|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 66 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,482 Year: 3,739/9,624 Month: 610/974 Week: 223/276 Day: 63/34 Hour: 0/2 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 1427 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Dogs will be Dogs will be ??? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RickJB Member (Idle past 5012 days) Posts: 917 From: London, UK Joined: |
Beretta writes: Junk’ DNA is thought by evolutionists to be useless DNA leftover from past evolutionary permutations.Unfortunately 'thought' speaks of preconceptions and prejudice as always. But now many of the DNA sequences formerly relegated to the junk pile have begun to obtain new respect for their role in genome structure and function, gene regulation and rapid speciation. Blah, blah, blah. Lots of handwaving but no content. How do you account for the correlation of ERV positions in the DNA of humans and apes?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Beretta Member (Idle past 5619 days) Posts: 422 From: South Africa Joined: |
Blah, blah, blah. Lots of handwaving but no content. Nothing you'd want to look at in any case.
How do you account for the correlation of ERV positions in the DNA of humans and apes? There are lots of correlations - we have a lot of morphological similarities; similarity leads to similar recipes for structure; how about our recipes have similarities? The point is that the endogenous retrovirus story is far from proven to be fact; it's an assumption based upon an original assumption that evolution has happened.You're building your house on the sand and compounding the error.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Wounded King Member Posts: 4149 From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA Joined: |
similarity leads to similar recipes for structure; how about our recipes have similarities? So what are the similarities between a retrovirus, a human and a chimpanzee that mean they show such highly similar recipes in so many instances? TTFN, WK
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RickJB Member (Idle past 5012 days) Posts: 917 From: London, UK Joined: |
Beretta writes: There are lots of correlations - we have a lot of morphological similarities; similarity leads to similar recipes for structure; how about our recipes have similarities? Thing is, your "recipe" accurately reflects evolutionary change! We share many ERVs with creatures with whom we have a recent common ancestor (primates), whilst sharing far fewer with rodents, for example. The further back in time the common ancestor, the fewer ERV correlations. Plotting the occurence of ERVs gives a very clear evolutionary roadmap. Your "recipe" points squarely at evolution....
Beretta writes: The point is that the endogenous retrovirus story is far from proven to be fact; it's an assumption based upon an original assumption that evolution has happened. No, it's an observation made long after the ToE was proposed. ERVs exist. They are a fact. They are entirely consistent with the ToE. Furthermore, you have yet to share your ideas on a design hypothesis, so how about addressing your own assumptions? Edited by RickJB, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Agobot Member (Idle past 5552 days) Posts: 786 Joined: |
Agobot writes: You literally annihilated the christian faith with this video Bluegenes writes: I don't agree with you, at all. You mean you killed their faith, not annihilated it, right? Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 306 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Learn the difference between an assumption and a prediction.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 306 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Junk’ DNA is thought by evolutionists to be useless DNA leftover from past evolutionary permutations.Unfortunately 'thought' speaks of preconceptions and prejudice as always. But now many of the DNA sequences formerly relegated to the junk pile have begun to obtain new respect for their role in genome structure and function, gene regulation and rapid speciation. That is why with evolution "it is written and rewritten and rewritten" and every time there is an accompanying prejudice that leads to foolish errors. Doubtless there may be some 'junk' in the DNA but if there is a superintelligent creator than we start with the position that the majority of the DNA, that which is not mutated and damaged,was created with a function. Evolutionists tend to start with the prejudice that if they don't know the function of something then it must be a useless vestige of something in evolutionary history -because they know that evolution happened. This rewriting of history is no more plausible than other creationist attempts to do the same thing. The fact is that it is of course scientists, i.e. evolutionists, who spent a great deal of time and effort elucidating the function of noncoding DNA. After evolutionists had spent a few decades explaining the functions of these regions to (amongst others) creationists who spent their time sitting on their asses doing no science and whining about it, creationists managed to understand the information that evolutionists had spoon-fed them. At this point, creationists inbvented a new lie. They started to pretend that it was evolutionist dogma that all non-coding DNA was "junk", and that the facts that evolutionists had, in reality, spoon-fed you, contradicted this imaginary dogma. Your use of the word "now" is particularly revealling. As so often with creationists, you date these discoveries not from when they were made by evolutionists, but from the point at which creationists learned to lie about them. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluegenes Member (Idle past 2499 days) Posts: 3119 From: U.K. Joined: |
Agobot writes: You mean you killed their faith, not annihilated it, right? No. I meant that there are many interpretations of Christianity, and there are many Christians who believe that we descend from other animals, and have no problems with the realities exposed by science. But we're off topic here, and I think a thread on ERVs, chromosome 2, and other genetic evidence for common descent is needed.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1427 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
People, we seem to be wandered far from the topic: dogs, evolution of dogs into the varieties we know, and how that compares to evolution in other organisms.
The ultimate goal is to show that the evolution of dogs is not limited by creationist myth conceptions, but can evolve into something that we would call something else. Enjoy.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Beretta Member (Idle past 5619 days) Posts: 422 From: South Africa Joined: |
The fact is that it is of course scientists, i.e. evolutionists, who spent a great deal of time and effort elucidating the function of noncoding DNA....whining...sitting on their asses ....spoon-fed....lying Rationality and truth are not synonymous with evolutionist and science.The boat is sinking.If God created the world, then you are the one that is deluded. You can make up as many wonderful scientific stories as you want about natural causes creating design by chance and selection but you are unfortunately deceiving yourself -worse than that, you are deceiving others.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Beretta Member (Idle past 5619 days) Posts: 422 From: South Africa Joined: |
Plotting the occurence of ERVs gives a very clear evolutionary roadmap. Your "recipe" points squarely at evolution. You sure do paint a pretty picture of absolute clarity - pity that molecular phylogenies compared with morphological assumptions come up with so many contradictory 'trees'of life.There is nothing clear about ERV's and if you imagine that it is clear then what is it clarifying - the morphological supposed relationships or the molecular supposed relationships?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 306 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Not only did I post a reply here, but I then edited it slightly. And now it's vanished, this is most odd. Let's try again.
Rationality and truth are not synonymous with evolutionist and science. They do seem to have been pretty much walking hand-in-hand for the last 150 years or so, which is why, for example, the functions of non-coding DNA were not discovered by the non-rational, untruthful, unscientific creationists at the ICR or the DI.
The boat is sinking. But this isn't actually true, is it? It is, however, the lie that creationists have been reciting to themselves for the past 150 years or so.
The Imminent Demise of Evolution: The Longest Running Falsehood in Creationism The myth that any moment now you guys will triumph has literally been passed down from generation to generation. I might ask at what point creationists will realise that this is stupid, but the question would be purely rhetorical. You won't.
If God created the world, then you are the one that is deluded. "If ifs and buts were candy and nuts ..."
You can make up as many wonderful scientific stories as you want about natural causes creating design by chance and selection ... Better yet, we can prove 'em!
... but you are unfortunately deceiving yourself -worse than that, you are deceiving others. And yet it is my posts that are factually accurate. It seems that in the creationist Bizarro World you inhabit, I "deceive" people by telling the truth, whereas you enlighten them by reciting witless creationist nonsense, don't you, Mr "all Earth's creatures have 2 eyes"? Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RickJB Member (Idle past 5012 days) Posts: 917 From: London, UK Joined: |
Beretta writes: Pity that molecular phylogenies compared with morphological assumptions come up with so many contradictory 'trees' of life. Examples? Morphology is naturally limited to structural appearance. Similar traits can and do and arise independently. The existence of so-called "cyptic species" and the process of convergent evolution mean that a reliance on morphology alone can not always give a clear picture. The study of DNA has helped to solve this. The ability to study DNA gives biologists a tool to use alongside morphology, in the same way as a capenter uses a router to cut a hole and then sandpaper to make finer adjustments. Neither Morphology or the study of DNA contradict the ToE. Edited by RickJB, : Link added.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 306 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
You sure do paint a pretty picture of absolute clarity - pity that molecular phylogenies compared with morphological assumptions come up with so many contradictory 'trees'of life. Damn, if only you had a valid point. Back in the real world, morphology and the fossil record put crocodiles closer to birds than to Komodo dragons. And molecular phylogeny confirmed it. In the real world, morphology and the fossil record put coelacanths closer to giraffes than to codfish. And molecular phylogeny confirmed it. Creationism, of course, could and did predict no such thing. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminNosy Administrator Posts: 4754 From: Vancouver, BC, Canada Joined: |
As RAZD has pleaded please return to the topic at hand so we don't have to close this for awhile.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024