For those who don't believe evolution....

Forums: Science, Technology
Email this Topic • Print this Page

How do you account for matching ERV (or endogenous retrovirus) remnants? I have never met a creationist who has been able to explain them away, so i don't expect to get much of a response now. Perhaps i can provoke a response. I consider the ERVs to be the final nail in the coffin.

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 2,733 • Replies: 55

No top replies

@Fatal Freedoms,

I say those who reject evolution should not be able to use it... don't get an influenza vaccine this year.

1 Reply

@Sabz5150,

Guessing know one fancies their chances with this one then?

Come on Campbell I know you could.

1 Reply

@Numpty,

Numpty;60061 wrote:

Guessing know one fancies their chances with this one then?

Come on Campbell I know you could.

Yes this is a discovery that i've made somewhat recently. To put any creationist's argument to a screeching halt just talk about ERVs.

Basically a retrovirus is a virus that leaves genetic information (or remnants) on a part of the DNA of it's host. This is inheritable, so any offspring of the host will have this remnant on the same parts of their DNA. So by comparing the DNA and the retrovirus remnants on it we can tell if any individuals or even species are related because they will have the same ERV remnants in the same spots of the DNA. Not only that but we can use this method to trace the lineage of any given species, assuming we have the fossils to test. After comparing the ERV patterns of modern humans and chimps we have a nearly identical ERV pattern, which the chance of happening randomly is astronomically improbable. This is the same method used today for paternity tests.

This is about as close to irrefutable proof as you can get, without actually witnessing evolution happen! And i don't plan on being around for another million years.

1 Reply

@Fatal Freedoms,

For those who want to learn more and can understand all the science jargon.

reverse transcriptase: Definition from Answers.com

1 Reply

@Fatal Freedoms,

I posted this about a month ago and still no responses from the creationists!

1 Reply

@Fatal Freedoms,

Fatal_Freedoms;61535 wrote:

I posted this about a month ago and still no responses from the creationists!

Did you honestly expect one?

1 Reply

@Numpty,

Numpty;61537 wrote:

Did you honestly expect one?

No, and to be honest i am happy i haven't received one.

0 Replies

@Fatal Freedoms,

How about Old Earth Intelligent design?

3 Replies

@Musky Hunter,

Musky Hunter;61548 wrote:

How about Old Earth Intelligent design?

what about it?

0 Replies

@Musky Hunter,

Musky Hunter;61548 wrote:

How about Old Earth Intelligent design?

It's untestable. Further, there is no control, no way to make accurate predictions. There's no way it can be falsified.

Put simply, it isn't science.

2 Replies

@Musky Hunter,

Musky Hunter;61548 wrote:

How about Old Earth Intelligent design?

How about it,...explain your idea.

0 Replies

@Sabz5150,

Sabz5150;61552 wrote:

It's untestable. Further, there is no control, no way to make accurate predictions. There's no way it can be falsified.

Put simply, it isn't science.

It is no more testable than to say that evolution happened by chance.

Evolution by chance has no control group and no way to make accurate predictions.

The theory of evolution by chance can not be falsified.

So far, all science has really been able to do in genetics is to prove that "Intelligent Design" is necessary to advance genetics in any meaningful way
since it has been fairly well documented that positive genetic change is far more likely with the aid of intelligence in a laboratory than by itself in nature.

2 Replies

@Musky Hunter,

Musky Hunter;61557 wrote:

It is no more testable than to say that evolution happened by chance.

Evolution by chance has no control group and no way to make accurate predictions.

The theory of evolution by chance can not be falsified.

Evolution is not "chance". That's a lack of knowledge speaking right there. You're only selectively seeing about oh, a third of the entire thing. "Chance" is not a factor. If you'd like me to explain, I'd be happy to do so.

Quote:

So far, all science has really been able to do in genetics is to prove that "Intelligent Design" is necessary to advance genetics in any meaningful way
since it has been fairly well documented that positive genetic change is far more likely with the aid of intelligence in a laboratory than by itself in nature.

So CCR5delta32 was made in a laboratory? Odd it was found in nature.

Positive is only relative to a preset environment.

1 Reply

@Sabz5150,

Quote:
Originally stated by Musky Hunter View Post
It is no more testable than to say that evolution happened by chance.

Evolution by chance has no control group and no way to make accurate predictions.

The theory of evolution by chance can not be falsified.

Evolution is not "chance". That's a lack of knowledge speaking right there. You're only selectively seeing about oh, a third of the entire thing. "Chance" is not a factor. If you'd like me to explain, I'd be happy to do so.

Quote:
So far, all science has really been able to do in genetics is to prove that "Intelligent Design" is necessary to advance genetics in any meaningful way
since it has been fairly well documented that positive genetic change is far more likely with the aid of intelligence in a laboratory than by itself in nature.

So CCR5delta32 was made in a laboratory? Odd it was found in nature.

If "evolution" was strictly "evolution by chance", I would not have had to make that distinction. Evolution by chance or without intelligent design is what is being taught, however, either directly or indirectly.

You will note that I said "positive genetic change is far more likely" with intelligent design in a laboratory. Do you deny that?

1 Reply

@Musky Hunter,

Musky Hunter;61562 wrote:

If "evolution" was strictly "evolution by chance", I would not have had to make that distinction. Evolution by chance or without intelligent design is what is being taught, however, either directly or indirectly.

Evolution is not a process of chance, with or without intelligent design.

Quote:

You will note that I said "positive genetic change is far more likely" with intelligent design in a laboratory. Do you deny that?

Yes, I do.

A "positive genetic change" is purely relative to the environment, laboratory or not. Just expecting a "positive" change isn't enough, it needs a selective force to drive it. All that is done in a lab is subjecting the subject to a selective force such as a slightly altered living environment or a slightly different source of food.

E.Coli that learns to metabolize citrate have gained a "positive" change because it is abundant. This change isn't so positive in a different situation.

Positive is relative. Change occurs in both areas and that's what matters.

1 Reply

@Fatal Freedoms,

How many new plant variations have occurred through human intervention in the last few years vs. new variations in nature?

0 Replies

@Sabz5150,

Sabz5150;61563 wrote:

Evolution is not a process of chance, with or without intelligent design.

Semantics. The point is that evolution is being taught as something that occurs without intelligent design when that portion of the theory is just as unprovable as evolution through intelligent design.

Further, there have been far more studies showing the ability to genetically change biologic material with attributes that allow for continuation of that change in the genetic pool through intelligence than in nature.

1 Reply

@Sabz5150,

Sabz5150;61552 wrote:

It's untestable... There's no way it can be falsified.

Or confirmed.

2 Replies

@Musky Hunter,

Musky Hunter;61565 wrote:

Semantics. The point is that evolution is being taught as something that occurs without intelligent design when that portion of the theory is just as unprovable as evolution through intelligent design.

That's because there's no need for it. There is no need for an "intelligent design" for evolutionary theory to work.

Exactly what "portion" of the theory are you referring to? Be specific.

Quote:

Further, there have been far more studies showing the ability to genetically change biologic material with attributes that allow for continuation of that change in the genetic pool through intelligence than in nature.

Links, please.

0 Replies

For those who don't believe evolution....

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know