Posted on 11/29/2004 6:52:41 AM PST by PatrickHenry
What it appeared they were doing was simply explaining away their findings. They simply classified the ones that they didn't expect to find as horizontal, and the ones they did expect to find as vertical. That assumes that they already knew what the relationship was. Therefore, they are actually using phylogenic assumptions to prove the method of gene heritance rather than solely using the heritance data to set the phylogenic relationships. If ERV's are so good at _predicting_ phylogenic relationships, then it shouldn't have to be compared with the assumed phylogenic relationships to find the full findings.
All these people all over the world working in the analysis of retrovirus insertions. Why don't they know that what they're doing is utterly invalid? After all, a luddite like you can dismiss it in 30 seconds. They seem to be deluded by meaningless patterns in the data.
That and you ignore all the other things I have been explaining to you for several posts now. I refer to the existence of RVs that clearly don't insert themselves in the same place all the time. I refer to the mutational trees of the RV codes which match the trees derived from analyzing the host genes which match the trees derived from host morphology which match the trees derived from the fossil record.
If all the occurrences of recognizeably similar retrovirus insertions at a given site are supposedly from just one retrovirus being passed from lemur to monkey to man, why do the retroviruses themselves seem to be just as mutated from each other as do the lemur, monkey, and man? This must be the third time I've asked. You keep pretending you can't see the problem. I guess I'd do the same thing in your shoes if for some reason I couldn't be honest.
There are other clues from embryology, wildlife observations, etc. One good summary lists 29+ Independent Lines of Evidence for Macroevolution. Why do so many things point to macroevolution?
There are signposts all over the place to common descent. All of them are fairly clear. They all point the same way. People who don't want to read the signs correctly wave every sign away, somehow. This is militant ignorance.
Yeah. And the first one makes use of the word "infer" 25 times. Examples from microevolution - the only place where genetic change can be tested and observed - are, with the supposed phylogenic tree, extended by "inference" to macroevolution. Hopefully the world is beginning to learn that sophisticated hucksterism passing itself off as scientific fact gives a bad name to those who would like to proceed with solid tests and observation.
"If all the occurrences of recognizeably similar retrovirus insertions at a given site are supposedly from just one retrovirus being passed from lemur to monkey to man, why do the retroviruses themselves seem to be just as mutated from each other as do the lemur, monkey, and man? This must be the third time I've asked. You keep pretending you can't see the problem."
Actually, I don't answer because I haven't analyzed the data. I'm sorry if you think that every person in the world has time to analyze all of the data. I don't. I've analyzed what I've had time to and what is in my ability to understand.
"One good summary lists 29+ Independent Lines of Evidence for Macroevolution. Why do so many things point to macroevolution?"
As I've pointed out to Shubi, but I guess maybe not to you, is that macroevolution is a number of things. Creationists are only at a disagreement with some of them (specifically, where complex processes create themselves). You also forget that these evidences, in large part, while they are compatible with evolution, is not more compatible with evolution than creationism. Most things which evolution regards to as proof of common ancestry can also be used as proof of a common designer. It is not more proof of one or the other.
In addition, a lot of evidence is very selective. They show only evidence where it supports their theory and not counter-evidence.
If you really look at the evidence (complex biology required for the simplest of life forms, all phylums starting out in the fossil record fully formed, apparent limits to change in populations, the fact that all of these independent species works together in the worldwide environment, etc.) it points to design.
"All these people all over the world working in the analysis of retrovirus insertions. Why don't they know that what they're doing is utterly invalid?"
It's not invalid, although some of their conclusions are. I'm not against evolutionary research, or biology research, or anything else. I think its led to a lot of productive stuff. But this insane idea that its proven beyond a reasonable doubt, and we should pretend that there aren't problems or other valid viewpoints is just absurd.
Scientists make inferences from data. Creationists don't. Scientists learn new things over time. Creationists don't.
Wrong. Phylum-level evolution.
A page on the origins of trilobites, allegedly the first arthropods. Note that any confusion stems from having too many candidates rather than none.
So much of how creationists "know" evolution is wrong is just wrong.
It looks like common descent.
“There is nothing wrong with a theory that is comfortable with different outcomes, but there is something wrong when one of those outcomes is then claimed as supporting evidence. If a theory can predict both A and not-A, then neither A nor not-A can be used as evidence for the theory. When it comes to the genetic code, evolution can accommodate a range of findings, but it cannot then use one of those findings as supporting evidence.”
-Biophysicist Cornelius G. Hunter
A very good article. In particular, this analogy is useful:
However, in both cases [of alleged plagiarism] errors present in the "originals" appeared in the alleged copies. The courts judged that it was inconceivable that the same errors could have been made independently by each plaintiff and defendant, and ruled in both cases that copying had occurred. The principle that duplicated errors imply copying is now well established in copyright law. (In recognition of this fact, directory publishers routinely include false entries in their directories to trap potential plagiarizers.)
Dinosaur National Monument in Utah, Egg Mountain in Montana, Agate Springs in Nebraska, the Karoo Formation in South Africa (over 800 billion estimated vertebrates), the Miocene shales in California, the Cumberland Bone Cave in Maryland, etc. A Google search of these should show a mix of critters that typically don't hang out together, but might assemble given an impending physical threat no creature could escape. (Be sure to note the elevation and condition of fossils at the time they were discovered.) What could explain the extent of apparent live burial more simply than the world wide flood that has been attested throughout thousands of years of written history?
That is a just-so story. The point of the paper was that the scientists concluded that the deleterious mutations were compensated(it was apparently an implication not a direct finding). That, of course, means the mutations were harmful. No beneficial function was proposed for the deleterious mutations in the abstract of the paper.
LOL Andy's analysis of scientific papers is wonderful, ain't it?
Many little floods?
The theory predicted a mechanism like DNA would be found. It was. End of story. You lose. Evolution is fact.
Get over it.
Thank you, Mr. self-called Biology teacher. Here are some of your gems.
Andrew posts nonsense that he thinks supports his cult.
That was posted to a reply to my quotation of Charles Darwin. ROFLMAO.
And here is your diamond.
Just find a virus or bacteria that does not adapt to antibiotics.
Shoobie Doobie Doo Placemarker
I corrected the error on virus.
I point out your misunderstanding of what Darwin and other scientists are saying.
Sorry if you can't handle the truth. Truth is an occupational hazard for creationuts.
Mini-floods, yes; macro-flood, no!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.