Posted on 04/11/2013 7:38:52 AM PDT by kimtom
"..A common quibble laid at the feet of the creationist is that he/she is not qualified to speak about scientific matters relating to the creation/evolution controversy..."
(Excerpt) Read more at apologeticspress.org ...
And you’ll never get IT! Read my posts again and go take a nap!
And we were having such a nice respectful conversation until now.
So once again no answers, just more questions.
Humans are still biologically an ape. As to when biologically modern humans hit the scene - the best evidence is around 100,000 years ago.
ERV data is EVIDENCE (not proof) of common descent - and if you are capable of understanding it - very convincing evidence.
Do I believe humans and other apes share a common ancestor? Yes, I do.
Why do I believe it? Because of the massive amounts of evidence in our genome and in the fossil record.
Humans and chimps are more similar to each other in DNA than either is to a gorilla.
So how do you define “micro” and “macro” evolution?
What mechanism would stop “micro” changes from accumulating into “macro” changes?
Would you characterize the difference between a mouse and a rat as a “micro” change or a “macro” change?
“...because creationists don’t believe that all species were on the Ark...”
it is amazing that these that argue, do not bother to read what is said , or reject it right out.
There are 8.7 million (±1.3 million) species on Earth.
http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pbio.1001127
They could not fit into 520 box cars.
Now enough bread for a multitude of people couldn’t fit into a basket either. This was a miracle, by definition supernatural.
Now if you want to believe that God MIRACULOUSLY crammed 17.4 million creatures into the Ark fine but don’t try to tell me it happen within the natural world. You just look like a fool.
“I said that they believe all modern species descended from those “kinds” that fit on the Ark.”
That’s still not accurate. Maybe you should just stop trying to speak for them, eh?
I give the floor to you then to describe your own beliefs in this. But to deny the argument of descent of species among kinds is a common one among creationists is to deny reality. And maybe if you had better reading compression you would be able to accurately understand what I said rather than misrepresenting it.
If ERVs are found to have function, it would be highly likely that they didn’t originate from retroviruses. It would be inconceivable that viral non-functional ERVs somehow became functional. Evidence has surfaced that they do have function.
Because ERVs have function, it is implausible that they are the product of retroviruses. And there is more evidence to back up this idea. Apoptosis is a process of the body that kills infected cells - ERV-infected cells included. If ERVs really were introduced by retroviruses, we should expect apoptosis to have ridden them long ago. The fact that we have so many ERVs indicates that they could not possibly have come about as a result of retroviruses - apoptosis should have ridden most, if not all, of the cells.
It is interesting to note that ERVs are different than the retroviral genomes from which they are supposed to have originated. Evolutionists usually explain this away by claiming that the ERV sequences have evolved to the point where they are quite different from their ancestral genomes. If this is so, then there is consequently very little to lead us to the conclusion that ERVs are derived from retroviruses!
If ERVs really are a product of retroviruses, how could they have been inserted into reproductive cells thousands of times without fatal damage to the host? Having healthy and strong reproductive cells is mandatory to produce a viable zygote, so why would viral-infected reproductive cells be considered more fit than ones without ERVs? Furthermore, how could they survive for hundreds of thousands of years in two different species?
evolutiondismantled.com/ervs
We’ve had this discussion over and over - now a newbie Kim joins the discussion with uber smugness and without any understanding of the topic - only a dogged determination to improve her self worth. Ask them to prove there is no variation in species over time - (if they care to prove a negative - I wonder if they understand the lunacy of that). You’d have to get them to understand cladistics, phylogeny and genetic variations - among a thousand other topics that they’ve immediately closed off in their minds.
Wasted breath, my friend. As the master once said “Cast not your pearls...” well you know the rest.
- Yes I am a professional biologist - and a devout southern baptist. There is no contradiction in being both a believer in the Word and a scientist. The first answers why the second answers how.
Apoptosis does not kill ALL retrovirus infected cells. That can be demonstrated empirically in the laboratory - so can the NEW and NOVEL introduction of a retroviral sequence into the germline cells of an animal.
The author somehow thinks that ERV sequences will remain exactly the same over thousands and millions of years? This betrays a great deal of ignorance about neutral mutations.
ERV insertions can sometimes be fatal to the host - they can cause cancer - if they disrupt an essential gene the germline cell doesn't become a functioning organism. All living creatures are necessarily the product of those ancestors that DID survive - so the argument is idiotic.
And the reproductive (germline) cell with an ERV insertion would not need to be more fit for all descendants to have that ERV insertion - it is yet another example of a neutral mutation.
Left out is any reasonable explanation for the pattern observed in ERV’s.
Why do ERV’s common to only some human populations look “younger” than those common to ALL human populations?
Why do ERV’s common to all human populations but not found in chimps look “younger” than those common to both humans and chimps?
Why are ERV’s found in two more distantly related species almost always found in all species that are more closely related?
The presence at the exact location must not only be explained in the pattern of nested hierarchy, but also the predictable amount of deviation from the viral code based upon how widely shared the ERV is within or among species.
So once again no answer to my easy questions. Maybe you are just not qualified to answer them.
How do you define “micro” and “macro” evolution?
What mechanism would stop “micro” changes from accumulating into “macro” changes?
Would you characterize the difference between a mouse and a rat as a “micro” change or a “macro” change?
P.S.
I am as well. And I am a Christian, but not a baptist - southern or otherwise.
“I give the floor to you then to describe your own beliefs in this.”
It’s not about my personal beliefs. You have seen fit to make pronouncements about the beliefs of a group of people that simply aren’t accurate.
“But to deny the argument of descent of species among kinds is a common one among creationists is to deny reality.”
I haven’t made any such denials, I’ve simply pointed out that your statements of their beliefs aren’t accurate.
“And maybe if you had better reading compression you would be able to accurately understand what I said rather than misrepresenting it.”
Misrepresenting? I quoted you, and said the statement wasn’t accurate, because it isn’t. There is no misrepresentation there.
Maybe if you understood my point, you wouldn’t have to resort to making personal attacks :P
Evidence is evidence. It doesn’t “say” anything. This is the fallacy called “reification”.
Evidence must be interpreted, which it is by the observer. But the observer inherently assumes a “lens” through which to interpret the evidence. Honest observers understand this.
Self-ignorant observers/interpreters just accept their assumptions as true without question.
“...There are 8.7 million (±1.3 million) species on Earth....”
Not even the most learned evolutionist would open that door.
There are two questions to ask:
How many types of animals did Noah need to take?
Was the ark large enough to hold all the required animals?
(only land dwelling air breathing, need apply)
The Ark measured 300x50x30 cubits (Genesis 6:15), which is about 140x23x13.5 metres or 459x75x44 feet, so its volume was 43,500 m3 (cubic metres) or 1.54 million cubic feet. To put this in perspective, this is the equivalent volume of 522 standard American railroad stock cars, each of which can hold 240 sheep**.
If the animals were kept in cages with an average size of 50x50x30 centimetres (20x20x12 inches), that is 75,000 cm3 (cubic centimetres) or 4800 cubic inches, the 16,000 animals would only occupy 1200 m3 (42,000 cubic feet) or 14.4 stock cars. Even if a million insect species had to be on board, it would not be a problem, because they require little space. If each pair was kept in cages of 10 cm (four inches) per side, or 1000 cm3, all the insect species would occupy a total volume of only 1000 m3, or another 12 cars. This would leave room for five trains of 99 cars each for food, Noah’s family and ‘range’ for the animals. However, insects are not included in the meaning of behemah or remes in Genesis 6:19-20, so Noah probably would not have taken them on board as passengers anyway.
The largest animals were probably represented by ‘teenage’ or even younger specimens. The median size of all animals on the ark would actually have been that of a small rat, according to Woodmorappe‘s up-to-date tabulations, while only about 11% would have been much larger than **a sheep.
Whitcomb and Morris have given extensive investigation to the numbers of animals that would have been on the ark (using highest possible estimates, and taxonomic figures provided by evolutionists), and have shown that the biblical account can fit known scientific facts regarding these matters (1961, pp. 65-69). John Woodmorappe has expanded on their work and provided an extensive, well-researched feasibility study dealing specifically with the ark’s construction and contents (1996).
-Dr Jonathan D Sarfati
If you REALLY want to know look into it.
If you can make assumptions, so can I.
Thanks
Here here.
Oh - can I assist Kim with your question? Once there is sufficient genetic variation within a species that the greatest variant can no longer interbreed with the least variant then there is a divergence. Enough micro = macro when breeding is no longer possible.
So you believe every living thing on Earth decended from 16,000 animals.
Okeydoke.
“...Wrong. Just because something has function doesn’t imply that it was always there and not a recent addition via a retrovirus....”
If you wantto reject it, fine.
enough said
“because creationists don’t believe that all species were on the Ark” Boogieman
You do understand that there is a difference between belief that all species were on the Ark and that all species descended from those “kinds” that were on the Ark, don't you?
If you are ignorant that they are two different arguments then you didn't misunderstand or misrepresent what I said.
If you do understand that they are two different arguments then you either didn't understand what I said or you misrepresented it.
And BOTH are common creationist beliefs.
And apparently you are not even qualified to discuss your own beliefs about this, or accurately describe what you think is the mainstream creationist belief on this topic.
“...there is sufficient genetic variation within a species that the greatest variant can no ....”
Good Point!! Thanks!!!!
too simplistic
Yes, I reject the idiotic argument you presented, and I rejected it based upon evidence and logic.
Now you want to avoid answering my questions, fine.
Enough said.
What is the difference between “micro” and “macro” evolution?
What mechanism would stop “micro” changes from accumulating into “macro” changes?
Would you characterize the difference between a mouse and a rat as a “micro” difference or a “macro” difference?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.