Most convincing evidence for evolutionary theory

Iceage already answered your question. The paragraph directly above the quote you supplied stated: 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. If I am understanding you correctly, I would agree. This is not proof of a direct cross-species relationship. 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. 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.Edited by Vacate, : Spelling

What is your native language?Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

IamJoseph, Show me the maths, please.Mark

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

Ok, IamJoesph, you are cluttering up interesting threads with enough nonsense.I'm going to be away for a few days. When I return you are working harder to communicate and conduct yourself in a semi-serious fashion or you will get a 3 day suspension.When you make claims that have a quantitative aspect: you will supply the numbers and calculations or you will withdraw the claims.When you use made up nonsense words and are asked about it you will stop and you will explain, in plain English, what you meant.You will post in the science threads with evidence and reasoning.

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?

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?

Er, that's not the location that's being talked about. 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.So by your astoundingly obtuse, simplistic logic, you're still forced to conclude that any given planet in the universe might have as much as a 1 in 8 chance of being life-bearing. Sure. So, one in 8 for any given planet. Unless there's no level of advancement that allows one to break the laws of physics.But let me ask you - if there's no life elsewhere in the universe - which even your arguments don't support - then where did the Wow! Signal come from? The moon has no atmosphere or liquid water. But, even those places there's an atmosphere and liquid water.Even on Earth, life does not exist where there's not atmosphere and liquid water. Yes, that's rather the point, isn't it? That there's no reason to believe that life should be limited to Earth?

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.

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.

Well, no, it isn't. A cow has a rumen chunk full of a very diverse community of bacteria and archaea. Those little guys make enzymes that convert the cellulose in hay into glucose, which cow enzymes burn to make energy - just like lion enzymes do. Cows and lions both have to have a source of protein or of amino acids to make their own proteins. Hay has a bit of protein. Cows are a more concentrated source, and lions and people often prefer that convenience.

Again - that's not the location we're talking about.We're not talking about organs, here. We're talking about the genome. Er, but there's not a total absence of life in the known universe. There's a planet we know of that's completely full of life; where nearly every location between 1 meter beneath the surface to one mile above the surface is filled with living organisms.That's the planet we live on. Earth. You took our solar system as a sample of the universe as a whole; but then you inaccurately asserted that there was no life anywhere in the Solar System.Which is patently ridiculous. Out of 8 planets in the Solar System, one of them is highly life-bearing. By your logic, extending the pattern, one out of every 8 planets in the universe should be life-bearing.Personally I think the Solar System is not a representative sample, but it's your reasoning, not mine. Outside of Earth, there are no other planets in the Solar System with liquid surface water and a reducing or oxygen atmosphere. You have to exist before you can adapt. If no other planet has the conditions necessary for abiogenesis, then no surprise that we don't find living things on those planets, adapted or no. Since helium is chemically inert, it can't form the basis of any metabolic chemistry.Edited by crashfrog, : No reason given.

I think you're thinking of lamarkian evolution.

---

Disclaimer:

​

Occasionally, owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have used he/him/his meaning he or she/him or her/his or her in order to avoid awkwardness of style.

​

He, him, and his are not intended as exclusively masculine pronouns. They may refer to either sex or to both sexes!

If the location of the Retrovirus has no impact, why then did you decide to make differing locations for the analogy? Being in the same location is important, its impact is enough to say that it supports the theory of being more closely related to old world primates than even new world primates. Once again, if the complexity is "irrelevent", why did you propose the change in your analogy? How so? It is concluded that we are more closely related to old world primates than new - and this observation regarding the retrovirus supports such a conclusion. Its really not much of a leap. Exoplanet Orbit Database | Exoplanet Data ExplorerThis website claims only 212 planets have been discovered. Perhaps the number is not completely accurate, but its safe to say that its not off by a few billion. From the reading I have done on the subject almost all of the planets discovered are very large gaseous planets.
This is not indicative of what all planets must be, its simply the limit of the technology of the time. Smaller, more Earthlike planets are now being discovered, as reported in the media just last year. (UsaToday) Agreed Also agreed I fail to understand your logic Right now, to the best of our knowledge, life is limited to Earth. What does it mean? Nothing. Our knowledge is limited by our technology . I have hopes someday we will find life outside our solar system, but the odds of picking the right spot to look is slim.

It would mean that life is limited and unique to this planet.Do you have a point or is this just more of your nonsense?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion