| Users Online Now: 1,416 (Who's On?) | Visitors Today: 247,379 | |
| Pageviews Today: 328,439 | Threads Today: 110 | Posts Today: 1,296 |
| 02:46 AM | ||
| Users Online Now: 1,416 (Who's On?) | Visitors Today: 247,379 | |
| Pageviews Today: 328,439 | Threads Today: 110 | Posts Today: 1,296 |
| 02:46 AM | ||
What is the main reason so many do not believe in a Creator...and choose evolution? | |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 70545130  Australia02/16/2020 07:38 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | ... Quoting: Anonymous Coward 70545130 Endogenous Retroviruses infect somatic cells normally. But when they infect a germline cell and the infected host reproduces, the ERV will be in that exact same position in the offspring. And if that offspring reproduces, the ERV will still be in that same position in all of its descendants ongoing forever. Thats why ERVs are proof for evolution. Chimps share 99.99999% of their Endogenous Retrovirus insertions with humans. Gorillas with a little bit less shared with humans. Orangutans with even less. ERVs have LTRs on both sides of the ERV. LTRs occur when a retrovirus inserts into the host. ... The 2 LTRs in each ERV are identical at the time of insertion. Yet they aren't identical due to mutations occurring independently in each individual LTR in each ERV, over time. They can use these differences to track ancestry of populations and species. Its not some "theory" or "hypothesis" that is waiting for evidence. They have seen it happen in real time in real life. They have even resurrected ERVs. I see. More explaining of the machinery at work, but why? we share 99.9% of them with chimps. With the same mutations. LTRs show they are a biological origin, not god. thats why. Not god. For sure. Again, you believe everything evolved over eons of time and your evidence for this is just mindblowing. Evolution simply creates everything over time, lovely. Thanks Yes, LTRs show they are a single biological origin in multiple species, not god. |
musashi777
 User ID: 78277821  Canada02/16/2020 07:41 AM  Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
| TheLordsServant
User ID: 77457712  United States02/16/2020 12:25 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | God said he was hiding himself from the earth because even when the people see him and his miracles they still sinned. It does state that the time will come when he will reappear in an instant and we will shit bricks. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 77547800 Oh. did I mention Jesus isn't real and the new testament was meant to turn people from the law? Ask the one true creator of heaven and earth to show you his power and be willing to follow his commands/laws and watch how your life changes. no Jesus no churches no mosque no preachers no lightworkers or guides, go right to the source, no man can intercede and show you or tell you how to find God. Most importantly find his ORIGINAL name, its not jesus, he despises this. Jesus isn't real? That argument is old and outdated Pharisee NONSENSE. Both Jesus AND the Apostles followed the 10 Commandments and the Feast Holidays. Jesus only lambasted the Sanhedrin for some of their "additions" to the Law. The pagan Romans who took over the Apostolic churches are who changed that. And the "trinity" concept wasn't taught by the Apostles either, as it was first written about by Tertullian. Tertullian, in the early 3rd century, was the first "church leader" who mentioned the "trinity", "though he noted that the majority of the believers in his day found issue with his doctrine" [link to en.wikipedia.org (secure)] How many thousands of Christians were killed in the 290 years after Christ's death until Constantine's vision? Here's another thought. Did Father God create Islam to combat the "Jesus is God" teachings of the RCC, which became official with the "filioque" about 585 AD? [link to en.wikipedia.org (secure)] Ironic that Islam was started just a few decades after that. I am a humble Servant of the one True Living God. |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 77505643 United States02/16/2020 02:12 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | God said he was hiding himself from the earth because even when the people see him and his miracles they still sinned. It does state that the time will come when he will reappear in an instant and we will shit bricks. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 77547800 Oh. did I mention Jesus isn't real and the new testament was meant to turn people from the law? Ask the one true creator of heaven and earth to show you his power and be willing to follow his commands/laws and watch how your life changes. no Jesus no churches no mosque no preachers no lightworkers or guides, go right to the source, no man can intercede and show you or tell you how to find God. Most importantly find his ORIGINAL name, its not jesus, he despises this. Jesus isn't real? That argument is old and outdated Pharisee NONSENSE. Both Jesus AND the Apostles followed the 10 Commandments and the Feast Holidays. Jesus only lambasted the Sanhedrin for some of their "additions" to the Law. The pagan Romans who took over the Apostolic churches are who changed that. And the "trinity" concept wasn't taught by the Apostles either, as it was first written about by Tertullian. Tertullian, in the early 3rd century, was the first "church leader" who mentioned the "trinity", "though he noted that the majority of the believers in his day found issue with his doctrine" [link to en.wikipedia.org (secure)] How many thousands of Christians were killed in the 290 years after Christ's death until Constantine's vision? Here's another thought. Did Father God create Islam to combat the "Jesus is God" teachings of the RCC, which became official with the "filioque" about 585 AD? [link to en.wikipedia.org (secure)] Ironic that Islam was started just a few decades after that. From that article- At the Synod of Friuli, Paulinus II of Aquileia stated that the insertion of Filioque in the 381 Creed of the First Council of Constantinople was no more a violation of the prohibition of new creeds than were the insertions into the 325 Creed of the First Council of Nicaea that were done by the First Council of Constantinople itself. What was forbidden, he said, was adding or removing something "craftily ... contrary to the sacred intentions of the Fathers", not a council's addition that could be shown to be in line with the intentions of the Fathers and the faith of the ancient Church. But what about what Jesus said ?: [Matthew 23:9] “Moreover, do not call anyone your father on earth, for one is your Father, the heavenly One.” By contrast - The word Abba; came to be applied as a title of honor to the Jewish rabbis in the early centuries of the Common Era and is found as such in the Babylonian Talmud. (Berakhot 16b) The one acting in the capacity of vice-president of the Jewish Sanhedrin already held the title of Av, or Father of the Sanhedrin. In later periods the title was also applied to the bishops of the Coptic, Ethiopic, and Syrian churches and, more particularly, became the title of the Bishop of Alexandria, thereby making him the “papa” or “pope” of that part of the Eastern church. The English words “abbot” and “abbey” are both derived from the Aramaic abba. Jerome, the translator of the Latin Vulgate, objected to the use of the title “abbot” as applied to the Catholic monks in his time and did so on the basis that it violated Jesus’ instructions at Matthew 23:9 |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 77505643 United States02/16/2020 05:58 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | evolutionary biologist Richard Sternberg asked about his take on the ERV question. He writes, Quoting: chauchat Now, the story that these seemingly defunct retroviruses provide compelling evidence for common descent on the one hand, and support for the notion of non-designed junk on the other, is based on an interpretation that is almost thirty years old and contradicted by recent data. For one thing, ERVs are markedly taxon-specific and they all have non-random chromosomal distributions. The mouse and rat have different ERV families and yet many of them occupy similar genomic sites. This is explained by the insertion machineries having preferences for specific DNA targets or chromatin profiles. So while one can find some retroviral sequences occupying a position shared between by two species, it cannot be ruled out that such similarity is due to constraints on integration. In yeast, for example, the ERV Ty repeatedly inserts into the promoters of transfer RNA genes. And human and mouse “jumping genes” such as Alu and B1/B2, respectively, are not homologous and yet they have the same linear pattern of placement. Such genomic profiles look like inherited accidents from afar but close inspection reveals that they are independent events. Appearances can be deceiving. […] I could continue in this vein for some time. My point is that a tenebrific spin has been given to ERVs by the Darwinians. The spin works only as long as one superficially reviews old literature. But it dissipates as soon as one delves into the wealth of data that we now have available to us. Only orthologous ERVs are a part of this evidence for evolution. "similar" is not orthologous, they have nothing to do with the evidence. Target-site preference is not locus specific. Its still random. This also ignores that they share the same mutations, and the same LTR mutations. The 2 LTRs are completely identical at insertion in the same ERV. The same mutations in LTRs in multiple species show they came from a single insertion event in a common ancestor of those species. If its not orthologous its not part of the evidence. 99.9% of our ERVs with chimps are orthologous. Its not talking about the ones that are not orthologous. There are orthologous ERVs shared with all humans, chimps, gorillas, orangutans, gibbons, old world monkeys. Less than 100 ERVs are human specific, chimps have 300 that are chimp specific. The 99.9% of the other ERVs are orthologous in humans and chimps. Orthologous positions would be expected if ERVs originated from ancestral heredity via common descent. But they would also be expected if these elements reflect common design where similar proximity of elements for particular functions are required in the different species according to a common design creation model... ...Despite persuasive arguments for the heritability of ERVs, the absence of specific shared ERV sequences in some non-human Primates genomes challenges the common descent paradigm. Some elements are found in chimps, bonobos, and gorillas, but are absent in humans. Others are present in chimps and great apes but not in humans and orangutans. These findings counter expectations from within a common descent model. Their absence undermines the notion that ancient infections of an ancestral primate lineage occurred prior to divergence of the great apes.... Divergence of long terminal repeat sequences (components of ERVs) sometimes varies significantly from one species to another at shared sites, even when normalized for mutation rates. An article in Retrovirology highlighted an example of this that points to a much more recent integration event in humans and a relatively earlier integration event in chimps at a shared ERV insertion site. Though these findings contradict common descent theory predictions, naturalistic arguments can be (and are) constructed to accommodate the varying normalized sequence divergence rates and the absence of shared ERVs in some species. These explicit findings, however, present no direct challenge to a common design interpretation. In fact, a common design interpretation of the data suggests these differences are worthy targets for further study as they may directly point to variations in functions within different species. |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 77762685  Belgium02/16/2020 08:46 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | evolutionary biologist Richard Sternberg asked about his take on the ERV question. He writes, Quoting: chauchat Now, the story that these seemingly defunct retroviruses provide compelling evidence for common descent on the one hand, and support for the notion of non-designed junk on the other, is based on an interpretation that is almost thirty years old and contradicted by recent data. For one thing, ERVs are markedly taxon-specific and they all have non-random chromosomal distributions. The mouse and rat have different ERV families and yet many of them occupy similar genomic sites. This is explained by the insertion machineries having preferences for specific DNA targets or chromatin profiles. So while one can find some retroviral sequences occupying a position shared between by two species, it cannot be ruled out that such similarity is due to constraints on integration. In yeast, for example, the ERV Ty repeatedly inserts into the promoters of transfer RNA genes. And human and mouse “jumping genes” such as Alu and B1/B2, respectively, are not homologous and yet they have the same linear pattern of placement. Such genomic profiles look like inherited accidents from afar but close inspection reveals that they are independent events. Appearances can be deceiving. […] I could continue in this vein for some time. My point is that a tenebrific spin has been given to ERVs by the Darwinians. The spin works only as long as one superficially reviews old literature. But it dissipates as soon as one delves into the wealth of data that we now have available to us. Only orthologous ERVs are a part of this evidence for evolution. "similar" is not orthologous, they have nothing to do with the evidence. Target-site preference is not locus specific. Its still random. This also ignores that they share the same mutations, and the same LTR mutations. The 2 LTRs are completely identical at insertion in the same ERV. The same mutations in LTRs in multiple species show they came from a single insertion event in a common ancestor of those species. If its not orthologous its not part of the evidence. 99.9% of our ERVs with chimps are orthologous. Its not talking about the ones that are not orthologous. There are orthologous ERVs shared with all humans, chimps, gorillas, orangutans, gibbons, old world monkeys. Less than 100 ERVs are human specific, chimps have 300 that are chimp specific. The 99.9% of the other ERVs are orthologous in humans and chimps. Orthologous positions would be expected if ERVs originated from ancestral heredity via common descent. But they would also be expected if these elements reflect common design where similar proximity of elements for particular functions are required in the different species according to a common design creation model... ...Despite persuasive arguments for the heritability of ERVs, the absence of specific shared ERV sequences in some non-human Primates genomes challenges the common descent paradigm. Some elements are found in chimps, bonobos, and gorillas, but are absent in humans. Others are present in chimps and great apes but not in humans and orangutans. These findings counter expectations from within a common descent model. Their absence undermines the notion that ancient infections of an ancestral primate lineage occurred prior to divergence of the great apes.... Divergence of long terminal repeat sequences (components of ERVs) sometimes varies significantly from one species to another at shared sites, even when normalized for mutation rates. An article in Retrovirology highlighted an example of this that points to a much more recent integration event in humans and a relatively earlier integration event in chimps at a shared ERV insertion site. Though these findings contradict common descent theory predictions, naturalistic arguments can be (and are) constructed to accommodate the varying normalized sequence divergence rates and the absence of shared ERVs in some species. These explicit findings, however, present no direct challenge to a common design interpretation. In fact, a common design interpretation of the data suggests these differences are worthy targets for further study as they may directly point to variations in functions within different species. Limited minor variations strike again.  |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 70545130 Australia02/18/2020 01:13 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | evolutionary biologist Richard Sternberg asked about his take on the ERV question. He writes, Quoting: chauchat Now, the story that these seemingly defunct retroviruses provide compelling evidence for common descent on the one hand, and support for the notion of non-designed junk on the other, is based on an interpretation that is almost thirty years old and contradicted by recent data. For one thing, ERVs are markedly taxon-specific and they all have non-random chromosomal distributions. The mouse and rat have different ERV families and yet many of them occupy similar genomic sites. This is explained by the insertion machineries having preferences for specific DNA targets or chromatin profiles. So while one can find some retroviral sequences occupying a position shared between by two species, it cannot be ruled out that such similarity is due to constraints on integration. In yeast, for example, the ERV Ty repeatedly inserts into the promoters of transfer RNA genes. And human and mouse “jumping genes” such as Alu and B1/B2, respectively, are not homologous and yet they have the same linear pattern of placement. Such genomic profiles look like inherited accidents from afar but close inspection reveals that they are independent events. Appearances can be deceiving. […] I could continue in this vein for some time. My point is that a tenebrific spin has been given to ERVs by the Darwinians. The spin works only as long as one superficially reviews old literature. But it dissipates as soon as one delves into the wealth of data that we now have available to us. Only orthologous ERVs are a part of this evidence for evolution. "similar" is not orthologous, they have nothing to do with the evidence. Target-site preference is not locus specific. Its still random. This also ignores that they share the same mutations, and the same LTR mutations. The 2 LTRs are completely identical at insertion in the same ERV. The same mutations in LTRs in multiple species show they came from a single insertion event in a common ancestor of those species. If its not orthologous its not part of the evidence. 99.9% of our ERVs with chimps are orthologous. Its not talking about the ones that are not orthologous. There are orthologous ERVs shared with all humans, chimps, gorillas, orangutans, gibbons, old world monkeys. Less than 100 ERVs are human specific, chimps have 300 that are chimp specific. The 99.9% of the other ERVs are orthologous in humans and chimps. Orthologous positions would be expected if ERVs originated from ancestral heredity via common descent. But they would also be expected if these elements reflect common design where similar proximity of elements for particular functions are required in the different species according to a common design creation model... ...Despite persuasive arguments for the heritability of ERVs, the absence of specific shared ERV sequences in some non-human Primates genomes challenges the common descent paradigm. Some elements are found in chimps, bonobos, and gorillas, but are absent in humans. Others are present in chimps and great apes but not in humans and orangutans. These findings counter expectations from within a common descent model. Their absence undermines the notion that ancient infections of an ancestral primate lineage occurred prior to divergence of the great apes.... Divergence of long terminal repeat sequences (components of ERVs) sometimes varies significantly from one species to another at shared sites, even when normalized for mutation rates. An article in Retrovirology highlighted an example of this that points to a much more recent integration event in humans and a relatively earlier integration event in chimps at a shared ERV insertion site. Though these findings contradict common descent theory predictions, naturalistic arguments can be (and are) constructed to accommodate the varying normalized sequence divergence rates and the absence of shared ERVs in some species. These explicit findings, however, present no direct challenge to a common design interpretation. In fact, a common design interpretation of the data suggests these differences are worthy targets for further study as they may directly point to variations in functions within different species. These findings counter expectations from within a common descent model. Quoting: Only orthologous ERVs matter to the evidence. There is only one ERV deviation. Out of 200,000. Called HERV-K-GC1. And they have multiple explanations for why it happened. |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 70545130 Australia02/21/2020 08:12 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | evolutionary biologist Richard Sternberg asked about his take on the ERV question. He writes, Quoting: chauchat Now, the story that these seemingly defunct retroviruses provide compelling evidence for common descent on the one hand, and support for the notion of non-designed junk on the other, is based on an interpretation that is almost thirty years old and contradicted by recent data. For one thing, ERVs are markedly taxon-specific and they all have non-random chromosomal distributions. The mouse and rat have different ERV families and yet many of them occupy similar genomic sites. This is explained by the insertion machineries having preferences for specific DNA targets or chromatin profiles. So while one can find some retroviral sequences occupying a position shared between by two species, it cannot be ruled out that such similarity is due to constraints on integration. In yeast, for example, the ERV Ty repeatedly inserts into the promoters of transfer RNA genes. And human and mouse “jumping genes” such as Alu and B1/B2, respectively, are not homologous and yet they have the same linear pattern of placement. Such genomic profiles look like inherited accidents from afar but close inspection reveals that they are independent events. Appearances can be deceiving. […] I could continue in this vein for some time. My point is that a tenebrific spin has been given to ERVs by the Darwinians. The spin works only as long as one superficially reviews old literature. But it dissipates as soon as one delves into the wealth of data that we now have available to us. Only orthologous ERVs are a part of this evidence for evolution. "similar" is not orthologous, they have nothing to do with the evidence. Target-site preference is not locus specific. Its still random. This also ignores that they share the same mutations, and the same LTR mutations. The 2 LTRs are completely identical at insertion in the same ERV. The same mutations in LTRs in multiple species show they came from a single insertion event in a common ancestor of those species. If its not orthologous its not part of the evidence. 99.9% of our ERVs with chimps are orthologous. Its not talking about the ones that are not orthologous. There are orthologous ERVs shared with all humans, chimps, gorillas, orangutans, gibbons, old world monkeys. Less than 100 ERVs are human specific, chimps have 300 that are chimp specific. The 99.9% of the other ERVs are orthologous in humans and chimps. Orthologous positions would be expected if ERVs originated from ancestral heredity via common descent. But they would also be expected if these elements reflect common design where similar proximity of elements for particular functions are required in the different species according to a common design creation model... ...Despite persuasive arguments for the heritability of ERVs, the absence of specific shared ERV sequences in some non-human Primates genomes challenges the common descent paradigm. Some elements are found in chimps, bonobos, and gorillas, but are absent in humans. Others are present in chimps and great apes but not in humans and orangutans. These findings counter expectations from within a common descent model. Their absence undermines the notion that ancient infections of an ancestral primate lineage occurred prior to divergence of the great apes.... Divergence of long terminal repeat sequences (components of ERVs) sometimes varies significantly from one species to another at shared sites, even when normalized for mutation rates. An article in Retrovirology highlighted an example of this that points to a much more recent integration event in humans and a relatively earlier integration event in chimps at a shared ERV insertion site. Though these findings contradict common descent theory predictions, naturalistic arguments can be (and are) constructed to accommodate the varying normalized sequence divergence rates and the absence of shared ERVs in some species. These explicit findings, however, present no direct challenge to a common design interpretation. In fact, a common design interpretation of the data suggests these differences are worthy targets for further study as they may directly point to variations in functions within different species. These findings counter expectations from within a common descent model. Quoting: Only orthologous ERVs matter to the evidence. There is only one ERV deviation. Out of 200,000. Called HERV-K-GC1. And they have multiple explanations for why it happened. Every argument from creationists on ERVs have been debunked |
| the one User ID: 78283295 United States02/21/2020 08:23 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 78137077 02/28/2020 08:51 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | ... Quoting: Anonymous Coward 70545130 Only orthologous ERVs are a part of this evidence for evolution. "similar" is not orthologous, they have nothing to do with the evidence. Target-site preference is not locus specific. Its still random. This also ignores that they share the same mutations, and the same LTR mutations. The 2 LTRs are completely identical at insertion in the same ERV. The same mutations in LTRs in multiple species show they came from a single insertion event in a common ancestor of those species. If its not orthologous its not part of the evidence. 99.9% of our ERVs with chimps are orthologous. Its not talking about the ones that are not orthologous. There are orthologous ERVs shared with all humans, chimps, gorillas, orangutans, gibbons, old world monkeys. Less than 100 ERVs are human specific, chimps have 300 that are chimp specific. The 99.9% of the other ERVs are orthologous in humans and chimps. Orthologous positions would be expected if ERVs originated from ancestral heredity via common descent. But they would also be expected if these elements reflect common design where similar proximity of elements for particular functions are required in the different species according to a common design creation model... ...Despite persuasive arguments for the heritability of ERVs, the absence of specific shared ERV sequences in some non-human Primates genomes challenges the common descent paradigm. Some elements are found in chimps, bonobos, and gorillas, but are absent in humans. Others are present in chimps and great apes but not in humans and orangutans. These findings counter expectations from within a common descent model. Their absence undermines the notion that ancient infections of an ancestral primate lineage occurred prior to divergence of the great apes.... Divergence of long terminal repeat sequences (components of ERVs) sometimes varies significantly from one species to another at shared sites, even when normalized for mutation rates. An article in Retrovirology highlighted an example of this that points to a much more recent integration event in humans and a relatively earlier integration event in chimps at a shared ERV insertion site. Though these findings contradict common descent theory predictions, naturalistic arguments can be (and are) constructed to accommodate the varying normalized sequence divergence rates and the absence of shared ERVs in some species. These explicit findings, however, present no direct challenge to a common design interpretation. In fact, a common design interpretation of the data suggests these differences are worthy targets for further study as they may directly point to variations in functions within different species. These findings counter expectations from within a common descent model. Quoting: Only orthologous ERVs matter to the evidence. There is only one ERV deviation. Out of 200,000. Called HERV-K-GC1. And they have multiple explanations for why it happened. Every argument from creationists on ERVs have been debunked With word salad ! |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 73676682 Australia02/28/2020 08:55 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Can it be said fairly that those who believe in evolution are "spiritual orphans"...with no Heavenly Father, and no hope for the future on this earth? Quoting: CelestialMaiden WE WERE CREATED BY GENE RODENBERRY. HOW DO I KNOW? HE TOLD ME! |
| DGN
User ID: 76673672 United States03/17/2020 11:57 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Can it be said fairly that those who believe in evolution are "spiritual orphans"...with no Heavenly Father, and no hope for the future on this earth? Quoting: CelestialMaiden They're both spiritual and scientific orphans with no explanation, no identity, stranded in an intellectual oblivion with no way home.  |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 55952081 United States03/18/2020 01:02 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
| DGN
User ID: 76673672 United States03/18/2020 01:10 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 55952081 United States03/18/2020 01:21 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | I would think that it is because of the existance of monkeys and apes. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 55952081 If there were only animals like horses, cows, dogs and cats, people would not take it seriously. But monkeys and apes ... So what about them? The body of an ape is very similar in appearance to that of a man, while the body of a horse is not. Surely you have noticed this? |
| DGN
User ID: 76673672 United States03/18/2020 01:29 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | I would think that it is because of the existance of monkeys and apes. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 55952081 If there were only animals like horses, cows, dogs and cats, people would not take it seriously. But monkeys and apes ... So what about them? The body of an ape is very similar in appearance to that of a man, while the body of a horse is not. Surely you have noticed this? So? |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 78602645 Australia03/19/2020 12:39 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | ... Quoting: Anonymous Coward 77505643 Orthologous positions would be expected if ERVs originated from ancestral heredity via common descent. But they would also be expected if these elements reflect common design where similar proximity of elements for particular functions are required in the different species according to a common design creation model... ...Despite persuasive arguments for the heritability of ERVs, the absence of specific shared ERV sequences in some non-human Primates genomes challenges the common descent paradigm. Some elements are found in chimps, bonobos, and gorillas, but are absent in humans. Others are present in chimps and great apes but not in humans and orangutans. These findings counter expectations from within a common descent model. Their absence undermines the notion that ancient infections of an ancestral primate lineage occurred prior to divergence of the great apes.... Divergence of long terminal repeat sequences (components of ERVs) sometimes varies significantly from one species to another at shared sites, even when normalized for mutation rates. An article in Retrovirology highlighted an example of this that points to a much more recent integration event in humans and a relatively earlier integration event in chimps at a shared ERV insertion site. Though these findings contradict common descent theory predictions, naturalistic arguments can be (and are) constructed to accommodate the varying normalized sequence divergence rates and the absence of shared ERVs in some species. These explicit findings, however, present no direct challenge to a common design interpretation. In fact, a common design interpretation of the data suggests these differences are worthy targets for further study as they may directly point to variations in functions within different species. These findings counter expectations from within a common descent model. Quoting: Only orthologous ERVs matter to the evidence. There is only one ERV deviation. Out of 200,000. Called HERV-K-GC1. And they have multiple explanations for why it happened. Every argument from creationists on ERVs have been debunked With word salad ! Only to creationists. Because they have no idea what the ERV evidence is, they don't try to learn it as it has no benefit to them. They don't want to change their beliefs or they wouldn't be looking up to people like Ken Ham or Kent Hovind. |
| DGN
User ID: 76673672 United States03/19/2020 07:05 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | ... Quoting: Anonymous Coward 70545130 ... Only orthologous ERVs matter to the evidence. There is only one ERV deviation. Out of 200,000. Called HERV-K-GC1. And they have multiple explanations for why it happened. Every argument from creationists on ERVs have been debunked With word salad ! Only to creationists. Because they have no idea what the ERV evidence is, they don't try to learn it as it has no benefit to them. They don't want to change their beliefs or they wouldn't be looking up to people like Ken Ham or Kent Hovind. After 150 years of searching for thousands of transitional fossils trails of creatures mutating upward not a single one has been found. This is because every creature ages mutating downward and dies. Fairy tales are fun but science is knowledge. |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 78661281 Australia03/21/2020 12:42 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Only to creationists. Because they have no idea what the ERV evidence is, they don't try to learn it as it has no benefit to them. They don't want to change their beliefs or they wouldn't be looking up to people like Ken Ham or Kent Hovind. After 150 years of searching for thousands of transitional fossils trails of creatures mutating upward not a single one has been found. This is because every creature ages mutating downward and dies. Fairy tales are fun but science is knowledge. You have been corrected on this literally hundreds of times, but you keep repeating the exact same -poorly worded- phrase over and over like a mindless robot. You're mentally ill. *Beneficial mutations happen. This is a fact. *We have found thousands of fossils of extinct animals with transitional features. We line them up by age and it creates a perfect series of gradual changes. This is a fact. *Some animals don't age at all. This is a fact. |
| DGN
User ID: 76673672 United States03/21/2020 07:54 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Only to creationists. Because they have no idea what the ERV evidence is, they don't try to learn it as it has no benefit to them. They don't want to change their beliefs or they wouldn't be looking up to people like Ken Ham or Kent Hovind. After 150 years of searching for thousands of transitional fossils trails of creatures mutating upward not a single one has been found. This is because every creature ages mutating downward and dies. Fairy tales are fun but science is knowledge. You have been corrected on this literally hundreds of times, but you keep repeating the exact same -poorly worded- phrase over and over like a mindless robot. You're mentally ill. *Beneficial mutations happen. This is a fact. *We have found thousands of fossils of extinct animals with transitional features. We line them up by age and it creates a perfect series of gradual changes. This is a fact. *Some animals don't age at all. This is a fact. "transitional features"??? Wrong similar features reveal creatures have a common creator not a common ancestor from which they mutated upwards. All land animals need eyes, ears, nose, mouth etc not a single cell of any of these can randomly assemble without ribosomes sequencing amino acids correctly into proteins according to divinely directed dna blueprints. Stuff doesn't just happenexcept when it mutates downward, ages, and decomposes.This is observed 100% in every creature. Science fiction speculates with fairy tales, science studies facts. Last Edited by DGN on 03/21/2020 07:59 PM |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 78661281 Australia03/21/2020 09:30 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | ... Quoting: Anonymous Coward 78602645 Only to creationists. Because they have no idea what the ERV evidence is, they don't try to learn it as it has no benefit to them. They don't want to change their beliefs or they wouldn't be looking up to people like Ken Ham or Kent Hovind. After 150 years of searching for thousands of transitional fossils trails of creatures mutating upward not a single one has been found. This is because every creature ages mutating downward and dies. Fairy tales are fun but science is knowledge. You have been corrected on this literally hundreds of times, but you keep repeating the exact same -poorly worded- phrase over and over like a mindless robot. You're mentally ill. *Beneficial mutations happen. This is a fact. *We have found thousands of fossils of extinct animals with transitional features. We line them up by age and it creates a perfect series of gradual changes. This is a fact. *Some animals don't age at all. This is a fact. "transitional features"??? Wrong similar features reveal creatures have a common creator not a common ancestor from which they mutated upwards. All land animals need eyes, ears, nose, mouth etc not a single cell of any of these can randomly assemble without ribosomes sequencing amino acids correctly into proteins according to divinely directed dna blueprints. Stuff doesn't just happenexcept when it mutates downward, ages, and decomposes.This is observed 100% in every creature. Science fiction speculates with fairy tales, science studies facts. You're wrong as usual. Beneficial mutations are a fact. Pull your head out of the sand, and face reality, you stubborn moron: [link to teaching.ncl.ac.uk (secure)] Even Answers in Genesis (a Creationist organization) realize there are beneficial mutations: [link to answersingenesis.org (secure)] You're also wrong about all land animals having eyes, ears and noses. |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 76258093 United States03/21/2020 09:40 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
| DGN
User ID: 76673672 United States03/21/2020 10:16 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | ... Quoting: DGN After 150 years of searching for thousands of transitional fossils trails of creatures mutating upward not a single one has been found. This is because every creature ages mutating downward and dies. Fairy tales are fun but science is knowledge. You have been corrected on this literally hundreds of times, but you keep repeating the exact same -poorly worded- phrase over and over like a mindless robot. You're mentally ill. *Beneficial mutations happen. This is a fact. *We have found thousands of fossils of extinct animals with transitional features. We line them up by age and it creates a perfect series of gradual changes. This is a fact. *Some animals don't age at all. This is a fact. "transitional features"??? Wrong similar features reveal creatures have a common creator not a common ancestor from which they mutated upwards. All land animals need eyes, ears, nose, mouth etc not a single cell of any of these can randomly assemble without ribosomes sequencing amino acids correctly into proteins according to divinely directed dna blueprints. Stuff doesn't just happenexcept when it mutates downward, ages, and decomposes.This is observed 100% in every creature. Science fiction speculates with fairy tales, science studies facts. You're wrong as usual. Beneficial mutations are a fact. Pull your head out of the sand, and face reality, you stubborn moron: [link to teaching.ncl.ac.uk (secure)] Even Answers in Genesis (a Creationist organization) realize there are beneficial mutations: [link to answersingenesis.org (secure)] You're also wrong about all land animals having eyes, ears and noses. What do they have? |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 31302805 United States03/21/2020 10:30 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
| DGN
User ID: 76673672 United States03/21/2020 10:54 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Can it be said fairly that those who believe in evolution are "spiritual orphans"...with no Heavenly Father, and no hope for the future on this earth? Quoting: CelestialMaiden Billions religion tards and billions evolution tards. All dumb asses. Read and believe without knowing precise mechanism. What's the difference, they all believe their having it their own way, ....until....  Last Edited by DGN on 03/21/2020 11:39 PM |
