Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,821 Year: 3,078/9,624 Month: 923/1,588 Week: 106/223 Day: 4/13 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Most convincing evidence for evolutionary theory
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3669 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 60 of 189 (408805)
07-05-2007 1:42 AM


While much condescending and generic Creationalist bashing is evident here, even accusing them of being illiterate, the most fundamental factors have been avoided by Evolutionists in this thread. This indicates a tunnel vision, akin to a Talibanic dogma, which uses manipulative and unsustained premises to evidence their claims.
Firstly, the most vital part of evidencing Evolution is not in the minute research conducted - but the conclusions derived from it. Now this path can go cyclical and use up much posts and energy, and determine nothing conclusive. An Evolutionist is NOT going to ever say, GEE SORRY, I WAS SO WRONG! Forget it - they are today more dogmatic than any religionist they ridicule, but remain in denial of it.
I would get around the minute details which evolutionists love to point to - and thereby derive at runaway unconnected conclusions - by asking those questions which must be evidenced well before reaching the research stage. Here's one fulcrum issue:
Q 1: Is Evolution a verified 'constant' - and is this a universal constant, or a localised one which effects only one planet?
How can one discuss a phenomenon without a definitive preamble of its status!?

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by kuresu, posted 07-05-2007 2:20 AM IamJoseph has replied
 Message 64 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-05-2007 3:41 AM IamJoseph has not replied
 Message 66 by Percy, posted 07-05-2007 9:34 AM IamJoseph has replied

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3669 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 61 of 189 (408806)
07-05-2007 1:46 AM
Reply to: Message 59 by PeterMc
07-04-2007 10:31 PM


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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by PeterMc, posted 07-04-2007 10:31 PM PeterMc has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by AdminNosy, posted 07-05-2007 2:10 AM IamJoseph has replied

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3669 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 65 of 189 (408840)
07-05-2007 9:10 AM
Reply to: Message 62 by AdminNosy
07-05-2007 2:10 AM


Re: Caution
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by AdminNosy, posted 07-05-2007 2:10 AM AdminNosy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by nator, posted 07-05-2007 10:15 AM IamJoseph has not replied
 Message 72 by iceage, posted 07-05-2007 1:20 PM IamJoseph has replied
 Message 74 by PeterMc, posted 07-05-2007 7:09 PM IamJoseph has not replied

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3669 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 67 of 189 (408843)
07-05-2007 9:56 AM
Reply to: Message 63 by kuresu
07-05-2007 2:20 AM


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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by kuresu, posted 07-05-2007 2:20 AM kuresu has not replied

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3669 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 68 of 189 (408846)
07-05-2007 10:14 AM
Reply to: Message 66 by Percy
07-05-2007 9:34 AM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by Percy, posted 07-05-2007 9:34 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by Percy, posted 07-05-2007 10:43 AM IamJoseph has not replied
 Message 71 by Straggler, posted 07-05-2007 11:03 AM IamJoseph has not replied

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3669 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 75 of 189 (408944)
07-06-2007 5:06 AM
Reply to: Message 72 by iceage
07-05-2007 1:20 PM


Re: Endogenous Retrovirus DNA
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by iceage, posted 07-05-2007 1:20 PM iceage has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by Vacate, posted 07-06-2007 6:38 AM IamJoseph has replied
 Message 77 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-06-2007 7:36 AM IamJoseph has replied
 Message 78 by mark24, posted 07-06-2007 9:08 AM IamJoseph has not replied
 Message 94 by iceage, posted 07-07-2007 1:03 PM IamJoseph has not replied
 Message 95 by iceage, posted 07-07-2007 1:30 PM IamJoseph has not replied
 Message 97 by PeterMc, posted 07-07-2007 8:54 PM IamJoseph has not replied
 Message 99 by Doddy, posted 07-10-2007 12:41 AM IamJoseph has replied

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3669 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 79 of 189 (408974)
07-06-2007 9:21 AM
Reply to: Message 77 by Dr Adequate
07-06-2007 7:36 AM


Re: Endogenous Retrovirus DNA
LOL. Your getting desperate: what else did you think? I was born crying in english.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-06-2007 7:36 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by AdminNosy, posted 07-06-2007 9:47 AM IamJoseph has replied
 Message 92 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-07-2007 12:09 AM IamJoseph has not replied

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3669 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 81 of 189 (408977)
07-06-2007 10:05 AM
Reply to: Message 76 by Vacate
07-06-2007 6:38 AM


Re: Endogenous Retrovirus DNA
quote:
Iceage already answered your question. The paragraph directly above the quote you supplied stated:
Iceage writes:
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!
No sir! That has no impact, and I did factor it in. The same location in the dna genome map does not alter the principle: both life forms could have been/would have been infected the same manner by the same virus. Typhus virus also attack the same organ: the lungs.
quote:
I would also say that a 'comma' downplays the complexity of a retrovirus. I much prefer the analogy of the error, because a retrovirus could also be said to be an error of sorts.
Irrelevent.
quote:
If I am understanding you correctly, I would agree. This is not proof of a direct cross-species relationship.
We're on the same page now.
quote:
It does however provide support of the preexisting theory. Particularly that we share more Endogenous Retrovirus DNA with old world primates than we do with new world primates.
Agreed. But that does not support the runaway conclusion - and such a leap is only evidence of a desperation, and an antithesis of a scientific process leading to a vindicated conclusion.
quote:
This is true to the extent we can safely conclude the probability of life outside earth is close to nil: the maths says so
I disagree, I feel that the more chances that something has to happen the better the likelihood that it will. Thats my own personal logic however, and I would be interested to see the math that shows otherwise.
The math says the evidence negates life probability outside the earth:
1. We have an actual survey poll of the known universe: no life on our cloest neighbours (moon, mars); no life in the solar system (voyager mission); no life outside our solar system as per telescopic and radiation imprints. The factor of a poll of the known sector of the universe, overides the factor of 'no poll' of the unknown sectors of the universe. The unknown is more probably the same as the known than not: consider how you would bet of the unknown half of your village, if you knew that in half your village pigs don't fly! In fact, there is no other more conclusive method of estimating the unknown universe - save visiting every nook and corner, leaving not a single sector uncharted.
2. Re: Time and Distance factors. Science works by probability, not possibility. The time and distance factors say, that not all surrounding space bodies would be too far and too old: some would be new and relatively close; some would be more advanced than earth. If life exists, at least some would be advanced enough to break the treshold of distance (advancement being time related, as with this planet). this has not happened - no imprints of ET are found for 4.5 Billion years of this planet's history.
3. Re Conditions factor. The vast variety of conditions and different atmospheric mixes seen in the universe also favour a negative conclusion. This says that similar conditions are more possible than not, and the view that ours is a singularly unique mix is improbable; and if it is, then again it results in the negative, because we are then saying that life cannot prevail outside earth and siting its reason!
4. Re. Evolution/Adaptation. Here, the very theory of evolution can come apart, because it infers that it cannot occur elsewhere - else life would have emerged on the moon. The notion of adaptation cannot be that it only applies to prevailing over an earthly set of tough conditions; adaptation means prevailing on any adverse conditions, qualified only by 'within reason'. On earth we have life in the most inhospitable conditions, including poisonous volcanic cores and where no light penetrates. There is no valid reason that life does not exist in the diverse conditions in the known universe. The largely accepted Evolution theory basis says there should be millions of life forms out there, while the manifest situation casts a damaging impact on this theory. Fr certain, the manifest indicators say Evlution is not a universal constant, and an anomoly on earth. The latter is a contradiction of the universe structures being an intergrated system.
The Q is: what does it mean if life is limited and unique to this planet? Any takers?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by Vacate, posted 07-06-2007 6:38 AM Vacate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by crashfrog, posted 07-06-2007 10:19 AM IamJoseph has replied
 Message 89 by Vacate, posted 07-06-2007 6:36 PM IamJoseph has not replied
 Message 90 by jar, posted 07-06-2007 6:45 PM IamJoseph has not replied

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3669 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 82 of 189 (408978)
07-06-2007 10:13 AM
Reply to: Message 80 by AdminNosy
07-06-2007 9:47 AM


Re: Last Warning
quote:
I'm going to be away for a few days.
Have a good holiday - but at least tell your view of life probability out there? Postive or negative?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by AdminNosy, posted 07-06-2007 9:47 AM AdminNosy has not replied

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3669 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 84 of 189 (408987)
07-06-2007 11:59 AM
Reply to: Message 83 by crashfrog
07-06-2007 10:19 AM


Re: Endogenous Retrovirus DNA
quote:
Er, that's not the location that's being talked about.
The relevent factor was, that a virus generally attacks and embeds in a same organ, not which location any virus attacks? I showed that this is true but of no impact.
quote:
We have an actual survey poll of the known universe: no life on our cloest neighbours (moon, mars); no life in the solar system (voyager mission); no life outside our solar system as per telescopic and radiation imprints.
Yeah, but... life on our planet. Somehow you managed to forget that one planet out of the 8 in the Solar System is actually chock a block with life.
I think there's a dis-connect here. The relevent factor of my arguement pointed to the total absence of life in the known universe - namely one out of - take you pick: 8 trillion zillion!
quote:
The moon has no atmosphere or liquid water.
So? Think outside earth. Think adaptation. Think life forms addicted to helium?
Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by crashfrog, posted 07-06-2007 10:19 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by crashfrog, posted 07-06-2007 1:37 PM IamJoseph has not replied

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3669 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 85 of 189 (408990)
07-06-2007 12:17 PM


ADAPTATION: WHAT IT MEANS.
Ever wonder how a cow gets all its sustainence from hay - but a lion would die off with the same diet?
This amazing feat is due to the cow being able to secrete a certain enzyme which converts the hay to protein. But for the lion, as well as for a human, there is no protein in hay. Adaptation is the ability to change the prevailing conditions to suit: like being able to extract a component on another space body and convert it to a life sustaining product. There is no *OTHER* meaning of adaptation.

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by Coragyps, posted 07-06-2007 12:35 PM IamJoseph has not replied
 Message 88 by Taz, posted 07-06-2007 3:07 PM IamJoseph has not replied
 Message 91 by PeterMc, posted 07-07-2007 12:04 AM IamJoseph has not replied

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3669 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 101 of 189 (409562)
07-10-2007 6:41 AM
Reply to: Message 99 by Doddy
07-10-2007 12:41 AM


Re: Introductory Virology
quote:
doddy
So, what are the implications for our differing opinions. You can either show me a virus that can affect both humans and chimps, or make an appeal to a past virus that could affect both humans and chimps. However, if you make such an appeal to the past, you must provide evidence, or you will be doing the very thing that you believe evolutionists are doing - making conclusions without the evidence to support it.
There is a third option. Disregard the term, species, at least in the method of categorising life forms, and replace it with the broader margins of 'kind' as per genesis. This allows a far greater grouping of life forms, namely speech endowed humans are seen as one 'kind', and all animals - including 'all that creapeth upon the earth' and any protoypes applied to modern humans - become one 'kind'. How does this apply? This is the categorising method seen in Genesis, which is not based on zoology or botany, but from a premise applicable to humans.
This does not mean darwin's species categorising is wrong or not useful, but that it is different. It means virus from fish and vegetation, two other 'kinds', will not effect different 'kinds', (a pineapple virus will not effect a zebra), but that a virus from one kind will effect life forms within that kind (an ape virus will effect a zebra). Here, a far greater allowance is made for cross species interaction than is realised.
One may ask here, what about the recent bird flu virus, which mutated to also attack humans. Here, it relates to a virus which can attack different kinds, but not that it developed millions of years ago via dna mutations as depicted in your post: bird flu was probably not around that time, and the indications it manifest itself only recently, says it is resultant from a more recent factor.
quote:
integrative retroviruses use the method of inserting a DNA copy of their RNA into the host genome, so that the host cell will make capsid proteins just as it makes its own proteins.
This says a virus can continue for millions of years via the host reproduction process, then pass on via cross-species transfer onto other life forms, or become part of a new life form when an elevation occurs. Now there is no doubt that when cross-species occurs, the host life form ends - so it is also included that certain traits of the host will continue with the newly evolved species, and certain traits will not be included. And this is due to the premise of 'adaptation' or NS, both of which signify a means to better adapt.
Do you not see a contradiction here - namely that a new species can discard unwanted traits to elevate itself - yet still accept a deathremental virus? We must also assume here, that the infected life form does not seccumb from that virus for large epochs of time, yet become a dangerous virus carrying medium to other life forms: if there are any immunity factors here - it would pass on along with the dna retrovirus, thereby self-negating its alledged application - and we know that if the virus-carrying body survived for long epochs of time, this would certainly be due to an imunity factor. There are contradictions in the premise put forth.
Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by Doddy, posted 07-10-2007 12:41 AM Doddy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 102 by Wounded King, posted 07-10-2007 7:07 AM IamJoseph has replied
 Message 103 by Doddy, posted 07-10-2007 8:47 AM IamJoseph has replied

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3669 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 104 of 189 (409578)
07-10-2007 10:07 AM
Reply to: Message 102 by Wounded King
07-10-2007 7:07 AM


Re: Introductory Virology
quote:
WK
You can't just dictate that viruses will behave according to your biblical kinds. The facts show that they do not. It also doesn't get around Doddy's challenge, you still need some evidence to support the existence of such 'within kind' viruses.
Perhaps I should remind you - the first recording of life form categories was introduced in Genesis. Of coz there is evidence here - more so than you can provide. 99.9% of all life form transmissions, including adaptation, natural selection and dna transmission, occur via the 'seed'; where does it fit in with your evidence? The latter is not superfluous.
quote:
This seems to be pure nonsense. There is no reason why a host life form needs to end for cross-species infection to occur.
It does. Else there is no successful cross-specie, thereby negating the principle it espouses. Are you saying, all forms of pre-h-sapians prevailed simultainiously? In any case, it is reasonable to assume the case in the conext. It is numerously stated that speciation is a perishment of a life form.
quote:
Nor is there any reason to assume there will be any transmission of traits from one host species to another. The only traits which need to be shared between the old and the new host species are those common ones which make them suitable hosts for the virus in the first place, which are the result of common ancestry rather than transmission with the virus.
If a virus is dna/rna embedded, it is heriditorial common ancestry, same as any other dna traits. It is selective to chose your traits. My point was if the virus is dna-prevalent, it is a transferable one.
quote:
Genetic material between hosts can be transferred by retroviruses, but there is no need for it to occur.
But it CAN occur - along with some consequences - so where has it been factored in?
quote:
There is no contradiction. While the host species may adapt to avoid or ameliorate the viral infection the virus can just as readily adapt in ways which make it more potent or allow itt to avoid the hosts defenses.
No impact. Equally, it can readily be transferred. Here, its consequence must be factored in.
quote:
if there are any immunity factors here - it would pass on along with the dna retrovirus
There is absolutely no reason to believe this would happen.
So now we have negated heriditory factors, while enumerating transmissions of traits - maybe it does not suit you! What if this was the case, and there is good reason to believe it can happen - have you not heard of gene related propencity?
quote:
Your contradictions seem to be wholly based on a faulty understanding of the mechanisms involved, which is strange since Doddy just explained them so nicely.
There was no explaination which meets the conclusion derived.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by Wounded King, posted 07-10-2007 7:07 AM Wounded King has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 106 by Wounded King, posted 07-10-2007 11:21 AM IamJoseph has replied

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3669 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 105 of 189 (409585)
07-10-2007 10:45 AM
Reply to: Message 103 by Doddy
07-10-2007 8:47 AM


Re: Introductory Virology
quote:
doddy
I don't know that most of the baraminologists (those who study created kinds) would agree that an ape and a zebra are in the same kind, if that's what you are in fact saying.
Of coz it is a legitimate means of categorising. Speech, more than skeletal or dna imprints is what differentiates modern humans. Further, 'all' the animals, categorised as a 'kind', have no such attribute despite the time advantage. Its like those tests: tick off the stand-out difference in all these 1.2 million life forms: you arrive at Genesis' 'kind' category. There is no law which says you have to be in a fixed tunnel vision and no other view is allowed!
quote:
Also, care to give me an example of a retrovirus that affects both those animals, or any other cross-kind interaction?
I did. Bird flu. Also, mad cow.
quote:
Never mind the fact that influenza is a Class V (-ve single-strand RNA virus) rather than a retrovirus (Class VI), so thus will not integrate into the genome.
Yes, never mind. It was an example based on the principle.
quote:
Firstly, you may need to rephrase the word 'elevation', as you could get into the same trouble as you did with "internally derived factor" in another thread. Do you mean speciation?
I was avoiding the specie term when replacing it with 'kind'. One does not have to impress scientific terms to be scientific. Chess players make lousy war generals.
quote:
Also, generally the virus can't survive for that long in the genome, as it will eventually suffer a mutation that inactivates it or something similar. The genes will still be there, just turned off or broken in a key area. But you are also right that the genes introduced by the retrovirus may be incorporated into the host genome and used - there is thought now that placenta may have evolved this way.
Never mind the placenta: do you agree that a virus, aside from your stated reasons, can be passed on? If yes, there has to be a filtration mechanism for rejecting this with speciation - else there will be no speciation! Its like saying life adapted - but had no adaptation mechanism - which is a contradiction.
quote:
Most viruses do not kill, as that would prevent further transmission of the virus. Don't bite the hand that feeds (or reproduces) you.
That does'nt make sense! Suddenly, the host is not in control - the virus is. Yes I realise a virus adapts to survive, and quite engeniously, but the host could not survive and effect speciation unless it had the control to survive a virus which 'could' kill it, regardless if the virus decided not to kill the host. Your view says speciation is subject to the virus decision - which is a damaging impact on this principle.
quote:
Do you mean to say that the retrovirus is taking DNA from one organism to another? If so, let it be known that this is a rare occurrence, and not needed.
Rare occurence - who's measured it - its not even factored in? But this is not what I'm sying: I believe you rested this factor to promote speciation.
quote:
I'm not sure I understand. Could you try to use the language of science, so that I can better see what you are trying to show me? I'm trying to teach, and this will be difficult if you don't understand my language and I don't understand yours.
I'm not a rocket scientist, but I have studied science - and also math, logic and history. I respect science fully - but some theories are mistakenly taken for fact. Speciation, as with the entire premise of evolution, is still classed as a theory. It is unscientific to disregard this.
Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by Doddy, posted 07-10-2007 8:47 AM Doddy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 107 by Doddy, posted 07-10-2007 6:06 PM IamJoseph has replied

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3669 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 110 of 189 (409703)
07-10-2007 10:14 PM
Reply to: Message 106 by Wounded King
07-10-2007 11:21 AM


Re: Introductory Virology
quote:
WK
Of the three things you mention only the transmission of DNA is a form of transmission, natural selection and adaptation clearly are not.
This was expressed as relating to evolution.
quote:
As far as I can see all this paragraph really says is that heredity is gentic, which I have no quibble with. If you want to specify that all life falls into the 'genetic kind' then that is fine by me.
Be that as it may.
That's a deflection. The point is, one can create categories based on any of numerous factors, depending on the application - eg: speed, beauty, brain, biology, etc. It is correct that addressing the issue of fulcrum differences, covering all generations, that speech should be highlighted for humans - I'd prefer you acknowledged this, as opposed to inferring this is too naive - it is not. I put it to you, any other answer would get you an 'F' in a test of name the difference between animals and humans!
quote:
What you are describing is not cross-species. You are describing the persistence of a virus in a population undergoing anagenesis. Just look at your avian flu example, it is not neccessary for birds to die out in order for the virus to spread to humans, only for the virus to change so it is infective to humans.
Incorrect. My reference to virus was to say that with cross-species occuring, a dna-embedded virus can be transmitted also.
quote:
Lots of places where it is relevant, which is not in a discussion of retroviral insertions as evidence of evolution.
The relevence depends on the application. The point it related to is, if a virus can be transmitted, deathremental to the host, either there is a filtering system - or the premise of adaptation suffers. Accepting deathremental baggage is not a good means of survival. It seems there is a selection process here - not regarding the host and virus, but on your own preferred basis. Else relevent and impacting factors should be considered.
quote:
This is a claim with no basis. If you are talking about this pseudo cross-species infection withion a population undergoing anagenesis then of course the immunological complement will be inherited. But in the normal non-crazy sense of cross species infection which the rest of the world uses the chances would be very remote that a virus picks up by chance from one host genome a genetic sequence related to the operation of the immune system which would operate in the genome of another species, although admittedly the chances would be better the more closely related the species were.
Again, this is a selective view - it is not very remote when considering the odds contained in evolution, nor does 'remote' odds negate the principle it can happen. As I said, this is not even factored it, so remote becomes mute. You should consider what situation results when a host takes on board a fatal virus - because it can happen - and the host can die - and speciation will fail.
quote:
As long as you are supposing that humans and chimps are from distinct specially created lineages then you require a virus capable of infecting both lineages to even begin to explain the retroviral insertions.
I did. And these infections are recent - not millions of years old. Recently, AIDS is also seen as such a possibility. But what is it you are saying - if a new virus can effect animals and humans - does your premise become dented? - I am trying to avoid a cyclical debate here.
quote:
P.S. We are fairly off topic and getting RAZD's back up. Maybe we should set up a new thread on which to discuss the nature of retroviral insertions. *ooops* This was actually in a different thread, never mind. Although this still seems to be verging on the derailly.
A reason should be given if its off topic: the debate concerns most convincing arguement for evolution - I don't see any veerings here.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by Wounded King, posted 07-10-2007 11:21 AM Wounded King has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 121 by Wounded King, posted 07-11-2007 4:48 AM IamJoseph has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024