1. Again, a prediction is not something you claim AFTER its been found out. As I said using your "logic" I can see a red car coming down the street and then "predict" that a red car will be passing me soon. As I said, its an observation that fits, its not a prediction. Unless Darwin exclusively stated the presence of ERVs before being found then its not a prediction, period. If you continue to persist then please tell me where it was predicted BEFORE ERVs were found. pre•dict /prɪˈdɪkt/ Show Spelled [pri-dikt] Show IPA verb (used with object) 1. to declare or tell in advance; prophesy; foretell: to predict the weather; to predict the fall of a civilization. Additionally many of these?
The theory of evolution, the idea that ERVs are common in a genome, and humans and animals share most of their DNA, logically suggest that there will be orthogonal ERVs. This logic is a prediction, despite whether scientists even discovered this logical relationship, or whether they discovered this relationship before and after they discovered ERVs. The theory of evolution and these other ideas predicted orthogonal ERVs long before these orthogonal ERVs were discovered, humans only realized this prediction after these orthogonal ERVs were discovered.
Remember in science that scientists use a theory to derive predictions, and see if they are confirmed. The confirmations can already be hiding out there in the scientific literature when the scientists discover the prediction the theory makes.
Let me revise your analogy a bit. Lets say that police used videotapes and discovered that whenever a suspect made a call to a certain source, that the suspect's red car was spotted at an intersection that was caught by videotape minutes afterward. They discovered this after the calls stopped being made. Therefore, the calls are a prediction of the car's location. So in this instance, the police people made these predictions about the location of the car after it already was there several times.
The point is that the police people didn't actually make these predictions all by themselves, they only discovered that the calls predicted the car's location. Since the calls were made before the car when to the intersection, then we are fine. In the same way, scientists only discovered that evolution predicted orthogonal ERVs after these were discovered.
Observations have resulted in ad hoc hypothesises being added to "theory" meaning anything can be used as "evidence" since its shoe-horned in with new ad hoc hypothesises. Things like PE, convergent evolution were not "predicted" by original evolution "theory" however they were added ad hoc AFTER evidence was found to demonstrate a contradiction with the original "theory"... What does this mean? It means that evolution is simply pseudoscience since it keeps getting parts added and changed to accomodate anything which contradicts it.
Hardly any theory is completely accurate when it is first conceived. If most new data is confirming the theory but a few is challenging it, then the best conclusion is that the theory is for the most part accurate, but needs revision. Also, theories may not start off being completely detailed. New data can come along and add detail to the theory. These methods are only valid for theories with a significant amount of confirmation. If you make a hypothesis, and then when data comes in, it shows that the hypothesis’ predictions are wrong, and the scientists just revise the hypothesis every time, then there is a major problem.
There is a general theory of evolution that deals with common ancestry. It says that through generally gradualistic processes, all life evolved from a common ancestor. Then there is the theory that deals with how exactly life evolved. Then there are a bunch of theories that deal with how different species evolved. So while scientists may not be sure exactly what ratio of natural selection, genetic drift, mutations, speciation, go into evolution, they are sure of common ancestry, and that these have a lot to do with evolution.
Also, some facts pop up that evolution does not predict but only accommodates. This is fine as long as evolution predicts other things. You mentioned convergent evolution. There is no reason to think that the evolution of a certain mechanism will only happen once. In fact over billions of years, we are bound to find a few organisms that have come on the same mechanism independently.
2. No its not about whether or not Darwin knew about ERVs its about when the "prediciton" is made. You've confused the issue by focusing on something I am not talking about. Predcition is to predict something and predict is to foretell, not to look at an observation and see if it fits. 3, Which is what happens with these additional ad hoc hypotheses which evolutionists add.
As I mentioned before, orthogonal ERVs logically follow from the theory of evolution, the fact that organisms have many ERVs, and the fac that they share a lot of their DNA. So these things do predict orthogonal ERVs.
The question whether Darwin knew about these ERVs when he made the theory define the exception to the prediction model. If the theory of evolution predicts something that was known when Darwin was coming up with the theory of evolution, then this cannot be used as evidence. Also, if the things the theory predicts would have likely happened whether the theory is true or not, they cannot be used as evidence for the theory. These are the exceptions to the prediction model.
4. I thought facts were essential to science?....
Of course they are. However when one is making a theory to explain facts, it is not enough that the theory predicts the facts that were already known when the theory was made. It has no predictive power in this case. It is easy enough to make a theory so that it explains things we already know. A theory must be able to predict facts that are discovered after the theory is made.
5. Care to show where the "theory" makes such a prediction. Or is this you being creative?
Well, if the theory of evolution is true, and since we already know that ERVs are common in the genome, and that life shares most of its genes, then we should see orthogonal ERVs.
6. In this one sentence you demonstrate two fallacies of logic... i) A prediction is not made after the fact. Go argue with the dictionary since you are clearly having trouble with the definintion of prediction. ii) If the predictions were made AFTER the THEORY yet the THEORY only becomes a THEORY AFTER the predictions are confirmed, then you have a time paradox here. What came first the "theory" or the "prediction"?
As I said before, predictions are confirmed after the theory AND after the hypothesis. When evolution was a hypothesis it made predictions that were confirmed. It was not a theory at this point. When evolution became a theory after its prediction were confirmed when a hypothesis, its predictions still were being confirmed.
7. No I reason that since ERVs come from viruses and the organim existed before without ERVs then the ERVs would be "predicted" to not have a critical function which is required by the organism to survive, since it can be concluded that at some time an organism survived before the ERV was inserted and before it had "evolved" into the function. Meaning it can also be postulated that organisms should be able to exist without this function... Now as has been found, a critical function is used, for pregnancy I believe meaning its absurd to claim that such things resulted from useless viral "DNA" (well RNA but that is a technicallity), this totally contradicts the evolutionary ERVs scenario, and renders it absurd.
I already showed you in a previous post that it was not absurd. Your reasoning fails because it assumes the rest of the body is the same in the past as it is now. In the past it may not have needed this retrovirus, but when the retrovirus got inserted, the body adapted to need to need the retrovirus.
Additionally just because they are similar doesn't demonstrate the mechanism of HOW they came to be similar, all you can empirically claim is "these ERVs are similar" anything else beyond that is adding imagination to the mix.
I am not directly saying that evolution made them similar as my evidence for evolution. All I am noting is that their similarity confirms a prediction by evolution.
8. So you are asking why would God do X? .... Do you realise how silly it is to ask such a thing? Who knows why God has decided to do such? Moreover, why do you think I would know?
My real question is why would God make the genome to look like it has a bunch of retroviruses? This sounds like more of a conspiracy theory than a serious scientific statement. And about those fossil bones, how do you know they are bones? Most of them are now made out of rock and scientists think that the bone was replaced with rock. Aren’t we assuming they came from bone just because they look like bones? What if God made these rocks just to look like bones?
Or oil? How do we know our oil reserves came from plants? What if God created that substance that happens to look like it came from plants?
So there are two main theories here: ERV sequences came from retroviruses, or they were inserted by God and happen to like to RV sequences.
The first theory makes sense. We know retroviruses can insert their genes into germ cells, and if these are passed along, children will have them.
The second has problems. It requires that a designer purposely picked a genome that happened to look like it had retroviruses. The second hypothesis can be varied to disprove a lot in science. Maybe the star light we see did not actually come from stars, but a designer instead decided to send earth streams of light that only look like stars. The reason why nobody trusts this kind of reasoning is that it is less parsimonious than the first. Since the idea that God made “starlight” to look like it came from stars, is less parsimonious than the idea that the light just came from stars, we accept the latter as a fact than the former as fantasy.
9. Where did I state that observation is not a part of science? Its actually the first step of the scientific method, however what you need to realise is that its ONLY the first step, its not the whole kit and kabodle.
10. Experimentation is there to confirm that you have the correct hypothesis. For example I can claim that from observation the sun revolves around the Earth, this is supported by observation. However we now know that this is not true... Therefore how can you be sure that you have the correct hypothesis if you cannot confirm it with experimentation? Its a huge leap of faith and leaves a whole lot to speculation and imagination.... Therefore if this is what has occured, then why in the world is evolution claimed to be a fact when its based on speculation?
You are missing the whole point of experimentation. It is there to try to produce observations and confirmations of hypotheses. For example if I am trying to create a chemical reaction, I experiment to try to produce it. Experimentation is only a method to produce confirmation. Confirmation does not have to come just from experimentations. It can come from simple observation. For example, if we witnessed this chemical reaction happen without experimentation, it is still valid too as a confirmation of a prediction.
11. So you claim this can occur in nature because scientists have done it in a lab... This is the same fail-logic used by those supporting abiogenesis. A scientist forcing something to occur doesn't demonstrate that its capable via nature. I can insert human DNA into a dog, that doesn't mean its possible via nature... does it? />
We know that logically viruses can get into areas with germ cells. All scientists did was put viruses where germ cells were and let them infect these cells all by themselves. This only fails if testes are somehow immune to all viruses.