for Noir

[PostmodernProphet]

I recently saw you mention retro-viral DNA in a thread, actually not sure if it was here or another board.....but it reminded me that I had promised to discuss that with you and have not yet done so....

the claim is that retro viral DNA proves macro evolution because

It is incredibly unlikely, macroevolutionarily, that the cheetah, or
some other mammal (e.g. dogs, cow, etc.), could have this same retrogene in the same chromosomal location.

http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/45e18c99cbda1f18

my first question is why?
those who refuse to believe in an intelligent designer believe that life developed under a set of circumstances that would make the mere 'incredibly unlikely' appear destined.....why such a selective skepticism?....
my second question, if an intelligent designer created a DNA with the ability to adapt to a change in environment, what is "incredibly unlikely" about various similar DNA forms adapting similarly to a similar change the environment?.....
third, retroviral DNA changes are extremely rare.....is it inconceivable that a process necessary to the survival of life requires the potential for an extremely rare but deadly variation?

[Noir]

I recently saw you mention retro-viral DNA in a thread, actually not sure if it was here or another board.....but it reminded me that I had promised to discuss that with you and have not yet done so....

Mkay, lets go ^_^


the claim is that retro viral DNA proves macro evolution because


http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/45e18c99cbda1f18

my first question is why?
those who refuse to believe in an intelligent designer believe that life developed under a set of circumstances that would make the mere 'incredibly unlikely' appear destined.....why such a selective skepticism?....

For starts lets just clear what ERVs are, both for us and anyone that may be reading, an ERV occurs when i virus invades a system but becomes inactive, normally these then get past out of the body or die when the animal dies, however, when they fuse with a sperm or egg cell they can be past onto the animals children, an thus a permentant marker of that virus will be left on any subsequent offspring. This is very unlikely, but because of that it is very easy to trace,

Why is it so unlikey?
It is unlikey because the ERVs are only a few hundrend letters of genetic code (typicaly 500ish) Now the Human genetic code is about 3 billion base codes long. So what are the odds of us humans, and Chimpanzies, geting exactly the same type of ERV in exactly the same place in our genetic code? Well, ONE ERV takes up about 0.00000000016% of our Genome, and guess how much of our genome is made up of ERVs....4%, yep, FOUR % Countless ERVs, but, we can see where they are, and check them against Chimps, Apes, other Mammals, and they all fit perfectly into the what would be expected to happen if inter-species evolution took place.

How does creationism account for this? They only why it ever can, 'the creator made it look like we evolved from other species by placing this complex system of ERVs that would fool people into following them to thier logical conclusion' Is that what you believe in, a deceptive creator?


my second question, if an intelligent designer created a DNA with the ability to adapt to a change in environment, what is "incredibly unlikely" about various similar DNA forms adapting similarly to a similar change the environment?.....

See above, there are MILLIONS of ERVs that follow the exact pattern predicted by evolution (and thats only in humans, EVERY animal that has EVER had its genome decoded has given the exact results expected) If you wana look up the details i suggest you go to pub.med.org where animal genetic codes are published and discussed. We are not talking about Similarities here, they are exactly the same.


third, retroviral DNA changes are extremely rare.....is it inconceivable that a process necessary to the survival of life requires the potential for an extremely rare but deadly variation?

ERVs are not required, they are errors of evolution, because it is a natural process it is not perfect, and praise be that it isn't, because they have given a clear pathway in our genome to trace out past.

Question to yourself. Would finding out that inter-species evolution happened stop you from being a Christian?

[PostmodernProphet]

How does creationism account for this? They only why it ever can, 'the creator made it look like we evolved from other species by placing this complex system of ERVs that would fool people into following them to thier logical conclusion' Is that what you believe in, a deceptive creator?
????....but that is hardly the only reason that can be given.....an ERV is a deviation of the normal DNA......there are likely very few deviations of the DNA that permit the organism to survive let alone pass on to future generations......so, in a minuscule number of situations a variation that can survive is identifiable in multiple organisms, there are likely other variations that do not resemble those in other organisms....it doesn't mean they share a common ancestor, it means they share a common variation....




See above, there are MILLIONS of ERVs that follow the exact pattern predicted by evolution
this is your presumption.....they also follow patterns possible under deviations from base DNA....the fact that something has a similar DNA does not mean common ancestry any more than it means common design....



We are not talking about Similarities here, they are exactly the same.
so they are "exactly the same", instead of "similar"....that does not require common ancestry....it only requires "exactly the same" response to "exactly the same" stimulus....




Question to yourself. Would finding out that inter-species evolution happened stop you from being a Christian?
lol, would finding that everything has been created stop you from being an atheist?.....and let me guess.....your next question would be "will you admit it's eventually going to be proven that inter-species evolution occurred".....and my response will be "do you admit that it's eventually going to be proven that the universe was created?"......

[PostmodernProphet]

one of the examples given in the link from the OP talks about identical ERVs in smaller felines (not present in larger felines)

the conclusion of the secularists is that thus, all smaller felines share a common ancestor that is not shared by the larger felines.

I will put aside for the moment the fact that all felines might share a common ancestor is hardly the same as macro evolution claiming that sequoias and humans have a common ancestor.

Consider this.....if you are arguing that every smaller feline shares the retrovirus sample because they all had ONE common ancestor, then you have to also argue that every small feline....whether from Africa or South America or Australia had to come from only ONE cat.......not one variety or species of cat, but one single cat that once lived somewhere in the world and had offspring that spread to every corner of the planet and killed off all competing strains of "cat".....

or, you have to acknowledge that similar creatures could have developed identical versions of the ERV.....and if you admit that, you have to admit that creatures that did not evolve from each other may also have developed identical versions of the ERV....

which choice are you going to make?.....

[Noir]

????....but that is hardly the only reason that can be given.....an ERV is a deviation of the normal DNA......there are likely very few deviations of the DNA that permit the organism to survive let alone pass on to future generations......so, in a minuscule number of situations a variation that can survive is identifiable in multiple organisms, there are likely other variations that do not resemble those in other organisms....it doesn't mean they share a common ancestor, it means they share a common variation....

You've got this wayyy wrong. There are between 500 and 1000 'intergratuin sites' (ie places were ERVs are able to code themselves) and each on of those sites range from 100,000 to 250,000 base pairs. That means that the most conservative figure would estimate that an ERV can appear in 50,000,000 different parts of the code.
Now I ask again, what are the chances that we find exactly the same ERV, in exactly the same place in a 3 billion code genome. Or what about 2 ERVs...or 6? Or what about THOUSANDS of them?

More to the point, it would only take 1 set of ERVs to completely disprove evolution. If we have a reptile that has the same ERV code as a mammal then evolution is wrong, no ifs or buts. However, as we keep decoding more and more genomes are we finding anything that doesn't match exactly with evolutionary predictions? No.



this is your presumption.....they also follow patterns possible under deviations from base DNA....the fact that something has a similar DNA does not mean common ancestry any more than it means common design....

You keep using the word similar, which means you don't understand ERVs, the are permeant markers, and they are not similar, they are exactly the same viral codes in exactly the same places on animals that we know from other biological fields are related and descended.


so they are "exactly the same", instead of "similar"....that does not require common ancestry....it only requires "exactly the same" response to "exactly the same" stimulus....

So you think that, say, rats and primates, just happened to integrate exactly the same ERVs inti their codes in exactly the same places, along with countless other mammals?



lol, would finding that everything has been created stop you from being an atheist?.....and let me guess.....your next question would be "will you admit it's eventually going to be proven that inter-species evolution occurred".....and my response will be "do you admit that it's eventually going to be proven that the universe was created?"......

No it would not stop me being an atheist. But then, for me the question of evolution has nothing to do with religion. For you it does. So, if you can answer with a yes or no. Do you think it would be impossible for you to both believe in inter-species evolution and be a Christian?

[Noir]

one of the examples given in the link from the OP talks about identical ERVs in smaller felines (not present in larger felines)

Indeed, smaller felines evolved after the larger ones.


the conclusion of the secularists is that thus, all smaller felines share a common ancestor that is not shared by the larger felines.

Why do you mention secularists? This is nothing to do with religion.
And no, the do share a common ancestor, however, the smaller cats evolved later on meaning they will have ERVs not present in the larger cats.


I will put aside for the moment the fact that all felines might share a common ancestor is hardly the same as macro evolution claiming that sequoias and humans have a common ancestor.

Interspecies evolution is interspecies evolution.


Consider this.....if you are arguing that every smaller feline shares the retrovirus sample because they all had ONE common ancestor, then you have to also argue that every small feline....whether from Africa or South America or Australia had to come from only ONE cat.......not one variety or species of cat, but one single cat that once lived somewhere in the world and had offspring that spread to every corner of the planet and killed off all competing strains of "cat".....

In one sense your right, but in another, very wrong. ERVs are spread by mating, and are never lost. Say you put a marker ERV in me, and I had 3 children who went with 3 none marked people and each had 3 children, there are now 13 people with the mark, and the process continues (over millions of years) the marks will intergrate themselves into all codes of that animal.

But there are exceptions, an evolution predicted this, places like Austrailia were there had been isolation. If a rat in Aus had exactly the same ERVs as one in Europe we'd know evolution was wrong, but they are not exactly the same, es they are very sjmalar because we just to be one land mass and then they had a common ancestor, however since the separation rats in Aus contracted different ERVs in different locations of their code. EXACTLY as evolution would predict.

How does ID answer this? 'The designer just made it that way' :laugh2:


or, you have to acknowledge that similar creatures could have developed identical versions of the ERV.....and if you admit that, you have to admit that creatures that did not evolve from each other may also have developed identical versions of the ERV....

which choice are you going to make?.....

See my above answer. You strike me as someone who isn't well read on ERVs while not surprising is is a little silly.

[PostmodernProphet]

Now I ask again, what are the chances that we find exactly the same ERV, in exactly the same place in a 3 billion code genome.
given that there are probably 3 billion events of gene replication every ten or fifteen minutes, I would say that the chances are immensely greater than that life would spring spontaneously into being on one planet in one solar system in one galaxy in one universe......



More to the point, it would only take 1 set of ERVs to completely disprove evolution. If we have a reptile that has the same ERV code as a mammal then evolution is wrong, no ifs or buts.
would it?....some parts off the DNA of a reptile are identical to parts of the DNA of a mammal.....if the duplication of an ERV is within those parts it would not lead to the conclusion of common ancestry.....





You keep using the word similar, which means you don't understand ERVs, the are permeant markers, and they are not similar, they are exactly the same viral codes in exactly the same places on animals that we know from other biological fields are related and descended.

no true.....I changed to "exactly the same" because you insisted on it....



So you think that, say, rats and primates, just happened to integrate exactly the same ERVs inti their codes in exactly the same places, along with countless other mammals?
it's obviously a scientific possibility, isn't it?.....





No it would not stop me being an atheist. But then, for me the question of evolution has nothing to do with religion. For you it does. So, if you can answer with a yes or no. Do you think it would be impossible for you to both believe in inter-species evolution and be a Christian?
it would not be possible for me to believe that human beings and sequoias came from a common ancestor without the action of a creator and still believe in the Biblical description of a creating God....no.....

but I am puzzled....you admit that even if you knew the universe was created you would refuse to believe in a creator?.....

[PostmodernProphet]

Interspecies evolution is interspecies evolution.


obviously not.....




In one sense your right, but in another, very wrong. ERVs are spread by mating, and are never lost. Say you put a marker ERV in me, and I had 3 children who went with 3 none marked people and each had 3 children, there are now 13 people with the mark, and the process continues (over millions of years) the marks will intergrate themselves into all codes of that animal.

But there are exceptions, an evolution predicted this, places like Austrailia were there had been isolation. If a rat in Aus had exactly the same ERVs as one in Europe we'd know evolution was wrong, but they are not exactly the same, es they are very sjmalar because we just to be one land mass and then they had a common ancestor, however since the separation rats in Aus contracted different ERVs in different locations of their code. EXACTLY as evolution would predict.

How does ID answer this? 'The designer just made it that way' :laugh2:



See my above answer. You strike me as someone who isn't well read on ERVs while not surprising is is a little silly.

you dodged the question.....is there ONE ERV which has been passed down to every descendant who demonstrates one?......or are there multiple identical ERV?......l

[Noir]

given that there are probably 3 billion events of gene replication every ten or fifteen minutes, I would say that the chances are immensely greater than that life would spring spontaneously into being on one planet in one solar system in one galaxy in one universe......

This is nonsense, why have you suddenly jumped from ERVs and evolution to the Origin of life?



would it?....some parts off the DNA of a reptile are identical to parts of the DNA of a mammal.....if the duplication of an ERV is within those parts it would not lead to the conclusion of common ancestry.....

Yes it would. We have some ERVs in common with reptiles because they evolved before mammals, but if we found ERVs in a reptile that are only present in primates then evolution would be destroyed because if an ERV is in a reptile and primates it must be in all other mammals.


no true.....I changed to "exactly the same" because you insisted on it....

I insisted on it because it's right.



it's obviously a scientific possibility, isn't it?.....

To happen for one ERV in one animal? I guess there is a one in fifty million chance. But when you have tens of thousands of ERVs in countless species of animals dating back millions of years and ALL fitting exactly into what would be expected by evolution, I'd say it's really very quiet amazingly unlikey to of all happened by random chance as apose to evolution. (I once heard it described as having a billion piece jigsaw, throwing all the bits randomly together, it all fitting perfectly making a glorious picture of a setting Sun, and someone looking at it and saying 'you did it all wrong idiot!')





it would not be possible for me to believe that human beings and sequoias came from a common ancestor without the action of a creator and still believe in the Biblical description of a creating God....no.....

So could you believe that evolution between species was the plan of your god?



but I am puzzled....you admit that even if you knew the universe was created you would refuse to believe in a creator?.....

We are not talking about the universe, we are talking about life and evolution.

[Noir]

obviously not.....[quote]

>,>

[quote]you dodged the question.....is there ONE ERV which has been passed down to every descendant who demonstrates one?......or are there multiple identical ERV?......l

Yes, there are not just one there are thousands, all of which have been past on by breeding.

[PostmodernProphet]

This is nonsense, why have you suddenly jumped from ERVs and evolution to the Origin of life?
because this part of our debate began with
"those who refuse to believe in an intelligent designer believe that life developed under a set of circumstances that would make the mere 'incredibly unlikely' appear destined.....why such a selective skepticism?....





Yes it would. We have some ERVs in common with reptiles because they evolved before mammals, but if we found ERVs in a reptile that are only present in primates then evolution would be destroyed because if an ERV is in a reptile and primates it must be in all other mammals.

no, it could have developed independently in some reptiles....



I insisted on it because it's right.
that's nice.....doesn't change anything in my argument, however...





To happen for one ERV in one animal? I guess there is a one in fifty million chance.
one in fifty million?.....considering all the cells that develop in all the animals in the world on a daily basis?.....what does that leave us, a couple of million possibilities per hour?.......pocket change compared to the chance that the universe just happened to produce a planet on which life could develop spontaneously by climbing out of a puddle of goo.......



So could you believe that evolution between species was the plan of your god?
????.....I could even believe in "shit just happens", but I choose not to.......



We are not talking about the universe, we are talking about life and evolution.
???...when I asked "would finding that everything has been created stop you from being an atheist?", did it confuse you?.....I was talking about "everything" when I said "everything"......

[PostmodernProphet]

[QUOTE=PostmodernProphet;441669]obviously not.....[quote]

>,>



Yes, there are not just one there are thousands, all of which have been past on by breeding.

then, if it is possible that the identical ERV developed in two different cats, why do you argue that one must have evolved from the other?....why couldn't they simply have independently experienced the same ERV development?.....

in the other example used by the OP.....an ape experienced the development of an ERV....a human experienced the development of an identical ERV.....it is not necessary that they have a common ancestor.....

[bullypulpit]

Ahhhh...PostModernProphet drags creation "science" kicking and screaming back onto the stage. Never mind that it has no basis in fact.

[PostmodernProphet]

bully, this is a civil debate, you are obviously in the wrong place.....

[Noir]

Before we go any further, can I ask if you still have the links/pages you used to resech ERVs, because from what I've read you really don't get what they are at all, and there would be little point in continuing if that is the case.

If required I will happily give an in-depth post on all aspects of ERVs, rather than the short paragraph I did in my first post in the topic when I assume we were on the same song sheet with this one.

[PostmodernProphet]

I read various arguments from atheistRus websites outlining WHY retroviruses were supposedly evidence of macro evolution.....the gap in the argument was obvious......the one I linked was typical of the argument......if you think there is some gap in my education, feel free to fill it.....I certainly wouldn't want to deprive you of an opportunity to state your case.....

[PostmodernProphet]

your error, as I see it, is characterizing the event as "the creator making something look like it was evolved"....instead of an alternative like "this is what happens when a cell is subjected to environmental factor X".....the whole thought of macro evolution is a made made presumption.....thus, to say that something conforms to what you expected is nothing more than a reinforcement of your own faith choice.....

[PostmodernProphet]

Noir?....is it safe to assume you are busy researching your response?......

[Noir]

Noir?....is it safe to assume you are busy researching your response?......

It is. This field is simply vast (testament to how much work has been put into it) I will be able to reply later tonight or tomorrow morning when I'm at my computer.

[PostmodernProphet]

It is. This field is simply vast (testament to how much work has been put into it) I will be able to reply later tonight or tomorrow morning when I'm at my computer.

please try to make it something more than a cut and paste.....I could have done that for you, if that's all you do.....but then, being in charge of both sides of the argument, it would slightly increase my odds of winning......

[Noir]

please try to make it something more than a cut and paste.....I could have done that for you, if that's all you do.....but then, being in charge of both sides of the argument, it would slightly increase my odds of winning......

It won't be cut and paste, though I will have quotes from peer reviewed and publish scientific journals aswell as quotes from Noble prize winners from microbiological science, if that's alright with you.

[PostmodernProphet]

It won't be cut and paste, though I will have quotes from peer reviewed and publish scientific journals aswell as quotes from Noble prize winners from microbiological science, if that's alright with you.

hopefully, you will draw your argument out in your own words rather than just seeing you dump three pages of links down, saying "see!".......

[Noir]

hopefully, you will draw your argument out in your own words rather than just seeing you dump three pages of links down, saying "see!".......

Well ofcourse, though it will have to wait, last minute call from work so I'm in tomorrow mornin so no computer tonight.