Evolution vs. Creation

Full story: Best of New Orleans

High school senior Zack Kopplin is leading the fight to repeal the Louisiana Science Education Act of 2008.
Comments
79,601 - 79,620 of 114,366 Comments Last updated 1 hr ago

“what we think we become”

Level 5

Since: Aug 11

above and beyond

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#84273
Apr 1, 2013
 
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
You still do not understand retroviruses.
Which part I did not understand?
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Your body has about 100 trillion cells in it. Even with the worst of retrovirus infections only a very small fraction of a percent of your cells are infected by the virus.
What is your point?
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
We know that ERV's come from retroviruses because of several facts.
They were first identified as viruses by virologists.
They have been observed being formed.
They have been analyzed.
They have even been revived.
There is no doubt in the scientific world of where ERV's came from or what they are.
And so the scientists who said HIV is not transmitted genetically are wrong? Can you name other viruses that can be heritable other than the herpesvirus? How many chimps and humans are infected with herpesvirus if that seems to be the irrefutable evidence for ERV's?

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#84274
Apr 1, 2013
 
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>not sure why you folks are even responding to his posts....isn't there an age old rule about that on the interweb?

Yes you're right I shouldn't toy with brazen bulls.
I thought there was something in it , but it seems to have gone now.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#84275
Apr 1, 2013
 

Judged:

1

Cybele wrote:
<quoted text>
Which part I did not understand?
<quoted text>
What is your point?
<quoted text>
And so the scientists who said HIV is not transmitted genetically are wrong? Can you name other viruses that can be heritable other than the herpesvirus? How many chimps and humans are infected with herpesvirus if that seems to be the irrefutable evidence for ERV's?
God you are stupid!

Once again, you have trillions of cells in your body. Only a small fraction of a percent will be infected by a retrovirus at its worst. Think about that.

“Universal Conscious Conscience”

Level 3

Since: Feb 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#84276
Apr 1, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually all you have done is remove all doubt, that you are
a 100% certified lunatic.
You know nothing of me and my depth of understanding and you see I speak in absolutes. Why hurl insults because what I say is absolute truth? Truth seekers donít conflict and insult each other. Why do you want to know the truth and or claim to be a scientific minded person? What do you seek to know about life? I hope you donít get off belittling people because you call yourself a person of scientific knowing.

“Universal Conscious Conscience”

Level 3

Since: Feb 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#84277
Apr 1, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

1

woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>not sure why you folks are even responding to his posts....isn't there an age old rule about that on the interweb?
Yeah, I did expose your theory of evolution as a peudo science when it comes to the origin of species. I wouldn't want to talk to me either because I exposed your pseudo-science.

This is what I do when people claim my title (truth seeker and teacher of self-evident truths about the meaning of life).

I WILL CONTINUE TO DESTROY YOUR FLAWED CONCEPTS because you can't be taught on how to be a truth seeker. It's an innate quality!

“what we think we become”

Level 5

Since: Aug 11

above and beyond

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#84278
Apr 1, 2013
 

Judged:

1

Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
God you are stupid!
Once again, you have trillions of cells in your body. Only a small fraction of a percent will be infected by a retrovirus at its worst. Think about that.
You are the idiot if you can't answer my questions.

Does it matter what percentage of cells will be infected? The question I have is on the infected cells. You can't even name one virus.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#84279
Apr 1, 2013
 
Cybele wrote:
<quoted text>
You are the idiot if you can't answer my questions.
Does it matter what percentage of cells will be infected?
Yes.
Gillette

Fairfield, IA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#84280
Apr 1, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

If you get a virus in one of your cells, it copies its DNA into your DNA in order to make more copies of itself.

If that happens in a blood cell, then that one cell has the DNA insert.

If EVERY cell in your body has the DNA insert, it's part of your DNA.

That ONLY happens when a virus gets into a sperm or egg which goes on to produce a living being.

From then on, anyone born to that lineage will also have the same retroviral insert in their DNA.

So, if this happened to your grandfather's sperm, it caused you dad to have it. Your dad passes it on to you, you pass it on to your children.

That's a retroviral insert.

Any given virus COULD be an insert and COULD insert into any part of the gene sequence.

So, for you and I to have the same insert in the same place on our DNA, there are only two possibilities.
A) Someone a long way back had the virus and we both descend from that person.
B) The EXACT same virus infected two different people, and randomly inserted itself into the EXACT same spot on the INCREDIBLY LONG DNA sequence (3 BILLION pairs = 3 BILLION possible places to insert itself), and then that cell HAPPENED to be a sperm and HAPPENED to result in a kid.

The odds against B are very long, but not impossible.

However, you and I don't just have ONE retrovirus in common, we have many (let's say 30 for the sake of the discussion).

So, either you and I descend from one individual who had the 30 virus inserts -or- B happened 30x in a row without ever having a single mistaken location or additional virus.

Odds against that? Too long to have ever occurred in the entire history of the universe.

So, the fact that ALL humans have the same retroviral DNA inserts means that ALL humans share a common ancestor who had those same inserts.

Get it? Good.

Now, understand this. Of the 30 retroviral inserts we all share, chimps ALSO have 15 of them.

That means that at some point, a long time ago, when there were only 15 retroviral inserts, an individual existed who was both the forefather of all humans and the forefather of all chimps.

That's common descent.

if two people have the same retroviral insert in the same place in their DNA, they likely share a common ancestor.

And we've concluded that if two people have more than one of the same retroviral insert in the same place in their DNA, the odds against them not sharing a common ancestor go up exponentially with each additional insert.

Onto the next point:
Looking at insertion points for one retrovirus (HERV-K) here's what we find:

# of retroviral insertion points in common between humans and...
New World Monkeys: 2
Old World Monkeys: 4
Gibbons: 7
Orangutans: 9
Gorillas & Chimps: 11
Other Humans: 14

So what does that tell us?
It tells us that we share a common ancestor with all of these.

It tells us the order in which the various groups split off.

The least # of viruses in common split first. The most # split last.

The odds against humans and chimps both aquiring 11 common inserts? 1:1 followed by 132 zeros.

That is why DNA researchers consider ERVs to be slam-the-door positive evidence for evolution.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#84281
Apr 1, 2013
 
Here. let me make it easier for you. From the Wiki article on ERV's:

"The replication cycle of a retrovirus entails the insertion ('integration') of a DNA copy of the viral genome into the nuclear genome of the host cell. Most retroviruses infect somatic cells, but occasional infection of germline cells (cells that produce eggs and sperm) can also occur. Rarely, retroviral integration may occur in a germline cell that goes on to develop into a viable organism. This organism will carry the inserted retroviral genome as an integral part of its own genome - an 'endogenous' retrovirus (ERV) that may be inherited by its offspring as a novel allele. Many ERVs have persisted in the genome of their hosts for millions of years. However, most of these have acquired inactivating mutations during host DNA replication, and are no longer capable of producing virus. ERVs can also be partially excised from the genome by a process known as recombinational deletion, in which recombination between the identical sequences that flank newly integrated retroviruses results in deletion of the internal, protein-coding regions of the viral genome."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endogenous_retro...

The formation of an ERV into germline cells is a very rare event. It is much rarer than a once in a generation event for a whole population.

The point is that ERV's are well observed. You asked about them, I gave you the information. Now you are trying to move the goal posts.

“Universal Conscious Conscience”

Level 3

Since: Feb 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#84282
Apr 1, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Eristotle wrote:
<quoted text>
One fact is true..."That, historically speaking, most scientists have been proved wrong".
More precisely, most scientists haven't gotten it exactly right because they lacked all of the facts.
Science by consensus is bad science.
Most people once believed the Earth was flat,and that the sun, the moon and the stars revovled around the Earth.
Nobody believed in Ice Ages until a geologist studying "erratics" (rocks found far from their origin) speculated they had been moved there by glaciers, then proved it.
Continental Drift theory was lauhged at until proven correct (now called Plate Techtonics).
Gene Shoemaker had to prove comets and asteroids really did impact Earth.
Yes, the scientific method does work...eventually.
Your scientific method will never work and all it is doing is deteriorating the quality of science because your falsifiable method of reasoning challenges scientific laws and these are absolutes. Science is becoming more and more corrupt because you now have theories challenging scientific laws. THIS IS INSANE!
The scientific method with the falsifiability with-in it will not work eventually because it violates the meaning of how nature behaves and that is non-contradictory.

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

McMurdo Station

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#84283
Apr 1, 2013
 

Judged:

1

Infinite Force wrote:
<quoted text>
Your scientific method will never work and all it is doing is deteriorating the quality of science because your falsifiable method of reasoning challenges scientific laws and these are absolutes. Science is becoming more and more corrupt because you now have theories challenging scientific laws. THIS IS INSANE!
The scientific method with the falsifiability with-in it will not work eventually because it violates the meaning of how nature behaves and that is non-contradictory.
Hey, the scientific method works quite well thank you. Science has already falsified Genesis and Exodus and Joshua. We're working on the rest of it.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#84284
Apr 1, 2013
 
superwilly wrote:
<quoted text>
Hmmm...."...nothing is absolute...."
Except, of course, the mind and ego of the "scientist", which is pristine and perfect!
One dare not challenge his (or her) presumptions or biases!
One dare not challenge the almighty scientist!
Of course they can. Just submit a science paper to any peer-reviewed biology journal.

“Universal Conscious Conscience”

Level 3

Since: Feb 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#84285
Apr 1, 2013
 
Cybele wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry to break it to you but the theory of evolution is science fiction with the use of logic. That's all there is. No real evidence.
More like pseudo-logic with no evidence.

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

McMurdo Station

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#84286
Apr 1, 2013
 
Sometimes wrote:
I think Neanderthals are ruling the world!
Quasi-Neanderthals
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#84287
Apr 1, 2013
 

Judged:

1

Cybele wrote:
Wishful thinking. Real scientists must be laughing at your assinite rhetoric. Darwin is dead. And the theory must die along. We all know it's all empty-talk and trash talk.
Sorry, but the theory has evolved since his day. It is now known as what's called the modern evolutionary synthesis.
Cybele wrote:
<quoted text>
Stop dreaming. You have not addressed my questions on evolution. Do you have anything to contribute to the old fairy tale of a theory?
You have not addressed the evidence for evolution. In fact no fundie on the face of the entire planet has. All they can do is beat up straw-man versions of it or say evolution "must" be wrong cuz science doesn't know everything yet.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#84288
Apr 1, 2013
 

Judged:

1

superwilly wrote:
<quoted text>
Darwin was wrong in his racist views, never gloss over that!
I dealt with his alleged racial views on page 1 of this very thread. And they still have no bearing on the validity of biology.
superwilly wrote:
My criticism is about the narcissistic character of some "scientists" who quite clearly think they ARE god.
When you point out faults in the logic they employ and inconsistencies in methodology and give specifics they merely dismiss it outright, never looking at it from a different point of view.
I had a professor tell me "I don't have enough time for that!".
Well, shouldn't he have considered that a student would pick up on things before he presented it to an anthropology class as absolute immutable truth?
It happens. It is obvious on this thread. Don't ever dare question "science"!
YOU don't dare question science because you are completely ignorant of the subject. That is why your baseless criticisms and opinions are dismissed. So you wanna complain that that mean old Dawkins is a big meanie? Go right ahead.(shrug) But when it turns out that the concept you're denying has the support of every major scientific institution in the world including literally hundreds of thousands of scientists who accept it just as they accept gravity, AND take into account that 99.99999999% of all its detractors do so because they think Goddidit with magic, that should tell you something.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#84289
Apr 1, 2013
 

Judged:

1

Cybele wrote:
<quoted text>
Just let this thread die. So you can stop showing your arrogance and ignorance.
Nah, it's still young yet. Only 80,001. The Markie thread has fallen behind with 111,000 posts. In the lead now is the Cowboy thread with 123,000. I'll wager you'll look like this by the time it's done:

http://www.build-a-beard.com/storage/ZZ-Top-4...

:-p
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#84290
Apr 1, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Cybele wrote:
<quoted text>
Evolution is not one of the hard sciences, and is not the foundation to all sciences. Real sciences are independent of their own. Pharmacology is a field in medicine.
And what school did you go to? The University of Newcastle where they teach you that a frog can turn into a prince?
The only thing I give TOE credit for is the use of logic, even with the absence of real evidence.
No, physics technically speaking is the foundation to all sciences. However evolution IS biology, and biology IS a hard science, just like physics and chemistry. We know this because otherwise things like medicine that you mentioned would not exist. Oh, and we have PLENTY of evidence:

http://www.topix.com/forum/news/evolution/T9Q...

Now once you come up with an alternative plausible explanation for retroviral orthology in all the great apes then maybe you'd have a point.(shrug)

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#84291
Apr 1, 2013
 
Subduction Zone wrote:
Here. let me make it easier for you. From the Wiki article on ERV's:
"The replication cycle of a retrovirus entails the insertion ('integration') of a DNA copy of the viral genome into the nuclear genome of the host cell. Most retroviruses infect somatic cells, but occasional infection of germline cells (cells that produce eggs and sperm) can also occur. Rarely, retroviral integration may occur in a germline cell that goes on to develop into a viable organism. This organism will carry the inserted retroviral genome as an integral part of its own genome - an 'endogenous' retrovirus (ERV) that may be inherited by its offspring as a novel allele. Many ERVs have persisted in the genome of their hosts for millions of years. However, most of these have acquired inactivating mutations during host DNA replication, and are no longer capable of producing virus. ERVs can also be partially excised from the genome by a process known as recombinational deletion, in which recombination between the identical sequences that flank newly integrated retroviruses results in deletion of the internal, protein-coding regions of the viral genome."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endogenous_retro...
The formation of an ERV into germline cells is a very rare event. It is much rarer than a once in a generation event for a whole population.
The point is that ERV's are well observed. You asked about them, I gave you the information. Now you are trying to move the goal posts.
For all intents and purpose ERVs seem to be viral outbreaks that were defeated with a price, the price of defeat was absorption. Almost like invading China with the intent to take over
but in the end becoming Chinese. Which goes with the age old saying, "that which does not kill me...makes me stronger".
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#84292
Apr 1, 2013
 
superwilly wrote:
<quoted text>
Did I say I was arguing against evolution with the professor?, no.
My comment is attacks the attitude of the professor or scientist.
Yes, Darwin WAS racist, I have posted his own words on this thread.
So have I. Here they are again:

http://www.topix.com/forum/news/evolution/T9Q...

That still has no bearing on the validity of any scientific concept. Tycho Brahe was a bit of an ahole, but that doesn't make him any less of an astronomer.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

•••
•••