|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,788 Year: 4,045/9,624 Month: 916/974 Week: 243/286 Day: 4/46 Hour: 0/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: ERV's: Evidence of Common Ancestory | |||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 311 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
LOL. Again, claiming there were glaciers is as much science fiction as claiming that the world was once covered with lava. It's all speculation that comes from looking at a piece of ground, then claiming that the whole ground was once that way. In fact, that's how scientists make up reality. That's how they speculate how the world was formed and anything else that happened before there were any witnesses. I saw a show on the Discovery Science Channel where one guy was playing with a baloon filled with salt and watched how that salt settled, then claimed, "that's how the world was formed!" And that's how scientists (it's importnant that they call themselves scientists so people will listen to them)have formulated: 1) That apes turned into humans2) How the world was formed 3) That the world was covered in ice 4) That if there's life on Mars, that means there were Martians (as some "scientists" now claim. So again,since that's how science fiction writers come up with their plots, then that's called science fiction, not science. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 311 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
That's no more evidence of common descent than looking at a woman who looks like my aunt then claiming that she's a close relative of my aunt. That's making imaginary connections where none exist. Evidence is OBERSVABLE PHENOMENA, not imaginary connections. And since an ape has never been witnessed giving birth to a human or anything resembling a human since man has walked the earth, then evolution is not observable phenomena, only imaginary connections. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 311 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Sorry, but since the OP's scenario doesn't happen in real life ... Wrong.
Forensics deals in observable phenomena, not imaginary scenarios. Forensic science deduces the unobserved from the observed.
And since it's never been observed that an animal's DNA has ever been inserted into a human and produced a half-man, half beast, then evolution is a fairy tale .... 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".
which is why it's still only called a theory. 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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 311 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
I know exactly what evolutionary biology endorses ... 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 311 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Sorry but the "you don't understand evolution" argument which every single Christian hears from evolutionists won't work ... 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.
First it presupposes that only the fit survive ... 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.
Secondly, those who survive in a species DO NOT CHANGE INTO A NEW SPECIES. They never have and never will. And yet the origin of new species has frequently been observed, so this looks like another silly made-up lie.
Evolutionists are actually claiming that genes are makineg decisions to change ... 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.
So the probelem is, that since evolutionists deny every statement we make about evolution ... 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.
they end up denying their own theory 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.
and have no theory left. And since the theory of evolution is imagainary 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?
one will get as many different definitions of evolution as there are people who tell them. So the theory is a hoax and nothing more. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 311 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
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. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 311 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
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... You are a liar. No-one has denied this.
... then you have no theory left ... Well, this lie overlooks the fact that we still have the theory of evolution, which is correct.
So thanks for proving evolution a hoax, and by your own words. You are a liar, which is why you cannot quote anyone "proving" that "evolution is a hoax" in their "own words".
It can't get any better than that. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 311 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Errr... I am actually quite new to ERVs. I hear you evolutionists loud and clear - ERVs prove common ancestry between apes and human. Errr... that proves the Evolution Theory, right? But how does that prove evolution to be true? Any suggestion how did apes actually descended to be human? 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 311 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Dr Adequate said: "And the ERVs and the other evidence are the proof that evolution occured." Err...I kind of disagree. ERVs might be evidence that evolution had occurred Er ... that wouldn't be disagreement.
but that does not tell you HOW evolution had occurred. No, the theory of evolution does that. Or the fossil record does that, depending on exactly what you mean by "how" in this context.
I am thinking along the line that God might have used the same 'mold' to create both apes and human. I thought it'd be a silly God to have created human from scratch. Why not borrow a bit of this and a bit of that from apes? Just my wild guess. But if true, won't this be an explanation why apes and human share many common ERVs? If true, then ERVs is not even a proof that evolution had occurred. 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:
The Fllod is not a myth, scientific evidence or not. God could have erased all the scientific evidence if He wanted to, because He is God! 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 311 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
I believe that is part and parcel of lifeforms at such a microscopic level. Why do you believe that?
There are useful ERVs and 'useless' ERVs are unavoidable. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 311 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
There seems to be an assumption that if God created something it must be useful. 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.
At an atomic level, particles are wave-like. That's the way things are, governed by law of Physics. Perhaps viruses are physic's equivalent of atoms in micro-biology. There is always unavoidable elements of unpredictability and randomness associated with organisms of that magnitude. (Just my unorganised thought). 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.
I'm sure Shalamabobbi scoffs at suggestion that human history is only 6,000 years old. I notice numerous articles suggesting human history is 6.3 million years old. So to compromise, let me propose for argument sake that human history is only 10,000 years old. Why 10,000 years? Partly because I believe in creationism. But mainly because I believe humans cannot possibly take much longer than that to evolve a modern society. (Got to love the word 'evolve'). To me this is common-sense logic Put it this way - if human existence is 6.3 million years ... 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.
Another explanation is of course chimps never descended to human but merely share a common ancestor. That's exactly what is being claimed. No-one in the entire universe claims that humans are descended from chimps.
Which leads me to a puzzle - If chimps were picking up ERVs along geological time scale then it is nearly impossible for all chimps to have exactly the same 279 'new' ERVs today. Imagine periodically spreading a new ERV among the entire chimp population, how much time will that take? 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 311 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Partly because I believe in creationism [...] Therefore unless/until proven wrong, my thinking is -- An old earth ... 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:
That was the ONLY thing that was said. No great arguments, no teaching, no nothing. What it did- was make me want to prove him wrong. I hit the books. I learned about evolution- and proved him right. I was wrong. I had had many misconceptions. Well, hit the books. You're wrong. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 311 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
But should creationists explain ERVs in the first place? 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 311 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
This logic is frauded. Did common ancestry not predicted beforehand that it should have been 42 chromosomes with fusion of four chromosomes? Why not...errr...because we knew the results would contradict the prediction? 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 311 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Could Homo Sapiens have taken 400000 years to develop modern brainy brain? Assuming linear improvement in brain over time, then 20000 years ago the brain of Homo Sapiens should have improved to 95% of modern human brain. By then they ought to be aware of forming communities and avoid killing each other for food. I calculated the population over 20000 years, using the same low growth rate. I got a staggering multiples of trillions, (to be exact: 452,335,444,804,760,000) There is a theory, (Toba catastrophe theory) that all humans alive today are descended from a very small population, perhaps between 1,000 to 10,000 breeding pairs about 70,000 years ago. Still, my calculation would produce an unimaginably large figures with that data. 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.
0,000 years do not make sense as I would assume that population growth is often greatest where humans are least educated, as all early humans would be Why would you expect that? I would expect the population to grow along with our ability to feed ourselves.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024