Replies

...and then a virus they were both susceptible to infected both a man and an ape in EXACTLY the same location in their DNAs (the odds of such a match by luck are literally on the order of 1,000,000,000,000,000,000 to 1...), *and* that the infections both happened in their gametocyte cells (combined odds on the order of 1,000,000 to 1) *and* that the one particular affected gametocyte is the one which produces the egg or sperm which is destined to produce an offspring (*HUGE* odds against), and *then* the resulting modified genome of the offspring becomes "fixed" in each respective population (1 out of population_size^squared)...

As we study genetics more broadly, and the scientists demonstrate that two or more subjects in a population of different decent have acquired the same "fossilized" viral DNA sequence, will you acknowledge that genetics disproves evolution by common descent?

By your logic, if we found one "fossilized" viral DNA sequence retained by provably uncommon decent creatures, your whole theory of common decent represented in the genetic record would be blown. The odds you are asserting would make it impossible for two creatures of uncommon descent to have the same "fossilized" viral DNA sequence.

Just another future workaround for the Evolutionists.

Of course you realize that we have examined only 1/100,000,000,000,000 of 1% of the genetic record, and we only have access to 1/100,000,000,000,000,000 of 1% of the past genetic records. Your probabilities are not based on evidence that has been examined because we can't examine data enough to say such things.

Your logic is showing.

As we study genetics more broadly, and the scientists demonstrate that two or more subjects in a population of different decent have acquired the same "fossilized" viral DNA sequence, will you acknowledge that genetics disproves evolution by common descent?

Parallel insertion of the same sequence in the same line of cells in the same place in the genome, without a common ancestor possessing the insertion? That would raise serious questions about evolution. Of course,it has never happened, and I predict it never will. Ichneumon has given you a very rough estimate of the probabilities, and they're sufficiently close to 'never' for gummint work.

As we study genetics more broadly, and the scientists demonstrate that two or more subjects in a population of different decent have acquired the same "fossilized" viral DNA sequence, will you acknowledge that genetics disproves evolution by common descent?

The same viral sequence in the same place would be a big blow to standard biology. Perhaps some anti-evo group like DI or ICR could start doing (peer-reviewed, reproducible) research to try to find such things. AFAIK, none are known at present - the only animals with the same virus in the same place are already known to be related, things like apes and people, or whales hippos and cows. Oh well.

Another example of evos making a prediction which, if it weren't fulfilled, would falsify the theory. Compare this one to "if viral remains are found in the same place in whale and cow dna, they will also be in the same place in hippo dna"

The anti-evos have yet to make any such predictions, showing that they're not practicing science. What possible observation would be evidence against "[the designer] just did it that way?"