I’ve noticed in the last couple of posts that you’r responses to certain quotes have a total disregard of wich is further mentioned in the original post. To avoid me repeating myself, and to avoid people thinking I’m running around in circles, kindly read through my post at least once before making a reply so you have knowledge of what comes behind the piece of text you quote.
We cannot debate when you are being so misleading. The initial infection leading to the insertion of the "junk" DNA is random. The subsequent copies of cell/species reproduction is not. the 1-to-6 billion chance arguement (actually 1-to-6=billion X 12: since we observe 12 such insertion points) is the creationists argument against random luck.
Ok first it’s totally random, then it’s totally not, and now the infection is random but reproduction not. And I’m the one being misleading? No my point of vieuw has been christalclear. Namely that the method of infection is not random. And it’s not just out of the bleu, I provided evidence to go with that claim. You are in fact the one who now tries to mislead people by bringing up un-randomness of the reproduction, wich has nothing to do with the discussion at hand point. You’r simply blowing smoke so no one would notice your failure in providing decent arguments.
Yes, this is true. The randomness of the intitial insertion is random, subsequent copies of the gene are then fixed creating a "marker" that we all carry at the same place
Euhm there is no reason at all to assume the loci where the virus is inserted is random. I already showed in fact why it would be logical to assume the oposite.
steve: Seems that the argument is of lesser importance to you and the theory is already proven no matter what.
Root:Unless creationists can come up with a credible reason for what we observe yourself included then yes like the theory of relativity, it is what it is because it is testable, predictable and observable.
First of, common descent is not testable, nor observable nor predictable. That’s why you can’t compare it with gravity or relativity for example. Creationist do have a credible explenation, and even if we didn’t it’s absurd to claim a theory is wright just because you fail to find an alternative.
If the proof is not water tight then please post your objections.
Ow my God, what do you think I’ve been doing all this time? Did you actually thouroughly read my posts or just do a quick copy-paste and replyed the first thing that popped in your mind? Or is asking for something that I already posted just another way of escaping confrontation?
No, ERV insertions cannot be interpreted in any other way that would make sense. This is like saying the theory of relativity shows many holes in logic then bot actually concluding why one would reach such a conclusion.
Yes it can be interpretated in other ways that make sense. I’m currently defending an interpretation that makes perfect sense. You might think that it is nonsensical, but the actual judgement of my point of vieuw can only be made when no more arguments are left to debate wright?
steve: But i'll take the bait anyway, so explain me how. How does the hypothese that both species got this ERV through seperate infections, makes a common ancestor more likely?
Root: Firstly, I have never stated the ERV insertions were through seperate infections as this goes against all we have discussed. One insertion point in multiple species (in this case primates), by carrying the static "copy" of the original random infection can only suggest common ancestory.
Forgive me for trying to place words in you mounth but when I read the following quote I did seem to me as if you clamed the insertion point (place were virus infects) are not randomly chosen.
You are in agreement with me that the insertion points we see are not "Random" and nor are they "Luck". What happens when two different SPECIES share the same ERV at the same letter of DNA?
Ok, moving on to the next item at hand....
I like the way you have switched from theory to hypothosis. This is a mistake since ERV insertions within the animal kindom is a theory and not hypothosis. As stated above we can Observe, test and make predictions based on observation, this afterall is what validates the theory of relativity. And I simply don't understand how you can subscribe a biased point of view when it is based on observable and credible scientific observation.
Ow my, did you just now ignore all of my previous posts when making this statement? ERV insertion is a theory, but using ERV-insertion to back up common descent is a hypothesis. And for a very simple reason. As I said before, and even demonstrated, the presence of these ERV’s can very well be interpretated in a different way. Therefor the presence of these ERV do not undeniably imply common descent. This is why it’s a hypothesis and not a theory. As for being biased. If there are multiple ways of interpreting these ERV’s, and you say one interpretation (mine) is speculation, and the other interpretation (yours) is an overwhelming evidence for common descent, then you are VERY biased.
ERV insertions is a scientifically credible at ancestory observation. We also observe matching ERV insertions between a woolly mammoth & Elephant. We observe matching insertion points within the reptile species and again with mammals. Each species showing common ancestory (matching ERV's within their own groups.)
Yes it’s commonly accepted way of ancestorial observation. Why? Alow me to show the steps that were taken in the course of it getting recognised.
1. A lot of scientist
believe in common descent.
2. With ERV’s only commonalitys were searched to proof this descent. (remember the encyclopedia argument?)
3.We found some ERV’s that
if we assume origenated from a single source rather then from multiple infections would speak favorouble for evolution.
4. Since this hypothesis seems to corelate to common descent so good, it must be true.
5. So now we see this as a theory rather then a hypothesis.
6. The
theory corelates to common descent.
7. I no longer need to
believe in common descent, since it’s now a proven fact...
I agree, and thus stuck to the facts regarding ERV insertions. I am still waiting for you to give me a credible fact against ERV proving common ancestory. In other words when are you going to post factual information that explains why we see matching ERV sequences within our closest relatives. And other species show to they have matching ERV's within there branches too. Unless you bring this evidence to the debate, your only going around in circles.
I will not bring evidence that proofs your hypothesis falsness for the following 4 reasons:
1.
My point was made clear: I believe those ERV’s to be the result of different infections wich would explain why they are present in whole populations. You have countered this with the “chance” argument. First of, I showed you how it needend be a case of “luck” and secondly I showed you how your point of vieuw also has some problems with a “chance factor”.
3.
My p.o.v. stands undefeated so far, whereas you stopped fighting the arguments I presented to your p.o.v. So in a way,
I’ve already done more then you did.
4. I
do not have the spare time to look up the whole proces of ERV’s to calculate how polarity and threedimensional shapes of diffrent virusses would influence this proces.
5. Even if I did have the time for it, I wouldn’t bother. I entered the discussion only to show that common descent is not proven; and by doing so to show that when someone opposes you, that doesn’t neccesairly mean that he has a lack of knowledge in the matter at hand. I did show you that your “proofs” are only hypothesis.
I've already done what I wanted to do. Now you want me to proof your hypothesis is wrong, or else you'll accuse me of going in circles? Even though you've failed to proof mine is wrong? No, I shared my point of vieuw, If you don't want to accept it out of personal judgement of one likelyness versus another then that's your choice, I have nothing to do with that.
Note that this doesn't mean I'm bailing out the conversation. I will Inshallah try to continue answering any comments you have to this post. Al be it only out of politeness to allow you to further try your case. This is simply me saying: what you require of me is to much and uncalled for.
With respect steve
. Jazak'Allah khaiyran for reading.