Large scale function for 'endogenous retroviruses' (Creationists/IDers right, Evos Wrong

CMI ^ | December 2008

[GodGunsGuts]

Evolutionists have used shared mistakes in ‘junk DNA’ as ‘proof’ that humans and chimps have a common ancestor. However, if the similar sequences are functional, which they are progressively proving to be, their argument evaporates...

[autumnraine]

I think I’m going to get a little fish and put it in a fish tank putting the food just out of reach to prove that fish don’t grow legs.

(I hope other people watch My Name is Earl because that was FUNNY that Joy put a tadpole in the tank and it ended up growing legs because it turned into a frog.)

[GodGunsGuts]

I won’t be able to respond for a day or two...I’m on a road trip :o)

All the best—GGG

[Admin Moderator]

The Activism sidebar is reserved for News/Activism of the FR chapters.

Not this.

[GodGunsGuts]

Sorry. I was just concentrating on activism in general. Is it possible to fix my title? It is supposed to read:

Large scale function for ‘endogenous retroviruses’ (Creationists/IDers right, Evos wrong—Again)

[DManA]

I don’t it is fair to cite gaps in the current understanding of life as proof of ID.

I don’t think it is fair for anti-ID folks to reject out of hand criticisms of current theory from ANY source.

[GodGunsGuts]

The point is that the Evos predicted and labeled ERs to be functionless “junk DNA,” whereas the Creation and ID scientists predicted they would prove to be functional. And as it turns out, they are not only proving to be functional, but have now been shown to be part of an extremely sophisticated regulatory network that is indispensable for cellular function and organismal survival.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the ping!

[Coyoteman]

The point is that the Evos predicted and labeled ERs to be functionless “junk DNA,” whereas the Creation and ID scientists predicted they would prove to be functional. And as it turns out, they are not only proving to be functional, but have now been shown to be part of an extremely sophisticated regulatory network that is indispensable for cellular function and organismal survival.

And this, even if it were entirely accurate, proves the Christian deity exactly as portrayed in scriptures, right?

Get a grip.

[GoLightly]

And this, even if it were entirely accurate, proves the Christian deity exactly as portrayed in scriptures, right?

Strawman. It goes to the claim that those coming from the ID side of things can't make useful predictions.

[Coyoteman]

It goes to the claim that those coming from the ID side of things can't make useful predictions.

They can't. They have no body of theory to work from. They have only scripture to adhere to.

That some creationists occasionally make claims which are shown to be accurate is not very convincing. A stopped clock is right twice a day.

Where is the body of ID theory that can be tested and used to make successful predictions? Given the need to adhere to scripture above all, there is no such body of theory as is required to be a part of science.

[Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus]

And this, even if it were entirely accurate, proves the Christian deity exactly as portrayed in scriptures, right?

Get a grip.

You need to get a grip, because your post was completely non-sequitur nonsense. Nobody has claimed that an empirical observation which positively substantiates creationist/ID hypotheses and refutes evolutionist hypotheses proves an unempirical claim. Nobody on this thread even made said unempirical claim. Nevertheless, the facts in this case positively point to the unempirical claim being more likely than the likewise unempirical claim of naturalistic materialism.

[Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus]

Coyoteman! Whenever a creationist argues generals (such as theological and intellectual reasons for His existence) you wag an insulting finger and accuse them of lacking scientific specificity. Now here, direct scientific evidence contrasting the evolutionary claims of ERV's, and you claim that it is too minor a point to prove the whole of Christianity? For shame!

Hi DLR, coyoteman must have played football in high school, because he's an expert at moving the goalposts.

[GoLightly]

You're confusing Christian creationism with ID. ID does not rely on Scripture, no matter how hard you try to raise up that strawman.

I myself have used "space aliens" as an example of possible "intelligent creators", because ID isn't directly linked to Scripture for all of us.

I remember a FReeper South-something coming at the "junk DNA" argument using the logic of computer programming a couple of years ago.

Where is the body of ID theory that can be tested and used to make successful predictions?

If I was working in science, I'd probably be trying to find an explanation for "instinctual" behaviors. I'm talking nature versus nurture. Some behaviors can best be explained by a complex "code". The more complex the instinctual behavior, the more complex the "coding" for it would need to be.

Beyond instinct, the simplest autonomic functions are complex activities. Current thinking is good at explaining what, but why remains a huge mystery. Yes, I know that matter has no intent & it just responds to the laws of nature. We're left to describing motion, not how that motion began. That which is in motion tends to remain in motion, etc...

Given the need to adhere to scripture above all, there is no such body of theory as is required to be a part of science.

Your statement is premised on the belief that all who read & believe in Scripture follow a single train of thought about what it says & means. By stating that, you make a mistake.

[Coyoteman]

Thanks for the reply.

I'll accept that ID is a science when it operates using the scientific method.

But to date, the single largest and most active proponent of ID, the Discovery Institute, is clearly pushing religion thinly disguised as science.

Significant portions of their funding for these efforts are from religious sources, and are undertaken by people with clearly religious goals. The methods used are those of propaganda and PR, rather than science. They employ lawyers and PR flacks, rather than research scientists.

Here is the Wiki article.

And here is the Wedge Strategy which exposes their true goals. These are their Governing Goals:

• To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural and political legacies.
• To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God.

Not exactly science, eh?

[GoLightly]

I'll accept that ID is a science when it operates using the scientific method.

You'll accept it? LOL I'll accept nothing less than neutrality at the level of the hypothesis.

hypo = underpinnings or foundation

thesis = beliefs

But to date, the single largest and most active proponent of ID, the Discovery Institute, is clearly pushing religion thinly disguised as science.

Significant portions of their funding for these efforts are from religious sources, and are undertaken by people with clearly religious goals. The methods used are those of propaganda and PR, rather than science. They employ lawyers and PR flacks, rather than research scientists.

Yes, you are correct. It is to be expected when ideas are pushed out to the fringe based on philosophical differences from the "common thinking".

And here is the Wedge Strategy which exposes their true goals. These are their Governing Goals:

To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural and political legacies. To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God.

That may be their POV, but it isn't mine.

Not exactly science, eh?

Nope, but from my POV it is equal to those who try to use science to prove atheism. Guys like Dawkins are hacks.

[onedoug]

God through quantum thermodynamics.

[Old Landmarks]

The Free Republic Hardcore evolutionists habitually poo poo any evidence they find threatening(they are open minded you know).

Just another point of data that the Free Republic Hardcore evolutionists have an underlying bitterness against a God who actually "Designed" and "Created" anything.

It is very obvious to anyone who has read their vitriol for years. Their real purpose is humanistic, liberal politics under carefully veneered layers of dogmatism.

Endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights....?

Not so according to the fanatical, dogmatic Free Republic Evolutionists. They think our rights come from government and liberal judges are the final authority on truth.