Why is it VERSUS?

--No more responses or questions to mike the wiz please, please go back to the issue of the topic in question. --(I am not entertaining these request of me anymore like I did in the past. Soory - just not stupid enough to flog that horse.)

I am not that much at odds with your post. I have always held that creation isn't science, only deals with science in some manner.The truth, for me, is that evolution is a step too far and does not always bare relevance to science. I think evolution, as a theory, itself should not be taught, that the student can decide for themselves.Sure - teach the facts, natural selection, mutations, even speciation, but to then apply a common ancestor to humans is not factual, IMO.The facts can go no further than tracing all humanity to two individuals. Now if you can perform an experiment showing macro-evolution, as operational science, fair enough, but the students should be told that you do not have to infer molecules-to-man evolution simply because a bacteria can adapt. That is an assertion of belief in the powers of natural processes.For me, the issue of origins should be thrown out of science altogether. It is too contentious, not everybody is willing to accept the ToE, and scientists aren't always evolutionist.I think telling the students about design and creation, as an alternative, even if they are told in religious-class, is atleast an honest pursuit.Kind regards.

It is factual. The DNA evidence makes it factual, such as the ERV evidence:Just a moment...I would be more than happy to discuss the specifics of this paper in another thread. However, it is simply not true that common ancestry is non-factual.Hence the versus. The ID/creationist crowd wants to throw the facts out and obscure the science which is further exemplified in this statement: The science is not contentious. The science is not unclear. The scientific consensus is based on very clear facts. ID proponents want to twist and hide these facts. It is not about improving science education. It is about doing away with science education altogether.

I will read all of the link tomorrow.The thing is, I am not mentioning what I know through my own findings. There are fallacious assumptions behind origins that involve the God of the gaps fallacy, and parsimony.The truth is that there is no "proof", in this sense. Any paper you can produce will have a set of inferences that will not necessarily lead to a sound inference and a solid syllogism.For my own complicated reasons, not what people have told me, I do not agree with inferences pertaining to macro-evolution and DNA, which I knew you would mention because of things like pseudo genes, and correlations between chimps etc... does not strike us as solid reasoning.Thanks. (I will read the paper to the best of my ability, but the point is it doesn't matter if, all of the scientists say it is proven, I do not believe a person is obliged to agree with that conclusion because scientific values give me the right to not agree with WHATEVER your claim or conclusion is, no matter how absolutely solid it is, and however utterly understood by top scientists.)

Can you now, in the opening line, see the first mistake, from the point of view of a logical evaluation?"the proviral remnants of ancient viral infections of the primate lineage"That is a conclusion right there. So first of all, not an encouraging opener. Secondly, I can tell you I have read about HERVs before, and the other potential explanations given in places such as AIG.

Edit; I have read more sources, I was rusty concerning junk DNA.Logically there is only one way to "prove" macro-evolution, and that is to show a new morphological structure under operational science, such as an experiment with fruit flies or bacteria.For logical reasons you SHOULD know of, direct proof is that an organism that should be able to evolve, because of rapid-reproduction, should be shown to have new morphologies leading to a new form of life.That's pretty much my opinion, the ERVs and HERVs do not strike me as anything other than a potential correlation that would support phylogentics. i.e Logically although a common ancestor would answer the problem, it is clear that a common designer could also, especially since there has been ignorance about ERVs in that they do actually have function. It is not always clear as to why a designer would place them there, but I suspect vestigial organs or pseudogenes to be prematurely judged as useless leftovers of evolution.In short, very far from proof, but evidence that does favour an evolutionary lineage, to a degree.Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.

Yeah sure, that would be one form of natural designer.But what is it about nature itself that doesn't allow it to design as well? But it did design the ferraris. The Italian designer was born from two parents who had sex, fertilized an egg, carried said egg to full term, then gave birth to it.Human beings are part of nature, are they not? I believe it can do all of those things, but there is a process.First you need a big bang. Then you need stars to form. Then you need galaxies to form and the universe to cool down. Then you need stars to go supernovea to create the rest of the elements after hydrogen and helium. Then you need solar systems to form, planets to form with the essential elements, and one of those planets to be at the precise distance from it's host star. Then you need abiogenesis, which should lead to evolution. Then you need a long evolutionary process from single cell to multi-cellular life. Then you need one of these multi-cellular organisms to evolve enough intelligence to grasp the concept of automotive engineering, knife making, and fork making and use. Then you get the ferrari, the knife, the fork, etc.Skip anyone of these steps, and none of those things get created. Naturally. What was so unnatural about the World Cup? I know you brits want to believe Spain had supernatural power, but trust me, they were all human beings.- OniEdited by onifre, : No reason given.Edited by onifre, : No reason given.

Why is it that scientists from all over the world, from different cultures and practicing different religions, accept the evidence from, first, the fossils and, more recently, genetics?And why is it that those few who reject this evidence are always fundamentalists?Hmmmm. Makes one wonder, it do.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Would you be happier with "the proviral remnants of ancient viral infections of their lineage?" Are there still unacceptable conclusions in that statement?

OK, try: "what looks in every way exactly like the proviral remnants of ancient viral infections of the primate lineage". Obviously the language of scientists reflects what they know to be true.If you doubted the existence of elephants, I should tell you that I have seen several elephants. And, yes, that is conclusory language. What I would say if you objected to this manner of speaking is that I have often experienced sense-data which were entirely consistent with the theory that I was looking at an elephant.Better?Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

And the truth, for scientists, is that you are dead wrong. Quite so --- they should be taught the actual reasons why it is inferred, rather than being presented with a witless strawman invented by creationists.

But you are (perhaps unwittingly) being untruthful.It is not your eyes that cause you to believe in creationist nonsense.Your eyes just tell you that birds fly gracefully; just as they tell you that snowflakes are beautiful, that "fairy rings" are circular, and that the Giant's Causeway is regular.It is your dogma that tells you that you should ascribe the flight of birds to an invisible creator without ascribing snowflakes to Jack Frost, fairy rings to fairies, or the Giant's Causeway to giants.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

If you genuinely know that little about the fossil record, the scientific method, and the Cambrian explosion, maybe these are subjects that we could take up on another thread.I feel we are in danger of clogging this one with your nonsense. The topic is not, after all: "What mike the wiz doesn't know about science, evolution, fossils, genetics, logic, and the difference between what he sees and his false beliefs about what he sees."

I will start a new thread to deal with the ERV paper in the next couple of days. I hope that you will participate. The specifics of the evidence is off topic and not what I want to talk about in this thread. I would rather talk about the approach to evaluating the evidence with ERV's only serving as an example. What I wish to show is that ID/creationism is a process by which the scientific method is thrown out. IMO, this is what leads to contentious discussions.Let's compare ERV's to fingerprints at a crime scene. When investigators see swirly patterns of oil that pick up fine dust at the scene of the crime they conclude that these swirly marks were left there by a finger. These swirls are the right size and they match the expected patterns that one sees on fingertips. Most sane people would call this evidence that a finger was once at that spot. However, you would seem to argue, via your objections to ERV's, that one can not assume that. It is also possible that the creator of the fingerprints copied the design and produced the swirly oil patterns at the crime scene. Even more, since no one observed the suspect leaving the fingerprints at the crime scene is much more probable that a deity was involved.Imagine another scenario where a woman is suing a man for paternity. The DNA results come back and the man's DNA matches the baby's DNA. Would the court take the man seriously if he said that the evidence could also indicate that God created the child since common DNA points to a common designer? Therefore, the evidence is not "proof" of anything? If you were on a jury, how would you rule?This is the nonsense that we have to endure. It is frustrating, to say the least. The conclusion that ERV's are the product of retroviral insertion is as solid as fingerprints at a crime scene, and yet the ID mindset will not allow such evidence to even be considered. They really think these insane arguments actually hold water. I guess this is what happens when you start with the conclusion and are forced to accept or reject the evidence based on this dogmatically held conclusion.With ERV's we have flanking viral promoters with several viral genes between, including capsid proteins, reverse polymerases, integrases, etc. We also know that retroviruses insert into the genome. How could one not conclude that ERV's are the product of viral insertion? For the same reasons that the swirls of oil are not from a person's fingertip? For the same reasons that DNA testing is an invalid test for paternity? Is all of this evidence thrown out because you can come up with a story about magical poofing and supernatural deities? I appreciate the degree of honesty, but your arguments are tortured.

You say that after four consecutive rants at me. Please Dr Inadequate - just get over me already.