ERV's: Evidence of Common Ancestory

Did it not occur to you that before you went lecturing people on the subject of "science" in a public place, you should have found out something about it?Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

You do talk a lot of rubbish, don't you?As I've ponted out, this is because you've never bothered to find out what you're talking about.This will inevitably result in you reciting ridiculous falsehoods.Ah yes ... creationism.

Wrong. Forensic science deduces the unobserved from the observed. The theory of evolution does not state that "an animal's DNA has ever been inserted into a human and produced a half-man, half beast". No. Why don't you find out what the word "theory" means, instead of using words you don't know to write about subjects of which you're ignorant?

Having read the rest of your post, it is very clear that this is utterly untrue.Try to learn something about biology.Anything. It's all good stuff.

This is a silly lie which you have made up in your head. Many Christians understand evolution, and any evolutionist will be happy to say so. No it does not, which is why it doesn't say that. This is a silly lie which you've made up in your head. And yet the origin of new species has frequently been observed, so this looks like another silly made-up lie. No evolutionist has ever claimed that, which is why you cannot quote any evolutionist claiming that. That's just a silly lie which you've made up in your head. If by "we", you mean you, then I can see why. It's because every statement you make about evolution is a silly lie which you've made up in your head. And yet you cannot quote a single evolutionist "denying their own theory", because this is of course a silly lie which you've made up in your head. That goes beyond "silly lie" and into "hysterical denial". If there is no theory of evolution, why are you getting so worked up about it? Again, I recomend that before you go prating in public about how "the theory is a hoax", you find out what it is instead of just making up silly lies about it.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Listen carefully. Our theory is the theory which we have. It is not the putrid, rancid nonsense that you made up in your head, which you call "the theory of evolution", and which I would call a steaming pile of **** which creationists made up in their heads.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

You are a liar. No-one has denied this. Well, this lie overlooks the fact that we still have the theory of evolution, which is correct. You are a liar, which is why you cannot quote anyone "proving" that "evolution is a hoax" in their "own words". Well, from your point of view, nothing could be better then you wallowing in your stupid froth of scummy filthy lies.From my point of view, it could get better. You could lie less often.

Listening to creationists trying to talk about science is like listening to someone trying to talk about sport and saying "The goalkeeper did an end-run around the third baseman, so the referee awarded a slam dunk".The theory of evolution is the explanation of how evolution happened.And the ERVs and the other evidence are the proof that evolution occured.

Er ... that wouldn't be disagreement. No, the theory of evolution does that.Or the fossil record does that, depending on exactly what you mean by "how" in this context. But this is kind of approaching the old "Omphalos" argument --- God might have made everything to look like the Earth was old, species evolved, the Universe began with a Big Bang, and so forth; as one creationist put it talking about the lack of evidence for the flood: Well, so he could. But why on Earth would he, unless his intention is to fool scientists?Your argument is perhaps slightly more sophisticated, but not much. You try to suggest a reason why God should have produced this seemingly evolutionary pattern, but the reason (in the light of our knowledge of ERVs) seems to be that God made poor design decisions apparently out of sheer laziness. Also, it would hardly explain why there are any ERVs in any eukaryote genome in the first place --- divine carelessness?Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Why do you believe that? But why should it be "unavoidable" for an all-wise and all-knowing creator to supply his creations with genetic material which is of no use ... that is, no use except as evidence for evolution? Why should it be "unavoidable" for him to write on our genomes one vast and superfluous lie? Is there really no other way to make a man?If you cannot demonstrate that the evolutionary pattern of ERVs is also a prediction of the creationist hypothesis, then you are just using God as an ad hoc argument, as in the following exchange:Evolutionist : John Smith's fingerprints are on this gun, proving that he handled it.Creationist : It proves no such thing. God might have put them there.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

There is an assumption that if God created something, he must have done it with some purpose in mind other than to convince evolutionists that they're right. Well that is unorganized.Look, let's try it again.The evolutionary hypothesis predicts certain patterns in ERVs. We look at the world, and find that these patterns exist. This would seem to be a score for evolution.You claim that God made these patterns, but challenged to say why, you start talking about "unpredictability and randomness", something that we do not usually associate with an omnipotent Creator. Well, it isn't.I don't know where you got that figure from, but I note that it is approximately the time it has taken our lineage to diverge from that of chimpanzees.But that doesn't mean that all that time ago our lineage had modern brainy brains. That's exactly what is being claimed. No-one in the entire universe claims that humans are descended from chimps. The only ERVs that are relevant to our discussion are those that have become fixed in the genome.If you're interested in the math, I wrote an article on Genetic Drift.---I think you're a bit out of your depth here. You haven't quite understood what is being claimed, and then you try to pick holes in evolutionary biology based on your lack of understanding. But the things that you don't understand about biology are not a problem for biology, they're a problem for you.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

I don't really understand your thinking.Look, if you were a Biblical fundamentalist pointing at the Bible and saying ... "Look! it says right there!" then I would understand your thinking. I'd disagree, but I'd understand.But apparently you're willing to chuck fundamentalism away and go with the Earth being old, which it is.Then why not go with evolution, too? It's as true as the old Earth. And if you're willing to concede that the geological record shows an old Earth, then you have to concede evolution too. As someone once said --- "We have the fossils. We win."Unless you're a staunch literalist, which you aren't, why bother holding out? Why not just say, along with all the other Christians who accept evolution: "Wow, evolution is probably the cleverest bit of God's plan. No wonder it took a genius like Darwin to figure it out."Now your point in fighting (I'm guessing here) seems to me to be that you belong to a church that is anti-evolution and that you just don't get it.Well, get it.Someone once said to a guy I know: "You have many misconceptions about evolution". And as he said, these are his words: Well, hit the books. You're wrong.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Yes.Look, evolution predicts the patterns we see in ERVs just as the theory of gravity predicts that planets move in ellipses of which one focus is the sun.The only way you can ignore this is to show how a creationist hypothesis works just as well.If you wanted to say: "There is no gravity, it's just that angels push the planets around" ... then you would have a problem.The angel hypothesis gives us no reason why the angels should push the planets around in such a way that it looks like the theory of gravity is correct.But the theory of gravity predicts that the planets should move in that way.Whereas under the "angel hypothesis" the planets could move in squares or triangles and you could still explain it with angels. The angel hypothesis predicts nothing. Whereas the theory of gravity predicts what we see.That makes the theory of gravity better. How would you put a satellite into geosynchronous orbit based on the "angels pushing" hypothesis?Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

You are very confused. The claim is not that the theory predicts the chromosome number, but that, given the chromosome number as data, the theory predicts the chromosome structure.Try reading this article on chromosome 2 for further details.We are not normally allowed to post links on this forum rather than explaining the matter in our own words, but as I wrote that article, those are my own words.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

And that should show you what is wrong with your calculation.Like any other species, we are unable to expand our numbers beyond our capacity to feed ourselves. Why would you expect that?I would expect the population to grow along with our ability to feed ourselves.