesis yes, but do not teach it as if it is established...

And we can just as easily INTERPRET some of those that cannot be shown to be inserted have functionality essential to our being who/what we are...where none of the real confirmable ERVs (except those most current ones effecting the individual) have notable function at all.

Finally you keep asking "How many" when the correct question should be "Which ones?" Yes some are insertions (as indicated above) and we find some actual insertions in more than one genome (and there are alternate explanations I am sure you will simply blow off) and I do not DESIRE for anything to be false just demonstrated to be true before I swallow the explanation that they are and in my opinion that is sound scientific thinking.

 

[pshun2404]

Please think for yourself and consider this logic....

For clarification of one of the points I am making, if you go back and look at the example I gave where the same section of the respective genomes is being addressed, after the application of the intelligently designed computer program there are a T and a C in the Human segment that are not present in the Chimp segment. The PROGRAM pulls apart the chimp segment and creates a non-extant gap.

The TC is then INTERPRETED as either being inserted into the human, or deleted from the chimp, but that is a hypothesis based assumption. They do not really know this at all. The section of base pairs could just as well be normal for each as it is IN each.

(If inserted show when it was not previously there...if deleted show when it previously WAS...otherwise it is a mere hypothesis based interpretation and nothing more, and MUST be taught as only that, not implied to be established fact)

However IF it is just the normal sequence and not inserted or deleted in one of the other, THEN the entire genome after that presents itself CONTRARY to the presupposed hypothesis. In other words the true genomes when compared in their natural sequential order do not match nearly as perfectly (still more than with most but not nearly as claimed).

Thus, this leaves us with two sets of data...

a) the actual data (uncorrupted, rearranged, or aligned creating non-extant gaps that now need to be explained) and
b) the humanly altered data set which now can be interpreted to fit the hypothesis.

So as I apply genuine critical thought and scientific thinking, which should I place my trust in more fully?

a) The actual data I can demonstrate and observe, OR
b) the humanly altered “fits the story” model?

Hmmm? Let’s see??? Hmmm?

As I see it it’s a no brainer...reality trumps and wins everytime.

Really, just think on this and at least be honest with your self for the sake of intellectual integrity...I know it disrupts the program everyone says is true, and personally KNOW the difficulty in admitting this truth! If you really consider it long enough you will have an "AH-huh!" experience...

Actual data versus story told???? Hmmm?

 

[46AND2]

First off I have read 100s of papers on ERVs including this one (more than once) and as for your first comment yes that is exactly right and my point, thanks....

Then you say "You merely assert that some are in the same place and some manipulated. How many? Which ones? When was this study performed? You merely assert that some are not actually ERVs. How many? How do you know? You merely assert that some were never inserted. How many? How do you know?

Are there ANY ERVs which you think are 1. truly in the same place, 2. are actually ERVs, and 3. were actually inserted? How many? What reason do you have to offer for excluding some, other than your desire for human-chimp familial relationship to be false?"

This would tale a small book to fully address but considering how comparative Genome studies take apart the respective genomes and in one or the other create ALL SORTS of gaps that do not actually exist I would think you would get the answer to some of your query without my having to explain.

Next why some may not have been "inserted", to demonstrate (in any field other than this one) confirmation of insertions (not just shared opinion) is REQUIRED. Confirmation is only possible when can demonstrate it one was not there, and now IS...only, as far back as we can go, many of these segments were already there as a normal part of our genomes (in science we should not assume it was inserted at some time until we can confirm it was not there in the first place but in Genetics if interpreted through the Evolutionary Biology perspective, it is assumed...assumed...assumed).

Some of these segments are a normal part of the Chimp and Human genomes other are a normal part of the chimp, human, and other species' genome, some are specific only to chimps, some only to humans, and some only to other types of organisms...

Now I am not saying there are none. Certainly we can see some are (like HIV for example), and in some other cases they are NOT PRESENT in the studies of early genomes, but now are (hence inserted), but when they are present across the board in the entire species as far as we can actually determine, we must demonstrate that at one time they were not there (and now are) rather than to label them as such...to do so without evidence of the event is ASSUMPTION not fact.

Believe it as one hypothesis yes, but do not teach it as if it is established...

And we can just as easily INTERPRET some of those that cannot be shown to be inserted have functionality essential to our being who/what we are...where none of the real confirmable ERVs (except those most current ones effecting the individual) have notable function at all.

Finally you keep asking "How many" when the correct question should be "Which ones?" Yes some are insertions (as indicated above) and we find some actual insertions in more than one genome (and there are alternate explanations I am sure you will simply blow off) and I do not DESIRE for anything to be false just demonstrated to be true before I swallow the explanation that they are and in my opinion that is sound scientific thinking.

Of course you desire for DNA to prove your god is real. You go out of your way to say, (paraphrasing) "well, MAYBE it's just the way god made it in the first place." Which goes back to my question, "why would god make these portions of our DNA look EXACTLY like retroviruses? The paper I cited goes into lengthy detail about how they are identified as retroviruses; how they differ from standard bits of DNA. Tell me, what is the most parsimonious explanation for these bits of DNA: 1. that they really are retroviruses, or 2. that god placed them there, deceptively, in such a way that they fool scientists into thinking that they are ancient, no longer active retroviruses; a hypothesis which is confirmed by the fact that they exhibit greater mutation rates than active DNA, and consistent with the idea that their function need not be preserved against selection pressures? They are further confirmed by the ability to resurrect them into viable retroviruses.

If you had read the paper, you should have also noted that he went into great detail to show that 1. they are in identical locations and 2. that the need to "correct for" indels made up for only a minority portion of these ERVs. There are literally tens of thousands of unambiguous matches, even if you don't accept the idea of indels. That's tens of thousands of markers (not just 15) of pieces of DNA which are viral in nature, with the only parsimonious explanation being that they were inserted into an ancient genome, and passed down through inheritance to human and ape alike.

And it IS taught as hypothesis, or rather, it has graduated to theory, since this, and MANY other aspects of evolution are ENTIRELY consistent with evolution. Again, if evolution is true, we should see these patterns of similarities. It requires it, even. If we didn't see the patterns of inheritance (nested hierarchies) then evolution would be falsified.

So why does god continue to show us these consistencies which look EXACTLY like evolution?

What is FACT, is that allele frequency changes over time. What creationists claim as fact, and don't support, is that allele frequency changes cannot continue past a certain point (beyond the point of change in kind).

 

[pshun2404]

I just told you that there are PLENTY of such markers.
ERV's for example, to give you just one popular example.
There's thousands of others to choose from.

For example, the broken GULO gene to produce vitamin C. We and all other primates have that gene - broken in exactly the same way in all of them.

Dogs for example, don't have this broken gene. They have a working one.
Somewhere in an ancestor of primates, a mutation broke it. All primates have that broken version.

Please note, once more, that this is just another example among many thousands.

Humans are apes.
You can argue about it all you want. It won't change the fact. Humans have been categorized as primates even long before Darwin existed. By a christian priest, even. Somehwere in the 1600s, if I remember correctly.

I don't consider that a problem per say.
I operate a computer everyday - it's my job as a software engineer. And I know a thing or two about hardware as well and am quite good at troubleshooting it.
But that doesn't mean I understand the underlying quantum mechanics that made it possible to build these motherboards and monitors...

In other words, being able to use an application of science, doesn't necessarily require you to understand the actual science.

Having said that, you wouldn't be the first either who holds such conflicting views in his head. I remember a quote by some harvard geology graduate, who plainly said that indeed, ALL the evidence points to an old earth - but he's a YEC and therefor believes the bible anyway. Despite the evidence.

Simple question for you:
When 2 individuals share the exact same ERV, what does it mean, in your opinion?

For example, the broken GULO gene to produce vitamin C. We and all other primates have that gene - broken in exactly the same way in all of them.

Dogs for example, don't have this broken gene. They have a working one.
Somewhere in an ancestor of primates, a mutation broke it. All primates have that broken version.

Please note, once more, that this is just another example among many thousands.

Broken or just different? Maybe we were never supposed to produce our own Vit C and this is just how our genome iS, which helps make us primates as opposed to some other organism that would be placed taxonomically in some other order. After all, the Taxa are just a man made convenience for classifying according to homological features (and homology is not science though it is accepted as a system of classification by SCIENTISTS).

The Human GULO region is only 85% identical when compared to chimpanzee and gorilla, which means they actually DIFFER in 4200 base pairs of the sequence (wow that is huge). In the human genome there are 13,000 bases preceding GULO and these sequences also demonstrate vast differences. No pun intended but this throws a slight monkey wrench into the common ancestor paradigm, not to mention the fact that being more closely identical to that we find in the Gorilla genome as opposed to chimp, we must question the Taxonomy applied to this example as this upsets the phylogenetic applecart.

...no ape like daddys or mommys...!!!

Humans are apes.

Or so we have been re-classified since they joined Homo and Pan...


You can argue about it all you want...Humans have been categorized as primates even long before Darwin existed.

Yes “classified”, but not as apes! They had to be reclassified to fit the paradigm (based on the historical narrative created by post-Darwin Darwinians).

In other words, being able to use an application of science, doesn't necessarily require you to understand the actual science.

I agree and looking at raw data and interpreting what it means is not always the same thing (for one example, see Huff’s How to Lie with Statistics, or consider the frequently applied technique of “line of best guess” and using averages in forming many conclusions IN science).


Having said that, you wouldn't be the first either who holds such conflicting views in his head. I remember a quote by some harvard geology graduate, who plainly said that indeed, ALL the evidence points to an old earth - but he's a YEC and therefor believes the bible anyway. Despite the evidence.

Yes and I see this problem with some evolutionists as well where ALL evidence says one thing and they refuse to accept it and keep insisting on the historical narrative they have been taught is true (like in the case of speciation). I am not these persons...

Simple question for you: When 2 individuals share the exact same ERV, what does it mean, in your opinion?

Well IF (and that is a huge word) it is actually an ERV then it could mean (but may not) that they were infected at the same time period with the same virus, OR that they were infected at different times (because a genome is not constructed via superposition) and retrotransposons brought them to this place because that is where the already extant unique (one human and the other chimp) but both PRIMATE genomes could use them efficiently.

 

[pshun2404]

Of course you desire for DNA to prove your god is real. You go out of your way to say, (paraphrasing) "well, MAYBE it's just the way god made it in the first place." Which goes back to my question, "why would god make these portions of our DNA look EXACTLY like retroviruses? The paper I cited goes into lengthy detail about how they are identified as retroviruses; how they differ from standard bits of DNA. Tell me, what is the most parsimonious explanation for these bits of DNA: 1. that they really are retroviruses, or 2. that god placed them there, deceptively, in such a way that they fool scientists into thinking that they are ancient, no longer active retroviruses; a hypothesis which is confirmed by the fact that they exhibit greater mutation rates than active DNA, and consistent with the idea that their function need not be preserved against selection pressures? They are further confirmed by the ability to resurrect them into viable retroviruses.

If you had read the paper, you should have also noted that he went into great detail to show that 1. they are in identical locations and 2. that the need to "correct for" indels made up for only a minority portion of these ERVs. There are literally tens of thousands of unambiguous matches, even if you don't accept the idea of indels. That's tens of thousands of markers (not just 15) of pieces of DNA which are viral in nature, with the only parsimonious explanation being that they were inserted into an ancient genome, and passed down through inheritance to human and ape alike.

And it IS taught as hypothesis, or rather, it has graduated to theory, since this, and MANY other aspects of evolution are ENTIRELY consistent with evolution. Again, if evolution is true, we should see these patterns of similarities. It requires it, even. If we didn't see the patterns of inheritance (nested hierarchies) then evolution would be falsified.

So why does god continue to show us these consistencies which look EXACTLY like evolution?

What is FACT, is that allele frequency changes over time. What creationists claim as fact, and don't support, is that allele frequency changes cannot continue past a certain point (beyond the point of change in kind).

Before I engage the falsehood of much of what you said here...I respected your right to hold your view enough to answer your questions from my view now please answer mine...before us we have:

a) the actual data (uncorrupted, rearranged, or aligned creating non-extant gaps that now need to be explained) and
b) the humanly altered data set which now can be interpreted to fit the hypothesis.

If I am to apply genuine critical thought and scientific thinking, which should I place my trust in more fully?

a) The actual data I can demonstrate and observe, OR
b) the humanly altered “fits the story” model?

Which type of evidence do you place your trust in? Which do YOU say we should base our views on? A or B...please pick one so I know who I am dealing with....

Simple reality or altered reality? You choose, but please HONESTLY share from a position of objectivity?

 

[46AND2]

Before I engage the falsehood of much of what you said here...I respected your right to hold your view enough to answer your questions from my view now please answer mine...before us we have:

a) the actual data (uncorrupted, rearranged, or aligned creating non-extant gaps that now need to be explained) and
b) the humanly altered data set which now can be interpreted to fit the hypothesis.

If I am to apply genuine critical thought and scientific thinking, which should I place my trust in more fully?

a) The actual data I can demonstrate and observe, OR
b) the humanly altered “fits the story” model?

Which type of evidence do you place your trust in? Which do YOU say we should base our views on? A or B...please pick one so I know who I am dealing with....

Simple reality or altered reality? You choose, but please HONESTLY share from a position of objectivity?

c) reality which takes into account all current observations, including the existence of indels.

 

[46AND2]

Before I engage the falsehood of much of what you said here...I respected your right to hold your view enough to answer your questions from my view now please answer mine...before us we have:

a) the actual data (uncorrupted, rearranged, or aligned creating non-extant gaps that now need to be explained) and
b) the humanly altered data set which now can be interpreted to fit the hypothesis.

If I am to apply genuine critical thought and scientific thinking, which should I place my trust in more fully?

a) The actual data I can demonstrate and observe, OR
b) the humanly altered “fits the story” model?

Which type of evidence do you place your trust in? Which do YOU say we should base our views on? A or B...please pick one so I know who I am dealing with....

Simple reality or altered reality? You choose, but please HONESTLY share from a position of objectivity?

Though I've already answered you, I'm perfectly willing, as devil's advocate, to go with your selection "a." Since, as the paper I cited states, there are tens of thousands of unambiguously matching, indel free, no manipulation necessary, ERVs.