Replies

"It is not that aided processes cannot cannot accomplish some of the same things that unaided processes can. It is that only one process actually explains this specific phenomenon." - EnderWiggins

That's incorrect. First of all, you argued, and the author of the article for this thread implied (by saying that ERV insertion point commonality "proved" Evolution) that an unaided process was the only explanation. And that's wrong.

An aided process can insert ERVs into the same place as can an unaided process.

Second, aided processes such as software self-modification, software viri modifying an OS, genetic lab work deliberately inserting ERVs into DNA, and cryptologists inserting the public half of a key into an encrypted data segment are *all* processes that yield the same insertion point result.

Which is to say, you're just as wrong, and clueless, as the author of the article. Neither of you have shown the slightest education about cryptography, and neither of you have demonstrated any knowledge of modern genetic lab work.

Now stubborness and obtuseness...that you've both got in spades. You clearly talk more than you listen, and think less than you espouse.

Go back and try again.

”That's incorrect. First of all, you argued, and the author of the article for this thread implied (by saying that ERV insertion point commonality "proved" Evolution) that an unaided process was the only explanation. And that's wrong.”

And yet, even after all your posts on the subject, the unaided process described by the article still actually does remain “the only explanation.” For that to change you have to actually provide us with an alternate explanation... and you have yet to do so. There is no need to again recount the specific details of the ERVs, their ages and their distribution other than to point out that your facile attempt at another explanation fails to address any of them.

”An aided process can insert ERVs into the same place as can an unaided process.”

Sure they could. But what would lead you to believe that an alternative to that single feature of these ERVs is an alternative explanation to the phenomenon of ERVs?

The paper is not about how a single ERV came to exist in multiple organisms in the identical spot in the genome... it is about the pattern and distribution of multiple ERVs across an entire mammalian order.

”Second, aided processes such as software self-modification, software viri modifying an OS, genetic lab work deliberately inserting ERVs into DNA, and cryptologists inserting the public half of a key into an encrypted data segment are *all* processes that yield the same insertion point result.”

As you struggle to overcome my simple observation that you have failed abysmally to provide an alternative explanation for ERVs, you dig yourself deeper. Need I remind you about the first rule of holes?”

At least this time you have made a feeble attempt to explain a single feature of the ERVs... the appearance of ERVs in the same location on the genome in multiple species. Let’s see how you did.

First off, discussion of encryption keys is an irrelevant red herring, since the DNA code is no more encrypted than any ordinarily alphabet. We all understand the design rational for such encryption in software, but there is no biological analog. It would be like appealing to nuclear reactors when trying to explain the deep diving of whales.

Second, self modifying software is actually (once set up) an unaided process that actually concedes the ability of genetic information to evolve on its own without intelligent guidance. The entire process was created in acknowledgment of the power of “natural selection” and is the attempt of software engineers to use nature as a model. Letting no irony go unsmelted... the one good analogy you provide is one that supports your opponent‘s position.

Third, software viruses (note the correct plural form) modifying an OS fails at least two different ways to provide a good analogy. A) It represents an active somatic infection which endogenous retroviruses are not. ERVs (as we have covered several times in spite of your quibbling) are not active infections at all. B) It does not resemble in any way the somatic infections of real retroviruses. Engineered retroviruses are designed to insert themselves at a specific place in the host code because that is necessary to their function. As a result, they are useless to distinguish between individual events of infection. Were ERVs the result of the same or a similar process, they could not possible exist in a pattern that mimics perfectly descent with modification. They would (again) leap across clades and destroy any pattern of genealogical descent.

And finally, labwork in which human beings deliberately modify genes are yet another perfect example of how the only intelligent designer that we have actual experience with creates a pattern of technology that does not resemble the natural biological pattern in the least. Since human designers do not have the same deceptive intent of the “lying magician” that you ultimately require for your “alternative” to be true, they make no attempt to mimic the nested pattern of progressively degraded ERVs that nature has provided us. Thus, no such pattern exists.

Now... you have attempted with little success to offer an alternate explanation to a single feature of the phenomenon we are discussing, but an actual alternative to the phenomenon itself is not even attempted.

”Which is to say, you're just as wrong, and clueless, as the author of the article. Neither of you have shown the slightest education about cryptography, and neither of you have demonstrated any knowledge of modern genetic lab work.”

Your myopia here becomes easier to understand as our discussion progresses. You actually do not understand the paper discussed in this thread at all. You certainly do not understand ERVs and the phenomenon that requires explanation. The school of red herring that populate your argument appear to all be honest. What I mean by that is you don’t even realize they are red herring because you do not understand the phenomenon in the first place.

I am growing more and more to enjoy your accusations of my ignorance. It certainly is your only fallback for covering up the complete failure on your part to provide an actual alternative to the paper that commenced this thread.