huxley:

Does BB theory address the theory of gravity, cell theory, germ theory, plate tectonic, quantum theory, atomic theory?

BB says the universe appeared by a big bang . . . pls explain. The rest above is an irrelevant but calculated attempt to avoid facing your own incredulity.

davidylan:

What a hypocritical turd. You say science but NOT God is responsible for the creation of the universe (including the earth, idiots) . . . then HOW did this happen? Can science pls explain it instead of trying so hard to go round it and forcing the question back to us?

The onus for creationism AND BB cannot be on us alone . . .

Where did the earth come from? Who formed germs, cells and complex life forms? Did they appear from thin air?

Now that is the challenge before the atheist . . . pls address it.

You are being dishonest, yet again.  Where did I make such a claim?   Can you show me?

But what is the "universe"? - The universe is defined as everything that physically exists: the entirety of space and time, all forms of matter, energy and momentum, and the physical laws and constants that govern them.

So that means the earth is PART of the universe no?

No you dickhead. It is concerned with the creation of the Universe not it's contents.

Let's put it a way that even an idiot like you can understand. If you buy a car and the radio is not fitted as standard, you do not expect the car's manual to have a section about the radio you fit afterwards. Big Bang theory is only interested in the car - not the radio.

davidylan:

BB says the universe appeared by a big bang . . . pls explain. The rest above is an irrelevant but calculated attempt to avoid facing your own incredulity.

Well for your information, there is a different theory that explains the formation of the solar system and the earth and the other planets.   Why would we expect BB to account for the formation of the solar system.

Just as BB does not deal with cell theory, or plate tectonic, or quantum theory, so BB does NOT account for the formation of the solar system.  If you expect BB to account for the formation of the solar system, you MUST by implication also expect BB to account for cell theory and germ theory of diseases.

He must account for BB theory being the theory behind religion as well with his own logic.

huxley:

You are being dishonest, yet again.  Where did I make such a claim?   Can you show me?

You are the one being deliberately decietful. I ask again - HOW did the earth get here?

Either science knows or it doesnt . . . period.

Bastage:

No you dickhead. It is concerned with the creation of the Universe not it's contents.

Let's put it a way that even an idiot like you can understand. If you buy a car and the radio is not fitted as standard, you do not expect the car's manual to have a section about the radio you fit afterwards. Big Bang theory is only interested in the car - not the radio.

slowpoke . . . your analogy is foolish. The car radio is an ACCESSORY NOT A VITAL component of the car . . . just like the earth is not simply an appendage of the universe but a CRITICAL PART OF IT . . . if not we wont be here AT ALL . . . universe or not.

Now look at a more appropriate analogy you dickhead . . . if you buy a car and the fuel pump is not fitted, how do you expect to drive the car? How can BB be interested in the universe but NOT the earth which is really the reason anyone has an idea of the universe in the first place?

This bastage makes you wonder what they teach in schools these days.

huxley:

Well for your information, there is a different theory that explains the formation of the solar system and the earth and the other planets. Why would we expect BB to account for the formation of the solar system.

Just as BB does not deal with cell theory, or plate tectonic, or quantum theory, so BB does NOT account for the formation of the solar system. If you expect BB to account for the formation of the solar system, you MUST by implication also expect BB to account for cell theory and germ theory of diseases.

Enough of the decietful high-fallutin words . . . simply answer the question - HOW did the earth get here?

Bastage . . . do not attempt to avoid your own false claim - [size=18pt]WHERE ARE the alleged genetic evidence for evolution?[/size]

The car radio is an ACCESSORY NOT A VITAL component of the car . . . just like the earth is not simply an appendage of the universe but a CRITICAL PART OF IT

LMAO. The Earth is a critical part of the Universe?
So if an asteroid destroys the Earth tomorrow, the Universe ceases to exist?

Please. Do you even live in the same Universe as the rest of us?

Bastage:

LMAO. The Earth is a critical part of the Universe?
So if an asteroid destroys the Earth tomorrow, the Universe ceases to exist?

Please. Do you even live in the same Universe as the rest of us?

If an asteroid destroys earth today . . . life would be completely destroyed. Pray tell . . . of what use would the universe be?
If the earth is NOT the most critical part of the universe then what is? Empty Jupiter?

These buffoons make you wonder.

Bastage - [size=18pt]WHERE ARE the alleged genetic evidence for evolution?[/size]

Dont make claims simply because you think the rest of us are dumb fools and wont catch your lies.

WHERE ARE the alleged genetic evidence for evolution?

Go read up about Endogenous retroviruses.

Dont make claims simply because you think the rest of us are dumb fools and wont catch your lies.

It's not that you won't catch my lies. It's that you are a dumb fool and probably won't understand the subject matter.

Bastage:

Go read up about Endogenous retroviruses.

It's not that you won't catch my lies. It's that you are a dumb fool and probably won't understand the subject matter.

Don't mention ERV. He is incapable of understanding such things.

Bastage:

Go read up about Endogenous retroviruses.

We are back again with the vapid "go read up" game whenever you press these trolls to substantiate their noise making.

1. RNA is a complex structure . . . how did it occur by evolution? Where did these alleged ancient retroviruses come from? Where did they get the enzymes that convert RNA to DNA in human cells?

2. The human cell maintains very tight regulation of transposable elements within the genome (which is why you fools have not mutated into new species in the last 3000yrs!!!) ensuring that the probability of retroviruses being responsible for causing large genome shifts to cause us to evolve into such highly complex structures is close to ZERO. One example - transposable elements (from retroviruses) possess inverted repeats at the ends of their genes . . . these elements can form an RNA hairpin structure that can be cleaved by dicers (RNAi pathway). These short 19-21 nucleotide inverted RNA repeats are what are known as shRNA (used widely in science to silence genes). These endogenous RNAis is one of the cell's most important mechanisms for controlling transposable elements.

If you block the RNAi pathway you end up with increased expression of transposable elements.

If we could manipulate retroviruses that well in human cells, we'd long have eradicated most diseases in the body and found a cure for HIV (an exogenous retrovirus which can lie dormant in CD4 cells or macrophages for yrs before suddenly behaving like an endogenous retrovirus).

3. Endogenous retroviruses are not merely pieces of ancient, useless RNA but actually have regulatory functions since their LTRs do possess transcription factor sites, Poly A sites, promoters and enhancers that clearly influence the regulation of surrounding genes.

huxley:

Don't mention ERV. He is incapable of understanding such things.

i know right? But since you knew why didnt you explain it to us?

Bastage:

Go read up about Endogenous retroviruses.

It's not that you won't catch my lies. It's that you are a dumb fool and probably won't understand the subject matter.

Is that your "genetic evidence" for evolution? Is there laboratory evidence to prove that indeed retroviruses can cause significant changes in the genome as to cause evolution?

Blabbing idiots. they just think they can bandy around fancy terms and run away. Get a brain morons.

notice each time they use these terms . . . they NEVER explain it. they hope they can confuse you long enough to think they actually understand what they just googled up.

Bastage:

Go read up about Endogenous retroviruses.

It's not that you won't catch my lies. It's that you are a dumb fool and probably won't understand the subject matter.

In fact, Bastage, don't even proceed any further with this subject (ie evolution) until you have agree about what biological evolution is as defined by biological scientist. From experience, when you corner him, he will begin to talk about a "religious" form of evolution which is a far cry from biological evolution.

In a previous thread, I asked him to come up with the definition of biological evolution as accepted by scientists, and unsurprisingly, he was unable to.

huxley:

In fact, Bastage, don't even proceed any further with this subject (ie evolution) until you have agree about what biological evolution is as defined by biological scientist. From experience, when you corner him, he will begin to talk about a "religious" form of evolution which is a far cry from biological evolution.

In a previous thread, I asked him to come up with the definition of biological evolution as accepted by scientists, and unsurprisingly, he was unable to.

awww what a coward . . . i thought you said we shld talk about endogenous retroviruses and how they contribute to evolution. Hypocritical idiot . . . what's up? Afraid you really cant defend your own claims? What is a religious form of evolution? the simple act of showing up your own claims for the halfbaked hubris they are?

What is biological evolution? What a dunce.
and why did huxley throw out ERVs and run away? Did he even understand it?

I want to make what I think is a larger point, but before that I found these interesting enough to warrant further responses (not that preceding responses weren't adequate; just that I would like to add to them)

davidylan:

You are the one being deliberately decietful. I ask again - HOW did the earth get here?

Either science knows or it doesnt . . . period.

slowpoke . . . your analogy is foolish. The car radio is an ACCESSORY NOT A VITAL component of the car . . . just like the earth is not simply an appendage of the universe but a CRITICAL PART OF IT . . . if not we wont be here AT ALL . . . universe or not.

Now look at a more appropriate analogy you dickhead . . . if you buy a car and the fuel pump is not fitted, how do you expect to drive the car? How can BB be interested in the universe but NOT the earth which is really the reason anyone has an idea of the universe in the first place?

This bastage makes you wonder what they teach in schools these days.

First, there is a mean between either "science" doesn't know or it knows. Rather than a dichotomy, it's more like: scientists have ideas of how the different types of planets are formed - the earh being one of them; and continue to collect evidence that indicate the processes.

Further, um, no the earth isn't a critical part of the universe. Not even close. Sure, in the mind of the humancentric creationist the entire universe is built just for the purposes of humans; however, the wider reality suggests otherwise: that the earth is, as Sagan puts its, a pale blue dot in the blackness of the universe.

In fact, calling the earth a pale blue dot is to exaggerate its position. In relation to the inky blackness of the universe the earth is hardly even an atom.

What It hink you mean is that the earth is integral to the existence of humans. Humyns are not the universe, again, contrary to what some athropocentrists would have you believe.

Here's a picture of the pale blue dot:


For more, you can also refer to the picture of the many galaxies that was taken by the hubble telescope and the picture of the scaled sizes of the earth, sun and other stars.

davidylan:

We are back again with the vapid "go read up" game whenever you press these trolls to substantiate their noise making.

1. RNA is a complex structure . . . how did it occur by evolution? Where did these alleged ancient retroviruses come from? Where did they get the enzymes that convert RNA to DNA in human cells?

2. The human cell maintains very tight regulation of transposable elements within the genome (which is why you fools have not mutated into new species in the last 3000yrs!!!) ensuring that the probability of retroviruses being responsible for causing large genome shifts to cause us to evolve into such highly complex structures is close to ZERO. One example - transposable elements (from retroviruses) possess inverted repeats at the ends of their genes . . . these elements can form an RNA hairpin structure that can be cleaved by dicers (RNAi pathway). These short 19-21 nucleotide inverted RNA repeats are what are known as shRNA (used widely in science to silence genes). These endogenous RNAis is one of the cell's most important mechanisms for controlling transposable elements.

If you block the RNAi pathway you end up with increased expression of transposable elements.

If we could manipulate retroviruses that well in human cells, we'd long have eradicated most diseases in the body and found a cure for HIV (an exogenous retrovirus which can lie dormant in CD4 cells or macrophages for yrs before suddenly behaving like an endogenous retrovirus).

3. Endogenous retroviruses are not merely pieces of ancient, useless RNA but actually have regulatory functions since their LTRs do possess transcription factor sites, Poly A sites, promoters and enhancers that clearly influence the regulation of surrounding genes.

It looks like you missed the point of being pointed in the direction of ERVs. What is particularly interesting about them is how several ERVs are shared between species in unique ways. Without reorting to magic or handwaving, it's, IMO, remarkably difficult to offer any other explanation for how the different species that were though to be immediately related share ERVs in such unique, identifiable ways.

What was my wider point? I've forgotten most of it now. It had something to do with religion and science. If I had to guess, I'd say I wanted to talk, first of all, of the fallacy of assuming that any discussion about the existence or non-existence of gods must have atheists teaming up with science and theists having religion as their fellow. I realise that it's hard to keep from falling into those moulds, but it makes a great difference when it is realised that an athiest doesn't need to know all the sciences currently existing (or to pin it down, sciences that deal with the points of origins) to be an atheist and to, if so desiring, argue that gods are unlikely to exist. Alternatively, theists don't have to know everything about their religion either to believe a god or several gods exist. I should probably also mention that theists don't have to be Creationists to believe in gods - even the Christian god.

I mention those things because in quickly skimming through this thread I notice that the fallacies mentioned occur implicitly again and again.

If I remember anything else I'll be sure to give my unwarranted opinion

KAG you choose to be male today?

dalaman:

KAG you choose to be male today?

If you can't change your sex on the internet then what's the point of having interwebs. It's time we all returned to the good old days of the interwebs, anyway.

We are back again with the vapid "go read up" game whenever you press these trolls to substantiate their noise making.

How childish, immature and ignorant. You repeatedly whined about wanting genetic evidence and then when it's presented to you, whine even further, claiming that it has to be spelt out to you word by word.

So far you've shown that you have no understanding of Big Bang theory so I don't hold out much hope for you understanding other complex issues. Am I really expected to explain ERVs to you when you've already posted a loads of crap about them that have absolutely nothing to do with the subject of evolution? KAG has pointed out their pertinence in a way that is simple enough for even a slowpoke like you to understand. So yeah. Go read up. The only thing vapid around here is the cretin who expects everyone to spell everything out for him just so that he can ignore it's relevance. Maybe that happens on your "critical component" Earth (I'm still laughing over that one) but not on the real one that the rest of us inhabit.

manmustwac:

If houses never catch fire. Fire engines would not have to be invented or if people could trek to work quickly then public transport would not have been invented. So likewise if u guys didn't believe in any imaginary Gods then the word athiest would not have been invented. 

Using your own logic, does it not then imply that the existence of  God is the reason we have atheists who don't believe in Him, no?

What do you think?  If there was a building does that not imply that there must have been a builder?  A wise man would know that a painting is the evidence of the existence of a painter, no?  Do you think that it would be absurd for a design to be as a result of a designer?  We can all recognise design, the evidence of the outworkings of intelligence, is it too hard to recognise that our intelligence is the handiwork of One who is infinitely intelligent?  No wonder the Bible says that "A fool says in his heart that there is no God."  Psalm 53:1

We are used to the hide and seek game played by the atheists and their bedfellows when they are cornered with questions that they have no answers for.  They have no answer for the origin of the universe, and they will try to divert attention by asking irrelevant, illogical questions instead of admitting that their theories have no foundation and no answers.

They want us to believe their "cock and bull story by the moonlight" that between 13-15 billion years ago that a sudden big bang, or explosion, occurred, that brought about the universe.  What a great story!! 

The right question to ask them is where and how did the matter come from that created the great, big fireball (big bang).  You have a big problem on your hand because you can't have something go bang until you have something that can go bang.  I personally want to know where you think the matter came from.  I believe that this is a legitimate, scientific question that you cannot avoid to answer.  Where did the matter come from to create your big bang?  Where dem?

OLAADEGBU:

Using your own logic, does it not then imply that the existence of  God is the reason we have atheists who don't believe in Him, no?

That's an excellent point, because, you know, if Pere Noel and the tooth fairy didn't really exist I wouldn't have to go to primary schools to tell the kids those things aren't real . . . wait, what?

What do you think?  If there was a building does that not imply that there must have been a builder?  A wise man would know that a painting is the evidence of the existence of a painter, no?  Do you think that it would be absurd for a design to be as a result of a designer?  We can all recognise design, the evidence of the outworkings of intelligence, is it too hard to recognise that our intelligence is the handiwork of One who is infinitely intelligent?  No wonder the Bible says that "A fool says in his heart that there is no God."  Psalm 53:1

I saw a mountain range, eroded by the elements and time. It looked like a beautiful pathway to heaven. It made more sense for me to believe it was shaped by angels riding on pins. I saw a tree with a human face once. Strange to say, it looked like it had been shaped naturally, because a nose was offset here, and an eye was unbalanced there. I decided, though, that it was evidence that humans turn into trees.

KAG:

It looks like you missed the point of being pointed in the direction of ERVs. What is particularly interesting about them is how several ERVs are shared between species in unique ways. Without reorting to magic or handwaving, it's, IMO, remarkably difficult to offer any other explanation for how the different species that were though to be immediately related share ERVs in such unique, identifiable ways.

we share 99% of our DNA with apes . . . we still have no proof that we and apes descended from a similar ancestor. Thousands of genes share homologs with other species . . . for instance the protein i study (HDAC2) is virtually identical in mice, chicken, yeast and C.elegans. NF-kB is found in virtually EVERY organism on earth . . . what does that tell us about evolution? Did we all evolve from the same ancestor then?

Arent we all tired of vague statements that strive so hard to avoid specifics? We know that proviruses are not useless pieces of ancestral junk, we know that they have cis-acting elements in their LTRs (TF binding sites, promoters and enhancers) that influence other sorrounding genes. We know that the cell evolved unique mechanisms not to get rid of ERVs but to control their expression . . . indicating that ERVs are very important mechanisms by which the cell regulates its genome.

One other important factor - why have we not seen ANOTHER EXAMPLE of ERVs with beneficial effects on the cell genome? Why is it that ALL other exogenous retroviruses are virtually deleterious to the organism (HIV for example)? Did the process of ERVs being integrated into the genome suddenly stop millions of yrs ago?

Please next time i'd be expecting specifics . . . i for one get disgusted by clueless rhetoric. Better not to bring up a subject you are less informed about.

Bastage:

How childish, immature and ignorant. You repeatedly whined about wanting genetic evidence and then when it's presented to you, whine even further, claiming that it has to be spelt out to you word by word.

So far you've shown that you have no understanding of Big Bang theory so I don't hold out much hope for you understanding other complex issues. Am I really expected to explain ERVs to you when you've already posted a loads of crap about them that have absolutely nothing to do with the subject of evolution? KAG has pointed out their pertinence in a way that is simple enough for even a slowpoke like you to understand. So yeah. Go read up. The only thing vapid around here is the cretin who expects everyone to spell everything out for him just so that he can ignore it's relevance. Maybe that happens on your "critical component" Earth (I'm still laughing over that one) but not on the real one that the rest of us inhabit.

What a disgusting brainless troll . . . i summarised in a single post the most important aspects of ERVs especially as it pertains to the false claims that ERVs are proof of evolution . . .

dude . . . we are not morons here, next time give us specifics. Enough of your brainless rants that say absolutely nothing.

It appears all our resident evolutionists, have gone silent once again, let's tackle the question they have failed to answer where and how the matter and energy originated, either for want of evidence or that they are simply clueless.

Since evolution is based on materialism, to them all that exists is matter and energy, they do not allow for anything supernatural.  They have a big problem.  Below are some ideas what some evolutionists think the matter came from.  Paul Davies, who is a physicist and evolutionist, in The Edge of infinity,1995.

He wrote: "The [big bang] represents the instantaneous suspension of physical laws, the sudden abrupt flash of lawlessness that allowed something to come out of nothing.  It represents a true miracle . . ."  

No wonder their students stay confused.  On one hand they teach that there is nothing like miracles, and on the other hand they go on to say there are miracles.  But there is a big difference between our miracles and your miracles.  Ours have a miracle maker while theirs does not have a miracle maker.  At least we have a reasonable faith against their blind faith.  Evolution clearly requires miracles but they have no miracle maker – that is what we call the blind faith, which you need more faith for.

dude . . . we are not morons here

I beg to differ. Both you and OLAADEGBU are morons.

Let's summarise shall we?

Evolution - lots and lots of little bits of scientific evidence that adds up to a very, very strong theory.

Creationism - a theory based on a couple of words written in an ancient manuscript which in turn was plagiarised (but changed just enough to fit the new religion) from older myths. No physical evidence to back it up whatsoever.


Hmmm. I'd add cretin and dipshit to your slowpoke title.

It appears all our resident evolutionists, have gone silent once again

Where you are concerned yes. You are simply not worth replying to. None of what you post is ever your own work - you simply copy and paste from crappy Creationism websites. It's doubtful that you even understand a quarter of what you plagiarise.

Bastage:

I beg to differ. Both you and OLAADEGBU are morons.

Let's summarise shall we?

Evolution - lots and lots of little bits of scientific evidence that adds up to a very, very strong theory.

Give us just one example of these "lots and lots".

You've given us ERVs which is simply nothing but conjecture at the moment. There is no valid scientific proof . . . what we simply know is that these TEs behave like proviruses from exogenous retroviruses.

One small problem, exogenous RVs will use the cell machinery to generate more viruses but ERVs surprisingly do NOT. What happened?

davidylan:

we share 99% of our DNA with apes . . . we still have no proof that we and apes descended from a similar ancestor.

Proof is for maths and alcohol. What we have, instead, is strong evidence for shared ancestry. Shared endogenous retroviruses is one piece of strong evidence.

Out of curiousity what would be your explanation for the "99%" of shared DNA?

Thousands of genes share homologs with other species . . . for instance the protein i study (HDAC2) is virtually identical in mice, chicken, yeast and C.elegans. NF-kB is found in virtually EVERY organism on earth . . . what does that tell us about evolution? Did we all evolve from the same ancestor then?

Depends. Ubiquity is usually a sign of common ancestry.

Arent we all tired of vague statements that strive so hard to avoid specifics? We know that proviruses are not useless pieces of ancestral junk, we know that they have cis-acting elements in their LTRs (TF binding sites, promoters and enhancers) that influence other sorrounding genes. We know that the cell evolved unique mechanisms not to get rid of ERVs but to control their expression . . . indicating that ERVs are very important mechanisms by which the cell regulates its genome.

One other important factor - why have we not seen ANOTHER EXAMPLE of ERVs with beneficial effects on the cell genome? Why is it that ALL other exogenous retroviruses are virtually deleterious to the organism (HIV for example)? Did the process of ERVs being integrated into the genome suddenly stop millions of yrs ago?

Please next time i'd be expecting specifics . . . i for one get disgusted by clueless rhetoric. Better not to bring up a subject you are less informed about.

You're doing it again, spouting without bothering to read or understand. What I love is that after all that you wrote: "i for one get disgusted by clueless rhetoric." Irony is a shameless bitch.

I'll try again, this time with some links so you don't - hopefully - make the above mistakes again:

Human beings and other apes share endogenous retroviruses in unique sites. Endogenous retroviral insertions occur most likely because of failed invasions by viruses in the germline cells. The particular cells are then genetically marked and if passed to an offspring, the offspring possesses said marker. This, in turn, ensures that they can act like genetic markers. Further, that human beings and other apes have the shared ervs in a way that supports models of common ancestry should tell you something. End of short summary.

I wrote something about this a while back, but I can't find it on the web. In any case, here a couple you can read to appreciate the subject:

One of the best write ups on the subject by our wonderful, dearly departed Winace: http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?s=5bc8cba86c3148856c8fc3cda2e204d2&p=1828408#post1828408

Talkorigins: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section4.html#retroviruses


Tout comprendre? Non.

davidylan:

Give us just one example of these "lots and lots".

You've given us ERVs which is simply nothing but conjecture at the moment. There is no valid scientific proof . . . what we simply know is that these TEs behave like proviruses from exogenous retroviruses.

One small problem, exogenous RVs will use the cell machinery to generate more viruses but ERVs surprisingly do NOT. What happened?

Strictly speaking, proof is talked about in mathematics and logics.  In the natural science (and the law), we deal with evidence to support a claim (or case).  A proposition is accepted as scientifically plausible is the preponderence of evidence supports it.  As far as biogical evolution is concerned, nothing counts as proof, but there are many lines of evidence that support the fact that species change with time.

To see if the claims of evolution are false one only need find fossils of humans in the pre-cambrian.   Like all good scientific theories, evolution is falsifiable.  But to this day, NOT a single evidence has shown evolution to have been falsified.

KAG:

That's an excellent point, because, you know, if Pere Noel and the tooth fairy didn't really exist I wouldn't have to go to primary schools to tell the kids those things aren't real . . . wait, what?

The more reason I believe that if there were to be no God there will be no atheists. QED.

KAG:

I saw a mountain range, eroded by the elements and time. It looked like a beautiful pathway to heaven. It made more sense for me to believe it was shaped by angels riding on pins. I saw a tree with a human face once. Strange to say, it looked like it had been shaped naturally, because a nose was offset here, and an eye was unbalanced there. I decided, though, that it was evidence that humans turn into trees.

Even a little child knows that aeroplanes don't get constructed as a result of hurricane that blew into a metal scrapyard, unless you are an atheist/evolutionist, which only goes on to prove Psalm 53:1 accurate when it says "A fool says in his heart, There is no God."

KAG:

You're doing it again, spouting without bothering to read or understand. What I love is that after all that you wrote: "i for one get disgusted by clueless rhetoric." Irony is a shameless bitch.

I'll try again, this time with some links so you don't - hopefully - make the above mistakes again:

Human beings and other apes share endogenous retroviruses in unique sites. Endogenous retroviral insertions occur most likely because of failed invasions by viruses in the germline cells. The particular cells are then genetically marked and if passed to an offspring, the offspring possesses said marker. This, in turn, ensures that they can act like genetic markers. Further, that human beings and other apes have the shared ervs in a way that supports models of common ancestry should tell you something. End of short summary.

I wrote something about this a while back, but I can't find it on the web. In any case, here a couple you can read to appreciate the subject:

One of the best write ups on the subject by our wonderful, dearly departed Winace: http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?s=5bc8cba86c3148856c8fc3cda2e204d2&p=1828408#post1828408

Talkorigins: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section4.html#retroviruses


Tout comprendre? Non.

Talkorigins? What a laughable irony on its own. Huxley has posted false claims from that same website.

The above is nothing but unproven speculation THAT HAVE NO SHRED OF SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE THAT THEY ACTUALLY DID HAPPEN.

Lets use common sense -

1. 99% of ape DNA is shared with humans, it therefore is no surprise that ERV insertions in humans are similar in apes. I mentioned earlier the clear fact that hundreds of genes are virtually identical in several species . . . NF-kB is found from yeast to man, ditto for HDACs which is virtually the same in terms of amino acid compositions in chickens and mice. Does that mean man and yeast evolved from the same ancestor? The beta globin gene from chickens has been key to understanding the functions of the human homolog . . . was a chicken on the road to evolving into man?

2. Why have apes FAILED to develop human traits in millions of yrs since their bones were first discovered? Has evolution suddenly stopped?

3. ERVs do NOT generate independent viruses in human cells like exogenous RVs do, why? Afterall arent they all about gag, pol and env?

4. We know that the vast majority of germline mutations in man are actually deleterious, why are the ERV mutations all beneficial? why are modern RVs which sometimes behave like ERVs deadly to man? Ebola, HIV, Marburg to name a few.

These are the pertinent questions neither you nor those from which you copy long meaningless stuff want to tackle. Its easy to write an entire textbook to bambozzle people on talk forums.

OLAADEGBU:

The more reason I believe that if there were to be no God there will be no atheists. QED.

Oh dear, somebody is going to have to tell those kids that Santa Claus and the tooth fairy really do exist as ontologically entities separate from those who represent them. Only you can do it. Run, run like the wind!

Even a little child knows that aeroplanes don't get constructed as a result of hurricane that blew into a metal scrapyard, unless you are an atheist/evolutionist, which only goes on to prove Psalm 53:1 accurate when it says "A fool says in his heart that there is no God."

No atheists or evolutionists believe that aeroplanes are constructed that way. Theydo accurately point out, though, that snowflakes, despite being beautiful, etc, weren't formed by dancing goblins. That probably explains why "although the fool says in his heart that there is no god, the wise declare it out loud.