Most convincing evidence for evolutionary theory

quote:

---

petermc
I too was a creationist although in a token way because I always smelled a rat.
Now, I think the inheritance of retroviruses and pseudo genes in the upper primates (including man) is the most graphic and compelling evidence for evolution

---

Retroviruses: are these limited to the 3rd rock from the sun - and why so?

I want to point out to you IaJ that you are playing in the science threads. You have done a very poor job of sticking to the rules so far.Here is what you must do or you will no longer be posting in the science threads:
1) stick to the topic. (you post 61 is not on topic here)
2) supply evidence for assertions you make. You have done none of that in your posts in the "Bible: Accuracy and Inerrancy" thread which is also under the science threads.
3) Do not post nonsense that you think sounds ever so clever. This post 61 is silly. Stop it!If you clutter up the threads with junk you will be restricted to the non science threads.

sorry, just had to. You do realize, of course, that a huge chunk of research is about gathering evidence, right? In other words, you're asking us to "evidence" something before gathering the evidence to do the "evidencing". Talk about a contradiction.The other thing: Um, what? To begin with, the ToE describes what we see on Earth (as to the observed change in species over time, that is). And evolution itself is a fact--we witness species changing over time. The Theory merely explains how those changes happen. If you'll notice, it has nothing to do with "micro" or "macro" evolution.Essentially, what you're asking is nonsense. That, or is stemming from ignorance.And you'll notice that a lot of people in physics are discussing potential phenomenons that we're not entirely sure are right (one of the board physicists can correct me where necessary). So the ability to discuss phenomenon has no relation to whether or not it exists in reality. Actually, I'm an evolutionist who has admitted he is wrong where I am wrong. And if there is something wrong in the ToE that's found out, you can bet that most evolutionists, upon analyzing the evidence and discovering that yes, indeed, the ToE is wrong or incomplete, we'll admit it. That is, after all, how science progresses. If no one in the sciences ever admitted that something was incorrect, it's likely we might still think the solar system (and the universe) revolves around the sun, that the tectonic plates don't move, that ether does exist, that lamarkian evolution is true, that the earth is 6,000ish years old, you get the idea.Oh, and I swear this is the last thing. You have another contradiction: bolding mine So, in other words, you're saying that most important part of evidencing Evolution comes from the conclusions drawn from the minute research conducted, right? That's in total contradiction to the manipulative and unsustained premises for evidencing claims. As I said earlier, research is largely about collecting evidence.And since when did the Taliban have a monopoly on dogma? I hope I don't have to remind you that every religion has its own dogma. And the accusation of a "Talibinic dogma" is very close to the fallacious agurmentum ad Nazium (an attack on the other side in a debate by linking them to Nazism). All you've done is changed the bogey-man from Nazism and Hitler to the Taliban. Good job. With this fallacy, you're whole argument is out. In another thread, you were claiming to teach us about logic. If you're so good at logic, you'll see why this fallacy and your other contradictions invalidate your argument.

So, you have no argument against evolution, and you say that there are certain questions you need clearing up before you even know what it is.And yet despite this, you feel warranted to unleash a hateful tirade at those who support it.Perhaps you should find out what it is first, and why people support it. This is like asking: "Is the color green an integer? Is it odd or even?" No, evolution is not a "constant", as that term is used in scientific discourse. If you don't know what "constant" means, I suggest that you look it up at the same time you look up "evolution". Quite so. This is why I have suggested repeatedly that you should try to speak the same language as everyone else does. Round here, we favor English.

quote:

---

adminosey:

​

1) stick to the topic. (you post 61 is not on topic here)

---

Re: "Retroviruses: are these limited to the 3rd rock from the sun - and why so?"Obviously, contesting darwin's cross-specie theory is not an easy task. I felt, one way to respond to retroviruses as evidence, is to challenge adaptation as a constant by its limitations. That's all #61 asks.

Hi IamJoseph,If you can offer criticisms that are actually about evolution instead of about evolutionists, we will attempt to respond.This is a good question: As has already been noted by someone else in an earlier message, evolution isn't a "constant" in the way we normally use the term, like pi or e or Planck's constant or Avogadro's number. But the principles of evolution could be said to be constant in that they should be the same everywhere throughout the universe. That's because the processes of evolution obey physical laws, and physical laws are the same everywhere throughout the universe.--Percy

quote:

---

kuresu:

​

You do realize, of course, that a huge chunk of research is about gathering evidence, right? In other words, you're asking us to "evidence" something before gathering the evidence to do the "evidencing". Talk about a contradiction.

---

Its not about research but what conclusions are made from it I am debating. My arguement is not about adaptation either, but whether this is subsequent to a host seed or external factors such as a stump or root from millions of years ago. How else does one debate against cross-specie?

quote:

---

Um, what? To begin with, the ToE describes what we see on Earth (as to the observed change in species over time, that is).

---

What does that mean: that evolution is not a universal phenomenon, or is that a qualified statement?

quote:

---

And evolution itself is a fact--we witness species changing over time. The Theory merely explains how those changes happen. If you'll notice, it has nothing to do with "micro" or "macro" evolution.

---

Changes, common to everything, and cross-species, are not obvious derivitive equations. The snap-shots of imprints do not automatically connect A with Z: its the conclusions drawn from the research which is my issue.

quote:

---

Essentially, what you're asking is nonsense. That, or is stemming from ignorance.

---

How so - if adaptation is not seen outside earth, it has definitive impacts and limitations here - and not because no life is seen elsewhere. Its like gravity posited exclusively for earth, but not seen around other space bodies.

quote:

---

Actually, I'm an evolutionist who has admitted he is wrong where I am wrong. And if there is something wrong in the ToE that's found out, you can bet that most evolutionists, upon analyzing the evidence and discovering that yes, indeed, the ToE is wrong or incomplete, we'll admit it. That is, after all, how science progresses. If no one in the sciences ever admitted that something was incorrect, it's likely we might still think the solar system (and the universe) revolves around the sun, that the tectonic plates don't move, that ether does exist, that lamarkian evolution is true, that the earth is 6,000ish years old, you get the idea.

---

Disagree. You are admitting a variance within the framework of ToE, as opposed rejecting the crucial and stand-out feature of cross-specie - which in effect is a negation of the fulcrum factor of ToE. 6000 years old: this is a main ridiculing tool of would-be evolutionists, but let's hope you don't read darwin the same way as you do Genesis!

quote:

---

So, in other words, you're saying that most important part of evidencing Evolution comes from the conclusions drawn from the minute research conducted, right? That's in total contradiction to the manipulative and unsustained premises for evidencing claims. As I said earlier, research is largely about collecting evidence.

---

Disagree. Wrong conclusions can result from wrong readings of the researched evidence. Research is a technicality - the important part is what is concluded from it. Research can indicate growth and elevation (aka Adaptation), within a grouping of life forms; it may not apply outside that grouping. I understand your point, other scientists can question the ligitimacy of wrongfully extending adaptation to a cross-specie level if it is not justified - and this is occuring, but the debate is from a small sector to an entrenched worldly mindset. I also question your use of 'fact' for the 'theory' of Darwin's evolution: should there be no debating the issue anymore?

quote:

---

And since when did the Taliban have a monopoly on dogma? I hope I don't have to remind you that every religion has its own dogma. And the accusation of a "Talibinic dogma" is very close to the fallacious agurmentum ad Nazium (an attack on the other side in a debate by linking them to Nazism). All you've done is changed the bogey-man from Nazism and Hitler to the Taliban. Good job. With this fallacy, you're whole argument is out. In another thread, you were claiming to teach us about logic. If you're so good at logic, you'll see why this fallacy and your other contradictions invalidate your argument.

---

No, I did not refer to nazism, but to today's most prominant dogma pervasive in current news. See what I mean about conclusions?

quote:

---

percy:
If you can offer criticisms that are actually about evolution instead of about evolutionists, we will attempt to respond.

​

This is a good question:

​

IamJoseph writes:
Q 1: Is Evolution a verified 'constant' - and is this a universal constant, or a localised one which effects only one planet?

​

As has already been noted by someone else in an earlier message, evolution isn't a "constant" in the way we normally use the term, like pi or e or Planck's constant or Avogadro's number. But the principles of evolution could be said to be constant in that they should be the same everywhere throughout the universe. That's because the processes of evolution obey physical laws, and physical laws are the same everywhere throughout the universe.

---

I appreciate your response - most evolutionists not like that question. With your response, it is not about comparisons with pi, etc. But if there is any inference that cross-specie is a result of some underlying laws - one way to test this is to look outside earth. What factors would allow adaptation to prevail or not prevail outside of earth? Here, life itself can be sited, namely adaptation is seen only where life exists. Other factors will include critical conditions. But both those reasons are contradictory: life's emergence is totally dependent upon adaptation, and adaptation has no meaning if it is limited to only the earth's critical conditions but not other critical conditions.These issues are not prevalent in life repro and all successive transmissions being subject to the host seed - here adaptation within a grouping is evidenced and appears a universal constant free from the issues nominated in darwin's cross-specie conclusions. The issue of a theory not seen as a universal constant is damaging; such issues are being debated quite recently only.

quote:

---

...contesting darwin's cross-specie theory is not an easy task...

---

FYI, the singular form of the word "species" is "species", not "specie".

Hi IamJoseph,I'm having a lot of trouble understanding this message. Is English a 2nd language for you? If so, then I'll go back and read it a few more times and see if I can get it, but otherwise could you rephrase what you said a bit more clearly? I didn't understand what you were saying was contradictory in the 1st paragraph. A term I didn't understand in the 2nd paragraph were "host seed." But for the most part it was just an overall inability to tell what you were specifically objecting to.Whatever it is you're taking issue with, I can only reiterate that the principles of evolution apply everywhere throughout the universe because known physical laws apply everywhere throughout the universe, and at the lowest levels evolution is just matter and energy following known physical laws. Descent with modification combined with natural selection is a very powerful process for adaptation.--Percy

I think in the broadest terms possible it is correct to say that evolution will take place wherever there is replication with modification and the opportunity to adapt to changes in the environment external to the replicating entity that affect the ability of modified replicas to themselves replicate.The most obvious observable example we have of these mechanisms is life on Earth.
There is no reason whatsoever however to think that evolution is restricted to life or to this planet.Anything that replicates with modification and has the opportunity to adapt in such a way as to make some modifications more successful at replicating than others will lead to evolution.Is that universal enough?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Joseph from reading your last few posts I don't think you are understanding the importance of "retroviruses" as a compelling evidence of past evolutionary action.Endogenous Retrovirus DNA is a subject that I recently became aware of myself. I don't have much formal education in biology, so I had to slog through the jargon to understand, but it was worth it and I am continuing to study this issue.Let me try to explain, and anyone with more background please correct me where I error.In simple terms, Endogenous Retrovirus DNA are fossilized molecular relics of far distant infections of a retrovirus that inserted its DNA into a germ line cell. Retroviruses are viruses that convert its own RNA into DNA and then used the cell's existing DNA->RNA->Protein machinery to reproduce itself. The term "retro" comes from the fact that this class of viruses convert its RNA into DNA which is the reverse of the normal transcription form DNA -> RNA. Other viruses just take the short cut and insert their RNA into the RNA->protein conversion process. The exact details are complex but overall implications are profound so let me continue.Typically retroviruses infect soma cells, but on occasion they will effect a germ line cell and the inserted DNA gets swept away in the organism reproduction process. For a variety of reasons this inserted virus DNA typically does not cause an infection in the organism progeny. However, and this is important, when the inserted DNA information finds its way into the replication process it becomes preserved.Interestingly bits of information encoded in DNA can have durability that exceeds that of mountains and solid rock. That is, the information becomes renewed in each subsequent reproduction cycle, and if replication is successful, this information can outlasted continents, as the bit of information, useful or not, becomes preserved in subsequent related species.By examining the DNA code of organisms, the finger prints of these infections can be identified because of their very unique signature. In addition, to the signature the *location* within the genome is noted. Now when these finger prints are looked for in the genomes of related species they can be found in the very same locations!As an example, there are many many identified Endogenous Retrovirus DNA in humans and our closest living relatives Chimpanzees. To a less extent we and Chimps, share Endogenous Retrovirus DNA with other old world primates in exactly the same hierarchy, that other lines of reasoning would indicate. And as expected we share even fewer Endogenous Retrovirus DNA with the new world primates, which are more distantly related to humans, Chimps and old world primates.This is truly a stunning find and a powerful tool to prove and detect common ancestry!As a very simple example, if a teacher was trying to detect plagiarisms in a term paper and if she finds a grammatical error in a paper and she recognizes that this error exists in some original work she could become quite confident that this student copied the original work since the probability of such an error occurring independently is very great. Edited by iceage, : No reason given.Edited by iceage, : No reason given.

Thanks iceage thats a terrific explanation of what I had introduced as a "most convincing argument". The explanatory power of the inheritance of the retroviruses and the odds against there being shared locations in separate species are irrefutable. I saw somewhere the odds against shared locations on the DNA and they were astronomical. If anyone has that info to hand it would be welcome.
So, if it's all about "interpretation", what better explanation would a creationist offer?

quote
"Obviously, contesting darwin's cross-specie theory is not an easy task".IaJ, If you want to respond to retroviruses as evidence, first know what they are. Second provide a better explanation for them than speciation. It will not help trying to find some other angle to debate.

quote:

---

icege

​

As an example, there are many many identified Endogenous Retrovirus DNA in humans and our closest living relatives Chimpanzees. To a less extent we and Chimps, share Endogenous Retrovirus DNA with other old world primates in exactly the same hierarchy, that other lines of reasoning would indicate. And as expected we share even fewer Endogenous Retrovirus DNA with the new world primates, which are more distantly related to humans, Chimps and old world primates.

​

This is truly a stunning find and a powerful tool to prove and detect common ancestry!

​

As a very simple example, if a teacher was trying to detect plagiarisms in a term paper and if she finds a grammatical error in a paper and she recognizes that this error exists in some original work she could become quite confident that this student copied the original work since the probability of such an error occurring independently is very great.

---

Ice, the conclusion does not fit the research here. Let me point out the glitch in your analogy. Replace the exam paper 'error', with say a 'comma' being common in the two papers, but not necessarilly in the same equal locations. Would you still conclude as before? Of coz not!Now see that a certain virus with a specific signature (reverse mode rna-dna action), attacked numerous life forms (different species)- and let us assume also that the 'retrovirus' strand on all life forms is from an equivalent same source and period: would you still conclude that cross-species is proof positive here? No you cannot when seen in this perspective, anymore than deeming a 'hair' folicle on two different animals as proof. That a virus is embedded in dna, and a hair on the skin, does not change the principle of the logic - the equity of its spacetime does not prove a direct cross-specie subsequence. The issue becomes more encumbent when we are told this virus imprint remains intact - which means it is still around now, and can attack an oak tree or a zebra, and perhaps even some food left open in a kitchen table.It may sound arrogant to question findings by the scientific community's minds and determinations, but these kind of 'poor' logic in conclusions are rampant, and a constant source of disputations in the science fields. Research and the conclusions derived by science is not always in sync; chess players make poor war generals.There is a huge mindset today which deems the odds for life outside the earth as very 'positive'. One of the reasons sited is the vastness and variety of the universe. But this is poor maths: the vastness and variety actually negate the odds and render the equation as 'NEGATIVE' for life out there! This is true to the extent we can safely conclude the probability of life outside earth is close to nil: the maths says so.Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.