Endogenous Retroviral Insertions Demonstrate Evolution Beyond a Reasonable Doubt

Perhaps you can clarify, Jester, what approach you want to take.Is belief enough? Is that all you want to base things on? If so you will find few who will choose to argue with you or agree with you. Many of us will just let you go with that and ignore it.The discussion here is about creation "science" and those who think there is real evidence for the ideas put forward there. If you wish to discuss things from that point of view it would be useful to make clear what you think evidence is.So far you have made a large number of statments. I have yet to see a single shred of documentation to support them. If you think you are presenting evidence you should understand that most of "the other side" doesn't see it that way.

Jester, I have an additional suggestion.You will find yourself overwhelmed with replys if you don't manage the issues you bring up carefully. [quote]Now before all of the insults fly about God not being probably, that is not what I am talking about. I am talking about things like the probability of a twelve level symbiotic relationship forming, the track record of "proven " errors, the probabilties of mathamatical ratios developing in patterned forms in a chaos environment. Deviations in the formulas play factors in thisas well as aberrations. There are also mathamatical formulas in Evolutionary Psychology, and animal attraction that intrigue me, mathamatical realationships in music , sound and human pyschology, the "supposed" magic ratio-the math ratio that supposedly shows up in everything from the universe, down to quatum level(although I am still researching this one).

mammuthus,
sorry I did not mean to ignore your post. It just that post eleven is no more "proof" of anything than the original study'. As to the genentic ties between us and the apes, we are also tied to the rats and the pigs ( read the pubs by Christian Schwabe, yes he is one of yours, his theories are intreguing and he has done major advancements for organ replacement), and some studies are now saying we are closer to the rats. What I am saying is that just because we share the same genetic make up doesnt prove anything. Now don't go off on a tantrum but think of it logically,just because we share 97% of the genetic make up of a monkey infers that we are related, I can handle that and see the agruement, but lets throw another integer into the equation... we share 97% of our genetic make up with an monkey and....96% of our gentic makeup of a rat.... means what? how does that affect the first conclusion? Are monkeys and rats related? What about the pigs? The genetic make-up is being used to make a case that we share a common ancestor, so the same level of comparision also has to be made then of rats and pigs,( maybe the women are right, maybe all men are rats and pigs ). And if we share this same common genetic make up as other creatures, isn't at all possible that this "genetic material" is the "dust" referenced to in the bible? Now I know you will automatically disregard this because I used that five letter word " bible" but you have to consider all the evidence not just some.
And as for "support for creationism", I am not the one making the outlandish statement that it has been proven, not once did I even state that, however, I have heard numerous times that Evolution has been proven.
And as for your four points of testing, evolution and creation don't meet point one, both evolution and creation fit point two, both sides fit point three( its just what you "accept" as evidence is open to what you believe, you seem biased. A real person seeking the truth weighs all sides). And neither side fits point four.(because both sides regard this on a biased point of view as to what is " better than the competing hypothesis).Your own testing requirements invalidates evolution because the hypothesis is not testable, if it was we would have lab results saying so at the major Universities and there would be no more discussion.Again you are assigning a different level of proof to creationism then to your own theory because it's your theory.
And once again, there is that comment at the end to belittle another persons opinions, you just can't help that ingrained habit you have been taught to insult creationist to try to prove your point can you?

Nosy ned,
very good point, I just tried to supply an abreviated list as to what I used in mathamatics to form my opinions, but you are very right.
But as to you first post, please remember, I never stated I had proof of creation, it was the statment with a member of this CBB that stated the evolution had been proven, I realize the "other side " doesn't see it that way. The main point was the staement that heads this topic, and it is a falsehood and thats what I wanted brought out. If you read through my post you will see my meaning. It seems to be the "other side" here that loves to try to disuede the subject with the uncalled for insults, like the "tooth fairy" instead of just admitting that neither side has a shred of "proof" if the same standards are applied to both sides. I have opinions and beliefs based on a wealth of personal experiences, research and a life time of looking at both side seriouly,( with active livinf research, not just books), not dismissing one side or the other because of a bias, I feel there is circumstantial evidence for both sides and that fact combined with other theories have led me to a personal conclusion that neither side has it right,( however I do feel on side is more right than the other, but that is a logical statement, since to odds of two sides being wrong to the same degree is improbably).
I just believe it is unscientific and improper and immoral to state what has been stated and thats what was the intended discussion. Evolution has not been proven. And I have still to hear that issue addressed except for by one poster.[This message has been edited by jester461, 09-16-2003]

So far as I am aware Schwabe is an anti-evolutionist pushing his own pet theory (one which has a lot of serious problems).Here's a review: http://home.wxs.nl/~gkorthof/korthof56.htmBased on that review I have great difficulty considering Schwabe's ideas a serious challenge to evolution.

Yup. All mammals share a common ancestoral species. What you'll also find is that all mammals are more closely related to each other than they are to any reptile, insect, bird or fish, and that all animals are more closely related to each other than any of them are to any plant. You'll find rats are more closely related to rabbits than pigs. And you'll find both rats and monkeys are about equally related to pigs. In fact, apply some mathematics and you can produce beautiful and complex trees around these similarities and differences (although you'll need to use a lot more advanced methods than % of similarity - however calculated) what's more these trees will match pretty well (not exactly, but far better than random chance could possibly account for) with the trees of life we can construct from looking at the fossil evidence.

you are right, with mathamatics I can twist this to mean numerous different things from us being cousins, ancestors, or what ever. I could make a family tree with one base or numerous bases to look like a tree , a bush or a field of grass, which is exactly my point. It is a piece of evidence that means something, the question is what? And how I or you interpret unfortunitly seems to be clouded by bias towards peoples own theories. I take it to mean we are linked somehow, but more research needs done to find out what it means, if it means anything at all,and all the relationships need to be considered, monkeys, pigs, rats ,mice whatever at the same time to the same level of evidence.It seems evolutionist take the monkey issue and take that to mean ,first we came form apes and now we are cousind with them, but they leave out the other species we are related to as that messes up their version of the "tree". And really I am fine if they do that, as long as it is not supplied to the world as proof or fact.

You could no doubt come up with some concept capable of producing such a tree. That's not what's going on here though. The tree found is the one that has least (or almost least, most tree finding algorithms suffer from local minima) number of required mutations. It's not retro-fitted mathematics, it's constructed on sound principles.If evolution is true we would expect to be able to find these trees, and have them match the evidence from other sources. We can find these trees, they do match the evidence from other sources. So this is evidence for evolution. Oh, please. The evolutionary version is supported by the comparitive differences not challenged by it. Do you really think any serious evolutionist is going to tell you you're not related to a rat? Or a spider plant for that matter? It is a matter of degree. You can plonk it as many species as you want, the trees still come out the same. Monkeys, apes and humans appear in the same section.

quote:

---

What I am saying is that just because we share the same genetic make up doesnt prove anything. Now don't go off on a tantrum but think of it logically,just because we share 97% of the genetic make up of a monkey infers that we are related, I can handle that and see the agruement, but lets throw another integer into the equation... we share 97% of our genetic make up with an monkey and....96% of our gentic makeup of a rat.... means what? how does that affect the first conclusion? Are monkeys and rats related? What about the pigs? The genetic make-up is being used to make a case that we share a common ancestor, so the same level of comparision also has to be made then of rats and pigs,( maybe the women are right, maybe all men are rats and pigs ). And if we share this same common genetic make up as other creatures, isn't at all possible that this "genetic material" is the "dust" referenced to in the bible?

---

Yes, the logic does progress from there, we are also related to rats and pigs though closer to the rodents than the ungulates. The 96% similarity with rodents is a bogus number and the key point is where the similarity is and not the amount. Take almost any sequence from a non-human primate and compare it with human and the human-nonhuman primate comparison will be more similar than the related sequence in rodents...exactly the same way I am more genetically similar to my parents than to some random person picked up off the street...because of identity by descent..heredity...the cornerstone of genetics AND evolution.

quote:

---

And if we share this same common genetic make up as other creatures, isn't at all possible that this "genetic material" is the "dust" referenced to in the bible?

---

It could be the "name your creation myth" referenced in virtually any belief system.

quote:

---

I am not the one making the outlandish statement that it has been proven, not once did I even state that, however, I have heard numerous times that Evolution has been proven.

---

Except that nobody here has made that claim and a number of us have explained to you that science does not "prove" anything...you can continue to ignore this concept and repeat your fallacy but that will not increase its veracity.Evolution is one of the best supported theories in science as there is abundant evidence for it from multiple different and independent scientific disciplines...that is why it is a theory and not a hypothesis.Until you grasp how science actually works your arguments will continue to be off target and actually detrimental to your cause.

quote:

---

And as for your four points of testing, evolution and creation don't meet point one

---

Evolution is easily testable. Change in allele frequencies over time, phenotypic and genotypic change, speciation, natural selection almost every aspect of evolution is testable and you will find that it has been and continues to be researched by thousands of scientists making progress that creationists are oblivious to.Now, what is a testable hypothesis for creationism? What is the test for creation ex nihilo? What is the test for "god made human and non human primate DNA sequences more similar to one another than DNA from sea urchins"?

quote:

---

both evolution and creation fit point two,

---

Ok, how exactly do you falsify creationism? What possible test or observation could be made that would falsify it? "goddidit of goddidntdoit"..how do you distinguish?

quote:

---

both sides fit point three( its just what you "accept" as evidence is open to what you believe, you seem biased

---

Nope, if you don't have 1 and 2 you cannot really gather evidence for an untestable unfalsifiable hypothesis now can you? And yes I am biased..biased towards the scientific method for explaining the natural world as opposed to relying on irrational adherence to a dogmatic system that requires I ignore what I observe and can test and can learn, for a mythology that appeals to authority, and books written by people who supposedly represent a god(s) that nobody has ever seen a shred of evidence for....at least with science I can test hypothesis..with belief I have no more reason to believe in a christian god than a Hindu god...or the tooth fairy for that matter.

quote:

---

A real person seeking the truth weighs all sides).

---

I had a religious upbringing..I weighed it and it came out wanting. Or are you going to show me how the bible can help me determine the appropriate magnesium concentration for my next PCR?

quote:

---

And neither side fits point four.(because both sides regard this on a biased point of view as to what is " better than the competing hypothesis

---

There were competing theories of evolution i.e. Lamarkian evolution for example which were falsified...which brings us back to point 2 which creationism fails and all scientific hypothesis and theories pass.

quote:

---

Your own testing requirements invalidates evolution because the hypothesis is not testable, if it was we would have lab results saying so at the major Universities and there would be no more discussion.

---

There are thousands upon thousands of studies in the lab that demonstrate evolution and test the mechanisms by which it occurs....and yes, they have occurred at major universities...so I guess there is no more discussion.

quote:

---

Again you are assigning a different level of proof to creationism then to your own theory because it's your theory.

---

Nope, I am asking exactly the same of both and creationism as we have seen does not even get passed step 1.

I believe you have been asked to define what you mean by "evolution"? If you do so you it might help.There are, as has been discussed elsewhere in this forum, two meanings for the word "evolution".One is the observation that life has changed over time. That all species that once existed are now gone and have been replaced with others. This, as an observation, is "proven".The other meaning is a short expression for "the modern neo-darwinian theory of how life evolved it's current diversity". The emphasis is on the "how".This is not "proven" in a mathematical or observational sense. It is,however as good a scientific theory as any. It is still undergoing detailed enhancement as we understand mechanisms more. It is "proven" as any other theory might be because it has not competing ideas that are supported by the evidence and there is no firm evidence which falsifies it.[This message has been edited by NosyNed, 09-16-2003]

jester461, What independent external sources corroborate the supernatural elements of the bible?Also, none of the mathematical things you mention prove the bible, they don't prove any God, for that matter, let alone Yahweh. In fact the hypothesis that such mathematical patterns exist & is due to an ID of any kind is untestable, & therefore logically flawed. You have no way of dismissing such things as the manifestations of physical laws that arose naturally.In essence, you make an observation & just believe God did it. This is qualatitively inferior to making an observation, forming a testable hypothesis, & actually going ahead & testing it. Hence your claim that there is equal evidence for both sides is incorrect.Mark------------------
"I can't prove creationism, but they can't prove evolution. It is [also] a religion, so it should not be taught....Christians took over the school board and voted in creationism. That can be done in any school district anywhere, and it ought to be done." Says Kent "consistent" Hovind in "Unmasking the False Religion of Evolution Chapter 6."

Ok, so when do you place the date of the Exodus? I am not talking about the modern city of Jericho, I am talking about the one that Joshua was meant to have conquered, when that was, I will let you decide, but it has to be over 3000 years ago, hardly modern. How on earth did ‘foodstuffs’ become petrified inside urns? Did you date the ‘foodstuffs?’ Well since Jericho has been inhabited four times I am not surprised that there are evidences of battle. What I would like to know is what evidence you have that it was the Israelite group led by Joshua that did the destroying and not anything or anyone else? Incorrect, I seldom if ever, use websites, check my posts. If I am having a serious discussion, you will find that I reference my sources and sometimes even include a bibliography. The 25 years is found in various books, for example,William Dever: What did the biblical writers know, and when did they know it? : what archaeology can tell us about the reality of ancient Israel, Grand Rapids, Mich. ; Cambridge : Eerdmans Pub. Co., 2001Ernest S. Frerichs, Leonard H. Lesko, Exodus : the Egyptian evidence Winona Lake, In. : Eisenbrauns, 1997.Obviously I have many more references if you require them but surely you are familiar with the ‘New Archaeology’ of the early 1970’s? Since archaeology has improved its methodologies and also began its new interdisciplinary approach, biblical claim after biblical claim has been rejected.Oh, and please do not show your ignorance by assuming that I do not research my subject properly, your claim that I just ‘searched the web for a common number’ shows what a poor level of debating that you must be used to. Well since I didn’t visit any websites this is irrelevant.To begin with I said you were 25 years out of date because it has been around 25 years since these stories were taken seriously by any reputable Syro-Palestinian archaeologist or biblical scholar. Of course there have been excavations in the last 25 years, and all they have done is to verify that there was no Enslavement, Exodus, Wanderings or Military conquest of Canaan.You don’t say who you were on the dig with, but it smacks of Bryant Wood’s humorous research though.I am sure you were privileged to be on yet another dig that was ONLY interested in trying to verify the Bible narratives and not actually interested in objective research. Keith Whitelam in his book The invention of ancient Israel : the silencing of Palestinian history London ; New York : Routledge, 1996. Gives a great summary of how ‘biblical archaeologists’ swarmed all over Palestine with the sole intent of finding evidence for certain Bible events, of course very very few of them were even archaeologists, they were mainly protestant college lecturers but this didn’t make any difference of course. A few were so intent on finding evidence that they even tampered with the sites to try and prove the Bible correct, Thomas Thompson’s story of Dever and Rainey’s manipulation of the material at Gezer is a prime example of the lengths that some people will go to. Incorrect again, my research is still going on and includes ALL the recent published material, which of course doesn’t include your ‘Mickey Mouse’ CNN story. Which Journals has this research been published in, who has reviewed the research and its evidence? Please, do some serious research before you get taken in by such a ludicrous scam!The Egyptian Government HAS NOT issued a lawsuit at all with The Hague, the scam was the brainchild of an Egyptian Lawyer called Nabil Helmi, and he is using the TORAH as his documentation!The Torah does not even give any details of how much gold or precious possessions were taken off the Egyptians, in fact it would be quite easy to use the Torah to prove that the Israelites left empty handed and in a great hurry.Exodus 12:39: With the dough they had brought from Egypt, they baked cakes of unleavened bread. The dough was without yeast because they had been driven out of Egypt and did not have time to prepare food for themselves.Hardly seems like a group that and time to relieve the Egyptian population of their goods.Exodus 14:5 When the king of Egypt was told that the people had fled, Pharaoh and his officials changed their minds about them and said, "What have we done? We have let the Israelites go and have lost their services!"The Pharaoh apparently didn’t even know that the Israelites had left! According to this verse they fled, which seems to contradict Exodus 11:1-2, 12:35-36, and 13:18b-19. Someone is yanking your chain. You could prove me wrong by citing some references of course. Being documented and being accurate is not the same thing, stop being so nave. You have still to show if in fact this case is there, and who has brought the case, I do not believe it was the Egyptian government, please support this. So how does it accept cases? You may find that anyone can file a lawsuit and it can go to court on the slimmest of chances of being true. Well Winace probably sees how silly this is.Consider some of the problems:1. No one knows when or if the Israelites were ever in Egypt.
2. No one knows what was taken
3. How would you share it out IF something was returned?
4. How could anyone prove that their ancestor was one of the Egyptians that had something taken from them?
5. What compensation will Israel demand for the ‘400’ (430) years of slavery at the hands of the Egyptians?I really am sorry but you have been taken in by what appears to be nothing more than some wishful thinking. I am constantly shocked by how gullible some people actually are and what level of nonsense they will blindly accept if it in any way enhances their case.Brian.

Mammuthus
see this is proving my point exactly, you ask a question to evolutionist, that can be answered very easily and all you get is snide comments like "I had a religious upbringing..I weighed it and it came out wanting. Or are you going to show me how the bible can help me determine the appropriate magnesium concentration for my next PCR? " --- yes mammuthus, the bible is really specific on this..
or flat out denials like,"Except that nobody here has made that claim and a number of us have explained to you that science does not "prove" anything...you can continue to ignore this concept and repeat your fallacy but that will not increase its veracity." ====yes they did mammuthus, or did you miss the name of this topic and why do you avoid a direct answer to it?or this===
"Until you grasp how science actually works your arguments will continue to be off target and actually detrimental to your cause."
mammuthus, just because my interpetation of evidence is different doesn't mean its any less valid, or my understanding any less than yours. The interpretation of evidence is way our legal system in the united states is build on a jury for important cases and not a sole judge, because evidence is open to interpretation.This is the exact response I am talking about from evolutionist, hundreds of words and not one answer. Mammuthus, why dont you answer the question, are you that afraid of the answer? People who don't see things your way have a lesser understanding of science, or doesn't understand things, or as the starter of this fantastic claim stated, are just "ignorant hillbillies". Personally I think you are pretty self centered and concieted to actually believe that you have such a full and complete understanding of the biological and geological forces that existed to form our universe and all life and that any one that doesn't see it your way is ignorant.And NosyNed, to start with thanks for being one of the few professional voices in here, and to answer your question, I think the study in question does support evidence on a minor scale to an adaptation.Of what and what it means, who knows, yet. Does this warrant more study, definately. The format on which the initial statement was presented was that this study disproves creationism and proves the theory that all life on this planet evolved from a "big bang" event to and through the creation of man and that it proves the process still continues today.That is the term of evolution in this instance. Although, since you are correct in pointing out the differences in the term "evolution" and the levels to which it refers are open to interpertation, I must point out that this group seems blanketly hostile to any level of interpretation of the word "creation" but they open attack it without an understanding of what it infers. Mannuthus seems to be a prime example of this.And like his statement...."There are thousands upon thousands of studies in the lab that demonstrate evolution and test the mechanisms by which it occurs....and yes, they have occurred at major universities...so I guess there is no more discussion." his statements show a bias , pre-emptive belief in anything that promotes evolution and a pre-emptive dismissial of any thing that distracts from it.I would love to see the study than proved evolution.Not a study that says a microbe can change a little, or that a virus can adapt to a new threat,or a bacteria becomes resistant to an antibiotic because geology, biology, electronics, mechanics, and physics all "prove" that just because things happen on a small scale or a quantum scale, those principles do not automatically transfer to other fields or sizes. I want to see the one that proved evolution, on evolution scale.And Mr Jack, I realize that genetically all life forms and to a "open" comparision all things in this world share common componets, that is not what I said, please if you are going to challenge me, do not twist what I say. The rat and certain monkeys and the pig have all been genetically tied to us at any where from 97-99% depending on the study.I really don't care if you think they are bogus, they are not my studies, they are from the evolution side of the house, So don't cloud the issue. The pig in particulair, if you read Christian Schwarb(Spelling might be a little off) studies in organ transplants you will find the pig as maybe being closer. And don't challenge me over the validity of the evolutionary tree, when the branches were recently rearranged to take Neanderthal man off our branch and also the monkey off our direct branch and moved over to a sister branch. There has been some pretty hefty pruning and grafting going on with your tree to get it to match recent evidence.
So how about we get to the topic of... does the aforementioned study "prove" evolution?

You stated:
97% similarity to "monkeys"
96% similarity to "rats".First off, vague terms like that are not scientific. What is a "monkey", for example? That doesn't even specify primate, let alone a genus or species. But, let's get some data in here. From a google search of papers:Chimpanzee v. human: 1.59% difference in genes essentially identical (most recent number I can find) (I can't find a percentage on very many species for how many genes are exact...) Now, many genes have their order rearranged, but that is expected - scientists witness DNA reordering all of the time.
Gorilla v. human: ~2.3% difference in genes, same standard
Orangutan v. human: ~3% difference in genes, same standard
Harvard mouse v. human: 40% difference in genes, same standard (only 10% exact).Let's look at what the archaeological record tells us about when the species branched (again, this was established well *before* the DNA testing):Humans diverged from chimpanzees: 6-7 mya
Humans diverged from gorillas: 7-9 mya
Humans diverged from orangutans: 10-16 mya
Humans diverged from rodents: ~65 myaAny questions?------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

Going to close this one down, at least for a while.Everyone, please review things, and try to get back in touch with the topic.Adminnemooseus------------------
Comments on moderation procedures? - Go to
Change in Moderation?
or
too fast closure of threads