Just the facts ma`am.
All-seeing-I
"G. G. Simpson stated, "It is inherent in any definition of science
that statements that cannot be checked by observation are not about
anything...or at the very best, they are not science."
I guess this leaves evolution OUT IN THE COLD, eh?
Unscientific. But we knew THAT already.
right.. Right...RIGHT ?
of course we did.
--
And they were not able to resist the wisdom of....
Adman.
bpuharic
<ap...@email.com> wrote:
>On the scientific method:
>
>"G. G. Simpson stated, "It is inherent in any definition of science
>that statements that cannot be checked by observation are not about
>anything...or at the very best, they are not science."
>
>I guess this leaves evolution OUT IN THE COLD, eh?
guess he's never heard of MRSA...evolution in action
no surprise. he's a creationist. to him, disease is all about demons
and ghosts
mur...@tntech.edu
> On the scientific method:
>
> "G. G. Simpson stated, "It is inherent in any definition of science
> that statements that cannot be checked by observation are not about
> anything...or at the very best, they are not science."
>
> I guess this leaves evolution OUT IN THE COLD, eh?
>
> Unscientific. But we knew THAT already.
Heh. I knew that back when they found the fossil of the dino eatin
that caveman. Read about it in the thread "Humans and Dinosaur
coexistence cover up "
---DPM
Chris Thompson
601e27...@m26g2000yqb.googlegroups.com:
Why aren't endogenous retroviruses an observation?
Your BFF Data-boy doesn't seem to be able to address that question.
Why don't you?
Chris
Free Lunch
>On the scientific method:
>
>"G. G. Simpson stated, "It is inherent in any definition of science
>that statements that cannot be checked by observation are not about
>anything...or at the very best, they are not science."
>
>I guess this leaves evolution OUT IN THE COLD, eh?
Your unwillingness to learn about evolution does not affect whether it
is science or not. I realize that this is very hard for you to
comprehend, but you are not the center of the universe. God did not
create you. You don't need to worship your own personal ignorance.
>Unscientific. But we knew THAT already.
>
>right.. Right...RIGHT ?
>
>of course we did.
You refuse to learn.
raven1
>On the scientific method:
>
>"G. G. Simpson stated, "It is inherent in any definition of science
>that statements that cannot be checked by observation are not about
>anything...or at the very best, they are not science."
>
>I guess this leaves evolution OUT IN THE COLD, eh?
Except that we do observe evolution.
SkyEyes
> On the scientific method:
>
> "G. G. Simpson stated, "It is inherent in any definition of science
> that statements that cannot be checked by observation are not about
> anything...or at the very best, they are not science."
G.G. Simpson, huh? Is he any relation to Homer?
Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34
skyeyes nine at cox dot net
John Harshman
> On the scientific method:
>
> "G. G. Simpson stated, "It is inherent in any definition of science
> that statements that cannot be checked by observation are not about
> anything...or at the very best, they are not science."
>
> I guess this leaves evolution OUT IN THE COLD, eh?
>
> Unscientific. But we knew THAT already.
>
> right.. Right...RIGHT ?
>
> of course we did.
This is one reason nobody takes you seriously. You're not engaging in
any sort of dialog, just trolling for outrage. Are you at all ashamed,
even just a little bit?
Dave Oldridge
601e27...@m26g2000yqb.googlegroups.com:
>On the scientific method:
>
>"G. G. Simpson stated, "It is inherent in any definition of science
>that statements that cannot be checked by observation are not about
>anything...or at the very best, they are not science."
>
>I guess this leaves evolution OUT IN THE COLD, eh?
Nope, but then you were just LOOKING for an excuse to lie.
>
>Unscientific. But we knew THAT already.
No, YOU don't even know that, though you might believe you know it, since
you have gotten so much in the habit of lying that you even believe the
ones you tell yourself.
>
>right.. Right...RIGHT ?
>
>of course we did.
No, WE did not.
>
>
>--
>And they were not able to resist the wisdom of....
>
>Adman.
I have been unable to find it. When you actually have some wisdom we'll
be the first to know, since until hou find some, you will no doubt
continue your steady stream of foolishness.
--
Dave Oldridge+
Nomen Publicus
> On the scientific method:
>
> "G. G. Simpson stated, "It is inherent in any definition of science
> that statements that cannot be checked by observation are not about
> anything...or at the very best, they are not science."
>
> I guess this leaves evolution OUT IN THE COLD, eh?
>
> Unscientific. But we knew THAT already.
>
> right.. Right...RIGHT ?
>
> of course we did.
"Suppose that the most fundamental and general principle of a science had
been known for over a century and had long since become a main basis for
understanding and research by scientists in that field. You would surely
assume that the principle would be taken as a matter of course by everyone
with even a nodding acquaintance with the science. It would obviously be
taught everywhere as basic to the science at any level of education. If you
think that about biology, however, you are wrong.
Evolution is such a principle in biology. Although almost everyone has heard
of it, most Americans have only the scantest and most distorted idea of its
real nature and significance. I know of no poll, but I suspect that a
majority doubt, disbelieve, or violently oppose its clear truth without a
hearing and on no basis more rational than prejudice, dogma, or
superstition. Many school and not a few college teachers either share that
irrationality or evade teaching the truth of evolution from other motives.
That is a main reason why?only a minority of us have fully entered the world
into which Darwin led us."
"One Hundred Years without Darwin are Enough" by G. G. Simpson, 1961
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/simpson_evolution.html
--
If God were suddenly condemned to live the life which He has inflicted
upon men, He would kill Himself. -- Alexandre Dumas
Nashton
Why would I want to address something you mentioned and that you have
failed to demonstrate that you are capable of understanding?
In fact, you're the one avoiding the question altogether.
So Chris, what do you know about ERVs other than what you copied and
pasted from the T.O archive you lying little man?
Because that's what you are. A very, very tiny and insignificant little man.
Ye Old One
>On the scientific method:
>
>"G. G. Simpson stated, "It is inherent in any definition of science
>that statements that cannot be checked by observation are not about
>anything...or at the very best, they are not science."
>
>I guess this leaves evolution OUT IN THE COLD, eh?
No, not at all.
>Unscientific. But we knew THAT already.
>
>right.. Right...RIGHT ?
wrong.. Wrong...Wrong - as usual.
>
>of course we did.
Madman (aka Mudbrain) is on record as claiming:-
Science causes disease.
That 3.5% actually means 25%...
That the actor Paul Newman was a creationist...
That "Dr." Kent Hovind has made lots of *scientific* discoveries...
That wars have been fought because some scientific finding discredited
some facet of some religion...
To have a "higher education" than most posters to this news group...
To understand how geologists determine the age of any given sample of
rock...
That trilobites were Cambrian mammals... [that one still makes me
laugh]
And that he has "created genes" and not evolved ape genes...
That linguists have traced all the world's languages to the Middle
East region and back to around the same time as the bible claims Noah
and his sons rebuilt mankind.
Claimed that talk.origin's moderator was a troll.
Claimed cigarettes do not cause cancer.
The [Dropa] stone is real, the troglodytes exist, the graves are
there, many books have been written on the subject...
Now, I ask you, is this the sort of guy you would give an credence to?
Certainly I don't.
--
Bob.
Ye Old One
Run coward - run like the wind!
--
Bob.
NashtOff - the moron who claimed "All drugs are derived from the ToE."
All-seeing-I
> All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote in news:9d896590-7e0e-45c7-a698-
>
>
>
>
>
> > On the scientific method:
>
> > "G. G. Simpson stated, "It is inherent in any definition of science
> > that statements that cannot be checked by observation are not about
> > anything...or at the very best, they are not science."
>
> > I guess this leaves evolution OUT IN THE COLD, eh?
>
> > Unscientific. But we knew THAT already.
>
> > right.. Right...RIGHT �?
>
> > of course we did.
>
> > --
> > And they were not able to resist the wisdom of....
>
> > Adman.
>
> Why aren't endogenous retroviruses an observation?
>
> Your BFF Data-boy doesn't seem to be able to address that question.
>
> Why don't you?
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
An observation of --->what, exactly Chris?
Is this another one of your "Spirulina is Evolution" thingies?
Is a endogenous retrovirus an example of evolution or is it just
another example of something attempting to corrupt the existing
genetic material like HIV does?
Endogenous retroviruses are just another part of the corruption that
has shortened man's life span due to the events thar are explained in
books like the bible.
Did it add to the genome and therefore to the evolution of man? Do you
have clear evidence that it did? Or did the virus mutate until it was
no longer harmful.
BTW, What about the retrovirus K family that has been reconstructed
and resurected? It is said it can infect humans. Don't we have enough
death and disease on this planet? Does science have to resurrect
another one from 5 million years ago too? What if the thing gets
lose?
How about spending the money on something that will cure new retro's
rather then reconstruct old ones. And science should get out of the
"creating life" and "making death" business anyway. It will just bring
more harm to an already corupted earth.
All-seeing-I
> On Wed, 6 Jan 2010 18:32:20 -0800 (PST), All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com>
> wrote in talk.origins:
>
> >On the scientific method:
>
> >"G. G. Simpson stated, "It is inherent in any definition of science
> >that statements that cannot be checked by observation are not about
> >anything...or at the very best, they are not science."
>
> >I guess this leaves evolution OUT IN THE COLD, eh?
>
> Your unwillingness to learn about evolution does not affect whether it
> is science or not. I realize that this is very hard for you to
> comprehend, but you are not the center of the universe. God did not
> create you. You don't need to worship your own personal ignorance.
heh.. oh, really.
I knew you would eventually come out of the closet and say that one
day.
You come right out and say it now: God did not "create". You use to
say "God created with evolution"
Anyone that thinks man is actually an ape and that all of the
diversity on this planet gave rise to itself, has to be insane
FreeLunch. But thanks to modern medicine there is not help for your
condition.
>
> >Unscientific. But we knew THAT already.
>
> >right.. Right...RIGHT �?
>
> >of course we did.
>
> You refuse to learn.
That would be you.
chris thompson
> Chris Thompson wrote:
> > All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote in news:9d896590-7e0e-45c7-a698-
Poor Nashton. So soon after the New Year and already you're back to
stalking me. Have you told your therapist?
Why are you so afraid?
Chris
All-seeing-I
wrote:> 601e27440...@m26g2000yqb.googlegroups.com:
Dave. It is imperative that you go and stand in the light for a
moment. When you do, it will become clear that you have been standing
in the darkness, all of your life. You have been on the wrong team
Dave. We need you to come on over and get on the right team now. Time
is short. You are needed.
Now. Please. Go find the light and bathe yourself in it, just for a
moment. That is all it will take. The revelation will then come to
you. I have made sure of that. I promise.
Be sure to tell your friend when you do. You do not want him lost
forever in an eternal unhappy abyss, do you?
Friar Broccoli
You lose (or more usually run away from) EVERY clear argument, but
still expect people to take you seriously. Why?
alextangent
This reminds me of an invitation to a chemically induced high, except
Adman has "standing in the light" instead of "snorting a line". Spookily
similar to a drug pusher, right down to the "tell your friends".
Ye Old One
But man's lives have not been shortened. I fact, as a direct result of
science, the average life expectancy has been going up and up.
>
>Did it add to the genome and therefore to the evolution of man? Do you
>have clear evidence that it did? Or did the virus mutate until it was
>no longer harmful.
Why would it?
>
>BTW, What about the retrovirus K family that has been reconstructed
>and resurected? It is said it can infect humans. Don't we have enough
>death and disease on this planet? Does science have to resurrect
>another one from 5 million years ago too? What if the thing gets
>lose?
>
>How about spending the money on something that will cure new retro's
>rather then reconstruct old ones.
Reconstructing old ones gives us information on what makes them tick.
> And science should get out of the
>"creating life" and "making death" business anyway. It will just bring
>more harm to an already corupted earth.
You are nuts.
--
Bob.
If brains were taxed, you would get a rebate.
Ye Old One
<ap...@email.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>Anyone that thinks man isn't actually an ape and that all of the
>diversity on this planet results from animals in an ark, has to be insane
>like me. But thanks to modern medicine there is now help for my
>condition.
Text corrected.
Boozer
15 seconds on google..
Being a scientist, G. G. Simpson obviously has a more useful
definition of observation than do you (something more than "I cant see
or hear it because my eyes are closed" la la la) because he's also
quoted as saying ..
"Man is the result of a purposeless and natural process that did not
have him in mind."
"I don't think that evolution is supremely important because it is my
specialty; it is my specialty because I think it is supremely
important."
Not exactly someone you'd want on your side of ignorance. btw that
quote mine is already in the archives
haiku jones
> On the scientific method:
>
> "G. G. Simpson stated, "It is inherent in any definition of science
> that statements that cannot be checked by observation are not about
> anything...or at the very best, they are not science."
>
> I guess this leaves evolution OUT IN THE COLD, eh?
Seeing as how Simpson was among the most
noted evolutionary biologists of his time --
his speciality was paleontology -- I'm going
to guess that he drew different conclusions
from that statement than you do.
And seeing as how there's a building named
after Simpson at our local University -- and yet,
oddly enough, none named after you -- I think I'll
go with Simpson's interpretation, if you don't mind.
(personally, I'm sorry that he died too early
to get a life-threatening belly laugh out of
Adman's falling for "Onyate man". you cannot
BUY entertainment like that)
Haiku Jones
Reddfrogg
>
> "G. G. Simpson stated, "It is inherent in any definition of science
> that statements that cannot be checked by observation are not about
> anything...or at the very best, they are not science."
>
> I guess this leaves evolution OUT IN THE COLD, eh?
No, why would it? Evolution is checked by observations.
>
> Unscientific. But we knew THAT already.
>
> right.. Right...RIGHT �?
No, you are wrong again.
>
> of course we did.
>
> --
> And they were not able to resist the wisdom of....
What "wisdom"?
>
> Adman.
DJT
Reddfrogg
> On Jan 6, 9:52 pm, Chris Thompson <the_thomps...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote in news:9d896590-7e0e-45c7-a698-
> > 601e27440...@m26g2000yqb.googlegroups.com:
>
> > > On the scientific method:
>
> > > "G. G. Simpson stated, "It is inherent in any definition of science
> > > that statements that cannot be checked by observation are not about
> > > anything...or at the very best, they are not science."
>
> > > I guess this leaves evolution OUT IN THE COLD, eh?
>
> > > Unscientific. But we knew THAT already.
>
> > > right.. Right...RIGHT ?
>
> > > of course we did.
>
> > > --
> > > And they were not able to resist the wisdom of....
>
> > > Adman.
>
> > Why aren't endogenous retroviruses an observation?
>
> > Your BFF Data-boy doesn't seem to be able to address that question.
>
> > Why don't you?
>
> > Chris- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> An observation of --->what, exactly Chris?
It's an observation of the results of common descent.
>
> Is this another one of your "Spirulina is Evolution" thingies?
>
> Is a endogenous retrovirus an example of evolution or is it just
> another example of something attempting to corrupt the existing
> genetic material like HIV does?
ERVs are evidence that humans share common ancestry with other apes.
Why would you call it "corruption"?
>
> Endogenous retroviruses are just another part of the corruption that
> has shortened man's life span due to the events thar are explained in
> books like the bible.
On the contrary. Human life spans have increased, not decreased over
the last thousands of years, mostly due to the improvement in
sanitation, and the increase in medical science.
>
> Did it add to the genome and therefore to the evolution of man? Do you
> have clear evidence that it did? Or did the virus mutate until it was
> no longer harmful
Why would it have to "add to" the genome? ERVs are the "scars" of
viruses in the DNA. They demonstrate that human genome is largely a
copy of an earlier genome shared by other ape species. There's no
reason why the same scar would show up on human and chimp DNA in the
same place, unless they shared a common ancestor.
>
> BTW, What about the retrovirus K family that has been reconstructed
> and resurected?
What about it?
> It is said it can infect humans.
So?
> Don't we have enough
> death and disease on this planet? Does science have to resurrect
> another one from 5 million years ago too? What if the thing gets
> lose?
Why would that be relevant to the evidence of common ancestry that the
ERVs left?
>
> How about spending the money on something that will cure new retro's
> rather then reconstruct old ones. And science should get out of the
> "creating life" and "making death" business anyway. It will just bring
> more harm to an already corupted earth.
There's no evidence the earth is "corrupted", and you are showing
quite clearly you don't know about an important set of evidence for
evolution.
DJT
Boikat
>
Wow. A whole post of meaningless rhetoric from a moronic troll with
delusions of intelligence.
Boikat
Reddfrogg
> On Jan 6, 9:59�pm, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 6 Jan 2010 18:32:20 -0800 (PST), All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com>
> > wrote in talk.origins:
>
> > >On the scientific method:
>
> > >"G. G. Simpson stated, "It is inherent in any definition of science
> > >that statements that cannot be checked by observation are not about
> > >anything...or at the very best, they are not science."
>
> > >I guess this leaves evolution OUT IN THE COLD, eh?
>
> > Your unwillingness to learn about evolution does not affect whether it
> > is science or not. I realize that this is very hard for you to
> > comprehend, but you are not the center of the universe. God did not
> > create you. You don't need to worship your own personal ignorance.
>
> heh.. oh, really.
Maybe you just like worshiping ignorance....
>
> I knew you would eventually come out of the closet and say that one
> day.
What "closet"?
>
> You come right out and say it now: God did not "create". You use to
> say "God created with evolution"
As far as I know, FL was always an atheist. When did he claim that
God created with evolution? That's what I believe, not what an
atheist would believe.
>
> Anyone that thinks man is actually an ape and that all of the
> diversity on this planet gave rise to itself, has to be insane
> FreeLunch.
Why? Humans have the same anatomy as an ape. They have the same
blood type, the same biochemistry, the same DNA. What do you think
separates humans from other apes?
> But thanks to modern medicine there is not help for your
> condition.
Help for your condition would be knowledge. It appears, however you
have a strong allergy to that.
DJT
Reddfrogg
How so? Dave seems to be open to learning, rather than cowering in
the darkness of fear and superstition, like you do.
>You have been on the wrong team
> Dave. We need you to come on over and get on the right team now. Time
> is short. You are needed.
What makes you think you are on the "right team"? Why does the
"right team" have to rely on ignorance, and fear?
>
> Now. Please. Go find the light and bathe yourself in it, just for a
> moment. That is all it will take. The revelation will then come to
> you. I have made sure of that. I promise.
How did you "make sure of that"? Again, why do you think that
ignorance, and fear are the "light"?
>
> Be sure to tell your friend when you do. You do not want him lost
> forever in an eternal unhappy abyss, do you?
You are speaking from the bottom of that abyss. Why should anyone
believe you?
DJT
g...@risky-biz.com
> On the scientific method:
>
> "G. G. Simpson stated, "It is inherent in any definition of science
> that statements that cannot be checked by observation are not about
> anything...or at the very best, they are not science."
>
> I guess this leaves evolution OUT IN THE COLD, eh?
>
>
>
> of course we did.
Let's see, from Wikipedia:
---------
George Gaylord Simpson (16 June 1902 � 6 October 1984) was an
American paleontologist. Simpson was perhaps the most influential
paleontologist of the twentieth century, and a major participant in
the modern evolutionary synthesis...
He was awarded the Linnean Society of London's prestigious Darwin-
Wallace Medal in 1958. He also received the Royal Society's Darwin
Medal 'In recognition of his distinguished contributions to general
evolutionary theory, based on a profound study of palaeontology,
particularly of vertebrates,' in 1962.
At the University of Arizona, Tucson, the Gould-Simpson Building was
named for George Gaylord Simpson.[2] Simpson was noted for his work in
the field of paleogeography and continental evolution relationships.
Quotes
* Man is the result of a purposeless and natural process
that did not have him in mind.[3]
* I don't think that evolution is supremely important
because it is my specialty; it is my specialty because I think it is
supremely important.[4]
---------------
You make a steady habit of using quotes from lunatics who agree with
you (your "peer review" guy's web site was a hoot) and giants of
science who disagree with you. Sounds like this Simpson guy was one of
the latter, and certainly considered evolution good science.
Greg Guarino
Wombat
Methinks you misunderstand the point about endogenous retroviruses.
Plus ca change.
Wombat
bpuharic
<ap...@email.com> wrote:
>
>
>Is a endogenous retrovirus an example of evolution or is it just
>another example of something attempting to corrupt the existing
>genetic material like HIV does?
>
>Endogenous retroviruses are just another part of the corruption that
>has shortened man's life span due to the events thar are explained in
>books like the bible.
meaningless. creationists had a life expectancy of 40 years. today
it's 80. creationism is useless
>
>Did it add to the genome and therefore to the evolution of man? Do you
>have clear evidence that it did? Or did the virus mutate until it was
>no longer harmful.
>
>BTW, What about the retrovirus K family that has been reconstructed
>and resurected? It is said it can infect humans. Don't we have enough
>death and disease on this planet? Does science have to resurrect
>another one from 5 million years ago too? What if the thing gets
>lose?
it's marginal. and i know you don't know what that means. we can die
a billion ways. one more is irrelevant.
and religion is a killer too. why not eliminate THAT?
>
>How about spending the money on something that will cure new retro's
>rather then reconstruct old ones. And science should get out of the
>"creating life" and "making death" business anyway. It will just bring
>more harm to an already corupted earth.
let's get rid of religion. that'd be a good start
bpuharic
<ap...@email.com> wrote:
>
>
>Anyone that thinks man is actually an ape and that all of the
>diversity on this planet gave rise to itself, has to be insane
and they used to say man would never fly, too
Sapient Fridge
<836291a9-bb78-4974...@r5g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> writes
<snip>
>Endogenous retroviruses are just another part of the corruption that
>has shortened man's life span due to the events thar are explained in
>books like the bible.
>
>Did it add to the genome and therefore to the evolution of man? Do you
>have clear evidence that it did?
Yes. It appears the viral DNA has been co-opted and used by placental
mammals. ERV DNA is actually active during pregnancy, the proteins
produced from them by the foetus help to stop the mothers immune system
from attacking it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endogenous_retrovirus
--
sapient_...@spamsights.org ICQ #17887309 * Save the net *
Grok: http://spam.abuse.net http://www.cauce.org * nuke a spammer *
Find: http://www.samspade.org http://www.netdemon.net * today *
Kill: http://mail-abuse.com http://au.sorbs.net http://spamhaus.org
Jim
<snip>
> Is a endogenous retrovirus an example of evolution or is it just
> another example of something attempting to corrupt the existing
> genetic material like HIV does?
>
> Endogenous retroviruses are just another part of the corruption that
> has shortened man's life span due to the events thar are explained in
> books like the bible.
>
Um, you may owe your existence to an endogenous retrovirus. Take a
look at
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1200/is_n10_v148/ai_17408431/
which is a report of a paper suggesting that ERVs may have a
significant benefit in pregnancy. Of course, it's 15 years old, so I
don't know what the present state of knowledge is, but it is clear
that you haven't done any homework on this topic.
> Did it add to the genome and therefore to the evolution of man? Do you
> have clear evidence that it did? Or did the virus mutate until it was
> no longer harmful.
>
Yes. See above.
<snip>
Free Lunch
wrote in talk.origins:
>On Jan 6, 9:59�pm, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>> On Wed, 6 Jan 2010 18:32:20 -0800 (PST), All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com>
>> wrote in talk.origins:
>>
>> >On the scientific method:
>>
>> >"G. G. Simpson stated, "It is inherent in any definition of science
>> >that statements that cannot be checked by observation are not about
>> >anything...or at the very best, they are not science."
>>
>> >I guess this leaves evolution OUT IN THE COLD, eh?
>>
>> Your unwillingness to learn about evolution does not affect whether it
>> is science or not. I realize that this is very hard for you to
>> comprehend, but you are not the center of the universe. God did not
>> create you. You don't need to worship your own personal ignorance.
>
>heh.. oh, really.
>
>I knew you would eventually come out of the closet and say that one
>day.
I've not been in the closet. My specific comment about "God did not
create you." is directed at your self-absorption. You post here as if
you are the whole purpose of the universe. You are not. Tame your ego.
>You come right out and say it now: God did not "create". You use to
>say "God created with evolution"
I don't recall ever saying that. I don't claim that I know there is no
God. I do say that the only valid stand that a theist can take is that
God used evolution. Any theist who rejects evolution is calling God a
trickster, a liar. You are one of those theists. Can you tell me why you
think God chose to lie to us?
>Anyone that thinks man is actually an ape and that all of the
>diversity on this planet gave rise to itself, has to be insane
>FreeLunch. But thanks to modern medicine there is not help for your
>condition.
You merely repeat your science-hating doctrines that have been shown to
be false. Never have you managed to support any of your ignorant twaddle
with evidence. Even Christians here mock your profoundly ignorant
foolishness.
heekster
wrote:
>On Jan 6, 7:32�pm, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
>> On the scientific method:
>>
>> "G. G. Simpson stated, "It is inherent in any definition of science
>> that statements that cannot be checked by observation are not about
>> anything...or at the very best, they are not science."
>
>G.G. Simpson, huh? Is he any relation to Homer?
>
>Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34
>skyeyes nine at cox dot net
I'd guess this guy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Gaylord_Simpson
The Simpson quote that ASI the fool conveniently omitted, was this
one:
"I don't think that evolution is supremely important because it is my
specialty; it is my specialty because I think it is supremely
important."
From, Larson, Edward J. (2004), Evolution, Modern Library, 250, ISBN
0-679-64288-9
Probably just another example of ASI's inability to quote while
retaining the original meaning of that quote. Likely, it is out of
context.
heekster
My favorite GG Simpson quote:
Andre Lieven
And, isn't it kewl that it only took some 66 years, or about 2/3rds
of a century, to go from flying 200 feet to flying 240,000 miles to
the Moon, and landing on it ?
Nothing of non-science could ever achieve such a thing.
Andre
All-seeing-I
>
> - Show quoted text -
Because you are a dishonest poster. THATs why.
All-seeing-I
There are many zoonotic disease humans share with animals.So I hardly
call a RetroV's evidence of evolution. All you have shown the virus is
shared between human and ape,
A virus needs a host. That makes it part of the processes on the earth
that are corrupted. If you do not understand why, then you do not
understand what the bible has explained to you about the earth's
corruption after the fall.
Ye Old One
<ap...@email.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
What would you know about honesty Mudbrain?
Devils Advocaat
No Dave, come to the Dark Side, we has cookies.
chris thompson
Retroviruses insert their DNA into the host DNA at random locations.
This is well-established and non-controversial.
Please tell us how these retroviral sequences are to be found at the
same loci on the same chromosomes in all the great apes, if not common
descent. Are you postulating that just by chance, sometime in the last
few thousand years, every great ape was infected by the same
retroviruses, and they all inserted their DNA into the same
chromosomes, at the same loci?
Chris
Jim
You don't get it. Let's see if I can explain. To get an endogenous
retrovirus, you need to have an individual infected by a retrovirus.
Further, the retrovirus needs to infect a germ cell (egg or sperm)
that develops into an embryo. So the virus must insert its little bit
of DNA into a sperm cell (for example) that later fertilizes an egg
and produces a kid. Now, there are some 3 billion base pairs in the
human genome; the retrovirus inserts its bit of DNA more or less
randomly in that sequence, so the odds of two individuals having a
retrovirus insert itself at the same spot in their DNA are on the
order of one in a billion. OK so far? Now, consider the odds of two
unrelated individuals having two virus DNA fragments at identical
spots in their genome. To get this, we need to multiply the
probability of the virus infecting two cells at the same spot (roughly
one in a billion) times the probability that a second infection will
occur at a second spot that is identical in both individuals. Thus,
the odds of two unrelated individuals sharing two ERV fragments is on
the order of one in a billion billion.
Remember that once an infected germ cell develops into an adult all
descendants of that individual will have the virus DNA fragment locked
in that one spot in their DNA. So if two individuals have a
retrovirus fragment at the same spot in their genome the odds are on
the order of a billion to one that those two individuals share an
ancestor. If two individuals share two such fragments the odds are on
the order of a billion billion to one that both individuals are
directly descended from a single person. OK so far? Now here comes
the clincher: humans and chimps share at least seven endogenous
retroviruses whose DNA fragments occur at the same spots in both
genomes. This means that the odds that humans and chimps never had a
common ancestor is something like a one in a billion billion billion
billion billion billion billion. Or, put another way, it is virtually
certain that somewhere back in time there was a single ape who is the
direct ancestor of all modern humans AND chimps. And, since humans,
chimps, and gorillas share at least four ERVs, it is virtually certain
that farther back in time there was a single ape who is the direct
ancestor of all modern humans, chimps, and gorillas.
It is that simple: all humans and all chimps and all gorillas are
blood kin. That is what the endogenous retroviruses tell us - nothing
to do with sickness or corruption, but rather important genetic flags
that indicate common ancestry. You and the chimps at the zoo have the
same individual for a several-million-times great grandfather. That
is just the way it is.
Mitchell Coffey
Off the top of my head, I'd reckon there's as much a chance as a
tornado could sweep through a junkyard and randomly assemble a Boeing
747.
Mitchell Coffey
Dan Listermann
"All-seeing-I" <ap...@email.com> wrote in message
news:madman-1d8647c9-bab1-...@u7g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
> A virus needs a host. That makes it part of the processes on the earth
> that are corrupted. If you do not understand why, then you do not
> understand what the bible has explained to you about the earth's
> corruption after the fall.
>
.
Dan Listermann
"Jim" <jimwi...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:9a677f0e-150c-4528...@u20g2000vbq.googlegroups.com...
Here comes the " They were designed that way, prove me wrong."
.
John Harshman
> Because you are a dishonest poster. THATs why.
It seems to me you're the dishonest poster here, for exactly the reasons
Fr. B outlines. Nobody could possibly take you seriously, unless you
stop the nonsense posting followed by non-response.
All-seeing-I
>
> - Show quoted text -
Where is the undisputed evidence that retrovirus consistently insert
its bit of DNA randomly?
Such outrageous claims with no evidence.
I can think of a few flaws in this.
1) Fish. Where is the ERV between humans and fish if they are our
ancestors?
2) There is at least 1 ERV from the family K that is present in chimps
and
gorillas, but it is not in present humans and apes. Why is that. This
alone disproves ERV's as a focal point and should falsify evolution as
well ERV's being evidence of speciation and common ancestry.
3) Most retro genes between vertebrates and invertebrates have huge
differences. It is more likely that the same virus attacked humans and
apes and chimps rather then a common ancestor passing on a virus that
left remnants behind.
There is not a single item that is used to show evolution that does
not have one or more alternate explanations. Is there more then one
explanation for gravity? No
Until evolution can show evidence that has no other explanation except
that evolution happened, then evolution will remain just an "idea"
dreamed up by some old freak with protruding eyebrows, named Darwin.
Malygris
> There is not a single item that is used to show evolution that does
> not have one or more alternate explanations. Is there more then one
> explanation for gravity? No
Is there *one* explanation for gravity?
--
Malygris
All-seeing-I
I beg to differ. It is quite controversial.
You have not shown the ERV's inject their bits of code randomly or
consistently.
You also have only shown 4 to be common between the ape family and the
human family. But there are many of them. And one of them in the 'K'
family is found in chimps but not in humans.
You evo-freaks claim chimps are closer to humans than to gorillas. If
that is true then Gorillas and Chimps can not share an ERV unless the
ERV is also present in humans. They are from a common ancestor right?
Apparently not if ERV's are the evidence.
Finding an ERV like the 'K'' in chimps and gorillas, but not in
humans, should falsify evolution. (number 1)
Next. You have also not found a common ERV in fish, have you?
You go on and on about "your inner fish". So where is the ERV for
human and fish? They do not share any ERVs as we would expect (and as
should be predicted) if evolution is true.
That must mean evolution is falsified if we are not decended from
fish. Right? (number 2)
So if anything ERV's show evolution to be false. You now have 2
reasons for evolutuion being falasified.
BUT.
We can observe that variation takes place.
So some type of evolution does in fact happen.
Just not the kind you dream about in your science fiction fantasy
called "the planet of the apes".
BTW. Have you noticed how Darwin's eye brows protrude? Just like an
ape's does... [chuckle]. The man LOOKS like an ape. It is eerie.
I bet he was teased a lot when he was a kid. Evolution is probably
some pay back. He is calling everyone an ape now! And you believe it!
hahahah!!!
Is it any wonder he never thought his book would be so popular?
All-seeing-I
> Chris Thompson wrote:
> > All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote in news:9d896590-7e0e-45c7-a698-
> > 601e27440...@m26g2000yqb.googlegroups.com:
>
> >> On the scientific method:
>
> >> "G. G. Simpson stated, "It is inherent in any definition of science
> >> that statements that cannot be checked by observation are not about
> >> anything...or at the very best, they are not science."
>
> >> I guess this leaves evolution OUT IN THE COLD, eh?
>
> >> Unscientific. But we knew THAT already.
>
> >> right.. Right...RIGHT �?
>
> >> of course we did.
>
> >> --
> >> And they were not able to resist the wisdom of....
>
> >> Adman.
>
> > Why aren't endogenous retroviruses an observation?
>
> > Your BFF Data-boy doesn't seem to be able to address that question.
>
> > Why don't you?
>
> > Chris
>
> failed to demonstrate that you are capable of understanding?
>
> In fact, you're the one avoiding the question altogether.
>
> So Chris, what do you know about ERVs other than what you copied and
> pasted from the T.O archive you lying little man?
>
> Because that's what you are. A very, very tiny and insignificant little man.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Ask Chris where is the ERV is between fish and human.
If ERV's are evidence of decent from a common ancestor, but humans and
fish do not share an ERV, then evolution from a single common ancestor
is falsified.
Or you could ask Chris this: If chimps are closer to humans than to
gorillas, but Gorillas and Chimps can not share an ERV unless the ERV
is also present in humans, then finding an ERV in chimps and gorillas,
but not in humans falsifies evolution.
However. If ERV's came much latter, then that will prove the bible is
correct when it says the earth and everything on it became corrupted
after the fall. DNA was corrupted, life spans became shorter, etc
etc... etc...
That Chris. He is so funny at times!
BTW, did you ever notice how Darwin looks like an ape? Protruding eye
brows and all. He was probably teased a lot as a kid. I bet his ape to
man notion is a bit of pay back since he has so many kooks believing
we are all (not just him) an ape now. hahah!!
I bet Darwin would be a huge "Planet of the Apes" fan if he lived in
the 20th century!
hersheyh
> On the scientific method:
>
> "G. G. Simpson stated, "It is inherent in any definition of science
> that statements that cannot be checked by observation are not about
> anything...or at the very best, they are not science."
>
> I guess this leaves evolution OUT IN THE COLD, eh?
>
> Unscientific. But we knew THAT already.
>
> right.. Right...RIGHT �?
>
> of course we did.
Obviously you do not know the meaning of "observation". The
predictions of the theory of evolution (and they are, unlike
'Godddidit', testable predictions) most certainly can be and are
checked by observation.
Dan Listermann
> Until evolution can show evidence that has no other explanation except
> that evolution happened, then evolution will remain just an "idea"
> dreamed up by some old freak with protruding eyebrows, named Darwin.
>
>
that creation happened, then creation will remain just an "idea"
dreamed up by some old bronze age goatherds..
.
Ye Old One
<ap...@email.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
No it is not.
>
>Or you could ask Chris this: If chimps are closer to humans than to
>gorillas, but Gorillas and Chimps can not share an ERV unless the ERV
>is also present in humans, then finding an ERV in chimps and gorillas,
>but not in humans falsifies evolution.
No, but it would have to be explained. However, do you know of such a
case?
>
>However. If ERV's came much latter, then that will prove the bible is
>correct when it says the earth and everything on it became corrupted
>after the fall. DNA was corrupted, life spans became shorter, etc
>etc... etc...
But we know for a fact that you and the bible are wrong on that score.
>
>That Chris. He is so funny at times!
>
>BTW, did you ever notice how Darwin looks like an ape? Protruding eye
>brows and all.
His eyebrows protruded no more than many people's.
> He was probably teased a lot as a kid. I bet his ape to
>man notion is a bit of pay back since he has so many kooks believing
>we are all (not just him) an ape now. hahah!!
>
>I bet Darwin would be a huge "Planet of the Apes" fan if he lived in
>the 20th century!
--
Bob.
You have not been charged for this lesson - learn from it rather than
continuing to make a fool of yourself.
chris thompson
I'd say that would be a fair estimate.
Chris
hersheyh
Why would one expect an ERV sequence (or any near neutral sequence)
that was present in the common ancestor of modern fish and modern
tetrapods to remain essentially unchanged in the two lineages over the
350 my or so that the lineages have been separate? You apparently
keep pretending that evolution says that modern humans evolved from
modern fish to form a ladder of progress.
> 2) There is at least 1 ERV from the family K that is present in chimps
> and
> gorillas, but it is not in present humans and apes. Why is that.
ERVs can be lost as well as introduced into new sites.
"The human ERV-K (HERV-K) family includes some of the most active
retroviral elements in human genome [6], [7]. Although most of the
proviral copies of ERV-K in the genome are inactive, some show
evidence of past positive selection at the env gene [8], [9]. ERVs, as
well the other retroelements, can invade the host genome due to
transposition bursts [10], counteracted by host-driven excision and
purging [11], [12]."
http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0001026
> This
> alone disproves ERV's as a focal point and should falsify evolution as
> well ERV's being evidence of speciation and common ancestry.
>
> 3) Most retro genes between vertebrates and invertebrates have huge
> differences.
As would be expected.
> It is more likely that the same virus attacked humans and
> apes and chimps rather then a common ancestor passing on a virus that
> left remnants behind.
That does not explain the high degree of similarity both in the
*sites* of integration and, importantly, in the types of changes that
make those ERVs immobile afterward. It is the *pattern* of
distribution (in the presence of evidence indicating insufficient
ability of the original retroviruses to target those specific sites)
and the nature of the defects that tell us that these are examples of
vertical transmission rather than targeted integration. It is
*specifically* NOT more likely that these integrations are due to
recent and separate infection of the modern organisms.
> There is not a single item that is used to show evolution that does
> not have one or more alternate explanations. Is there more then one
> explanation for gravity? No
>
> Until evolution can show evidence that has no other explanation except
> that evolution happened, then evolution will remain just an "idea"
> dreamed up by some old freak with protruding eyebrows, named Darwin.
One can always re-invent God to explain *anything* or its opposite.
That is why your explanation is not, and never will be, considered to
be a useful or scientific explanation. Scientists do not require that
evolution be the only possible explanation consistent with the
evidence, only that it be the current best testable explanation
consistent with *most* of the evidence (any particular piece of
'evidence' can be wrong or misleading or otherwise anomolous).
raven1
<ap...@email.com> wrote:
>There is not a single item that is used to show evolution that does
>not have one or more alternate explanations. Is there more then one
>explanation for gravity? No
If you have an explanation for gravity, please publish it; the Nobel
Committee would be very interested.
Ye Old One
<ap...@email.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
Humans are apes you moron.
> But there are many of them. And one of them in the 'K'
>family is found in chimps but not in humans.
Showing that it occurred in chimps after the split with humans.
>
>You evo-freaks claim chimps are closer to humans than to gorillas. If
>that is true then Gorillas and Chimps can not share an ERV unless the
>ERV is also present in humans. They are from a common ancestor right?
>Apparently not if ERV's are the evidence.
>
>Finding an ERV like the 'K'' in chimps and gorillas, but not in
>humans, should falsify evolution. (number 1)
>
>Next. You have also not found a common ERV in fish, have you?
>
>You go on and on about "your inner fish". So where is the ERV for
>human and fish? They do not share any ERVs as we would expect (and as
>should be predicted) if evolution is true.
The split from fish happened a very long time ago.
>
>That must mean evolution is falsified if we are not decended from
>fish. Right? (number 2)
>
>So if anything ERV's show evolution to be false.
But they don't.
Watch http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=De-OkzTUDVA
[snip more stupidity]
--
Bob.
Have you ever wondered what your life would be like if you had had
enough oxygen at birth?
Kermit
> On 1/7/2010 13:13, All-seeing-I wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jan 7, 12:09 am, Dave Oldridge<doldr...@leavethisoutshaw.ca>
> >> All-seeing-I<ap...@email.com> �wrote in news:9d896590-7e0e-45c7-a698-
> >> 601e27440...@m26g2000yqb.googlegroups.com:
>
> >>> On the scientific method:
>
> >>> "G. G. Simpson stated, "It is inherent in any definition of science
> >>> that statements that cannot be checked by observation are not about
> >>> anything...or at the very best, they are not science."
>
> >>> I guess this leaves evolution OUT IN THE COLD, eh?
>
>
>
> >> you have gotten so much in the habit of lying that you even believe the
> >> ones you tell yourself.
>
>
> >>> of course we did.
>
>
> >>> --
> >>> And they were not able to resist the wisdom of....
>
> >>> Adman.
>
> >> be the first to know, since until hou find some, you will no doubt
> >> continue your steady stream of foolishness.
>
> > Dave. It is imperative that you go and stand in the light for a
> > moment. When you do, it will become clear that you have been standing
> > in the darkness, all of your life. You have been on the wrong team
> > Dave. We need you to come on over and get on the right team now. Time
> > is short. You are needed.
>
> > Now. Please. Go find the light and bathe yourself in it, just for a
> > moment. That is all it will take. The revelation will then come to
> > you. I have made sure of that. I promise.
>
> > Be sure to tell your friend when you do. You do not want him lost
> > forever in an eternal unhappy abyss, do you?
>
> Adman has "standing in the light" instead of "snorting a line". Spookily
> similar to a drug pusher, right down to the "tell your friends".
I've long thought there was a family resemblance between determined
proselytizers and stoners at parties. Neither seems comfortable unless
they get everyone else around them into the act. Makes me think that
neither group is really OK with what they're doing, and needs
reassurance. Compare the Creationists who post here with the relaxed
and confident theist (who generally supports science, or even does
science), or compare the perennial stoner who insists you indulge to
the folks who host a party and offer some wine with dinner, but don't
repeat the offer if you turn them down.
Kermit
Ye Old One
I happened after the split, you can tell that because it will not be
in the same place.
> This
>alone disproves ERV's as a focal point and should falsify evolution as
>well ERV's being evidence of speciation and common ancestry.
>
>3) Most retro genes between vertebrates and invertebrates have huge
>differences. It is more likely that the same virus attacked humans and
>apes and chimps rather then a common ancestor passing on a virus that
>left remnants behind.
And that is true of some, the fact that they are in different
positions tells us the came later.
>
>There is not a single item that is used to show evolution that does
>not have one or more alternate explanations. Is there more then one
>explanation for gravity? No
>
>Until evolution can show evidence that has no other explanation except
>that evolution happened, then evolution will remain just an "idea"
>dreamed up by some old freak with protruding eyebrows, named Darwin.
>
Watch this and learn something.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4aBhblGrUuk
Dana Tweedy
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> Ask Chris where is the ERV is between fish and human.
That would be ERV-9 See:
http://www.pnas.org/content/101/3/805.abstract
>
> If ERV's are evidence of decent from a common ancestor, but humans and
> fish do not share an ERV, then evolution from a single common ancestor
> is falsified.
Humans do share an ERV with fish.
>
> Or you could ask Chris this: If chimps are closer to humans than to
> gorillas, but Gorillas and Chimps can not share an ERV unless the ERV
> is also present in humans, then finding an ERV in chimps and gorillas,
> but not in humans falsifies evolution.
Fortunately for evolution, there aren't any ERVs in chimps and gorillas
that aren't also shared with humans.
>
> However. If ERV's came much latter, then that will prove the bible is
> correct when it says the earth and everything on it became corrupted
> after the fall. DNA was corrupted, life spans became shorter, etc
> etc... etc...
There's no evidence of what you suggest. There's no evidence that
everything is 'corrupted', or that human life spans are shorter now than
in the past.
>
> That Chris. He is so funny at times!
Perhaps, but you are still wrong.
>
> BTW, did you ever notice how Darwin looks like an ape?
All humans look like apes, because they are apes.
> Protruding eye
> brows and all. He was probably teased a lot as a kid.
Even if this were true, so what?
> I bet his ape to
> man notion is a bit of pay back since he has so many kooks believing
> we are all (not just him) an ape now. hahah!!
Humans are apes, and that was recognized even before Darwin was born.
Why else would Linnaeus classify humans with apes?
>
> I bet Darwin would be a huge "Planet of the Apes" fan if he lived in
> the 20th century!
Maybe, but I think Darwin would probably be more a "Mythbusters" fan.
DJT
TomS
<omoek5hd2nkpn8p64...@4ax.com>, raven1 stated..."
See the Wikipedia article on "Gravity", under the heading "Recent
alternative theories":
* Brans�Dicke theory of gravity (1961)
* Induced gravity (1967), a proposal by Andrei Sakharov according
to which general relativity might arise from quantum field theories
of matter
* In the modified Newtonian dynamics (MOND) (1981), Mordehai
Milgrom proposes a modification of Newton's Second Law of motion for
small accelerations
* The self-creation cosmology theory of gravity (1982) by G.A.
Barber in which the Brans-Dicke theory is modified to allow mass
creation
* Nonsymmetric gravitational theory (NGT) (1994) by John Moffat
* Tensor-vector-scalar gravity (TeVeS) (2004), a relativistic
modification of MOND by Jacob Bekenstein
--
---Tom S.
the failure to nail currant jelly to a wall is not due to the nail; it is due to
the currant jelly.
Theodore Roosevelt, Letter to William Thayer, 1915 July 2
Kermit
> On the scientific method:
>
> "G. G. Simpson stated, "It is inherent in any definition of science
> that statements that cannot be checked by observation are not about
> anything...or at the very best, they are not science."
"Checked by observation" does not mean the process has to be visible
to the naked eye; science studies many process which are too slow, too
fast, to big, too small, or too complex to see directly. But natural
processes have *consequences, many of which *can be observed. And if
our understanding of those consequences (the models, the theories) are
correct, or close to it, then we should see the data that we expect.
And so, for instance, we see many classes of evidence that we would
expect if [common scent via modification by natural selection] were
true.
We do not, for instance, see the evidence we would expect if there had
ever been a global flood on Earth.
>
> I guess this leaves evolution OUT IN THE COLD, eh?
Why no, not at all. The theory, after all, like all scientific
theories, explains the observed data, and then attempts to falsify it
(look for contradicting evidence) have continued to fail. As the
supporting evidence piles up, we understand it better, and as the
contradicting evidence continues to fail to materialize, only the
misinformed or brain addled would deny it.
>
> Unscientific. But we knew THAT already.
Nobody has ever offered an alternative testable model that makes
predictions matched by the actual evidence.
>
> right.. Right...RIGHT �?
However, you continue to support the model that describes you as
determinedly ignorant, staggeringly arrogant, depressingly afraid of
reality, and laughably incapable of evaluating your own expertise.
>
> of course we did.
>
You don't "win" just because you refuse to be educated. You lose,
instead.
> --
> And they were not able to resist the wisdom of....
Some here cannot believe that anyone can be as ignorant as you profess
to be; I disagree. I think you *are capable of writing that line
without a hint of self-effacing irony.
>
> Adman.
Kermit
Burkhard
Lots of evidence by direct observation and a very thorough
understanding of the relevant processes, studies extensively in
virology can be found here:
A. Levy: The Retroviridae Springer 1993
and
Arie J. Zuckerman et al: Principles and Practice of Clinical Virology
WileyBlackwell; 6th Edition edition 2009 especially chapter 36
<snip>
> Until evolution can show evidence that has no other explanation except
> that evolution happened, then evolution will remain just an "idea"
> dreamed up by some old freak with protruding eyebrows, named Darwin.
Until you finally rise up to my challenge and prove that there is no
other possible explanation except that it is at least 2000 years old,
the idea that the Bible is a 18th century fraud is just as valid as
the idea that it is authentic
Dana Tweedy
But ERVs leave "scars" on the DNA. Those "scars" appear in very
specific places on the DNA. Just having the same disease wouldn't leave
a trace in the exact same place.
> So I hardly
> call a RetroV's evidence of evolution.
That's because you don't know what the evidence is showing. It's not
that there are ERVs, but that they show up on the genome. That humans
share the same scar on the DNA in the same place, in strong indication
that they are related by common descent.
> All you have shown the virus is
> shared between human and ape,
Actually, what is shown is that that virus left a mark on the DNA at one
particular place. All subsequent copies of that DNA have the same
mark, in the same place. That humans and other apes show that mark, in
exactly the same place shows that they all derived from the same genome.
>
> A virus needs a host.
Irrelevant to this point. The point is that the virus left a mark on
the DNA. The virus itself is irrelevant, it's the marker it left that's
important. If the virus had affected humans and other apes separately,
the viral markers would not be in the same place.
> That makes it part of the processes on the earth
> that are corrupted.
There's no reason to assume that viruses are "corruption".
> If you do not understand why, then you do not
> understand what the bible has explained to you about the earth's
> corruption after the fall.
The idea that God would "corrupt" his entire creation, just because two
humans, who according to the story didn't know the difference between
right and wrong, made a poor decision, is absurd. There's no evidence
of any "corruption" of the world, and no evidence that things were
"perfect" before this corruption.
The existence of shared ERV markers on the human and ape genome is
conclusive evidence of common descent. There's no reason why
individually, and separately created organisms would share these viral
markers in exactly the same place.
Again, the virus itself is not the point, but that the viruses left a
mark on the genome, which is shared by all subsequent descendants.
DJT
>
>
>
Dana Tweedy
Then you'd be wrong.
>
> You have not shown the ERV's inject their bits of code randomly or
> consistently.
Why would they affect the same place in the genome?
>
> You also have only shown 4 to be common between the ape family and the
> human family. But there are many of them. And one of them in the 'K'
> family is found in chimps but not in humans.
Which means it would have happened after the human/chimp split.
>
> You evo-freaks claim chimps are closer to humans than to gorillas. If
> that is true then Gorillas and Chimps can not share an ERV unless the
> ERV is also present in humans. They are from a common ancestor right?
> Apparently not if ERV's are the evidence.
Can you show any ERVs common to chimps and gorillas, not shared by humans?
>
> Finding an ERV like the 'K'' in chimps and gorillas, but not in
> humans, should falsify evolution. (number 1)
Not necessarily, but would need explanation. Note that no such ERV has
been found.
>
> Next. You have also not found a common ERV in fish, have you?
Yes, ERV-9
http://www.pnas.org/content/101/3/805.abstract
>
> You go on and on about "your inner fish". So where is the ERV for
> human and fish? They do not share any ERVs as we would expect (and as
> should be predicted) if evolution is true.
See above.
>
> That must mean evolution is falsified if we are not decended from
> fish. Right? (number 2)
Wrong.
>
> So if anything ERV's show evolution to be false. You now have 2
> reasons for evolutuion being falasified.
Only if they were true. They aren't.
>
> BUT.
>
> We can observe that variation takes place.
including variation producing speciation.
>
> So some type of evolution does in fact happen.
all evolution happens.
>
> Just not the kind you dream about in your science fiction fantasy
> called "the planet of the apes".
Humans are apes. Face facts.
>
> BTW. Have you noticed how Darwin's eye brows protrude? Just like an
> ape's does... [chuckle]. The man LOOKS like an ape. It is eerie.
All humans look like apes.
>
> I bet he was teased a lot when he was a kid. Evolution is probably
> some pay back. He is calling everyone an ape now! And you believe it!
> hahahah!!!
It was known that human are apes before Darwin was born.
>
> Is it any wonder he never thought his book would be so popular?
Note that Darwin didn't mention human evolution in his first book.
DJT
>
All-seeing-I
Why would I want to dispute that? It has been my point to you evo-
freaks since the beginning. No one can be sure of anything.
However. Since the texts have direct observations made by living
beings but much of evolution is just inferred from data, it is plain
to see the textual evidences have a higher probability of being
correct.
When you corelate them together we can be reasonably sure that 1)
there was a creator and that 2) humans were created.
Get over it.
John Harshman
I think that's a bad example. Note that these are *transgenic*
zebrafish. I suspect that this ERV was introduce as part of the
transgenic thing. I would be surprised to find the same ERV insertion in
humans and fish, because they evolve neutrally and just don't last that
long. Most retroposon insertions are good for 50-100 million years at
most, and after that time are so altered that they're impossible to
detect. You might find similar ERV families, but those would be
independent infections, not evolutionary events.
Sure he did. One sentence. Or were you referring to the Beagle book?
Dana Tweedy
>
> Where is the undisputed evidence that retrovirus consistently insert
> its bit of DNA randomly?
Are you seriously trying to suggest that a virus can target a specific
DNA sequence out of millions of possible spots?
>
> Such outrageous claims with no evidence.
What evidence do you have that viruses can specify where they attach to
the genome?
>
> I can think of a few flaws in this.
Only if you are totally insane.
>
> 1) Fish. Where is the ERV between humans and fish if they are our
> ancestors?
http://www.pnas.org/content/101/3/805.abstract
>
> 2) There is at least 1 ERV from the family K that is present in chimps
> and
> gorillas, but it is not in present humans and apes.
Citation, please. Primary scientific literature, not some creationist
site.
> Why is that.
You haven't shown it is correct. At this point, it's an unsupported
assertion.
> This
> alone disproves ERV's as a focal point and should falsify evolution as
> well ERV's being evidence of speciation and common ancestry.
No, it does not. First of all, all you have is an assertion. Second,
even if it were true, sections of the DNA can be deleted.
>
> 3) Most retro genes between vertebrates and invertebrates have huge
> differences. It is more likely that the same virus attacked humans and
> apes and chimps rather then a common ancestor passing on a virus that
> left remnants behind.
That doesn't follow. Humans and chimps are vertebrates, so why would it
matter the difference between "retro genes" between vertebrates and
invertebrates? Second, why is it "more likely" that a virus would
attack the exact same DNA sequence in supposedly unrelated species?
>
> There is not a single item that is used to show evolution that does
> not have one or more alternate explanations.
You can make up bizarre alternate explanations for anything, never mind
they don't make sense.
>Is there more then one
> explanation for gravity? No
Yes, actually. As pointed out before, gravity is much less understood
than evolution.
>
> Until evolution can show evidence that has no other explanation except
> that evolution happened, then evolution will remain just an "idea"
> dreamed up by some old freak with protruding eyebrows, named Darwin.
All scientific theories are "ideas". Darwin's eyebrows have nothing to
do with the validity of his theory.
DJT
>
>
Ye Old One
<ap...@email.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
Which part of the bible do you claim fits that description?
>but much of evolution is just inferred from data, it is plain
>to see the textual evidences have a higher probability of being
>correct.
You do talk some rubbish.
>
> When you corelate them together we can be reasonably sure that 1)
>there was a creator and that 2) humans were created.
No evidence for either claim.
>
>Get over it.
>
We have, unlike you we have grown up and put childish fairy tales
behind us.
--
Bob.
Everyone is entitled to be stupid but you're abusing the privilege.
John Harshman
> On 1/8/10 8:31 AM, All-seeing-I wrote:
>> On Jan 8, 8:22 am, Jim<jimwille...@gmail.com> wrote:
> snip
>
>
>>
>> Where is the undisputed evidence that retrovirus consistently insert
>> its bit of DNA randomly?
>
> Are you seriously trying to suggest that a virus can target a specific
> DNA sequence out of millions of possible spots?
>
>
>>
>> Such outrageous claims with no evidence.
>
>
> What evidence do you have that viruses can specify where they attach to
> the genome?
>
>
>
>>
>> I can think of a few flaws in this.
>
> Only if you are totally insane.
>
>
>
>>
>> 1) Fish. Where is the ERV between humans and fish if they are our
>> ancestors?
>
> http://www.pnas.org/content/101/3/805.abstract
>
>>
>> 2) There is at least 1 ERV from the family K that is present in chimps
>> and
>> gorillas, but it is not in present humans and apes.
>
> Citation, please. Primary scientific literature, not some creationist
> site.
There are some retroposons that have this pattern. There are a small
number of potential explanations.
1. Insertion in the common ancestor and exact excision in the human lineage.
2. Separate exactly similar insertions in the chimp and gorilla lineages.
3. Polymorphism in the common ancestor (some individual with the
insertion, some without), maintained throughout the human/chimp
ancestor, and eventually fixed differently in the three extant lineages.
There is some evidence that the first two are both possible -- i.e.
similar insertions in widely separated groups. But in the present case,
option 3 seems most likely. For one thing, it's expected as a common
consequence of neutral evolution. Look up "lineage sorting".
raven1
>Why would I want to dispute that? It has been my point to you evo-
>freaks since the beginning. No one can be sure of anything.
For the umpteenth time, this is an idiotic, self-refuting position to
take.
>However. Since the texts have direct observations made by living
>beings but much of evolution is just inferred from data, it is plain
>to see the textual evidences have a higher probability of being
>correct.
Given your extensive posts on the topic of human observation being
inherently unreliable, your position here shoots itself in the foot.
Dana Tweedy
Yet you seem very sure that you have the "one true" explanation.
>
> However. Since the texts have direct observations made by living
> beings
Actually, they don't. The ancient texts relate supposed happenings
long before they were written down. They contain oral tradition, not
eyewitness reports. Nevermind that eyewitness accounts are notoriously
inaccurate, you don't even have that.
>but much of evolution is just inferred from data,
All of science, indeed, all of human experience is inference from the
data. Inference is much better at getting at the reality than
eyewitness reports.
> it is plain
> to see the textual evidences have a higher probability of being
> correct.
Actually, it's quite the opposite. Textual "evidences" are much more
likely to be inaccurate, because they rely on
1. untrained observers
2. no means of testing the observations
3. oral tradition, which adds inaccuracy
4. no way to differentiate between fictional additions and witnessed
events.
>
> When you corelate them together we can be reasonably sure that 1)
> there was a creator and that 2) humans were created.
Except that you are aren't correlating, but cherry picking. You ignore
the differences, and choose only what can be made to fit your
preconceived notions.
>
> Get over it.
Get over what? That you are depending on inaccurate sources, and cherry
picking whatever you want to fit your own prejudice?
DJT
TomS
<r2tek59onb21l7cid...@4ax.com>, raven1 stated..."
>
>On Fri, 8 Jan 2010 09:43:03 -0800 (PST), All-seeing-I
><ap...@email.com> wrote:
>
>>Why would I want to dispute that? It has been my point to you evo-
>>freaks since the beginning. No one can be sure of anything.
>
>For the umpteenth time, this is an idiotic, self-refuting position to
>take.
It is indicative of the extremes that creationists feel driven to,
in order to maintain their denial of evolution.
Almost as if they realize that evolution is so overwhelmingly
supported by evidence and reason, that the only way to avoid it is
by refuge in universal doubt.
Free Lunch
wrote in talk.origins:
Merely demonstrating that he is engaging in logical contradictions is
not adequate to show adman that he is wrong. Adman has a simple
understanding of the world. He is right. If there is any evidence that
he is wrong, it must be ignored because he is right.
RAM
> > All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote in news:9d896590-7e0e-45c7-a698-
> > 601e27440...@m26g2000yqb.googlegroups.com:
>
> >> On the scientific method:
>
> >> "G. G. Simpson stated, "It is inherent in any definition of science
> >> that statements that cannot be checked by observation are not about
> >> anything...or at the very best, they are not science."
>
> >> I guess this leaves evolution OUT IN THE COLD, eh?
>
> >> Unscientific. But we knew THAT already.
>
> >> right.. Right...RIGHT �?
>
> >> of course we did.
>
> >> --
> >> And they were not able to resist the wisdom of....
>
> >> Adman.
>
> > Why aren't endogenous retroviruses an observation?
>
> > Your BFF Data-boy doesn't seem to be able to address that question.
>
> > Why don't you?
>
> > Chris
>
> failed to demonstrate that you are capable of understanding?
>
> In fact, you're the one avoiding the question altogether.
>
> So Chris, what do you know about ERVs other than what you copied and
> pasted from the T.O archive you lying little man?
>
> Because that's what you are. A very, very tiny and insignificant little man.
How very Christian of you!?
Dan Listermann
>
> However. Since the texts have direct observations made by living
> beings but much of evolution is just inferred from data, it is plain
> to see the textual evidences have a higher probability of being
> correct.
But only the textual evidence you approve of, right? What is the rest
called?
.
chris thompson
> On 1/8/10 9:20 AM, All-seeing-I wrote:> On Jan 7, 4:17 am, Nashton<n...@nana.ca> wrote:
>
> snip
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > Ask Chris where is the ERV is between fish and human.
>
> That would be ERV-9 See:
>
> http://www.pnas.org/content/101/3/805.abstract
Nice catch. I found this one:
Martin, J., Herniou, E., Cook, J., Waugh O'Neill, R., and Tristem, M.
1997. Human Endogenous Retrovirus Type I-Related Viruses Have an
Apparently Widespread Distribution within Vertebrates. J. Virology
71:437-443.
That paper is 13 years old! ASI didn't search too hard I guess.
>
>
>
> > If ERV's are evidence of decent from a common ancestor, but humans and
> > fish do not share an ERV, then evolution from a single common ancestor
> > is falsified.
>
> Humans do share an ERV with fish.
>
>
>
> > Or you could ask Chris this: If chimps are closer to humans than to
> > gorillas, but Gorillas and Chimps can not share an ERV unless the ERV
> > is also present in humans, then finding an ERV in chimps and gorillas,
> > but not in humans falsifies evolution.
>
> Fortunately for evolution, there aren't any ERVs in chimps and gorillas
> that aren't also shared with humans.
>
>
>
> > However. If ERV's came much latter, then that will prove the bible is
> > correct when it says the earth and everything on it became corrupted
> > after the fall. DNA was corrupted, life spans became shorter, etc
> > etc... etc...
No, it would indicate that ERV's are not a good indicator of
phylogenetic relationships. What passes for logic in your brain makes
a bowl of spaghetti look like a drafter's ruler. Unfortunately for
you, ERVs didn't come later (note spelling) and they are good
indicators of phylogeny.
Poor ASI. Can't deal with the fact he's an ape AND a fish. Wave your
little fins bye-bye!
Chris
snip rest of ASI stupidity
Dave Oldridge
news:f4e003ff-5194-405a...@a32g2000yqm.googlegroups.com:
>On Jan 7, 12:09�am, Dave Oldridge <doldr...@leavethisoutshaw.ca>
>wrote:
>> All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote in news:9d896590-7e0e-45c7-a698-
>> 601e27440...@m26g2000yqb.googlegroups.com:
>>
>> >On the scientific method:
>>
>> >"G. G. Simpson stated, "It is inherent in any definition of science
>> >that statements that cannot be checked by observation are not about
>> >anything...or at the very best, they are not science."
>>
>> >I guess this leaves evolution OUT IN THE COLD, eh?
>>
>> Nope, but then you were just LOOKING for an excuse to lie.
>>
>>
>>
>> >Unscientific. But we knew THAT already.
>>
>> No, YOU don't even know that, though you might believe you know it,
>> since you have gotten so much in the habit of lying that you even
>> believe the ones you tell yourself.
>>
>>
>>
>> >right.. Right...RIGHT �?
>>
>> >of course we did.
>>
>> No, WE did not. �
>>
>>
>>
>> >--
>> >And they were not able to resist the wisdom of....
>>
>> >Adman.
>>
>> I have been unable to find it. �When you actually have some wisdom
>> we'll be the first to know, since until hou find some, you will no
>> doubt continue your steady stream of foolishness.
>
>
>Dave. It is imperative that you go and stand in the light for a
>moment. When you do, it will become clear that you have been standing
>in the darkness, all of your life. You have been on the wrong team
>Dave. We need you to come on over and get on the right team now. Time
>is short. You are needed.
I am not coming over to Belial's team. Just forget it. And while that
guff he's filled your head with may look like light to YOU, it's really
the blackest darkness.
>
>Now. Please. Go find the light and bathe yourself in it, just for a
>moment. That is all it will take. The revelation will then come to
>you. I have made sure of that. I promise.
You have no power to make sure of anything in a spiritual realm. Your
master is a demon--in full rebellion against the very source of power.
All you can get are scraps of misinformation and whatever monetary or
social perks your deception can win from the gullible.
>
>Be sure to tell your friend when you do. You do not want him lost
>forever in an eternal unhappy abyss, do you?
Believe me, Mike has no chance of being lost. And your master probably
DOESN'T want to meet him.
--
Dave Oldridge+
Dave Oldridge
news:madman-0369ee6b-90be-...@j24g2000yqa.googlegroups
..com:
>On Jan 7, 7:25�am, Friar Broccoli <elia...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > Now. Please. Go find the light and bathe yourself in it, just for a
>> > moment. That is all it will take. The revelation will then come to
>> > you. I have made sure of that. I promise.
>>
>> > Be sure to tell your friend when you do. You do not want him lost
>> > forever in an eternal unhappy abyss, do you?
>>
>> You lose (or more usually run away from) EVERY clear argument, but
>> still expect people to take you seriously. �Why?- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
>Because you are a dishonest poster. THATs why.
Since when did YOU ever value honesty?
Like all creationists, you value the quick and dirty lie above all truth.
--
Dave Oldridge+
Burkhard
Nope. That is just _your_ subjective inference from the text. I'm
claiming its just a lost script for a 17th century theater play that
looks like observer desciprtions. Sae as someone finding the Lord of
the Rings in 100 years tme, not knowing it was a novel, and infers it
was about an ancient culture .
> the textual evidences have a higher probability of being
> correct.
Theater plays don't have a high probability of being right though
hersheyh
> On Jan 8, 10:31�am, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jan 8, 8:22�am, Jim <jimwille...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> > > > On Jan 7, 11:21�am, Reddfrogg <reddfr...@bresnan.net> wrote:
>
>
> > > > > > On Jan 6, 9:52 pm, Chris Thompson <the_thomps...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote in news:9d896590-7e0e-45c7-a698-
> > > > > > > 601e27440...@m26g2000yqb.googlegroups.com:
>
> > > > > > > > On the scientific method:
>
> > > > > > > > "G. G. Simpson stated, "It is inherent in any definition of science
> > > > > > > > that statements that cannot be checked by observation are not about
> > > > > > > > anything...or at the very best, they are not science."
>
> > > > > > > > I guess this leaves evolution OUT IN THE COLD, eh?
>
>
>
> > > > > > > > of course we did.
>
> > > > > > > > And they were not able to resist the wisdom of....
>
> > > > > > > > Adman.
>
>
> > > > > > > Your BFF Data-boy doesn't seem to be able to address that question.
>
> > > > > > > Why don't you?
>
>
>
>
> > its bit of DNA randomly?
>
> > Such outrageous claims with no evidence.
Actually there has been a lot of evidence and research on this. And,
in fact, there are some general *biases* wrt where retroviruses insert
and these biases are specific to specific retroviruses. But the
preferences/biases are *very* general and not specific enough for your
need: some retroviruses prefer integration in more active genes,
others don't; some retrovurses prefer integration at the ends of
genes, others don't; some retroviruses have very weak sequence
preferences, others don't. But what *you* need are viruses that
recognize infrequently found sequences so that they will always be
found in those sequences. That would mean that each integration site
must be nearly identical in its flanking host sequence for at least
10-12 nucleotides (one needs roughly 17 nt lengths to have a good
probability of a unique sequence present only once in the genome).
>
> > I can think of a few flaws in this.
>
> > 1) Fish. Where is the ERV between humans and fish if they are our
> > ancestors?
>
> Why would one expect an ERV sequence (or any near neutral sequence)
> that was present in the common ancestor of modern fish and modern
> tetrapods to remain essentially unchanged in the two lineages over the
> 350 my or so that the lineages have been separate? �You apparently
> keep pretending that evolution says that modern humans evolved from
> modern fish to form a ladder of progress.
>
> > 2) There is at least 1 ERV from the family K that is present in chimps
> > and
> > gorillas, but it is not in present humans and apes. Why is that.
>
> ERVs can be lost as well as introduced into new sites.
>
> "The human ERV-K (HERV-K) family includes some of the most active
> retroviral elements in human genome [6], [7]. Although most of the
> proviral copies of ERV-K in the genome are inactive, some show
> evidence of past positive selection at the env gene [8], [9]. ERVs, as
> well the other retroelements, can invade the host genome due to
> transposition bursts [10], counteracted by host-driven excision and
> purging [11], [12]."
>
> http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0001026
>
> > This
> > alone disproves ERV's as a focal point and should falsify evolution as
> > well ERV's being evidence of speciation and common ancestry.
>
> > 3) Most retro genes between vertebrates and invertebrates have huge
> > differences.
>
> As would be expected.
>
> > It is more likely that the same virus attacked humans and
> > apes and chimps rather then a common ancestor passing on a virus that
> > left remnants behind.
>
> That does not explain the high degree of similarity both in the
> *sites* of integration and, importantly, in the types of changes that
> make those ERVs immobile afterward. �It is the *pattern* of
> distribution (in the presence of evidence indicating insufficient
> ability of the original retroviruses to target those specific sites)
> and the nature of the defects that tell us that these are examples of
> vertical transmission rather than targeted integration. �It is
> *specifically* NOT more likely that these integrations are due to
> recent and separate infection of the modern organisms.
>
> > There is not a single item that is used to show evolution that does
> > not have one or more alternate explanations. Is there more then one
> > explanation for gravity? No
>
> > Until evolution can show evidence that has no other explanation except
> > that evolution happened, then evolution will remain just an "idea"
> > dreamed up by some old freak with protruding eyebrows, named Darwin.
>
> One can always re-invent God to explain *anything* or its opposite.
> That is why your explanation is not, and never will be, considered to
> be a useful or scientific explanation. �Scientists do not require that
> evolution be the only possible explanation consistent with the
> evidence, only that it be the current best testable explanation
> consistent with *most* of the evidence (any particular piece of
> 'evidence' can be wrong or misleading or otherwise anomolous).
Boikat
And your evidence for this is the sound of chirping crickets, right?
> but much of evolution is just inferred from data, it is plain
> to see the textual evidences have a higher probability of being
> correct.
Except that means "The Hunt for Red October" is a true story, and so
is "Beowulf", "The Odyssey"....
>
> �When you corelate them together we can be reasonably sure that 1)
> there was a creator and that 2) humans were created.
That humans have this thing about trying to discover "where we came
from", and that ancients made up stories to explain the origin of
humans, and did not have a method, or any particular desire, to
validate the stories they made up.
>
> Get over it.
Bite me.
Boikat
All-seeing-I
> >Because you are a dishonest poster. THATs why.
>
More then YOU, Plagiarist
bpuharic
<ap...@email.com> wrote:
>>
>> ERVs are evidence that humans share common ancestry with other apes.
>> Why would you call it "corruption"?
>
>There are many zoonotic disease humans share with animals.So I hardly
>call a RetroV's evidence of evolution. All you have shown the virus is
>shared between human and ape,
>
>A virus needs a host. That makes it part of the processes on the earth
>that are corrupted. If you do not understand why, then you do not
>understand what the bible has explained to you about the earth's
>corruption after the fall.
corruption is a scientifically meaningless term. this, again, is proof
you know nothing of science.
>
>
bpuharic
<ap...@email.com> wrote:
>
>Why would I want to dispute that? It has been my point to you evo-
>freaks since the beginning. No one can be sure of anything.
>
>However. Since the texts have direct observations made by living
>beings but much of evolution is just inferred from data, it is plain
>to see the textual evidences have a higher probability of being
>correct.
actually they don't. no one observed the acts of creation in genesis.
so right away you have a problem. and, as you have often pointed out,
human observation is fallible.
so how do you explain your lack of applying your own comments to your
own ideas?
and no one knows what 'inferred from data' means.
>
> When you corelate them together we can be reasonably sure that 1)
>there was a creator and that 2) humans were created.
>
no we can't. no one has observed a creator. no one has observed him
creating.
that's an inference based on a peculiar view of the bible.
Jim
But you do not know that the texts record direct observations made by
living beings, now do you? Those texts may simply record stories,
much like the Geoffry of Monmouth's History of the Kings of Britain.
You cannot prove otherwise. Indeed, the physical evidence shows those
texts ARE stories and not direct observations. Remember that stories,
meant to create a social identity, or to transmit moral insights, or
to support a society, or to place a people in an understandable place
in a chaotic universe, are more important to folks than records of
observations and so are much more likely to be preserved. Which is
more widely known: the story of George Washington and the cherry tree
or what happened at the Battle of Yorktown? (Hell, how many in the US
even know there was a Battle of Yorktown?). Which of these two
narratives tries to teach a moral? Which of these two involves
direct observations by living beings?
> �When you corelate them together we can be reasonably sure that 1)
> there was a creator and that 2) humans were created.
By evolution.
Ye Old One
<ap...@email.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
You just have to prove your dishonesty - day after day.
Madman (aka Mudbrain) is on record as claiming:-
Science causes disease.
That 3.5% actually means 25%...
That the actor Paul Newman was a creationist...
That "Dr." Kent Hovind has made lots of *scientific* discoveries...
That wars have been fought because some scientific finding discredited
some facet of some religion...
To have a "higher education" than most posters to this news group...
To understand how geologists determine the age of any given sample of
rock...
That trilobites were Cambrian mammals... [that one still makes me
laugh]
And that he has "created genes" and not evolved ape genes...
That linguists have traced all the world's languages to the Middle
East region and back to around the same time as the bible claims Noah
and his sons rebuilt mankind.
Claimed that talk.origin's moderator was a troll.
Claimed cigarettes do not cause cancer.
The [Dropa] stone is real, the troglodytes exist, the graves are
there, many books have been written on the subject...
Now, I ask you, is this the sort of guy you would give an credence to?
Certainly I don't.
--
Bob.
chris thompson
> Dana Tweedy wrote:
> > On 1/8/10 9:06 AM, All-seeing-I wrote:
[snip]
> >> Next. You have also not found a common ERV in fish, have you?
>
> > Yes, ERV-9
>
> >http://www.pnas.org/content/101/3/805.abstract
>
> I think that's a bad example. Note that these are *transgenic*
> zebrafish. I suspect that this ERV was introduce as part of the
> transgenic thing. I would be surprised to find the same ERV insertion in
> humans and fish, because they evolve neutrally and just don't last that
> long. Most retroposon insertions are good for 50-100 million years at
> most, and after that time are so altered that they're impossible to
> detect. You might find similar ERV families, but those would be
> independent infections, not evolutionary events.
This would seem to be on-target, though:
http://jvi.asm.org/cgi/reprint/71/1/437.pdf
[...]
> > Note that Darwin didn't mention human evolution in his first book.
>
> Sure he did. One sentence. Or were you referring to the Beagle book?
Published as _Journal of Researches_ and later retitled as _Voyage of
the Beagle_.
No evolution mentioned, although you can see some indications in it
when he's describing the fossil mammals. He's definitely headed there.
Chris
John Harshman
> On Jan 8, 12:57 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>> Dana Tweedy wrote:
>>> On 1/8/10 9:06 AM, All-seeing-I wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>>>> Next. You have also not found a common ERV in fish, have you?
>>> Yes, ERV-9
>>> http://www.pnas.org/content/101/3/805.abstract
>> I think that's a bad example. Note that these are *transgenic*
>> zebrafish. I suspect that this ERV was introduce as part of the
>> transgenic thing. I would be surprised to find the same ERV insertion in
>> humans and fish, because they evolve neutrally and just don't last that
>> long. Most retroposon insertions are good for 50-100 million years at
>> most, and after that time are so altered that they're impossible to
>> detect. You might find similar ERV families, but those would be
>> independent infections, not evolutionary events.
>
> This would seem to be on-target, though:
>
> http://jvi.asm.org/cgi/reprint/71/1/437.pdf
No "though" about it. This is an example of my last sentence: similar
ERV families. *Not* common insertion events, which would be the
phylogenetically relevant thing.
Friar Broccoli
> On Jan 7, 7:25�am, Friar Broccoli <elia...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jan 7, 8:13�am, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jan 7, 12:09�am, Dave Oldridge <doldr...@leavethisoutshaw.ca>
>
> > > > All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote in news:9d896590-7e0e-45c7-a698-
> > > > 601e27440...@m26g2000yqb.googlegroups.com:
>
> > > > >On the scientific method:
>
> > > > >"G. G. Simpson stated, "It is inherent in any definition of science
> > > > >that statements that cannot be checked by observation are not about
> > > > >anything...or at the very best, they are not science."
>
> > > > >I guess this leaves evolution OUT IN THE COLD, eh?
>
>
>
> > > > you have gotten so much in the habit of lying that you even believe the
> > > > ones you tell yourself.
>
>
> > > > >of course we did.
>
>
> > > > >--
> > > > >And they were not able to resist the wisdom of....
>
> > > > >Adman.
>
> > > > be the first to know, since until hou find some, you will no doubt
> > > > continue your steady stream of foolishness.
>
> > > Dave. It is imperative that you go and stand in the light for a
> > > moment. When you do, it will become clear that you have been standing
> > > in the darkness, all of your life. You have been on the wrong team
> > > Dave. We need you to come on over and get on the right team now. Time
> > > is short. You are needed.
>
> > > Now. Please. Go find the light and bathe yourself in it, just for a
> > > moment. That is all it will take. The revelation will then come to
> > > you. I have made sure of that. I promise.
>
> > > Be sure to tell your friend when you do. You do not want him lost
> > > forever in an eternal unhappy abyss, do you?
>
> > You lose (or more usually run away from) EVERY clear argument, but
> > still expect people to take you seriously. �Why?
.
> Because you are a dishonest poster. THATs why.
Well the last time you ran away from me personally was here:
. http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/14005dfadd733cef
That was after promising me that you would reply to my points if I
replied to yours here:
. http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/c85ff33eb9ae3d7d
Just what in that post (or any other post by me) was dishonest?
If you cannot provide evidence for your assertion that I am a
dishonest poster, then you are just making up empty stories to justify
running away again.