You can have the last word; children like that I'm told.
In the short time that I’ve had to read the info on the link you referenced, I found these phrases used by the scientists doing the research:
“This suggests”
“We developed a method to estimate”
“we estimated”
“These results suggest”
“our knowledge about their evolution is still scarce” “roughly estimated”
“suggesting”
“may suggest”
“It is possible”
These are words used in describing something irrefutable????
I’ll do more research on the subject.
By the way, you forgot to tell me that I’m a poopoo-head.
Unfortunately Redwoods, I actually looked into your claim. I understand now why Evolutionists do not argue this “irrefutable” evidence.
I sent your condescending posts to a friend who has a PhD in Microbiology.....and incidentally is involved in research.
This is what he sent me back:
“You are correct, this is “old” news. Evolutionists have argued, to varying degrees, that sequences, such as
HERVs, ‘prove’ common descent.
First, this is making an unsupportable assumption of the purpose and history of these HERV sequences in the genome.
Second, like usual, the evolutionists ignore the contradictory or inconsistent data, because they KNOW evolution (i.e., common descent) is true, thus any apparent inconsistent or contradictory evidence is simply being interpreted wrong. In the case of HERVs, for example, there is also a HERV (HERV-K) that is found in chimpanzees, gorillas, and bonobos, but not humans (Current Biology. 2001. 11:779).
This is inconsistent with HERVs as a marker for common descent. Of course evolutionists respond by saying HERV-K does not contract common descent, it just simply was lost in the human lineage sometime after we diverged from chimps.
It is a cop-out argument, and there is no way to prove it is wrong (how do you prove a negative?).”
(Schaef 21 comment: If there’s no way to prove that it is wrong, it violates the Scientific Method and is therefore Philosophy.)
“But, more importantly, there is no evidence that humans ever possessed HERV-K. It is a clear case of the evidence for the human loss of HERV-K is entirely based upon the supposition of evolution.”
He’s explained it for you but he can’t understand it for you.... you like to use that phrase, right?
Evolutionists are great at circular arguments. “We know evolution is true, so let’s look at the evidence in light of the fact that evolution is true.” In the end, they “prove” that evolution is true..... given their presupposition, they would, wouldn’t they?
I have dealt with your arguments, now please answer my questions. They can be found in Post #38
Hey Man....
I answered your question..... how about answering mine?