Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 58 (9173 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: Neptune7
Post Volume: Total: 917,575 Year: 4,832/9,624 Month: 180/427 Week: 93/85 Day: 0/10 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   ERV's: Evidence of Common Ancestory
Percy
Member
Posts: 22606
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.0


Message 121 of 166 (505242)
04-09-2009 9:47 AM
Reply to: Message 120 by onifre
04-09-2009 9:08 AM


Re: Playing poke-a-Goliath
onifre writes:
So you are expecting to see actual morphological changes while the species is alive?
Guessing you meant to say "while the *animal* is alive?" Or "while the *individual* is alive?"
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by onifre, posted 04-09-2009 9:08 AM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 123 by onifre, posted 04-09-2009 3:32 PM Percy has not replied

  
shalamabobbi
Member (Idle past 2926 days)
Posts: 397
Joined: 01-10-2009


Message 122 of 166 (505250)
04-09-2009 1:01 PM
Reply to: Message 116 by pcver
04-09-2009 2:54 AM


Re: Playing poke-a-Goliath
pcver writes:
(2) Although ERVs do not seem to contradict evolution, they do not validate evolution either.
There is absolutely no reason for species separate from each other w/o common ancestry to have ERVs that coincide in location in the genome. ERVs do indeed contradict creationism as the source of ERVs is known and are due to viruses. They are damage to the genome.
(3) To pretend that some ERVs 'predictions' exist due to evolution theory; and then claim evolution theory is validated by the predictions, is false circular logic.
To suggest that ERVs are created in place is not even logic, circuler or otherwise. You adopt that view of necessity because otherwise there is no way to account for the huge amount of ERVs in the genome. What sort of logic is that? Apologetics..
I believe my points are valid unless someone proves that ERVs actually enhances credence of the 'engines' of evolution, such as mutation; natural selection; genetic drift; speciation.
You don't even recognize when your logic works against you. If ERVs are never functional then that refutes ERVs being created.
If they are functional sometimes that supports evolution and refutes creationism as not all are functional, but are part of 'junk' DNA. If ERVs were created they'd ALL need to be functional, especially the ones that exist in the same location in different species.
If you will argue against junk DNA then consider this. Onions have 5 times more DNA than humans. Amphiuma has 25 times more and a unicellular amoeba dubia has 200 times more DNA than humans.
A total of 2.3 million letters of DNA code of mouse junk DNA was removed with no noticeable effect on the organism.
reference
Amphiuma, which has around 25 times more DNA than humans.
quote:
The onion test is a simple reality check for anyone who thinks they have come up with a universal function for non-coding DNA. Whatever your proposed function, ask yourself this question: Can I explain why an onion needs about five times more non-coding DNA for this function than a human?
reference
quote:
the genome of the unicellular Amoeba dubia has been reported to contain more than 200 times the amount of DNA in humans
reference
pcver writes:
To further assert that evolution theory is validated by ERVs would be a sleight of hand.
Really? Would suggesting that ERVs which are damage to the genome due to viruses are really created in place be 'slight of mind'? Is your avatar a self portrait?
Edited by shalamabobbi, : minor punctuation
Edited by shalamabobbi, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by pcver, posted 04-09-2009 2:54 AM pcver has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 128 by pcver, posted 04-10-2009 11:19 AM shalamabobbi has replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 3028 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 123 of 166 (505264)
04-09-2009 3:32 PM
Reply to: Message 121 by Percy
04-09-2009 9:47 AM


Re: Playing poke-a-Goliath
Guessing you meant to say "while the *animal* is alive?" Or "while the *individual* is alive?"
I did, and thanks for catching that, Percy. Early morning posts are always a bit foggy. Late night drinking may be the cause. - lol
I have corrected it.
- Oni

"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks
"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by Percy, posted 04-09-2009 9:47 AM Percy has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 10158
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.7


Message 124 of 166 (505272)
04-09-2009 5:23 PM
Reply to: Message 116 by pcver
04-09-2009 2:54 AM


Re: Playing poke-a-Goliath
Here is a 'credible' prediction - Another earthquake will strike Italy in a year's time.
What mechanisms are you basing this prediction on?
What you have to remember is that the predictions pertaining to ERV's are not wild ass guesses. These predictions are based on our observations of the mechanisms of evolution in action. From these observations scientists are able to predict what we should see in genomes if these same evolutionary mechanisms were active in the past. The loci, LTR divergence, and interspecies divergence are part of those predictions.
Whilst I do not object that ERVs support 'common ancestry' model. My points are:
(1) Some ERVs 'predictions' may not be true predictions at all.
Why not?
(2) Although ERVs do not seem to contradict evolution, they do not validate evolution either.
Yes, they do. The theory makes specific predictions about the features and DNA sequence of ERV's. The ERV's are then sequenced. Those predictions are found to be accurate. This is EXACTLY how one validates a theory, but testing the predictions that the theory makes.
(3) To pretend that some ERVs 'predictions' exist due to evolution theory; and then claim evolution theory is validated by the predictions, is false circular logic.
That is not what we are doing. The mere existence of predictions is not what validates the theory of evolution. It is the existence of ACCURATE AND TESTED predictions which validates the theory.
Do you honestly think that because scientists claim that an ERV shared by orangutans and humans should also be found in chimps at the same spot in the genome will make an ERV magically appear in that exact position? Are you saying that making a prediction somehow makes the data appear?
I believe my points are valid unless someone proves that ERVs actually enhances credence of the 'engines' of evolution, such as mutation; natural selection; genetic drift; speciation.
But that is exactly what we do see in ERV's. That is why I explained LTR divergence. The LTR's in an ERV are identical at the time of insertion. Over time mutations accumulate in each of the LTR's leading to LTR's that are no longer identical. The rate at which these mutations accumulate is consistent with neutral genetic drift in the vast majority of cases. They are perfect examples of how evolution occurs, and how speciation results in sequence divergence.
I have difficulty accepting that in science there is no proof.
That would be your difficulty, not mine. Quantum mechanics is difficult to accept when you first learn of it, but that doesn't stop Quantum mechanics from being an accurate theory.
I think ERVs does not connect with evolutionary processes. Evolution is really about species evolving into other species. 'Common ancestry' is only an outcome.
The orthologous nature of ERV's demonstrates common ancestry even if the ERV is in two individuals from the same population. You and your siblings (or cousins for that matter) share ERV's in the same spots in your genome. This is due to common ancestry.
As for evolution, the [i]differences[/] in the sequence of ERV's is explained by evolutionary mechanisms, including the divergence of ERV sequences in different lineages. Evolution explains both the similarities and the differences. Read that last sentence over and over until it sinks in. It is a very important to understand how this is.
Strictly speaking it'd be wrong to claim ERVs predictions as part of Evolution theory.
Why would it be wrong when the theory is able to accurately predict the placement and sequence divergence of ERV's?
My contention is that evolution had never even taken place. It never happened in the past, nor in the present. Therefore 'common ancestry' has another explanation that is not evolution based.
That doesn't change the fact that the theory of evolution accuratley predicts the features of ERV's. You claim it isn't evolution, and yet all of the evidence is consistent with evolution.
These assertions need to be challenged and tested. I think this is where we should be headed in our discussions.
What do you think I have been talking about? The comparison of ERV's in different species is just that test.
Probably so. But then probably not, because there may be a need for functional redundancy to cover the event of a biological failure.
This is off topic so I will only point you in this direction. Compare the cephalopod eye to the human eye. They are designed different yet perform the same function.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by pcver, posted 04-09-2009 2:54 AM pcver has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 125 by Michamus, posted 04-10-2009 12:04 AM Taq has replied

  
Michamus
Member (Idle past 5235 days)
Posts: 230
From: Ft Hood, TX
Joined: 03-16-2009


Message 125 of 166 (505300)
04-10-2009 12:04 AM
Reply to: Message 124 by Taq
04-09-2009 5:23 PM


Re: Playing poke-a-Goliath
They are designed different...
I would be more careful in the terminology I use around these IDers. Next thing you know you will see this quoted with your name on it, claiming you support ID.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 124 by Taq, posted 04-09-2009 5:23 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 126 by Taq, posted 04-10-2009 12:30 AM Michamus has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 10158
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.7


Message 126 of 166 (505302)
04-10-2009 12:30 AM
Reply to: Message 125 by Michamus
04-10-2009 12:04 AM


Re: Playing poke-a-Goliath
I would be more careful in the terminology I use around these IDers. Next thing you know you will see this quoted with your name on it, claiming you support ID.
Design does not imply intelligence. There are stars that produce the shape of a dipper (or plow for our British friends). However, this does not mean that someone placed the stars in the sky so that they would form the shape of a dipper (or plow).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by Michamus, posted 04-10-2009 12:04 AM Michamus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 127 by Michamus, posted 04-10-2009 6:03 AM Taq has not replied

  
Michamus
Member (Idle past 5235 days)
Posts: 230
From: Ft Hood, TX
Joined: 03-16-2009


Message 127 of 166 (505307)
04-10-2009 6:03 AM
Reply to: Message 126 by Taq
04-10-2009 12:30 AM


Re: Playing poke-a-Goliath
By all means, we are agreed. I was simply pointing out that your opinion on the matter is of no consequence to creationist activists, and they would have no qualm quoting that out of context. Ya know what I mean?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by Taq, posted 04-10-2009 12:30 AM Taq has not replied

  
pcver
Junior Member (Idle past 5178 days)
Posts: 22
From: Sydney, Australia
Joined: 03-30-2009


Message 128 of 166 (505331)
04-10-2009 11:19 AM
Reply to: Message 122 by shalamabobbi
04-09-2009 1:01 PM


Re: Playing poke-a-Goliath
It is getting really messy.
My points about ERVs really boil down to not much more than this:
Supposing there are two ways to get to point C-- Either from A or B.
If a man is found at C, without further information we cannot say he must have travelled from A. The reason is obvious -- He could well have come from B instead.
The evolution theory (representing point A) predicts common-ancestry (point C). That's fair enough. Afterall if species evolve into other species, then it stands to reason there must be lots of evidence of common ancestry. EVRs support common ancestry model between apes and humans and that's fair enough also. But it is false dichotomy to claim that because evolution theory had predicted 'common ancestry', therefore evolution theory is an accurate theory, and therefore evolution theory is credible. That would be a logical fallacy because:
(1) there is no observable evidence of evolution.
(2) there is another possibility - creation (representing point B)
Putting it bluntly, (1) suggests that there is no visible pathway to get from A to C.
To truly claim evolution theory is valid, true evidence of evolution must be found. It is pathetic to claim that evolution theory had predicted 'common ancestry', therefore evolution theory is validated and accurate. That would be a ludicrous and illogical claim.
As far as I can tell, ERVs do not provide an evolutionary mechanism that enables species to EVOLVE into other species. In other words, ERVs play no part in evolution. They provide information to link species and that's all.
In other words, although theoretically there are two paths to get to point C, the route from A to C is very much in doubt and ERVs evidence is not helping.
To claim that ERVs; common ancestry and evolution theory are interwoven and they validate each other is to draw a long bow. There is a lack of clarity in various discussions to connect them.
Addressing other comments....
Perdition writes:
..."Prediction" on its own doesn't mean it rests on anything. However, when you bring the word prediction into a SCIENTIFIC structure, it does rest on something. The word "science" adds a more stringent definition to the word...
Unlike "Prophesy" or "Speculation". The word 'prediction' inherently implies it must rest on something. Every prediction has a logical/scientific basis, no matter how silly that basis may be. If you disagree, then try constructing a predictive statement that is void of any logical basis. I bet you can't. In contrast, a "prophesy" does not have to be logical and it may not rest on anything..
You disagree that: "The proof of evolution lies with evidence of species evolving into other species, no more, no less.".
Well, perhaps "The Theory of Evolution" has evolved and is now anything but a theory about evolution.
Evolutionists seem to have neglected that the crux of Theory of Evolution is NOT 'common ancestry'. The bread and butter of Theory of Evolution is just that -- EVOLUTION of species.
onifre writes:
So you are expecting to see actual morphological changes while the individual animal is alive? That's what you expect evolution to be? That's what you require as evidence?
Are you so surprised to hear I expect to witness evolution in action? Of course I expect to see evolution in motion when something is alive, not when they are dead. It can be a morphological change; a process; or any event that can be scientifically identified as truly evolutionary.
onifre writes:
I suggest before you continue in this thread you take a minute, or a few years, and realy open a few books on the subject. You would really gain a lot by actually learning what it is you're trying to debate.
Due to the fact that no one has ever observed an evolutionary process, we are told by evolutionists that evolution is so slow it cannot be observed. This is a lie. If evolution is true, then the force of evolution is the GREATEST FORCE of biology. In fact evolutionists do believe in a powerful 'God', known as -- Evolution.
It is inconceivable that such a powerful biological force cannot be observed around us. I expect to see new species popping up and yes, definitely some new species during my life time.
Think outside your square instead of reading books that continue the myth that evolution, if true, is impossible to be observed, (because it takes too long).
Taq writes:
...predictions pertaining to ERV's are not wild ass guesses. These predictions are based on our observations of the mechanisms of evolution in action....
Notwithstanding numerous evolution mechanisms, evolution remains elusive. Remember it does not follow that ERVs validate evolution theory, even if predictions had originated from there.
Also, I said some 'predictions' may not be true predictions at all. An example is RAZD's chromosome fusion 'prediction', (a prediction that couldn't possibly be made before discovery of chromosome fusion). I guess it impresses people more when one claims a prediction is fulfilled.
When you said: [/b]The theory[/b] makes specific predictions about the features and DNA sequence of ERV's, you are really referring to "the theory of common ancestry", (if there is such a thing), not the evolution theory per se. I say this because ERVs do not support evolutionary mechanism. It makes no sense to claim that evolution theory makes specific predictions about ERVs.
(Well, I could be wrong because "The Theory of Evolution" has evolved and is now anything but a theory about evolution)
You claim that ERVs do enhance credence of the 'engines' of evolution because LTR divergence proves that over time mutations accumulate, at a rate consistent with many neutral genetic drift. I have no problem with this. But I think you know mutation has never led to new species and it never will. So ERVs do not enhance credence of evolution any more than mutation of any DNA.
Shalamabobbi writes:
You don't even recognize when your logic works against you. If ERVs are never functional then that refutes ERVs being created.
If they are functional sometimes that supports evolution and refutes creationism as not all are functional, but are part of 'junk' DNA. If ERVs were created they'd ALL need to be functional, especially the ones that exist in the same location in different species.
The assumption is that whatever God created must be useful, that anything useless is a proof that creation is false, right?
Suppose God created retrovirus that gave rise to ERVs that are functional. But like I suggested before, the very nature of a retrovirus is one of randomness. So over a long time some retroviruses turned into useless ERVs that were passed down as evidence of 'common ancestry'.
Although I don't know the truth, my explanation suggests that ERVs need not invalidate creation. Do you agree?
Shalamabobbi writes:
If you will argue against junk DNA then consider this. Onions have 5 times more DNA than humans. Amphiuma has 25 times more and a unicellular amoeba dubia has 200 times more DNA than humans.
A total of 2.3 million letters of DNA code of mouse junk DNA was removed with no noticeable effect on the organism.
The assumption here is that whatever God created must be 100% optimal and 100% compact, right?
Think about a timber beam on my roof truss which was broken more than 2 years ago. I had feared that might lead to my roof caving in and then collapse. So far that has not happened. So I think that timber beam is a piece of junk that can be removed with no noticeable effect on my house. It certainly does not need replacing.
In the same vein, I really shouldn't believe in creation because I hate mosquitoes and cockroaches. I cannot see how they can be useful and God shouldn't have created them.
I agree there are many things I cannot answer about God and creation. But one thing I am sure of is that evolution theory will provide no answer to the mystery of life.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by shalamabobbi, posted 04-09-2009 1:01 PM shalamabobbi has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 129 by Coragyps, posted 04-10-2009 11:41 AM pcver has replied
 Message 130 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-10-2009 11:46 AM pcver has not replied
 Message 131 by Taq, posted 04-10-2009 12:04 PM pcver has not replied
 Message 132 by onifre, posted 04-10-2009 1:01 PM pcver has not replied
 Message 133 by Perdition, posted 04-10-2009 1:33 PM pcver has not replied
 Message 134 by shalamabobbi, posted 04-10-2009 2:02 PM pcver has not replied
 Message 135 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-10-2009 11:02 PM pcver has not replied

  
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 812 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 129 of 166 (505334)
04-10-2009 11:41 AM
Reply to: Message 128 by pcver
04-10-2009 11:19 AM


Re: Playing poke-a-Goliath
Evolutionists seem to have neglected that the crux of Theory of Evolution is NOT 'common ancestry'. The bread and butter of Theory of Evolution is just that -- EVOLUTION of species.
You're just playing with words, Pcver. Evolution is "descent with modification." And, as long ago as 1859, it was hypothesized that all life came from a common ancestor. Everywhere we look we see organisms - let's say the thousand species of mice and rats - that are 1) apparently, even to the eye of a five-year-old, descended from a common ancestor and 2) not all identical - "modified."
ERV evidence is just one of the several lines that show us that groups like mice are, indeed, cousins, how closely members of this group are related to each other, and even when two members, now in different species, shared a Grandma Mouse in common.
And no, ERV's don't "provide an evolutionary mechanism that enables species to EVOLVE into other species." They just give us one more smoking gun that lets us quantatively measure how evolution happened.

"The wretched world lies now under the tyranny of foolishness; things are believed by Christians of such absurdity as no one ever could aforetime induce the heathen to believe." - Agobard of Lyons, ca. 830 AD

This message is a reply to:
 Message 128 by pcver, posted 04-10-2009 11:19 AM pcver has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 136 by pcver, posted 04-11-2009 11:01 AM Coragyps has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 130 of 166 (505336)
04-10-2009 11:46 AM
Reply to: Message 128 by pcver
04-10-2009 11:19 AM


I have not read this entire thread....
The title is: "ERV's: Evidence of Common Ancestoy"
EVRs support common ancestry model between apes and humans and that's fair enough also. But it is false dichotomy to claim that because evolution theory had predicted 'common ancestry', therefore evolution theory is an accurate theory, and therefore evolution theory is credible. That would be a logical fallacy because:
(1) there is no observable evidence of evolution.
(2) there is another possibility - creation (representing point B)
ERV's all on their own do not prove evolution. BFD
They are, however, evidence for common decent (which you agree to).
But now you saying: "Well, it still could have been created."
Of course it could have, that's the problem with unfalsifiable claims. ERV's still fit within Last Thursdayism too.
Saying it still could have been created does nothing for us at all.
Can you even propose a mechanism by which ERV's would have been created?
If animals did commonly decend, then we would expect to see things like ERV's. That we do see them suggests that common decent did happen. It is evidence supporting evolution regardless that it could still have been created
I guess evolution was how god created it then, no?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 128 by pcver, posted 04-10-2009 11:19 AM pcver has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 10158
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.7


Message 131 of 166 (505340)
04-10-2009 12:04 PM
Reply to: Message 128 by pcver
04-10-2009 11:19 AM


Re: Playing poke-a-Goliath
pcver writes:
My points about ERVs really boil down to not much more than this:
Supposing there are two ways to get to point C-- Either from A or B.
If a man is found at C, without further information we cannot say he must have travelled from A. The reason is obvious -- He could well have come from B instead.
Let's use a different analogy. Let's look at languages. The word for the number one in French, Spanish, and Italian are une, uno, and uno respectively. For Spanish and Italian the same spelling is pronounced a little bit differently. Now what are the chances that three languages independently all arrived at similar words for the same thing? Pretty low, right? Why would groups of people that do not speak each others language all come around to using very similar words? The answer is that they didn't. These languages share a common root language, Latin. These languages diverged from this common ancestor. Over time these populations were isolated and small changes accumulated in each. Over time the resulted in languages that were modified to the point that the different populations have a tough time understanding each other, but it is obvious from an analysis of the languages that they share a common root language. This is how the determination of common ancestry works, shared features that can only be explained by common ancestry plus modifications in each lineage that are not seen in the other lineages. For ERV's, these DNA sequences are obviously derived from a common source and when we compare different species we see differences in the sequence that are caused by lineage specific changes.
It is pathetic to claim that evolution theory had predicted 'common ancestry', therefore evolution theory is validated and accurate. That would be a ludicrous and illogical claim.
Common ancestry is not the prediction. Common ancestry is the conclusion drawn from the evidence. In science, hypotheses are IF - THEN propositions. If A then B. If common ancestry is true then we should find a specific pattern of orthologous ERV's, LTR divergence, and ERV divergence. We then sequence the DNA and see if the hypothesis is supported, and it is. That is how science works.
As far as I can tell, ERVs do not provide an evolutionary mechanism that enables species to EVOLVE into other species. In other words, ERVs play no part in evolution. They provide information to link species and that's all.
What ERV's do show us is:
1) Divergent species share a common ancestor.
2) Lineage specific mutations accumulate over time.
3) The rates at which mutations accumulate in different genes differs due to natural selection. Mutations in ERV's tend to accumulate at a rate consistent with neutral drift. That is, mutations in ERV's tend not to affect fitness. When we compare the number of mutations in ERV's to coding regions we see more mutations in ERV's than in coding regions. This points to natural selection.
For evolution to work you need divergence. That is the biggy. ERV's show that this does occur.
Evolutionists seem to have neglected that the crux of Theory of Evolution is NOT 'common ancestry'. The bread and butter of Theory of Evolution is just that -- EVOLUTION of species.
This is exactly what ERV's show. They demonstrate descent with modification, as the poster above discusses. The ERV's descend from a common ancestor, and they are modified in each lineage through mutation and selection. The evidence for all of these mechanisms are seen in the ERV's.
Are you so surprised to hear I expect to witness evolution in action? Of course I expect to see evolution in motion when something is alive, not when they are dead. It can be a morphological change; a process; or any event that can be scientifically identified as truly evolutionary.
We have the results of that process right here and right now. For chimps and humans, by comparing their genomes you can observe the results of 5-7 million years of evolution. Our differing morphology is due to our differences in DNA. Those differences are the result of mutation and selection, as demonstrated by ERV's.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 128 by pcver, posted 04-10-2009 11:19 AM pcver has not replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 3028 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 132 of 166 (505348)
04-10-2009 1:01 PM
Reply to: Message 128 by pcver
04-10-2009 11:19 AM


Wrong conceptual view
Are you so surprised to hear I expect to witness evolution in action?
Not really.
Most creationist expect the same thing because they have such a gross misunderstanding of what "evolution" means that within 2 post I was able to realize exactly where your misunderstanding was.
Thanks for proving my original point.
Of course I expect to see evolution in motion when something is alive, not when they are dead. It can be a morphological change; a process; or any event that can be scientifically identified as truly evolutionary.
Let's just clarify your position. You expect to witness, for example, a lizard give birth to an animal that, within the course of it's actual life time, changes into another species that's not a lizard?
Is this your understanding of evolution?
Due to the fact that no one has ever observed an evolutionary process, we are told by evolutionists that evolution is so slow it cannot be observed.
You are told by which evolutionist that evolution cannot be observed? Where did you get that from?
Be honest, have you taken any post-high school Biology classes that delve into evolution?
This is a lie.
Since you made the statement, and I've never heard anything like that coming from a Biologist, you, sir, are the liar. - Unless you care to back that statement up with some evidence?
Think outside your square instead of reading books that continue the myth that evolution, if true, is impossible to be observed, (because it takes too long).
Yes, yes, books with talking snakes, guys who are born of virgins and are known to walk on water are much less mythical than biology.
- Oni

"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks
"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

This message is a reply to:
 Message 128 by pcver, posted 04-10-2009 11:19 AM pcver has not replied

  
Perdition
Member (Idle past 3315 days)
Posts: 1593
From: Wisconsin
Joined: 05-15-2003


Message 133 of 166 (505353)
04-10-2009 1:33 PM
Reply to: Message 128 by pcver
04-10-2009 11:19 AM


Re: Playing poke-a-Goliath
Supposing there are two ways to get to point C-- Either from A or B.
If a man is found at C, without further information we cannot say he must have travelled from A. The reason is obvious -- He could well have come from B instead.
A much better analogy would be this:
There are two starting points, A and B and one ending point, C. If you follow the path from A to C, you would expected to hit points D, E and F. You look through your travelogue and indeed, you see points D, E and F.
Now, the path from B is not set, and could go through any point in the world before ending up at C, so seeing any point in your travelogue doesn't disprove the starting point of B, but neither does it give much evidence to point to that as being your starting point. The only thing you can say is that seeing points D, E and F, there is a pretty good reason to believe you started at A and the best way to prove that you didn't start at A would be to find some point not on that path.
The problem is that you're not showing anything that's off that path, you're essentially saying that you started at B, but decided to follow the path from A to C on a whim. Your proof? You don't have any.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 128 by pcver, posted 04-10-2009 11:19 AM pcver has not replied

  
shalamabobbi
Member (Idle past 2926 days)
Posts: 397
Joined: 01-10-2009


Message 134 of 166 (505357)
04-10-2009 2:02 PM
Reply to: Message 128 by pcver
04-10-2009 11:19 AM


Re: Playing poke-a-Goliath
pcver writes:
Although I don't know the truth, my explanation suggests that ERVs need not invalidate creation. Do you agree?
No. You are not thinking about the random nature of ERVs and the fact that they show up in the same location in different species. Maybe God does not have to create 100% functional DNA but is it necessary to place the ERVs in the same locations that fit a pattern that agrees with common ancestry??
So I think that timber beam is a piece of junk that can be removed with no noticeable effect on my house. It certainly does not need replacing.
You are forgetting the mouse. It had some junk DNA removed with no ill effect, so the analogy fails.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 128 by pcver, posted 04-10-2009 11:19 AM pcver has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 361 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 135 of 166 (505388)
04-10-2009 11:02 PM
Reply to: Message 128 by pcver
04-10-2009 11:19 AM


Evolution And Common Descent
It is getting really messy.
Yes.
My points about ERVs really boil down to not much more than this:
Supposing there are two ways to get to point C-- Either from A or B.
If a man is found at C, without further information we cannot say he must have travelled from A. The reason is obvious -- He could well have come from B instead.
The ERVs correspond to the footprints he left.
Though that's a really ghastly metaphor you've got going there.
Try this one. Point Z represents the present state of fauna and flora. Point X represents a single common ancestor. Biologists claim that life progressed from point X to point Z by a method which they call, or which for the purposes of this analogy I shall call, Darwinian evolution. Fiat creationists maintain that life started at point Y, a point similar to point Z in including modern biota, but also containing dinosaurs and trilobites and the Small Shelly Fauna of the Tomotian and what-have-you, and that the history of life involves going from point Y to point Z by a process involving only extinction.
To travel from point X to point Z by Darwinian evolution (rather than by some other method) will, biologists know, leave certain very specific traces, "footprints" if you will, upon the world. Therefore, the proposition that X was the starting point and Darwinian evolution the method of travel predicts the presence, nature and location of the footprints. Which turn out to be there.
The evolution theory (representing point A) predicts common-ancestry (point C).
No.
Common ancestry and the theory of evolution predict the ERVs (and, of course, lot of other things too).
The starting point and the method of travel predict the footprints.
As far as I can tell, ERVs do not provide an evolutionary mechanism that enables species to EVOLVE into other species.
Of course not. Darwinian evolution is the mechanism. ERVs are the evidence.
Walking is the mechanism. Footprints are the evidence.
---
Sheesh.
You seem to have no grasp whatsoever of what is being claimed.
Due to the fact that no one has ever observed an evolutionary process ...
This is not true.
... we are told by evolutionists that evolution is so slow it cannot be observed.
No.
This is a lie. If evolution is true, then the force of evolution is the GREATEST FORCE of biology. In fact evolutionists do believe in a powerful 'God', known as -- Evolution.
It is inconceivable that such a powerful biological force cannot be observed around us.
It can.
By the way, fiat creationists actually believe in a powerful God who is the "GREATEST FORCE" in biology. Yet, somehow we don't observe him doing his special god-magic all around us.
I expect to see new species popping up and yes, definitely some new species during my life time.
Speciation has been observed. As a consequence, while 50% of creationists still go around pretending that it doesn't happen and is impossible, the other half go about saying stuff like this:
New species have been observed to form. In fact, rapid speciation is an important part of the creation model.
Creationism evolves ...
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 128 by pcver, posted 04-10-2009 11:19 AM pcver has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024