Re: Just the facts ma`am.

On 1/8/10 10:43 AM, All-seeing-I wrote:
On Jan 8, 11:25 am, Burkhard<b.scha...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jan 8, 3:31 pm, All-seeing-I<ap...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Jan 8, 8:22 am, Jim<jimwille...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Jan 8, 8:20 am, All-seeing-I<ap...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Jan 7, 11:21 am, Reddfrogg<reddfr...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Jan 7, 5:48 am, All-seeing-I<ap...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Jan 6, 9:52 pm, Chris Thompson<the_thomps...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

All-seeing-I<ap...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in news:9d896590-7e0e-45c7-a698-

On the scientific method:

"G. G. Simpson stated, "It is inherent in any definition of science
that statements that cannot be checked by observation are not about
anything...or at the very best, they are not science."

I guess this leaves evolution OUT IN THE COLD, eh?

Unscientific. But we knew THAT already.

right.. Right...RIGHT ?

of course we did.

And they were not able to resist the wisdom of....


Why aren't endogenous retroviruses an observation?

Your BFF Data-boy doesn't seem to be able to address that question.

Why don't you?

Chris- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

An observation of --->what, exactly Chris?

It's an observation of the results of common descent.

Is this another one of your "Spirulina is Evolution" thingies?

Is a endogenous retrovirus an example of evolution or is it just
another example of something attempting to corrupt the existing
genetic material like HIV does?

ERVs are evidence that humans share common ancestry with other apes.
Why would you call it "corruption"?

There are many zoonotic disease humans share with animals.So I hardly
call a RetroV's evidence of evolution. All you have shown the virus is
shared between human and ape,

A virus needs a host. That makes it part of the processes on the earth
that are corrupted. If you do not understand why, then you do not
understand what the bible has explained to you about the earth's
corruption after the fall.

You don't get it. Let's see if I can explain. To get an endogenous
retrovirus, you need to have an individual infected by a retrovirus.
Further, the retrovirus needs to infect a germ cell (egg or sperm)
that develops into an embryo. So the virus must insert its little bit
of DNA into a sperm cell (for example) that later fertilizes an egg
and produces a kid. Now, there are some 3 billion base pairs in the
human genome; the retrovirus inserts its bit of DNA more or less
randomly in that sequence, so the odds of two individuals having a
retrovirus insert itself at the same spot in their DNA are on the
order of one in a billion. OK so far? Now, consider the odds of two
unrelated individuals having two virus DNA fragments at identical
spots in their genome. To get this, we need to multiply the
probability of the virus infecting two cells at the same spot (roughly
one in a billion) times the probability that a second infection will
occur at a second spot that is identical in both individuals. Thus,
the odds of two unrelated individuals sharing two ERV fragments is on
the order of one in a billion billion.

Remember that once an infected germ cell develops into an adult all
descendants of that individual will have the virus DNA fragment locked
in that one spot in their DNA. So if two individuals have a
retrovirus fragment at the same spot in their genome the odds are on
the order of a billion to one that those two individuals share an
ancestor. If two individuals share two such fragments the odds are on
the order of a billion billion to one that both individuals are
directly descended from a single person. OK so far? Now here comes
the clincher: humans and chimps share at least seven endogenous
retroviruses whose DNA fragments occur at the same spots in both
genomes. This means that the odds that humans and chimps never had a
common ancestor is something like a one in a billion billion billion
billion billion billion billion. Or, put another way, it is virtually
certain that somewhere back in time there was a single ape who is the
direct ancestor of all modern humans AND chimps. And, since humans,
chimps, and gorillas share at least four ERVs, it is virtually certain
that farther back in time there was a single ape who is the direct
ancestor of all modern humans, chimps, and gorillas.

It is that simple: all humans and all chimps and all gorillas are
blood kin. That is what the endogenous retroviruses tell us - nothing
to do with sickness or corruption, but rather important genetic flags
that indicate common ancestry. You and the chimps at the zoo have the
same individual for a several-million-times great grandfather. That
is just the way it is.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Where is the undisputed evidence that retrovirus consistently insert
its bit of DNA randomly?

Such outrageous claims with no evidence.

Lots of evidence by direct observation and a very thorough
understanding of the relevant processes, studies extensively in
virology can be found here:

A. Levy: The Retroviridae Springer 1993


Arie J. Zuckerman et al: Principles and Practice of Clinical Virology
WileyBlackwell; 6th Edition edition 2009 especially chapter 36


Until evolution can show evidence that has no other explanation except
that evolution happened, then evolution will remain just an "idea"
dreamed up by some old freak with protruding eyebrows, named Darwin.

Until you finally rise up to my challenge and prove that there is no
other possible explanation except that it is at least 2000 years old,
the idea that the Bible is a 18th century fraud is just as valid as
the idea that it is authentic

Why would I want to dispute that? It has been my point to you evo-
freaks since the beginning. No one can be sure of anything.

Yet you seem very sure that you have the "one true" explanation.

However. Since the texts have direct observations made by living

Actually, they don't. The ancient texts relate supposed happenings long before they were written down. They contain oral tradition, not eyewitness reports. Nevermind that eyewitness accounts are notoriously inaccurate, you don't even have that.

but much of evolution is just inferred from data,

All of science, indeed, all of human experience is inference from the data. Inference is much better at getting at the reality than eyewitness reports.

it is plain
to see the textual evidences have a higher probability of being

Actually, it's quite the opposite. Textual "evidences" are much more likely to be inaccurate, because they rely on

1. untrained observers
2. no means of testing the observations
3. oral tradition, which adds inaccuracy
4. no way to differentiate between fictional additions and witnessed events.

When you corelate them together we can be reasonably sure that 1)
there was a creator and that 2) humans were created.

Except that you are aren't correlating, but cherry picking. You ignore the differences, and choose only what can be made to fit your preconceived notions.

Get over it.

Get over what? That you are depending on inaccurate sources, and cherry picking whatever you want to fit your own prejudice?