Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Why is it VERSUS?
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 46 of 103 (603171)
02-03-2011 7:11 AM
Reply to: Message 44 by Taq
02-03-2011 12:08 AM


Re: I am what I am
I admitt my arguments are tortured, because I lack knowledge in this area. That's because they aren't arguments, I only gave uninformed opinions of a subject I don't know enough of the science of. The truth is, I have perhaps shown a picture that doesn't fully show the truth about my own personal position.
My own position, at this stage, is that I do not have a conclusion. Those posts are my opinions WITHOUT really understanding your paper.
You see, I am a reasoning person. I have not simply said in my mind; "this is a common designer end of".
Infact the prevailing thoughts in my mind after reading your paper is that if I have understood correctly, there is a chance that your evidence is good evidence however, at this stage I have not really BEGUN to delve into this.
So I apologise if I frustrated you, it might seem like I am parrotting AIG, but I am just giving an alternative opinion.
For my mind, personally, just as mike, I will need to understand more about this, therefore technically, although I can seem to have made up my mind, logically, I have not - at best I have read some of your paper, read a few other things on the web and really I need to hear an intelligible summary of your paper.
So - personally, you can be assured I will not just, in my own mind - jump to "Goddidit". It is actually my apriori opinions based on informations NOT to do with this subject that make me believe in a designer. (Things I have read and assessed properly.)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by Taq, posted 02-03-2011 12:08 AM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by Taq, posted 02-03-2011 11:15 AM mike the wiz has replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 47 of 103 (603172)
02-03-2011 7:17 AM


My own thoughts were that if the ERVs have the same neucleotide sequences in a chimp and a human's host DNA or RNA (forgive my ignorance in the particulars of biology), then if these host chimp DNA had 100% match with the human, then you can soundly deduce a common ancestor. (If that is a fact then I accept it as for me, it is not possible to reject fact, as I have always admitted.)
You see, I was thinking - when these viruses take over, do they preserve the neucleotide sequences?
I admitt if a chimp and human match 100% DNA, then that is a strong argument for a common ancestor. BUT since I don't know the particulars of biology (like lots of evo here, dr inadequate) then I really need Taq to tell me if I am way off here.
Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by barbara, posted 02-03-2011 10:05 AM mike the wiz has replied
 Message 53 by Taq, posted 02-03-2011 11:18 AM mike the wiz has not replied

  
barbara
Member (Idle past 4801 days)
Posts: 167
Joined: 07-19-2010


Message 48 of 103 (603189)
02-03-2011 10:05 AM
Reply to: Message 47 by mike the wiz
02-03-2011 7:17 AM


ERV's not just limited to Chimp/Human
It is important to realize that even though we share many ERV's with chimps we also share them with other species besides chimps.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by mike the wiz, posted 02-03-2011 7:17 AM mike the wiz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by mike the wiz, posted 02-03-2011 10:40 AM barbara has not replied
 Message 50 by jar, posted 02-03-2011 10:46 AM barbara has not replied
 Message 51 by cavediver, posted 02-03-2011 10:57 AM barbara has not replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 49 of 103 (603195)
02-03-2011 10:40 AM
Reply to: Message 48 by barbara
02-03-2011 10:05 AM


Re: ERV's not just limited to Chimp/Human
Thanks, I was going to ask about that be he might make a topic about it.
If the same ERVs were found, where there is no evolutionary divergence, then logically that would count as a falsifying evidence that there is necessarily a common ancestor.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by barbara, posted 02-03-2011 10:05 AM barbara has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 50 of 103 (603198)
02-03-2011 10:46 AM
Reply to: Message 48 by barbara
02-03-2011 10:05 AM


Re: ERV's not just limited to Chimp/Human
barbara writes:
It is important to realize that even though we share many ERV's with chimps we also share them with other species besides chimps.
Which simply adds weight to the common ancestor explanation.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by barbara, posted 02-03-2011 10:05 AM barbara has not replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 51 of 103 (603200)
02-03-2011 10:57 AM
Reply to: Message 48 by barbara
02-03-2011 10:05 AM


Re: ERV's not just limited to Chimp/Human
It is important to realize that even though we share many ERV's with chimps we also share them with other species besides chimps.
Certainly. In fact, tracing shared ERVs builds a tree that looks suspciously like another tree:
Source

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by barbara, posted 02-03-2011 10:05 AM barbara has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9970
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 52 of 103 (603202)
02-03-2011 11:15 AM
Reply to: Message 46 by mike the wiz
02-03-2011 7:11 AM


Re: I am what I am
I admitt my arguments are tortured, because I lack knowledge in this area.
And yet you feel comfortable stating that common ancestry between humans and other apes is not factual. Is there any wonder why there is friction between scientists and ID/creationists?
Infact the prevailing thoughts in my mind after reading your paper is that if I have understood correctly, there is a chance that your evidence is good evidence however, at this stage I have not really BEGUN to delve into this.
Please stop being reasonable, you are ruining my thesis.
For the purpose of comprehension I would suggest that you skip to the "Results and Discussion" section and read the first three paragraphs. They outline the 3 different phylogenetic signals found in ERV's which is genomic position, overall ERV divergence, and LTR divergence.
So I apologise if I frustrated you, it might seem like I am parrotting AIG, but I am just giving an alternative opinion.
This relates back to my fingerprint and DNA paternity test analogies. Do you think a supernatural deity is the best explanation for swirly oil marks at a crime scene that exactly resemble the patterns found on the fingertips of the subject? Could a defense attorney make this argument and not expect to be laughed out of court?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by mike the wiz, posted 02-03-2011 7:11 AM mike the wiz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by mike the wiz, posted 02-03-2011 1:55 PM Taq has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9970
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 53 of 103 (603204)
02-03-2011 11:18 AM
Reply to: Message 47 by mike the wiz
02-03-2011 7:17 AM


I admitt if a chimp and human match 100% DNA, then that is a strong argument for a common ancestor.
Actually, that would falsify common ancestry since 5 million years is more than enough time to accumulate lineage specific mutations in orthologous ERV's.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by mike the wiz, posted 02-03-2011 7:17 AM mike the wiz has not replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 54 of 103 (603239)
02-03-2011 1:55 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by Taq
02-03-2011 11:15 AM


Re: I am what I am
You're making it look like I came along and said; "right, I propose that ERVs are a load of BS."
I believe, that from what I have read thus far, that the ERVs would count as confirmation evidence of evolution. Did you skip that bit or something? But the ERVs are factual, the evolutionary claims are claims.
What I don't agree with it that they are direct proof of macro-evolution because logically, there could be other possible explanations, some of which I doubt I have read, but even if they are unfound, they are possible.
And yet you feel comfortable stating that common ancestry between humans and other apes is not factual. Is there any wonder why there is friction between scientists and ID/creationists?
I feel comfortable saying it is not factual, because I do not regard convoluted explanations of experiments to show direct proof. Direct proof is almost always as obvious as a smack on the face.
Example; I must have a father or had father-genes or I would not exist.
BUT, I can't debate this. It is my preliminary conclusion that ERVs support evolution, in that they show a correlation.
But as for the analogy of the fingerprint, I have no idea as to whether that analogy can be equated to these ERVs.
Really, because I don't know about the specific topic, I have no intention of debating something I know too little about. It's no good picking someone who is weak in the area of the topic and saying, "haha, you got hammered." That is like walking up to a five year old and saying, "You got tortured by me in a fight."
Ofcourse he did, as you could not expect a lightweight to defeat a heavyweight but logically, does beating him prove you are the champion of heavyweights?
I freely admitt lack of knowledge of the particular subject.
The confidence of saying common ancestry is not a fact is that there is never any concrete, hyper-deductive sound syllogism that proves it.
A fact doesn't require proof. Yet these complex arguments seem to need a lot of explaining, and proving.
A much easier way to prove macro evolution is to first prove that it can happen, of which I don't see an added mutation creating a new morphology.
Think of it likes this. Let's say I collect artwork. Let's say the style of the artwork is the same but I have no signature.
You are saying that the artwork came from the same source, because the style is the same. But does that mean that is ABSOLUTELY MUST have come from the same artist?
If you are stating that ERVs are a confirmation evidence, fair enough, I have concede that.
If you are stating that they prove macro-evolution absolutely is responsible, then I think you are stepping away from science.
I don't know the specific biology, but I know the rules of logic, and as far as I can see, ERV's could have came from commone descent, or ERVS could have came from exogenous retro-viruses, as some creation articles have said.
Proof of macro-evolution is akin to an absolute.
Now a true extrapolation, logically, of a blind "fact", is that it is a fact I have a great grandfather or I wouldn't exist.
With macro-evolution, you are saying ERVs MUST, and ONLY CAN show common descent NO MATTER WHAT. (Dogma).
In my logical opinion, that is a non sequitur. Just because the real facts of such genes are inexplicable to me at this time does not mean evolution is true. Just because I am a five year old doesn't make you the heavyweight champion of champions.
You are PICKING A fight with someone that freely admitts he does not enter war without weapons. I am not a qualified debater of biology so I don't debate it, I can only help you with the logic behind the claims.
I hold out my hand to the referee, the round is over, and you come and hit me like it proves something, by snipping the quote I made.
Dishonest tactics, there Taq.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by Taq, posted 02-03-2011 11:15 AM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by Coragyps, posted 02-03-2011 2:17 PM mike the wiz has replied
 Message 57 by Taq, posted 02-03-2011 2:37 PM mike the wiz has replied

  
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 734 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 55 of 103 (603251)
02-03-2011 2:17 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by mike the wiz
02-03-2011 1:55 PM


Re: I am what I am
C'mon, Mike - you have been here a long time, and you've been told many times that "proof" is not a scientific term. "The preponderance of evidence shows X to be the best current explanation for Y" is how science phrases "proof."
Now a true extrapolation, logically, of a blind "fact", is that it is a fact I have a great grandfather or I wouldn't exist.
You don't know that to be a fact. We've all heard of virgin birth, right? And though it's rather improbable among humans, it is concievable (phew! I had to type that....) that your grandfather was the product of one. It's on the same order of likelihood that the evidence of ERV's don't point to common ancestry......

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by mike the wiz, posted 02-03-2011 1:55 PM mike the wiz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by mike the wiz, posted 02-03-2011 2:37 PM Coragyps has not replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 56 of 103 (603258)
02-03-2011 2:37 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by Coragyps
02-03-2011 2:17 PM


Re: I am what I am
You misunderstand. You can use the term fact or proof but that in itself is useless because of the rules of science.
It's on the same order of likelihood that the evidence of ERV's don't point to common ancestry......
The problem is it does not make common ancestry a fact.
A fact, to me, is something clear. ERVs are facts. DNA is factual. We all have the same facts.
But to state all organisms came from a common ancestor in and of itself is a very LARGE claim.
You cannot logically conflate a claim with a fact. That is not scientific.
You are correct that ERVs point to common ancestry as support of evolution, but look at the following logic;
antecedant)IF evolution is true THEN(consequent) these ERVs should be present in the same loci in humans and chimps, in the genome. (PONEN)
Science says.
Affirmation = confirmation evidence ONLY (tentative induction build-up)
Tollens = falsification.
You see, this evidence for evolution, though it should follow, does not prove that if X is Y then Y = X.
The extrapolation lends weight to the ToE, at best.
Affirmation of evolution does not mean that evolution is a fact.
The phylogenetic tree, is not operational science in that it is gone. You can't experiment as to whether a chimp diverged from a human, you can only tentatively affirm the consequent.
But if I have a theory that holds that all birds are red, then I could find 500 consecutive red birds, that will all affirm the consequent of my hypothesis. But will this prove all birds are red? No, because I only need O N E differently coloured bird to falsify the hypothesis.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by Coragyps, posted 02-03-2011 2:17 PM Coragyps has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by cavediver, posted 02-03-2011 3:03 PM mike the wiz has replied
 Message 73 by dwise1, posted 02-04-2011 12:47 AM mike the wiz has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9970
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 57 of 103 (603260)
02-03-2011 2:37 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by mike the wiz
02-03-2011 1:55 PM


Re: I am what I am
You're making it look like I came along and said; "right, I propose that ERVs are a load of BS."
Message 32:
"Sure - teach the facts, natural selection, mutations, even speciation, but to then apply a common ancestor to humans is not factual, IMO. "
Message 34:
"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.) "
Message 35:
""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. "
Need I go on?
believe, that from what I have read thus far, that the ERVs would count as confirmation evidence of evolution. Did you skip that bit or something? But the ERVs are factual, the evolutionary claims are claims.
We must be using different definitions of factual then. Here is the definition from Merriam-Webster online:
quote:
Definition of FACTUAL
1: of or relating to facts
2: restricted to or based on fact

The sequence, divergence, and genomic placment of ERV's are the facts, and the conclusion derived from these facts is factual by definition.
Perhaps you meant to use a different word?
I feel comfortable saying it is not factual, because I do not regard convoluted explanations of experiments to show direct proof. Direct proof is almost always as obvious as a smack on the face.
ERV's is direct proof in the same way that DNA and fingerprint evidence is direct proof in a court of law.
The confidence of saying common ancestry is not a fact is that there is never any concrete, hyper-deductive sound syllogism that proves it.
ERV's are that proof. Genetics as a whole so overwhelmingly indicates common ancestry that it is accepted as fact in biology.
Think of it likes this. Let's say I collect artwork. Let's say the style of the artwork is the same but I have no signature.
You are saying that the artwork came from the same source, because the style is the same. But does that mean that is ABSOLUTELY MUST have come from the same artist?
ERV's are the signature, the fingerprint, and whatever other analogy you want to draw.
With macro-evolution, you are saying ERVs MUST, and ONLY CAN show common descent NO MATTER WHAT. (Dogma).
False. It is the pattern of orthology, overall divergence, and LTR divergence which indicate common ancestry and evolution. The presence of ERV's in the genome in and of themselves do not indicate common ancestry. A designer could very well have put an ERV in humans and orangutans that had zero LTR divergence but then given the chimp an ERV at the same location with 5% LTR divergence. This would falsify common descent. However, we don't see that. We see the DNA fingerprint patterns that scream evolution and common descent.
Just because the real facts of such genes are inexplicable to me at this time does not mean evolution is true.
I agree. The point is that they are explicable through common ancestry and common descent. The patterns of orthology, overall divergence, and LTR divergence are exactly what we would expect to see if humans shared a common ancestor with other apes.
You are PICKING A fight with someone that freely admitts he does not enter war without weapons.
You mean the same someone who claims to have conquered evolution already, declaring that common ancestry is contentious and not based on facts? Perhaps you shouldn't walk into a gun fight with bare hands.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by mike the wiz, posted 02-03-2011 1:55 PM mike the wiz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by mike the wiz, posted 02-03-2011 2:56 PM Taq has replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 58 of 103 (603271)
02-03-2011 2:56 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by Taq
02-03-2011 2:37 PM


Re: I am what I am
Taq, your hypothesis might, (as you claim) show "fingerprints" of evolution and I have agreed that this is the kind of evidence that should follow.
Now, the problem here is that you are conflating a general claim with a specific claim.
The general claim is that all lifeforms are a result of a lineage from an original common ancestor through M +NS. (direct proof is an operational experiment showing nature has this power.)
The claim of ERVs is that these show a fingerprint of such an ancestry.
In the same way, DNA shows code, syntax, semantics, pragmatics and apobetics showing information. All of the designs of organisms are extraordinary beyond belief in that they fingerprint a creative hand. This can be shown by looking at specific design-contingencies, such as the structure of a giraffe's brain in regard to fainting, or drowning in it's blood. The aerodynamics of birds, etc....I won't go into it all.
So to me, if your ERVs trump the absolutely astonishing design in nature, then that is not logical.
The ERV claim is that there is an evolutionary fingerprint. This does not mean common ancestry is true, because first it must be proven that the general claim is true - that such designs can come about, by added mutations, random sampling errors, and selection, against the extraordinary factual weight of design-contingencies in organisms.
Sorry, but the CLAIM of a common ancestor is not fact. There might even be finger prints of an evolution, seemingly. Perhaps in this way there is an appearance of evolution but it is not enough to "prove" the general claim or say that the general claim is "fact", it only proves there is a fingerprint which you can either take as explicable or inexplicable, depending on how you see it in regards to all of the other claims and evidences and subjects in question.
Perhaps you shouldn't walk into a gun fight with bare hands.
Hmmm. Funny, that won't make my logic wrong though will it.
If the five year old can't punch that doesn't mean he won't bite. You see, I admitted ignorance of ERVs but you perhaps jumped to the conclusion that this means that I am completely useless or omni-ignorant.
Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.
Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by Taq, posted 02-03-2011 2:37 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by Taq, posted 02-03-2011 3:21 PM mike the wiz has not replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 59 of 103 (603272)
02-03-2011 3:03 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by mike the wiz
02-03-2011 2:37 PM


Re: I am what I am
but look at the following logic;
antecedant)IF evolution is true THEN(consequent) these ERVs should be present in the same loci in humans and chimps, in the genome. (PONEN)
Science says.
Affirmation = confirmation evidence ONLY (tentative induction build-up)
Tollens = falsification.
You see, this evidence for evolution, though it should follow, does not prove that if X is Y then Y = X.
Yes, as every scientist understands by the time they are out of nappies... ever heard something about grandmothers and eggs???
Now, you were saying?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by mike the wiz, posted 02-03-2011 2:37 PM mike the wiz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by mike the wiz, posted 02-03-2011 3:05 PM cavediver has replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 60 of 103 (603273)
02-03-2011 3:05 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by cavediver
02-03-2011 3:03 PM


Re: I am what I am
Is it my fault Taq is not a scientist? Is it my fault he needs me to say these things?
He conflated fact with claim and because i have to go through the a,b,cs this is mikey's fault?
Yawn.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by cavediver, posted 02-03-2011 3:03 PM cavediver has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by cavediver, posted 02-03-2011 3:09 PM mike the wiz has replied
 Message 63 by Taq, posted 02-03-2011 3:23 PM mike the wiz has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024