Human-Chimp Similarities: Common Ancestry or Flawed Research?

ACTS & FACTS ^ | Jeffrey Tomkins, Ph.D.

[GodGunsGuts]

The nested hierarchy pattern we find in nature is much better explained by design then RANDOM MUTATION plus survival. But then, you already know this, as this marks another area where your evo-religious assumptions have been tried and found severely wanting.

[GodGunsGuts]

If you are going to make rash comments about replies that you obviously don’t understand, at least copy the person who issued the reply. At least that way, CottShop can break it down for you.

[allmendream]

So now you want to throw abiogenesis in with common descent rather than dealing with evolution.

Evolution: genetic change of a population in response to environmental pressure.

By suggesting that ERV’s act to increase genetic diversity and act to adapt a population to its environment you are signing on to them being an agent of evolution.

So is a population becoming better adapted to its environment evolution or de-evolution GGG? Is becoming better adapted to your environment “genomic degeneration”?

No, incorporation of an ERV is not extremely rare and it can be studied and even induced by infecting cells with an RNA virus.

Despite your assertion that ERV insertion is all somehow preprogrammed and deterministic; if I study the insertion of an ERV into a DNA chromosome I can do a thousand insertion events and get a thousand DIFFERENT insertion points. If only Creationists were right on this one little thing it would be a boon to biology as if we could actually DIRECT ERV insertion and gene therapy wouldn't be such a problem.

So when a new ERV incorporates into a genome, does it immediately have a function? When would a newly incorporated ERV be said to have a function, and what function would it serve.

Still no explanation for why an ERV would look either “young” or “old” depending upon how widely shared it is among the species or between species.

[mountainlion]

http://www.icr.org/article/4779/
Article like this show some details as to just how impossible evolution really is. There is a lot of faith in the theory of evolution.

[xcamel]

Sites like ICR prove beyond any question the existance of ignorant people ant that God has a twisted sense of humor.

[GodGunsGuts]

==So now you want to throw abiogenesis in with common descent rather than dealing with evolution.

That's a laugh. The Evos have been frantically searching for a materialistic origin of life scenario ever since Darwin. Of course, all of their efforts have been in vain. So instead, they have been forced to begin with the MIRACLE OF LIFE, and then pretend that it built-up from the first proto-cell to the mindbogglingly complex organisms we see today via RANDOM MUTATIONS plus “natural selection.” Complete hogwash.

==Evolution: genetic change of a population in response to environmental pressure.

So do you consider creatures that utilize their frontloaded program to adapt to changing environmental conditions as part of evolution? If not, then INTELLIGENT DESIGN= THE FRONTLOADED ABILITITY OF ORGANISMS TO EFFECT GENETIC CHANGE IN RESPONSE TO ENVIRONMENTAL PRESSURE.

==By suggesting that ERV’s act to increase genetic diversity and act to adapt a population to its environment you are signing on to them being an agent of evolution.

Wrong. I am signing on to them being an agent of God's intelligently designed creation.

==So is a population becoming better adapted to its environment evolution or de-evolution GGG? Is becoming better adapted to your environment “genomic degeneration”?

Random mutation almost always result in harmful genetic degeneration. I say almost always because there may occasional be some extremely trivial change that effects a benefit of some sort, but in virtually all cases, random mutations are harmful. This is even more evident now that we know that our genes are polycontrained.

==No, incorporation of an ERV is not extremely rare and it can be studied and even induced by infecting cells with an RNA virus.

I was not referring to incorporation in soma cells, I was specifically referring to germ cells.

==Despite your assertion that ERV insertion is all somehow preprogrammed and deterministic

I never used either word to describe insertion points. However, we do know that exogenous retroviruses prefer non-random hot spots. Surely you know this???

==So when a new ERV incorporates into a genome, does it immediately have a function? When would a newly incorporated ERV be said to have a function, and what function would it serve.

I believe ERVs and retroviruses were created with a purpose. And given all large scale functions we are finding for them, the purposes appear to be legion. However, I believe it is the frontloaded, organizing principle/software of the cell that decides what to do with them.

As for your old or young question, go back and reread my last reply.

[<1/1,000,000th%]

The article you posted is either another misrepresentation of fact by the ignorant, or just outright lies.

The researchers involved didn’t make the claims that Mr. Thomas writes. In fact they said specifically that their work wasn’t finished.

All that this article and your post proves is that science has not been taught in the public schools for a long time.

[allmendream]

Nothing in it that would explain why an ERV would look either young or old based upon how widespread it is within or between species GGG.

Still no answer for if you consider adaptation to the environment “genomic degeneration” or “de-evolution”.

Your definition of “Intelligent design” is indistinguishable from evolution as defined by biologists. Of course living organisms are “front-loaded” with the ability to change their DNA in response to environmental pressure. And the based upon observation, the mechanism is through natural selection of genetic variation.

So you consider nucleotide substitution to almost always be detrimental, but you think ERV insertion or transposition is almost always of benefit to the organism in enabling it to adapt/evolve by changing it's DNA in response to environmental conditions? Why is it then that the actual changes we see in experimental populations to selective pressure are the result of nucleotide substitution and not from massive rearrangement of ERV’s?

So when would a newly incorporated ERV be said to have a function for the host genome? What function would you say that it served?

[GodGunsGuts]

So you’re saying that if bits and pieces of different ERVs are recombined, it won’t have any effect on how old they look (from an evo perspective)? Please!

As for frontloaded/directed adaptation strategies, I don’t see how this would result in genetic degeneration, unless, of course, random subsitutions enter the equation. Quite the contrary, frontloaded adaptive mutations would not increase or decrease the amount of information contained in the genome/epigenome...it would remain the same. However, overall, the evidence does seem to suggest that that our genomes are degenerating at a steady rate, and that whatever random subsitutions/copy errors creep into the genome are almost always harmful.

And for the life of me, I fail to see how you are unable to understand the difference between Creation/Intelligent Design vs. evolution. Creation/ID says the cell is programmed by a programmer, whereas the Temple of Darwinistic Materialism says the cell is programmed by random processes plus survival. The difference between them couldn’t be more stark. Creation/ID looks at nature and sees that life only comes from life, intelligence only from intelligence, digital programs only from digital programmers; whereas the Temple of Darwin believes that life comes from non-life, intelligence from non-intelligence, and that digital programs spring from inanimate matter. Do you have any idea how foolish you guys look to those of us who have not sacrificed our minds to the Temple of Darwin cult?

And get it straight...I consider virtually all random substitutions to be detrimental, whereas directed substitutions of already existing nucleotides are usually beneficial, unless of course random errors insert themselves into the process.

[allmendream]

Always in the same way to accomplish the same pattern GGG? What a coincidence that all the ERV’s that jump into the same place in all primates somehow ‘know’ to look older than the ones that only jump into the same place in chimps and humans.

Once again your so called explanation doesn't explain why we would see that pattern.

So if it is beneficial it is a “directed” mutation, but if it is detrimental it is part of De-evolution?

Is adaptation of a population to its environment an example of evolution or de-evolution according to you GGG?

[GodGunsGuts]

Is that your way of acknowledging that ERV sequences that are mixed and matched via recombination would give the false appearance of age (whether old or young) under the assumption of common descent?

[allmendream]

No, it is my way of saying that YET again, your attempted explanation doesn't actually explain what is seen with the data.

So is a population adapting to its environment by changing its DNA so that it is better able to survive an example of evolution or “de-evolution” to you? Is becoming better adapted to the environment through DNA change “degradation of the genome”?

Why is it that the DNA changes observed when a population is subjected to environmental stress are mostly nucleotide substitutions and not ERV reshuffling - if what you propose (that most nucleotide substitution is detrimental; but suggest that ERV transposition or incorporation is essential to the process) is true?

[GodGunsGuts]

So, you’re saying that mixing and matching of ERVs via recombination would not give the false appearance of age, given the assumption of common descent?

[allmendream]

What do you mean by “mixing and matching of ERV’s via recombination” and why would you assume that it would make the exact same pattern that an ERV incorporating into a common ancestor would make with ‘older’ looking ERV’s being widespread among species and ‘younger’ looking ERV’s being only in a few similar species or only a single species and the ‘youngest’ being present only in some members of that species?

Recombinational deletion is a detriment to an ERV getting fixed into a genome, it isn't “mixing and matching” ERV segments. Do you mean transposition, which is where a very “young” ERV still has transpositional ability and can “get up and move” in the genome? That doesn't “mix and match”.

[Phileleutherus Franciscus]

She is unable to recognize that the small differences between solar gravitation between Earth and the moon, considering that it is 93 million miles away, versus 270 thou to the moon, thus the fluctuation is less than .001% of the margin of error in their calcs, is not even worthy of regard.

You got the r^2 part ok, but you left of the M1 and M2. Because the sun has a mass of 1.9891 ×10^30 kg, and the moon has a mass of only 7.349 x 10^22 kg (iow: the sun is about 100,000,000 times as massive as the moon), the sun's gravitional effect on an object near earth is nearly 200 times as large as the moon's.

[Caramelgal]

Do you realize that you have proven yourself insane?

I answered your request twice, but since I answered it factually, rather than playing your bizzare strawgirl game, you repeat! (look up the “definition of insanity,” to see yourself)

I looked back through your comments in case I missed something and no, you didn’t answer my question. But then that wouldn’t be the first time. When boxed into a corner all you ever do is hurl insults and make snide remarks.

Einstein, no matter what you and GeocentricDan and others claim, was not a geocentrist and neither are the scientists and engineers who sent Americans to the Moon.

Caramel is not exactly an engineer, nor a physicist!

True. I’m not. I never claimed to be one. But then again neither are you.

Perhaps I should be correcting for solar gravity when I take shots on street monuments?

I know you claim to have a degree in engineering and a PE and I take your word for it. But as I have worked for architectural, engineering and general contracting firms over the years in PR, HR, personnel management and recruitment; what you are is a land surveyor. I know and have worked with some very well qualified people who are land surveyors with nothing more than a high school diploma and perhaps some community college or trade school classes who do exactly what you do. It isn’t exactly rocket science.

On the other hand I have a friend who works at the Goddard Space Flight Center as a flight controller on the Hubble Space Telescope. She has a degree in Aerospace Engineering and is finishing up her Ph.D in astrophysics and has been working at Goddard for the last 20 years and early in her career worked with and was mentored by Gene Kranz.

I emailed her the link to this thread last night and asked her to comment re: the heliocentric vs. geocentric models. Her reply to me this morning was “You’ve got to be kidding me – right? Some of these people are actually geocentrics – LOL!” She also went on to reiterate what much of what Phileleutherus Franciscus said. She said that a geocentric model would have not only have made the Moon mission impossible, it would have made Voyager and all the other unmanned space flights impossible.

If I ever need my property boundaries surveyed, I might look you up. But when it comes to space exploration, and you can call me “insane” if you still want to, I’ll rely on those who actually know something about what they are talking about. (Hint - that's not you) :),

[YHAOS]

”Another geocentrist weighs in?”

Are you asking a question, or have you an accusation, Boy-o?

”I don't care what flavor of nut.”

It is characteristic of Master Inquisitors that they ask questions (and imperiously demand answers) that in reality are thinly veiled accusations. They therefore resent questions directed back at them. Questions, honestly answered, require them to remove their black hoods and robes and to assume the role of an ordinary citizen (a forum member in this instance), and it produces no furtherance in the rooting out of practitioners of Christian error, or in the protection of Darwinian faith. So questions are either greeted with silence, or by an attempt to turn them to the Inquisitor’s advantage as an accusation. Never are questions from others to be answered for the purpose of clarification or for honest engagement.

The pivotal question I asked was what do you care of Christians’ Geocentric speculations, and how do their speculations threaten you? From you on this central question . . . crickets.

Another question: What makes you believe, or assume, that I am a Geocentrist (and what kind)?

”When I ask if someone is a Communist it is immaterial to me if they are a “stalinist” or a “trotskyite”.”

No, of course it is not material to you. You’ve come to pick a fight. Typical of a Master Inquisitor, when you ask a question, it is an accusation. For me, if it were a Trotskyite I would know that in an actual conversation I would have a reasonable chance that it would be a civil engagement. On the other hand, I would be quite certain that a Stalinist, had he the power, would bury a hatchet in my head. How might I fare in an engagement with you, I wonder.

[GourmetDan]

"Einstein, no matter what you and GeocentricDan and others claim, was not a geocentrist and neither are the scientists and engineers who sent Americans to the Moon."

The only person claiming that Einstein or the scientists and engineers who sent Americans to the Moon were geocentrists is you. You falsely tried to imply that sending people to the moon was based on geokineticism.

"She said that a geocentric model would have not only have made the Moon mission impossible, it would have made Voyager and all the other unmanned space flights impossible."

Your friend is simply wrong. Under GR, there is no difference between a geocentric and geokinetic model as the quotes by Einstein, Hoyle, Born and Ellis demonstrate. If she does not know that, a PhD in astrophysics is just a bad joke.

The moon missions were thoroughly geocentric in their reference-frame and orbital calculations because they were simpler than using a heliocentric reference-frame. The Voyager missions were heliocentric in their reference-frame and orbital calculations because the calculations were simpler than using a geocentric reference-fram. To argue that reality is defined by simplicity in orbital calculations is utter foolishness and easily falsified.

Using heliocentric models doesn't prove geokineticism because the sun is not proposed as the center of the universe. Supposedly, there is no center and therefore you can use whatever reference-frame is most convenient for simplifying your calculations (that's GR). That's why a geocentric reference-frame is used for satellite and moon orbitals and a heliocentric reference-frame is used for interplanetary orbitals.

Ease of calculation has nothing to do with reality and if your friend doesn't understand that, she should return her PhD because it's worthless.

[editor-surveyor]

"True. I’m not. I never claimed to be one. But then again neither are you."

Wrong, as usual.

To get back to your insanity, I never claimed that Einstein was a Geocentrist. I merely pointed out that he used the ptolemaic system to prove that it didn't matter, WRT physics, nor astronomy.

[humblegunner]

Evolution doesn’t speak as to the existence of a higher power.

Neither does Pizza Hut.

What difference does that make?