Jump to content


Photo

Why Evolutionist Don't Like To Give Evidence?


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
34 replies to this topic

#21 Salsa

Salsa

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,231 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 57
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Uppsala, Sweden

Posted 25 November 2012 - 03:58 AM

1. No need to apologise I know what they are, just asking you to consider how they are evidence,
2. Actually you can't, since you're merely assuming that evolution is the only cause that could cause such... There could be some unknown reason that could never have been fathomed, ergo why I ask the evolutionists for experimentation supporting their assumption of "evolution did it" because in most (if not all) cases such a claim cannot be made logically without supporting evidence to verify the proposed cause as the only cause.


I read somewhere that ERV's can be beneficial, which means that the "unknown reason" might not be as obscure as we might think. This would be especially so when we consider the fact that what is slightly beneficial today might have been more so originally.

Today, most software developers are familiar with the concept known as "design patterns". Design patterns are a set of algorithms organized to solve similar problems, and are therefore used to construct software objects that have the same characteristics.

If God created humans using "primates" as the design pattern, then it is hardly strange that we "share" things with other primates, whether they be physical traits, or entities of the external environment with which we interact.
  • gilbo12345 likes this

#22 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,000 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 25 November 2012 - 09:25 AM

I read somewhere that ERV's can be beneficial, which means that the "unknown reason" might not be as obscure as we might think. This would be especially so when we consider the fact that what is slightly beneficial today might have been more so originally. Today, most software developers are familiar with the concept known as "design patterns". Design patterns are a set of algorithms organized to solve similar problems, and are therefore used to construct software objects that have the same characteristics. If God created humans using "primates" as the design pattern, then it is hardly strange that we "share" things with other primates, whether they be physical traits, or entities of the external environment with which we interact.


Exactly what I think :D

This is why we have similar DNA in that our cells undergo many of the same functions which therefore entail the same DNA required for those cellular functions, eg. cellular respiration, DNA replication, transcription and translation, cellular replication etc etc etc. Knowing this and that the similarities and differences evolution claims are mainly due to similarities and differences in physiology shouldn't the evolutionist only be concerned with the genes that code for such differences and similarities? (Though bacterial morphology is claimed due to the metabolic status of the bacteria as well as the morphology).

#23 dan4reason

dan4reason

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 97 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 20
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Seattle, Washington

Posted 25 November 2012 - 10:56 AM

2. Actually you can't, since you're merely assuming that evolution is the only cause that could cause such... There could be some unknown reason that could never have been fathomed, ergo why I ask the evolutionists for experimentation supporting their assumption of "evolution did it" because in most (if not all) cases such a claim cannot be made logically without supporting evidence to verify the proposed cause as the only cause. Since its a proposed historical event, such experimentation cannot be performed thus its merely claimed on faith.


If there are many ERVs in the genome, and many animals share a very high perfect of their genes, which they do, then we predict that organisms will have orthogonal ERVs. The fact that this prediction is confirmed is incredible evidence for evolution.

3. Not necessarily. That is an assumption, firstly its assumed that these sequences are derived from viruses (because they are similar) and thus have no function. I am sure you know about the "junk DNA" claim made a while ago which puts doubt into the evolutionist's use of such assumptions. I'd say study it more and prove the claim before its made. Additionally there is no stipulation on Creationism that these MUST be different, this comes from the assumption that they are due to viruses however as far as I know ERVs haven't been demonstrated to infect germline cells, only somatic cells. Therefore this is a huge assumption.


That is not an assumption. It is a fact that these sequences come from viruses. In fact I have a paper that describes how scientists identify ERVs in a genome. Because of the way ERVs are inserted into the genome, their sequences will be bordered on the left by an LTR sequence and on the right by a LTR sequence. These sequences will be the same. Between the LTR sequences will be in order: the gag gene, the pro gene, the pol gene, and the env gene. The algorithm includes searching for conserved retroviral motifs in the gag and pol genes. Also searching for full length env genes by nucleotide similarity. The genes are also searched for those near repeating LTR sequences because mutations will make them a little different over time. The results section has far more detail on the algorithm used.
http://www.retroviro.../content/1/1/32

While most ENV sequences have been corrupted by mutations some of them still contain good reading frames and do produce viral proteins. In fact HERV-K elements are expressed and their viral proteins have been detected. Many ERV proteins if expressed will increase the changes of cancer in an organism.

6. Why doesn't it make sense? Now if ERVs were inserted from viruses then we should find that none of these sequences should have any form of function since the viral RNA / DNA (because of reverse transcriptase) would not have a use for the organism. Additionally since the organism / ancestor was assumed to at one stage to not contain these ERVs then it must have been able to survive without the ERVs. Thus if evolution is true then no ERV sequence can contain a critical code required by the organism to survive.. Since if there is something critical about the ERVs ( and considering how its conserved I assume there is) then how can we postulate organisms that somehow survived without this necessary function, before it was inserted via the virus?


Just as the ERV will often use the organisms own mechanisms to insert itself, there is no reason to think that organisms will not evolve to use ERVs to perform function. There is no reason to think that the effect of ERVs will be zero. Many ERVs will have an effect on an organism whether that effect is a difference in gene expression. Also, most ERVs have so many mutations, they don't work properly, so they have become normal genetic sequences.

#24 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,000 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 25 November 2012 - 07:23 PM

1. If there are many ERVs in the genome, and many animals share a very high perfect of their genes, which they do, then we predict that organisms will have orthogonal ERVs. The fact that this prediction is confirmed is incredible evidence for evolution.

2. That is not an assumption. It is a fact that these sequences come from viruses.

3. In fact I have a paper that describes how scientists identify ERVs in a genome. Because of the way ERVs are inserted into the genome, their sequences will be bordered on the left by an LTR sequence and on the right by a LTR sequence. These sequences will be the same. Between the LTR sequences will be in order: the gag gene, the pro gene, the pol gene, and the env gene. The algorithm includes searching for conserved retroviral motifs in the gag and pol genes. Also searching for full length env genes by nucleotide similarity. The genes are also searched for those near repeating LTR sequences because mutations will make them a little different over time. The results section has far more detail on the algorithm used. http://www.retroviro.../content/1/1/32

4. While most ENV sequences have been corrupted by mutations some of them still contain good reading frames and do produce viral proteins. In fact HERV-K elements are expressed and their viral proteins have been detected. Many ERV proteins if expressed will increase the changes of cancer in an organism. Just as the ERV will often use the organisms own mechanisms to insert itself,

5. there is no reason to think that organisms will not evolve to use ERVs to perform function. There is no reason to think that the effect of ERVs will be zero. Many ERVs will have an effect on an organism whether that effect is a difference in gene expression.

6. Also, most ERVs have so many mutations, they don't work properly, so they have become normal genetic sequences.


1. Its not a prediction, since its being made AFTER ERVs were discovered, its an observation.

2. It is an assumption since the only evidence they have is that they are similar thats it, unless they observe it occuring there is a measure of assumption in there, which you cannot deny or shunt away with words. Additionally as I said

3. Great, I've had a short read

4.

5. As I said critical function, if the function is critical then it is required therefore the proposed organism before the ERV would be missing the critical function meaning it wouldn't live. I explained this before.

6. So how would one differentiate between them if they look "normal"?


One cannot simply postulate the cause of something, if you want the claims to be scientific then you need to undertake an experiment to define the cause, merely assuming evolution doesn't do anything. As I have said there can be a cause we cannot fathom... (much like how we didn't even think that we revolved around the sun until later on).



EDIT: Couldn't say it better myself....Scientific resources are referenced at the bottom.

"When the female egg cell becomes fertilized, the maternal genome and resulting nucleus becomes completely reprogrammed. Newly synthesized RNA transcripts (copies of DNA segments) unique to the zygotic genome immediately populate and program the cell nucleus for life's initial stages. A key feature of this activity that has been discovered in the mouse genome involves a specific type of transposable element named MuERV-L. This transposable element is uniquely active in the totipotent cell phase that is critical to forming all of the other cells in the mouse embryo.

During zygote genome function, a network of developmental genes depends on MuERV-L to activate their promoter regions. This creates the totipotent cell state. This gene network is silenced as development progresses.

The fact that this transposable element is essential to proper development in mice illustrates how evolutionary thinking once incorrectly interpreted these genetic features. Other studies have also demonstrated the critical involvement of various classes of transposable element DNA during other stages of both embryo development and pregnancy.3, 4 Far from being useless genetic leftovers, transposable DNAs are central to life.

It is now hard to believe that these critical and functional pieces of the genome were once thought to be nothing but the meaningless relics of ancient viruses.5 Clearly, they are uniquely designed and highly-engineered pieces of DNA programmed by God the Creator."

http://www.icr.org/article/transposable-elements-key-embryo-development/


Therefore my initial analysis is correct :D

#25 dan4reason

dan4reason

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 97 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 20
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Seattle, Washington

Posted 26 November 2012 - 10:41 AM

1. Its not a prediction, since its being made AFTER ERVs were discovered, its an observation.


It doesn't matter when ERVs were discovered because we are not trying to provide evidence for ERVs, we are trying to provide evidence for evolution.

Let me restate what I said more clearly: If there are many ERVs in the genome (an observational fact), and many animals share a very high perfect of their genes (an observational fact), which they do, then if evolution is true (the theory we are testing), we predict that organisms will have orthogonal ERVs (prediction). The fact that this prediction is confirmed is incredible evidence for evolution (confirmation is made after theory is created).

It doesn't matter when observational facts that backs up a prediction were discovered, it fact all the observational facts could have been made before evolution, or after evolution. However it does matter whether the confirmation of the prediction was made. It had to be made after evolution.


2. It is an assumption since the only evidence they have is that they are similar thats it, unless they observe it occuring there is a measure of assumption in there, which you cannot deny or shunt away with words. Additionally as I said


What is the probability that human genes will look almost just like the gag gene, the pro gene, the pol gene, and the env gene, and will have near identical LTR sequences bordering these genes. Many of these ERVs are found by searching for the exact env gene sequence. There is just too much specificity for this to be random chance.

5. As I said critical function, if the function is critical then it is required therefore the proposed organism before the ERV would be missing the critical function meaning it wouldn't live. I explained this before.


Give me one ERV that is critical to the existence of the organism.

6. So how would one differentiate between them if they look "normal"?


For genes to be coding they have to have the right start and stop codons if I remember correctly, and probably other requirements, so it just requires looking at the sequence. They are normal in the way that they now can be used by the organism because they have lost their independent virus function, however they still do look a whole lot like ERV elements.


One cannot simply postulate the cause of something, if you want the claims to be scientific then you need to undertake an experiment to define the cause, merely assuming evolution doesn't do anything. As I have said there can be a cause we cannot fathom... (much like how we didn't even think that we revolved around the sun until later on).


What about fossils? Many fossils are not bone but rocks that have replaced the bone. Have we ever seen a living bone be completely replaced by rock while in the ground? So how did we know many fossils were once bones when we found them? Because of probabilities. It is unlikely that rocks formed by chance to look just like a skeleton. Same with ERVs it is unlikely that normal DNA was made to look just like retro-viral elements. Science is not all about direct observational experiment. Science makes claims about the past so we will never be able to use direct observational experiment to show many things happened. Science is also about looking at the evidence and making probability assessments.

Maybe they are a result of a cause we cannot fathom but that is unlikely given that we already have a cause that logically will happen and has been observed to happen (ERVs inserted into germ cells), and the gene sequences look just like they were produced by this cause.

EDIT: Couldn't say it better myself....Scientific resources are referenced at the bottom. "When the female egg cell becomes fertilized, the maternal genome and resulting nucleus becomes completely reprogrammed.

Newly synthesized RNA transcripts (copies of DNA segments) unique to the zygotic genome immediately populate and program the cell nucleus for life's initial stages. A key feature of this activity that has been discovered in the mouse genome involves a specific type of transposable element named MuERV-L. This transposable element is uniquely active in the totipotent cell phase that is critical to forming all of the other cells in the mouse embryo. During zygote genome function, a network of developmental genes depends on MuERV-L to activate their promoter regions. This creates the totipotent cell state.

This gene network is silenced as development progresses. The fact that this transposable element is essential to proper development in mice illustrates how evolutionary thinking once incorrectly interpreted these genetic features. Other studies have also demonstrated the critical involvement of various classes of transposable element DNA during other stages of both embryo development and pregnancy.3,

4 Far from being useless genetic leftovers, transposable DNAs are central to life. It is now hard to believe that these critical and functional pieces of the genome were once thought to be nothing but the meaningless relics of ancient viruses.5 Clearly, they are uniquely designed and highly-engineered pieces of DNA programmed by God the Creator." http://www.icr.org/a...yo-development/ Therefore my initial analysis is correct :D/>


So how did an ERV element get into the mouse genome if today the mouse cannot live without it? Because when the ERV was inserted, it was not necessary for the mouse. However the mouse evolved to use the ERV, and eventually the ERV was used as part of a function, the mouse later needed for survival.

For example, then the wing started evolving, the ancestors of birds did not need it to survive. Now these genes for the wing if corrupted would make the bird almost certain to die young.

So lets take the system A - B - C that a bird depends on for survival. Lets say that D evolves to help out the system. Later however the system evolved into A - D - C. Now D is necessary. Or maybe the system evolved to A -B-C-D, but other systems in the body evolved to only work with the product of A-B-C-D. Now if D were removed, and A-B-C were produced, the body wouldn't know what to do with it. Or maybe the body wouldn't work in such a way as to be naturally selected very well because it has been calibrated for A-B-C-D.

Or maybe A-B-C was a critical system but then system D-E-F evolved to help out A-B-C, where D is a retrovirus. However over time, the body started using D-E-F more and more and A-B-C less and less for its original function, so D-E-F has become necessary.

#26 usafjay1976

usafjay1976

    Member

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPip
  • 418 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Texas
  • Interests:Religion, Creation, Air Force, Traveling, Cooking, Movies
  • Age: 39
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Texas

Posted 26 November 2012 - 03:20 PM

For example, then the wing started evolving, the ancestors of birds did not need it to survive. Now these genes for the wing if corrupted would make the bird almost certain to die young.


So while the wing was still evolving, how did birds migrate? The Godwit, for example, flies nonstop for approximately 7000 miles http://www.washingto...8102102685.html

How did this bird survive?

#27 aelyn

aelyn

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 392 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • France

Posted 26 November 2012 - 04:16 PM

So while the wing was still evolving, how did birds migrate? The Godwit, for example, flies nonstop for approximately 7000 miles http://www.washingto...8102102685.html How did this bird survive?

All birds don't migrate, and a lot of non-winged animals do. I don't think we know anything about the migratory habits of proto-winged theropods but they weren't Godwits, so the question of how they survived has nothing to do with how a wingless Godwit would survive.

It's a big like asking how the earliest dogs could fit into ladies' purses while they were being bred to be smaller but weren't yet chihuahuas. Or how people went on the internet before they invented electricity.

#28 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,000 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 26 November 2012 - 06:38 PM

1. It doesn't matter when ERVs were discovered because we are not trying to provide evidence for ERVs, we are trying to provide evidence for evolution.

2. Let me restate what I said more clearly: If there are many ERVs in the genome (an observational fact), and many animals share a very high perfect of their genes (an observational fact), which they do, then if evolution is true (the theory we are testing), we predict that organisms will have orthogonal ERVs (prediction).

3. The fact that this prediction is confirmed is incredible evidence for evolution

4. (confirmation is made after theory is created).

5. It doesn't matter when observational facts that backs up a prediction were discovered, it fact all the observational facts could have been made before evolution, or after evolution.

6. It had to be made after evolution.

7. What is the probability that human genes will look almost just like the gag gene, the pro gene, the pol gene, and the env gene, and will have near identical LTR sequences bordering these genes.

8. Many of these ERVs are found by searching for the exact env gene sequence. There is just too much specificity for this to be random chance.

9. Give me one ERV that is critical to the existence of the organism.

10. For genes to be coding they have to have the right start and stop codons if I remember correctly, and probably other requirements, so it just requires looking at the sequence.

11. They are normal in the way that they now can be used by the organism because they have lost their independent virus function, however they still do look a whole lot like ERV elements.

12. What about fossils? Many fossils are not bone but rocks that have replaced the bone. Have we ever seen a living bone be completely replaced by rock while in the ground? So how did we know many fossils were once bones when we found them? Because of probabilities. It is unlikely that rocks formed by chance to look just like a skeleton.

13. Same with ERVs it is unlikely that normal DNA was made to look just like retro-viral elements.

14. Science is not all about direct observational experiment.

15. Science makes claims about the past so we will never be able to use direct observational experiment to show many things happened.

16. Science is also about looking at the evidence and making probability assessments.

17. Maybe they are a result of a cause we cannot fathom

18. but that is unlikely given that we already have a cause that logically will happen and has been observed to happen (ERVs inserted into germ cells), and the gene sequences look just like they were produced by this cause.

19. So how did an ERV element get into the mouse genome if today the mouse cannot live without it? Because when the ERV was inserted, it was not necessary for the mouse. However the mouse evolved to use the ERV, and eventually the ERV was used as part of a function, the mouse later needed for survival. For example, then the wing started evolving, the ancestors of birds did not need it to survive. Now these genes for the wing if corrupted would make the bird almost certain to die young. So lets take the system A - B - C that a bird depends on for survival. Lets say that D evolves to help out the system. Later however the system evolved into A - D - C. Now D is necessary. Or maybe the system evolved to A -B-C-D, but other systems in the body evolved to only work with the product of A-B-C-D. Now if D were removed, and A-B-C were produced, the body wouldn't know what to do with it. Or maybe the body wouldn't work in such a way as to be naturally selected very well because it has been calibrated for A-B-C-D. Or maybe A-B-C was a critical system but then system D-E-F evolved to help out A-B-C, where D is a retrovirus. However over time, the body started using D-E-F more and more and A-B-C less and less for its original function, so D-E-F has become necessary.



1. Yes, however when such is discovered is important as to whether it can be claimed as a prediction or not.

2. You've admitted that both were observations and that the "prediction" was made after those observations, ergo ad hoc "prediction". Its the same as if I see a red car coming down my street and then I claim I predict a red car will pass me on this street, using your logic this would also be a valid "prediction".

3. How so? Since there is still no confirmation relating this similarity to evolution... You're merely assuming "evolution did it". Assuming the conclusion is not science, (or has science changed meaning anyone can imagine an answer and that is what is true...)

4. WRONG! Confirmation is made via experimentation after the hypothesis is made.... You don't go about making "theories" willy nilly without confirming the hypothesises its based on.... Or is this how "science" operates these days? (Not the science I was taught anyway).

5. It does matter if you wish to claim something as a prediction (note the PRE in prediction meaning before)

6. Yes, after the idea of evolution but before the facts about it are known. That is what a real prediction is. Ie- Tiktaalik was a successful prediction made by evolutionists, (and the only one I know of to date), since Tiktaalik wasn't discovered however evolutionists claimed that there must be some (what they thought to be) transitional fish-like animal in X layer of rock. They found it AFTER making the claim, meaning its a fulfilled prediction. (Except that the Polish footprints now debunk it as evidence of evolution, however it is still evidence of how an actual prediciton is made).

7. Depends on the claimed cause, if a designer designed them because they have a required purpose (as has been demonstrated) then the likelyhood of them being similar would be very high since they would be needed to perform the required function.

8. And? Whoever said anything about random chance, not me, (except for the evolutionists who base their entire "theory" on it...... You do see the irony of your comment? ;) )

9. Already done... Didn't you read this above?

"EDIT: Couldn't say it better myself....Scientific resources are referenced at the bottom.

"When the female egg cell becomes fertilized, the maternal genome and resulting nucleus becomes completely reprogrammed. Newly synthesized RNA transcripts (copies of DNA segments) unique to the zygotic genome immediately populate and program the cell nucleus for life's initial stages. A key feature of this activity that has been discovered in the mouse genome involves a specific type of transposable element named MuERV-L. This transposable element is uniquely active in the totipotent cell phase that is critical to forming all of the other cells in the mouse embryo.

During zygote genome function, a network of developmental genes depends on MuERV-L to activate their promoter regions. This creates the totipotent cell state. This gene network is silenced as development progresses.

The fact that this transposable element is essential to proper development in mice illustrates how evolutionary thinking once incorrectly interpreted these genetic features. Other studies have also demonstrated the critical involvement of various classes of transposable element DNA during other stages of both embryo development and pregnancy.3, 4 Far from being useless genetic leftovers, transposable DNAs are central to life.

It is now hard to believe that these critical and functional pieces of the genome were once thought to be nothing but the meaningless relics of ancient viruses.5 Clearly, they are uniquely designed and highly-engineered pieces of DNA programmed by God the Creator."

http://www.icr.org/a...yo-development/"


10. Yes, and promoters as well as binding sites etc

11. And looking similar is enough evidence to claim that they are on and the same or one developed from another... There are people with similar faces does that mean they had the same parents? Using your logic that is enough evidence to claim that they do....

12. Umm no... Its not due to the "probabilities" its due to the observation of a skull or a rib cage etc..

13. How can you possibly know this...

14. Unfortunately for you BIOLOGY is, it is one of the empirical sciences, so if you are not following the scientific method then you are not conducting Biology.

15. Yes and those areas of "science" are not the empirical sciences, rather I'd prefer to call them social sciences. Derived from the fact that history is deemed a social studies topic at school meaning science dealing with history could be deemed social science, (not empirical science).

16. Umm no.. Empirical science is about making hypothesises and supporting or rejecting them based on experiment. I'd ask you to find me an article where it claims the hypothesis was X% supported since that is a probability... If you cannot then you must disregard this absurd notion you have about science.

17. This means there needs to be confirmation.

18. Have ERVs been observed to infect germline cells? I am sure I read somewhere that this is believed to be the case, thus not observed.. I ask you to show where this has been observed. Lest you're making stuff up to try and make your position seem more reasonable.

19. This is nothing more than a just-so-story.. How can you possibly know that it wasn't required before despite the fact that the evidence points to it being a critical function?

Additionally its a bit weird that you ask me for an observed function of ERVs yet you respond to the part where I gave such evidence?

#29 dan4reason

dan4reason

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 97 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 20
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Seattle, Washington

Posted 01 December 2012 - 12:24 PM

So while the wing was still evolving, how did birds migrate? The Godwit, for example, flies nonstop for approximately 7000 miles http://www.washingto...8102102685.html How did this bird survive?


Obviously, migration happened after birds evolved.

#30 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,428 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Retired science teacher with 26 yrs of experience: Biology, physical sciences, & physics.
  • Age: 64
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Midwest, USA

Posted 01 December 2012 - 12:46 PM

Obviously, migration happened after birds evolved.


The birds DIDN'T evolve. Evolution does not exist. There is merely small changes within an organisms genotype. Variation within a family/kind of organism is all that ever occurs in nature.

#31 dan4reason

dan4reason

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 97 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 20
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Seattle, Washington

Posted 01 December 2012 - 02:48 PM

1. Yes, however when such is discovered is important as to whether it can be claimed as a prediction or not.
2. You've admitted that both were observations and that the "prediction" was made after those observations, ergo ad hoc "prediction". Its the same as if I see a red car coming down my street and then I claim I predict a red car will pass me on this street, using your logic this would also be a valid "prediction".
6. Yes, after the idea of evolution but before the facts about it are known. That is what a real prediction is. Ie- Tiktaalik was a successful prediction made by evolutionists, (and the only one I know of to date), since Tiktaalik wasn't discovered however evolutionists claimed that there must be some (what they thought to be) transitional fish-like animal in X layer of rock. They found it AFTER making the claim, meaning its a fulfilled prediction. (Except that the Polish footprints now debunk it as evidence of evolution, however it is still evidence of how an actual prediciton is made).


I said:
"If there are many ERVs in the genome (an observational fact), and many animals share a very high perfect of their genes (an observational fact), which they do, then if evolution is true (the theory we are testing), we predict that organisms will have orthogonal ERVs (prediction)."


I understand that we predicted orthogonal ERVs using evolution after these were found. It doesn't really matter if the predictions are made after they are discovered, as long as we can show that the theory of evolution made these predictions, and that the people who came up with the theory had no way of knowing the confirmed predictions when it was created. Now if Darwin knew about orthogonal ERVs when he came up with evolution, then this does not really predict evolution, because he could have made the theory fit the observations.

Lets say that I wanted to prove Newton's equations. So I found the mass of Mars, the mass of the Sun, and Newton's equations on the internet. I found a site stating where mars was 2 months ago and find data about where it was 1 month ago. I then used Newton's equations by first predicting its second location by using its first, facts about Mars, and the theory of gravity. I find this prediction is confirmed when the formula's results match the data for the second observation.

You might argue that I made the prediction about Mar's second location after I had the correct results. However that doesn't really matter. What matters is that the theory of gravity predicts the second location from the first, and that Newton has no way of knowing about these observations when he came up with the theory of gravity. Now if these two observations were already known when Newton came up with the theory of gravity then he might have just made the theory to fit the observations.

The biggest point, is that when a scientist makes a theory, we must be sure that the scientist did not make up the theory to fit the facts. Since orthogonal ERVs were discovered after the theory of evolution was created, and the theory of evolution predicts ERVs, this is evidence for evolution.

4. WRONG! Confirmation is made via experimentation after the hypothesis is made.... You don't go about making "theories" willy nilly without confirming the hypothesises its based on.... Or is this how "science" operates these days? (Not the science I was taught anyway).


Prediction are made after the theory is created, however the theory was a hypothesis when it started and only became a theory through confirmed predictions.


7. Depends on the claimed cause, if a designer designed them because they have a required purpose (as has been demonstrated) then the likelyhood of them being similar would be very high since they would be needed to perform the required function.
8. And? Whoever said anything about random chance, not me, (except for the evolutionists who base their entire "theory" on it...... You do see the irony of your comment? ;)/> )
11. And looking similar is enough evidence to claim that they are on and the same or one developed from another... There are people with similar faces does that mean they had the same parents? Using your logic that is enough evidence to claim that they do....
13. How can you possibly know this...


Let me review, we have found known viral gene sequences on the human genome. Sequences that are very similar to the gag gene, the pro gene, the pol gene, and the env gene, and will have near identical LTR sequences bordering these genes. We already know what the function if these gene sequences are, to help propagate the virus in a cell. We have observed these sequences being introduced into somatic cells that have become infected.

You reason that since we have these sequences, and they happen to be positive, that apparently it is very likely that God would make us this way.

However we are not sure that these sequences are optimum although they are beneficial. For example, a designer could change a regulatory sequence into a coding sequence so while it loses one beneficial function it gains another, or a designer may create another sequence that does its job better. There are many ways to construct an organism, a designer just has to arrive at a good system, and needs to build parts that work together. So why did the designer pick the body design where a good proportion or its genes looks like they are retroviral?

DNA codes into amino acids which are the building blocks for proteins. However, there are many different DNA sequences for the same amino acid. So why did God pick the DNA for the amino acids in a protein that looked almost like retroviral elements?



12. Umm no... Its not due to the "probabilities" its due to the observation of a skull or a rib cage etc..

14. Unfortunately for you BIOLOGY is, it is one of the empirical sciences, so if you are not following the scientific method then you are not conducting Biology.
15. Yes and those areas of "science" are not the empirical sciences, rather I'd prefer to call them social sciences. Derived from the fact that history is deemed a social studies topic at school meaning science dealing with history could be deemed social science, (not empirical science).
16. Umm no.. Empirical science is about making hypothesises and supporting or rejecting them based on experiment. I'd ask you to find me an article where it claims the hypothesis was X% supported since that is a probability... If you cannot then you must disregard this absurd notion you have about science.
17. This means there needs to be confirmation.


Science is more than experimentation. It is also about observation. Experiments are only there if you cannot confirm a theory by just observing nature, you have to create the conditions for the observations yourself. Sometimes the theory is not 100% likely to predict a phenomenon, maybe it is only 99% likely, so when the prediction is confirmed, the theory is not quite is strengthened as it could have been.

18. Have ERVs been observed to infect germline cells? I am sure I read somewhere that this is believed to be the case, thus not observed.. I ask you to show where this has been observed. Lest you're making stuff up to try and make your position seem more reasonable.


First, this is going to logically happen. If a virus goes into an area with germ cells, they will be infected. In fact scientists did this to mice and found that the germ cells were infected.

19. This is nothing more than a just-so-story.. How can you possibly know that it wasn't required before despite the fact that the evidence points to it being a critical function?


I didn’t mean to strait up claim it wasn’t required before, I am making arguments showing that you cannot assume that just because it is required now, means that it was required in the past.

#32 dan4reason

dan4reason

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 97 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 20
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Seattle, Washington

Posted 01 December 2012 - 03:16 PM

The birds DIDN'T evolve. Evolution does not exist. There is merely small changes within an organisms genotype. Variation within a family/kind of organism is all that ever occurs in nature.


A little more than that occurs. And the evidence points to it. I am actually discussing this evidence right now, so try to respond to my retrovirus evidence.

#33 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,000 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 02 December 2012 - 03:57 AM

1. I understand that we predicted orthogonal ERVs using evolution after these were found. It doesn't really matter if the predictions are made after they are discovered, as long as we can show that the theory of evolution made these predictions, and that the people who came up with the theory had no way of knowing the confirmed predictions when it was created.

2. Now if Darwin knew about orthogonal ERVs when he came up with evolution, then this does not really predict evolution, because he could have made the theory fit the observations. Lets say that I wanted to prove Newton's equations. So I found the mass of Mars, the mass of the Sun, and Newton's equations on the internet. I found a site stating where mars was 2 months ago and find data about where it was 1 month ago. I then used Newton's equations by first predicting its second location by using its first, facts about Mars, and the theory of gravity. I find this prediction is confirmed when the formula's results match the data for the second observation. You might argue that I made the prediction about Mar's second location after I had the correct results. However that doesn't really matter. What matters is that the theory of gravity predicts the second location from the first, and that Newton has no way of knowing about these observations when he came up with the theory of gravity.

3. Now if these two observations were already known when Newton came up with the theory of gravity then he might have just made the theory to fit the observations.

4. The biggest point, is that when a scientist makes a theory, we must be sure that the scientist did not make up the theory to fit the facts.

5. Since orthogonal ERVs were discovered after the theory of evolution was created, and the theory of evolution predicts ERVs,

6. Prediction are made after the theory is created, however the theory was a hypothesis when it started and only became a theory through confirmed predictions.

7. You reason that since we have these sequences, and they happen to be positive, that apparently it is very likely that God would make us this way.

8. However we are not sure that these sequences are optimum although they are beneficial. For example, a designer could change a regulatory sequence into a coding sequence so while it loses one beneficial function it gains another, or a designer may create another sequence that does its job better. There are many ways to construct an organism, a designer just has to arrive at a good system, and needs to build parts that work together. So why did the designer pick the body design where a good proportion or its genes looks like they are retroviral? DNA codes into amino acids which are the building blocks for proteins. However, there are many different DNA sequences for the same amino acid. So why did God pick the DNA for the amino acids in a protein that looked almost like retroviral elements?

9. Science is more than experimentation. It is also about observation.

10. Experiments are only there if you cannot confirm a theory by just observing nature, you have to create the conditions for the observations yourself. Sometimes the theory is not 100% likely to predict a phenomenon, maybe it is only 99% likely, so when the prediction is confirmed, the theory is not quite is strengthened as it could have been.

11. First, this is going to logically happen. If a virus goes into an area with germ cells, they will be infected. In fact scientists did this to mice and found that the germ cells were infected.

12. I didn’t mean to strait up claim it wasn’t required before, I am making arguments showing that you cannot assume that just because it is required now, means that it was required in the past.


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? 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.

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.

4. I thought facts were essential to science?....

5. Care to show where the "theory" makes such a prediction. Or is this you being creative?

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"?

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.

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.

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?

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?

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? ;)

12. Hence my criteria of CRITICAL. if the function was benign then yes it could have "evolved" over time, however if the function is required for the organism/s that its meant to have been inserted into and whilst the function is "evolving" then it demonstrates that it doesn't fit what would be "predicted" via evolution.

12.

#34 Salsa

Salsa

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,231 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 57
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Uppsala, Sweden

Posted 02 December 2012 - 04:57 AM

1. Again, a prediction is not something you claim AFTER its been found out.


You are wrong Gilbo! Predictions are always made after you have a chance to confirm them.

Get an education!

Posted Image
  • gilbo12345 likes this

#35 dan4reason

dan4reason

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 97 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 20
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Seattle, Washington

Posted 02 December 2012 - 03:09 PM

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.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users