This is why “gene therapy” using retrovirus is a problem, there is no way to predict accurately where it will insert, and its preference to insert in non histone bound (actively transcribed) DNA makes it more likely to insert into something you needed (possibly an oncogene that by disabling you can start up a cancer).
Simply put “preferential insertion” is not a valid explanation for even the identical PRESENCE of endogenous retroviral sequences in related species, it doesn't even ATTEMPT to explain the nested hierarchies of similarity and differences.
Several half assed explanations for starlight that no two creationists can agree upon, and have no mechanism to agree upon, all trying to fit an old an ancient universe into a few thousand year old box. Moreover such an “aged” universe posits a creator (I wouldn't call such a capricious entity God) that is a liar. The light from a dying star one hundred million light years away is the record of the death of a star that never actually existed if the universe is only a few thousand years old.
The assumption of atomic decay is that the fundamentals of the universe are constant. There is an observed rate of decay, and the only assumption is that the basic principles of electromagnetism and the strong force have not changed in the last few thousand years.
“Micro” evolution is also “Macro” evolution. Your claim is like saying ‘Geologists show micro-errosion and can measure it and predict its rate, but micro-errosion cannot explain macro-errosion like the Grand Canyon’. Yes it can, yes it does, the measured rate of change in both evolution and erosion easily explain the observed change in disparate species and major geological features.
[[“Micro” evolution is also “Macro” evolution. Your claim is like saying ‘Geologists show micro-errosion and can measure it and predict its rate, but micro-errosion cannot explain macro-errosion like the Grand Canyon’.]]
This is a rediculous statement that has NOTHING to do with living organisms and the process of genetic change-
[[This is why “gene therapy” using retrovirus is a problem, there is no way to predict accurately where it will insert,]]
Yes there is- Certain viruses have preferential insertion points- this is a verifiable fact
[[Simply put “preferential insertion” is not a valid explanation for even the identical PRESENCE of endogenous retroviral sequences in related species, it doesn’t even ATTEMPT to explain the nested hierarchies of similarity and differences.]]
Yes it is- you obviously have not studied this issue
[[Several half assed explanations for starlight that no two creationists can agree upon, and have no mechanism to agree upon, all trying to fit an old an ancient universe into a few thousand year old box.]]
As compared to what? Several half asses old age explanations that scientists can not agree on? The rest of your comment is nothign but biased bloviating.
You are ignoring the assumptions driving atomic decay- while it’s fine for you to voice an opinion- let’s not pretend your opinion is ‘established fact’ when it isn’t
Half-Assed ‘explanation’ for hte problem of radiation IF the big bang took place
“OUR universe appears to be unfathomably uniform. Look across space from one edge of the visible universe to the other, and you’ll see that the microwave background radiation filling the cosmos is at the same temperature everywhere. That may not seem surprising until you consider that the two edges are nearly 28 billion light years apart and our universe is only 14 billion years old.
Nothing can travel faster than the speed of light, so there is no way heat radiation could have travelled between the two horizons to even out the hot and cold spots created in the big bang and leave the thermal equilibrium we see now.
This “horizon problem” is a big headache for cosmologists, so big that they have come up with some pretty wild solutions. “Inflation”, for example.
You can solve the horizon problem by having the universe expand ultra-fast for a time, just after the big bang, blowing up by a factor of 1050 in 10-33 seconds. But is that just wishful thinking? “Inflation would be an explanation if it occurred,” says University of Cambridge astronomer Martin Rees. The trouble is that no one knows what could have made that happen, but see Inside inflation: after the big bang.
So, in effect, inflation solves one mystery only to invoke another. A variation in the speed of light could also solve the horizon problem - but this too is impotent in the face of the question “why?” In scientific terms, the uniform temperature of the background radiation remains an anomaly.”
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg18524911.600
Woops- Seems you’re appelaing to yet more ASSUMPTIONS and claiming htey are ‘established ‘fact’- It seems Big Bangers appeal to a time hwen hte speed of light was faster in the past too- Hmmmmm- interesting indeed! When YEC’ers do the same- they are called nutjobs, but when OE’ers do so, it’s called ‘science’?
There are several perfectly reasonable explanations for Starlight which have scientific support- whether you choose to ignore them or not has no bearign on whether they are reasonable or not. Again, you’re welcome to your opinion, but again, let’s not pretend your bias for one explanation is superior or more an ‘established fact’ when they clearly are not-