Again, since evolutionists deny everything we creationists say about evolution, then they deny their own theory and have no theory left. So far, evolutionists have denied:
1) The claim that monkeys bred human descendants
Of course we deny that which is blatantly incorrect like this first statement.
2) The claim that monkeys turned into human descendants
Yet, again, you are ignorant of the facts.
3) The claim that the fit survive because they also have said that no one can define "fit".
I furnished you with a quote from Charles Darwin himself and you still show no understanding of the concept nor have you even made mention of the quote.I shall reiterate it that you might dwell on what it means.
It is not the strongest of the species that survives, nor the most intelligent, but the one most responsive to change.
Do try to figure it out will you?
"The tragedy of life is not so much what men suffer, but rather what they miss."
Again, since evolutionists deny everything we creationists say about evolution, then they deny their own theory ...
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.
Since I claim that evolutionists claim that apes bred human descendants or turned into humans and you deny it, and you claim I'm wrong, then you have no theory left. So thanks for proving evolution a hoax, and by your own words. It can't get any better than that.
Dr.Adequate, calling other members a liar is a bit too extreme and not in the spirit of our Forum Guidelines. Sentences such as
Dr.Adequate writes:
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.
are a wee bit too disrespectful. The topic is summarized here:
Loudmouth writes:
In summary, ERV's are a potent test of common ancestry between species. Commonalities between ERV's in separate species is easily explained by simple heredity of a mutation. The chances of an ERV occurring at the same letter of DNA in separate genomes is extremely improbable due to the random nature of retrovirus insertion and the rarity of ERV production. The insinuation by some in the creationist movement that ERV's are the fingerprints of design is not supported, nor is it substantiated by any data. ERV's are random mutations and viral in origin.
Generally people tend to overlook the fact that ERV remnants are found in identical locations in the genome. When I look at the Creationist/ID interpretation of the data the responses range from vague ("Similarity doesn't mean relationship!") to the fact that they conveniently ignore the identical insertion loci fact ("Hey two animals can have the same mutation without being related!").
EVR remnants are one of the best and most direct evidences for common descent, and it's quite frustrating to have to deal with people who blatantly ignore evidence (though this could be from my bias as a geneticist. When it comes to C14 or other things at the very least Creationists try to rationalize and throw up a wall of tripe. You can tear down tripe, you can fight tripe, you can even stew it in delicious broth until tender.
But when it comes to ERVs you can't make much progress in dispute... you can't debate someone who's tuned themselves out from facts.
In any case, if anyone can provide direct sources on ERVs I'd be much obliged. I can look them up at the university networks on Monday.
I'm not sure I fully understand the significance of ERV's.. I read your intro post and I'm just checking to see if I got this right :
1. ERV's are viruses that have entered a hosts cells a long long time ago (say millions of years or longer).
2. These viruses have managed to attach themselves to the hosts DNA at a place.. This place is so unique that for another virus to attach to the same spot in its DNA, would be a gigantically low chance of around 0.001 %
3. through sexual reproduction, this virus has spreaded but through a mutation or other cause this virus has not been able to harm the host.
4. over generations, speciation occurs, new species form and the virus with them.
5. through analysing which species has that virus on that exact spot, scientists can determine which of the species have a close common ancestor together.. All the factors together make it nearly impossible to draw any other conclusion then these species having a common ancestor.
Am I right in all what I just said?
as for Refpunk.. You made up a version of the theory of evolution which is not the one used by scientists.. Of course scientists and evolutionists won't support it.. This doesn't mean the theory is bunk.. It means what you made up is bunk. Figure this. If I say god is a potato with wings and thats why I think it is silly for creationists to believe in him.. And you say thats not what god is. I would say that thats why god is fairytale because you can't support him.. Do you see how this sounds, I'm making up nonsense about something just like you did and then saying if you don't support it, then god is bunk just as you said that if we don't support your nonsense, evolution is bunk.
I've noticed that when I have brought up ERV evidence in other threads that it is ignored by creationists. I think ICANT was the only one to respond with the brief comment that he had a different interpretation of that evidence.
This thread is the place to show how that evidence does not prove evolution to be true. How do creationists dismiss ERV pattern evidence? If creationists are a no show on this thread, I'll take that as an admission that they have no counter argument and that evolution is true.
I've noticed that when I have brought up ERV evidence in other threads that it is ignored by creationists.
No surprises! I've brought them up on a number of occasions, and noticed the same thing. So, a couple of times I've made provocative claims, like saying that they conclusively prove our common ancestry with the apes (and monkeys) on their own without need for other evidence. No creationist has bitten.
Elsewhere (not on EvC), the best attempt I've heard of was a suggestion by a creationist that there are "hotspots" on the genome in which they insert themselves, but that's easily dealt with (I'll do it if someone takes up your challenge).
Here's a funny illustration of how the problems and implications of ERVs are essentially avoided.
Maybe it would be useful for us biology laymen as well as the creationists to hear the rigorous refutations to these various claims, spread out over time so that this thread can remain in the creationist's consciousness as something they apparently have to dismiss w/o rebuttal.
Creationists! Are there no Davids among you to slay this Philistine?
™ Version 4.0 Beta
