!!
Hi Steve -
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.
