Over the past couple of weeks, I have watched programmes from animal programmes to just day to day programmes where the theory of evolution is seen as fact. Switched on the tv and the usual ranting on about our "ancestors" etc.
My question why do you think something which is very doubtful and to this day remains a theory is pushed so heavily on us?
"Lo! the Hour is surely coming, there is no doubt thereof; yet most of mankind believe not." (Al-Ghafir:59)
True, but there’s no supporting evidence for your point of view either! Just because there’s no evidence that a theory is wrong doesn’t mean it’s right by default. Why do I have to show a point of view is wrong, when it’s not proven in the first place? People assume it’s random because they do not find the order behind it. That doesn’t cut the mustard. If you want to pass this as scientific facts, show me the evidence. Put up or shut up..
In summary, ERV?s are a potent test of common ancestory between species. Commonalities between ERV?s in separate species is easily explained by simple heredity of a mutation. The chances of an ERV occurring at the same letter of DNA in separate genomes is extremely improbable due to the random nature of retrovirus insertion and the rarity of ERV production. Given that we share seven such ERV?s with chimps rules out one single improbable event. This would be similar to winning the lottery seven times in only a few hundred tries. The insinuation by some in the creationist movement that ERV?s are the fingerprints of design is not supported, nor is it substantiated by any data. ERV?s are random mutations and viral in origin.
Source:
[1] "Retroviral DNA Integration: ASLV, HIV, and MLV Show Distinct Target Site Preferences," Mitchell RS et al., PLoS Biol. 2004 August; 2 (8): e234
[2] "Insertional polymorphisms of full-length endogenous retroviruses in humans," Turner G et al, Curr Biol. 2001 Oct 2;11(19):1531-5
[3]"Endogenous retroviruses and MS: using ERVs as disease markers," Clausen J, Int MS J. 2003 Apr;10(1):22-8
OK, Steve I have detailed 1 source and noted another two peer reviewed journals that all come to the same conclusion and including the one made several posts ago brings my tally to four versus your zero. Clearly I have risen to your counter challenge to put up or shut up. Time I think you were a little honourable in your approach, time is at hand for you now to put up or shut up?
Just quoteing other people who ASSUME the same things isn't giving me proof. So you haven't put up, you just found other people who think the same thing. SO the score is still 0-0.
Happy newyear
Well it's not my intention to be disrespectfull towards their work, but if what you claim, that the randomness of ERV's is a proven fact. Then why don't you give me that proof rather then just saying: look these guys asume the same thing as I do.
"When the whole of science are in agreement. One cannot simply live in denial"
First of all they are not in agreement.
Secondly even if they are, when it’s an assumption then that’s just wishful thinking. It wouldn’t be the first time that mainstream opinions turn out wrong.
Thirdly this is not denial but a difference in opinions as long as there’s no proof.
What a joke, did you actually read this article? What did you think? That I would get intimidated by the specific terminology and not read it? Did you actually read this article?
It does not talk op ERV insertions it talks about transposons. That’s when a piece of DNA gets cut and pasted on another loci of the DNA-string. So nice try, but the score is still 0-0.
Look this is getting really ridiculous. You try to mock me, but you are the one who doesn't know what he's talking about. Maybe you should try a less cocky attitude.
OK, Cool. Show me the peer reviewed scientific journal that states otherwise please? I would love to see such a document that contradicts mainstream scientific discovery that contradicts the randomness of the insertions!
I'll tell you the same thing I have been telling you all the time. "NOBODY KNOWS"
Some scientist assume that it is random because they do not see a direct cause. That is not a proven fact, they do not have very good indications which tell them they are right. It is just an opinion, but not an obviously recognisable one. Now stating the contrary, that you think there is a system behind it; is very easily recognised as an opinion. The reason nobody writes about that in an article is because he will emidiatly be asked how, what order, what system, how do you know. Whereas the oposite assumption is not questioned.
However, I have pointed out many arguments in the past of this discussion that point out why I beleiev these ERV's not to be random. So I suggest you tacklle those first before asking me for new material.
I'm going to level with you... i havn't gone through this whole thread. .. I understand that evolutionist believe we all come from one common cell. Keep in mind, this is a THEORY.. not a fact. I can already see there are people holding on to this evolution thing as fact. That we're similar in appearance & DNA to the apes. There are hundreds of places on pig and human chromosomes where the genes match. Could a muslim please give an ISLAMIC explanation on why our DNA is so closely related? I know it has been explained to me, but I do not want to come forward with any incorrect information.
Why our DNA is so closely related? I don't think there's a specific reason. I think our DNA is simular because Allah intended us to have simular charesteristics (eyes , ears, heart, liver... all things we have in common). So the simularitys are just to acomplish that. Why should our creator have chose a completely difrent way of creating other animals? If it's not broken, don't try to fix it.
It's like an architext who always builds houses in a simular way. Not because people would see simularitys. No, he just works in a certain way because he thinks thats a better way of building. Because he believes it would benefit the inhabitats to do it in a certain way.
5:60 Then say: "Should I inform you [People of the Book] of those, who will have even worse recompense from Allah than the transgressors? They are those whom Allah has cursed; who have been under His wrath; some of whom were turned into apes and swine; who worshipped taghut [the devil or idols]; those are the people who are in a far worse plight and who have turned farthest away from the Right Way."
If that is indeed to be taken literal, that would pretty much explain the genetic similarity. But to take it literal wouldn't exactly be politically correct lol. I can see where the scientists would come up with this theory of evolution. But without a God, how do you explain animals, who have a brain the size of a spec of dust, can know how to form colonies, how to fight a battle. OUR soldiers had to learn from the ants a better technique of battle. In science.. how do you make sense of that? How can science, without any divine being, be so perfect? How come an infant can breath while suckling the mother at the same time? How can science put everything in a perfect order? Just ponder on life, dude...
Peace,
It seems there is a misunderstanding here.Let me make one thing clear:if you believe in Darwin's evolution theory, you have renounced Islam.Simple as that!
Peace
I'll tell you the same thing I have been telling you all the time. "NOBODY KNOWS"
In other words you cannot find any supporting evidence to your view.
Some scientist assume that it is random because they do not see a direct cause.
Some! could you at the very least show me a credible scientist in this field that supports your opinion? I don't think so.......
Tha is not a proven fact,
Nor is the theory of general relativity!
they do not have very good indications which tell them they are right. It is just an opinion, but not an obviously recognisable one.
I beg to differ, but you have nothing to support your opinion.
Now stating the contrary, that you think there is a system behind it; is very easily recognised as an opinion. The reason nobody writes about that in an article is because he will emidiatly be asked how, what order, what system, how do you know. Whereas the oposite assumption is not questioned.
That is rubbish, and you know it.
However, I have pointed out many arguments in the past of this discussion that point out why I beleiev these ERV's not to be random.
None of your points were related to the insertions being orderly by nature, I put it to you that you cannot find any material because it does not exist and that is because it is FALSE.
So I suggest you tacklle those first before asking me for new material.
In other words you mean you cannot find any supporting evidence that the insertions are orderly. You simply cannot accept they are random, because as soon as you do it becomes almost impossible to deny apes as our closest living ancestor! Else, the ERV Insertion points we share with apes can only possibly be thier because we are directly related to them. And that is the creationists worst nightmare come true.................
In other words you cannot find any supporting evidence to your view.
You could compare this with the following hypothetical situation:
[BANANA]Person A says: maybe there is intelligent life outside of our planet.
Person B says: No there isn’t. I know for sure because everybody else says so.
Person A says: do you have any proof of that absence then?
Person B says: No, but you don’t have any proof of such a presence so you’re wrong. [/BANANA]
This is the gist of your arguments Root.
I’ve already shown you why I think they aren’t random, how an order behind it could function, why that is more plausible. And you didn’t even respond to that. All you did is run around in circles and avoid my arguments.
Some! could you at the very least show me a credible scientist in this field that supports your opinion? I don't think so.......
Why? So you could discredit that person? Stop trying to make this into a popularity contest and stick to the facts.
ME: That is not a proven fact,
Root: Nor is the theory of general relativity!
Ok honestly Root, that’s the third time you use that argument in the same thread after I told you how that is a bad comparison twice. Really how desperate can you get Root?
For the people who only star treading later on I shall give my reply even a third time.
Difrences between your theory (the randomness of ERV) and the theory of general relativity:
1. General relativity is built on arguments logic and tests.
Your theory is based on the absence of a noticeable order.
2. General relativity is testable.
Your theory is not testable.
3. General relativity is falsifiable.
Your theory is not falsifiable.
4. General relativity is used for calculating future events which turn out accurate.
Your theory cannot give us any predictions or calculations.
5. General relativity does not seem to be conflicting with any other worldly knowledge.
Your theory is not only conflicting with most mainstream religions but is also conflicting with survival of the fittest and even defying logic!
6. General relativity is a theory.
Your theory is nothing but an assumption dressed in a fancy word.
See the difference? Fine. Now next time you want to hide behind words like “theory”. Or make me look anti-scientific. Please do address these 6 points first.
I beg to differ, but you have nothing to support your opinion.
You beg to differ when I say that they do not have anything supporting their assumption?
And then you point out that I have nothing to support my claim. So you want me to “proof” that they do not have any indication to assume that? I’ve already told you a couple of times: “It is impossible to proof an absence of something. You can proof a presence of something in some situations. But one cannot proof an absence.” If you beg to differ; why don’t you give us these indications? These proofs? As I recall the best you could do so far is paste a link to an article that wasn’t even related.
[PIE]And as I recall the score is still 0-0 in the “proof-department”.[/PIE]
That is rubbish, and you know it.
No that’s not! That’s a simple fact. Until people will have a good indication of such an order behind the ERV’s nobody will write a scientific article of it. But that absence does not mean that ERV’s are by default random. And the reason there are no scientific works about this is because we haven’t been able to find the reason behind it.
None of your points were related to the insertions being orderly by nature, I put it to you that you cannot find any material because it does not exist and that is because it is FALSE.
Yes there were. I remember mentioning the importance of 3dimensional shape of molecules when looking at chemical reactions at this level. Delta charges in polair molecules can play a significant part in this process and have an affinity for certain loci. On top of that certain loci are weak (easely splitted for an insertion) (A point that was raised in the not-relating article you linked to.)
In other words you mean you cannot find any supporting evidence that the insertions are orderly.
That’s lame. I already claimed that we do not know of an order behind it, and then you ask me to find evidence showing an order behind it.
[MOUSE]Hmm… maybe If we’re really quiet, and not point out how illogical this argument is, everybody will think Root has won the debate [/MOUSE]
You simply cannot accept they are random, because as soon as you do it becomes almost impossible to deny apes as our closest living ancestor! Else, the ERV Insertion points we share with apes can only possibly be thier because we are directly related to them. And that is the creationists worst nightmare come true.................
First of All I already told you I do not have a hidden agenda. Believing in creation (wich I do now) or believing in intelligent design (wich I probably would do should ERV’s turn out to be random after all) makes no real difference in my daily life. It will not weaken my faith. It will not cause me sleepless nights or nightmares. In fact, I do not have a preference to one of those two personally. However, I do prefer creation over ID because of logical reasoning. So my opinion does not come from a believe whereas your opinion does. I mean, as an atheist admitting towards the direction of creation is a nightmare right?
So if not for a hidden agenda, why do I believe these ERV’s are not random? Because it’s very unlikely to be random. Because that means that a whole population through sheer luck acquired that ERV. It does not go together with survival of the fittest and it defies chance.
Last edited by Abdul Fattah; 01-05-2006 at 01:38 AM.
Actually, Evolution is for the science class and creationism/ID is for religous education. (nuff said).
It's like this for a reason and contradicts what you blindly "claim"
Regards
Darling, science plays a huge part in religion, thank you. I studied ecology.
If you could just ponder for a second on how the HECK a person 1400 years ago, can POSSIBLY understand things that are scientific FACTS in this day and age, without any means to find out about these things. And I sure hope and assume, as a follower of science, that you have studied religion and drew your own conclusion based on your research and understanding of the scientific backbone it has. So I don't really need to post here any articles or proof regarding my statement. Please man... the word theory means there IS NO PROOF!, otherwise, it'd be the "Fact of Evolution"
I think you are getting lost in the debate over ERV Insertions:
This is the gist of your arguments Root.
I’ve already shown you why I think they aren’t random, how an order behind it could function, why that is more plausible. And you didn’t even respond to that. All you did is run around in circles and avoid my arguments.
I disagree with you, I bring scientific data to the debate, you bring nothing!
Why? So you could discredit that person? Stop trying to make this into a popularity contest and stick to the facts.
Again, it's not about popularity. You simply cannot bring supporting evidence because you cannot find credible sources to support your position.
Ok honestly Root, that’s the third time you use that argument in the same thread after I told you how that is a bad comparison twice. Really how desperate can you get Root?
For the people who only star treading later on I shall give my reply even a third time.
Difrences between your theory (the randomness of ERV) and the theory of general relativity:
1. General relativity is built on arguments logic and tests.
Your theory is based on the absence of a noticeable order.
If we observe a retro-virus inserting it's dna randomly within it's host, (this evidence was provided) it is logical to assume that the virus does not require to insert at a specific point thus conclude it's insertion is random. For example a mosquito will bite at a random point on a human host, your arguement by comparisom claims that it is ordered on the basis that we cannot prove it to be random?
2. General relativity is testable.
Your theory is not testable.
It is!
3. General relativity is falsifiable.
Your theory is not falsifiable.
As to falsification, if you were able to find a sequence shared by gorillas and humans that was not found in chimps then the theory of evolution would be in serious doubt. Additionally, find an ERV only shared by orangutans and humans and not chimps or gorillas, you would again cast serious doubt on the theory of evolution. However, these potential falsifications have never been observed. Only recently has the human genome been decoded, and even more recently the chimp genome. Soon, the gorilla genome will be complete, so even more ERV?s may show up. As more genomes are completed this test can be continually applied as new ERV?s are discovered in other primate and ape species, not to mention other non-primate species. Therefore, ERV?s are a fine example of a repeatable and falsifiable data set that can be used to test the theory of evolution.
4. General relativity is used for calculating future events which turn out accurate.
Your theory cannot give us any predictions or calculations.
Correct, though misleading since you are simply talking the ability to predict. Fine, What happens when two different SPECIES share the same ERV at the same letter of DNA? Given the improbable event of two separate infections leading to the same ERV the most likely scenario is that the two species share a common ancestor. Taxonomy, through the study of fossils, has come to the conclusion that apes and humans share a common ancestor. Therefore, knowing the implications of ERV production, we should find ERV?s at the same letter of DNA in each of these species. This is a prediction made by the theory of evolution. Not only that, but the patterns of similarities should also match cladistics. Cladistics is what many call ?the tree of life? which show species branching off from one another. One such clade, constructed through the study of fossils, proposes that humans, chimps, gorillas, and orangutans all share a common ancestor. The first species to branch off were orangutans, the second were gorillas, the third were chimps, and the final branch resulted in humans. This allows us to make very precise predictions. If humans and orangutans share a common ERV at the same letter of DNA, then chimps and gorillas should also have that same ERV at the same letter of DNA because all of these species share one common ancestor. Since orangutans branched off before the other three, we should see ERV?s occuring after this branching. That is, there should be ERV?s common between gorillas, chimps, and humans that orangutans do not have. Since gorillas split off next, we should see ERV?s shared between chimps and humans that are not seen in gorillas or orangutans. In fact, there are seven ERV?s between humans and chimps that can only be explained by common ancestory, as well as the other ERV?s shared by humans and other apes.
5. General relativity does not seem to be conflicting with any other worldly knowledge.
Your theory is not only conflicting with most mainstream religions but is also conflicting with survival of the fittest and even defying logic!
Of course it conflicts with religion, creationists cannot explain same ERV sequences at the same point (unless like the mosquito example you claim the virus infected the ape & human seperately but at the precise same location) to which you have no evidence to support this becasause it is FALSE!!!!
Survival of the fittest/luckiest has nothing to do with this.
6. General relativity is a theory.
Your theory is nothing but an assumption dressed in a fancy word.
And so is Evolution, what is your point?
See the difference? Fine. Now next time you want to hide behind words like “theory”. Or make me look anti-scientific. Please do address these 6 points first.
I don't see the difference. Do you?
You beg to differ when I say that they do not have anything supporting their assumption?
And then you point out that I have nothing to support my claim. So you want me to “proof” that they do not have any indication to assume that? I’ve already told you a couple of times: “It is impossible to proof an absence of something. You can proof a presence of something in some situations. But one cannot proof an absence.” If you beg to differ; why don’t you give us these indications? These proofs? As I recall the best you could do so far is paste a link to an article that wasn’t even related.
Why don't you show me a virus that inserts itself at the same letter of a dna sequence!!!! if it is ordered it woulkd happen again and again!!!!!!
No that’s not! That’s a simple fact. Until people will have a good indication of such an order behind the ERV’s nobody will write a scientific article of it. But that absence does not mean that ERV’s are by default random. And the reason there are no scientific works about this is because we haven’t been able to find the reason behind it.
To draw upon the example of a mosquito, I could simply state that it bites a human host in a set order, the only reason no scientist shows us the evidence is that we assume it to be random by default. Like your position, it's pure gibberish.
Yes there were. I remember mentioning the importance of 3dimensional shape of molecules when looking at chemical reactions at this level. Delta charges in polair molecules can play a significant part in this process and have an affinity for certain loci. On top of that certain loci are weak (easely splitted for an insertion) (A point that was raised in the not-relating article you linked to.)
OK, if thats true again, show me a virus that inserts at the same letter of dna and I will convert to Islam instantly. Fact is you can't.
That’s lame. I already claimed that we do not know of an order behind it, and then you ask me to find evidence showing an order behind it.
I agree it is lame, similar to finding a pattern of random mosquito bites on a human host and claiming an order to it's bite point. But that is about the strength of your debate.
First of All I already told you I do not have a hidden agenda. Believing in creation (wich I do now) or believing in intelligent design (wich I probably would do should ERV’s turn out to be random after all) makes no real difference in my daily life. It will not weaken my faith. It will not cause me sleepless nights or nightmares. In fact, I do not have a preference to one of those two personally. However, I do prefer creation over ID because of logical reasoning. So my opinion does not come from a believe whereas your opinion does. I mean, as an atheist admitting towards the direction of creation is a nightmare right?
Yes it is a nightmare, the evidence suggests I have nothing to beleive that creationist accounts driven by religous doctrine will ever be taken seriously and confined to the religous education classes. Hence, you cannot find any supporting data for your belief that insertion points are orderly.
So if not for a hidden agenda, why do I believe these ERV’s are not random? Because it’s very unlikely to be random.
This is nuts, all the evidence shows it to be random similar to why a mosquito bites at a random point.
Because that means that a whole population through sheer luck acquired that ERV.
The odds of an effective viral insertion occurring at the same letter of DNA in two different infections is 1 in 50 million, and this is for your run of the mill, full blown, cell killing infection. What we are talking about now is a rare event of a viral misfire. Not only that, but a misfire that happens in an egg or sperm, and even more improbable a misfire in an egg or sperm that leads to living offspring who themselves reproduce at a later time. This multiplies the chances of two people having the same ERV at the same letter of DNA due to separate viral insertions as being highly, and I mean highly, unlikely. Therefore, we can conclude that they share something like a great, great, great grandparent. You are the one claiming it's luck, not I.
It does not go together with survival of the fittest and it defies chance.
I agree your point does not bode well. However, it has absolutely nothing to do with survival of the fittest/luckiest.
Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
When you create an account, we remember exactly what you've read, so you always come right back where you left off. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and share your thoughts. Sign Up
Array
Hide
Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
Posting Permissions
Quote
Bookmarks