quote:

You claim that gravity is observable, but the diversity of species is not?

quote:

Of course we can observe the diversity of species, but that obviously begs the question.

quote:

Are you saying that the theory of evolution has not been tested?

quote:

Evolution is the change of alleles over time. The theory of evolution is a man made explanation of how this happens, and how it can result in the diversity of species we see in nature.

quote:

I'll help you out. Biological evolution is the process in nature that allows creatures to adapt to their surroundings. Thats it.

quote:

The theory of evolution is a man made tool (scientific theory) that helps us explain how this happens, as well as harnessing the process for out own needs.

quote:

I'll try to get a response to the OP by tomorrow.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DanJames
This talk very quickly went over my head. I don't even know what a retrovirus is,

quote:

and I can only assume that an endogenous retrovirus is a retrovirus that originates from and/or is produced by its host organism.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DanJames

You mentioned that you wanted me to post a reply because I said that I don't cling to ideas if science disproves them. This is true, but I want to clarify. I will not be convinced that scripture, when properly interpreted, is untrue. Scripture is demonstrably divine in origin, and that Divinity which inspired the scriptures has claimed through the author of the 30th Proverb that the whole word of God is pure. That being the case, science must confirm scripture. That is my starting point.

quote:

If endogenous retroviruses do indeed form a history like the one you presented in your essay, and that history links humans and great apes as you imply, then it is strong evidence of a connection between humans and great apes, like you said. What I consistently find is that, true to my predictions, the interpretation of this data as being evolutionary doesn't stand the test of time. Even antibacterial resistance is evidence of a front-loading of complexity predicted by ID. Antibacterial resistance is a very real phenomenon, and anyone that denied its existence because they are a creationist is shown to be silly. Yet look how an increase in knowledge has shown that it isn't something to be afraid of. I'll be interested in finding out where this information leads.

quote:

ORIGINAL: gluadys

Nope. Retroviruses, like any other, attack from outside. What is (or rather becomes) endogenous in this case is a bit of virus DNA that remains in the cell after a failed attack. If this DNA is in a germline cell, and that cell happens to participate in the conception of a new organism, the child so conceived inherits this viral DNA along with the DNA from the parent.

It is viral DNA that is inherited in this way that is known as "endogenous".

For reasons given in the OP, it is highly unlikely that the same ERV would occur independently in two different species.

quote:

ORIGINAL: gluadys

I can understand that within a framework of faith, science must not contradict scripture. I never heard before that science must confirm scripture. Why this requirement?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Agahnim

quote:

If endogenous retroviruses do indeed form a history like the one you presented in your essay, and that history links humans and great apes as you imply, then it is strong evidence of a connection between humans and great apes, like you said. What I consistently find is that, true to my predictions, the interpretation of this data as being evolutionary doesn't stand the test of time. Even antibacterial resistance is evidence of a front-loading of complexity predicted by ID. Antibacterial resistance is a very real phenomenon, and anyone that denied its existence because they are a creationist is shown to be silly. Yet look how an increase in knowledge has shown that it isn't something to be afraid of. I'll be interested in finding out where this information leads.

First of all, thanks for replying to this.

With this in mind, I’d like to ask: in how much depth do you think ERVs would need to be studied before we can be confident that this interpretation of this line of evidence is correct? At this point, they’ve been known for at least 10 years; the earliest references to them I can find are from around 1998, but there may be technical literature about them that’s even older. And obviously, our understanding of virology is much older than this.

I would hope that if further investigations of this line of evidence support the conclusion described in the OP, there could eventually come a point where the certainty of this conclusion will be greater than your certainty that the beginning of Genesis is literally true. But I would like to know what you think it would take for that to be the case.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DanJames
If the Bible is demonstrated to be divine in origin,

quote:

and that Divinity has made a scientific statement, and said Divinity is not untruthful in what he says, then our scientific endeavors must reach the conclusion that agrees with the statement of the Divinity. Otherwise the preceding statements are not true.

quote:

ORIGINAL: gluadys

quote:

ORIGINAL: DanJames
If the Bible is demonstrated to be divine in origin,

Well, that is a big assumption right there. Do you equate "inspired" with "divine origin"?

quote:

and that Divinity has made a scientific statement, and said Divinity is not untruthful in what he says, then our scientific endeavors must reach the conclusion that agrees with the statement of the Divinity. Otherwise the preceding statements are not true.

We might consider too WHERE God made scientific statements. Scripture tells us nature was created by God's Word. Perhaps, then nature is where God made true scientific statements.

If we think scripture does not accord with God's creation statements (i.e. nature), perhaps it is our fallible human interpretation of scripture that needs to be revised.

Certainly that is what the church learned from the Copernican controversy.

quote:

Well, again, this has very little to do with the OP and is even leaving the purpose of the Science and Origins section of this forum. The statement was made that I don't cling to ideas if science disproves them, and I wanted to just set the record straight as to what that means. I'd be happy to discuss this topic further in another thread, though.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

Well, I have never understood the 'evolutionary' part of the ERV argument as ERVs are said to be the product of external entities rapidly modifying the genomes of organisms; that isn't of course an evolutionary process in the Neo-Darwinian sense of the word.

quote:

But as far as the main thesis of the OP, I think for the IDist the question is, "Does the ERV serve a purpose in the development of life?", and I think that yes, like the trend with presumed 'junk DNA', we are finding that it may serve a very important purpose in that regard.

quote:

ERV's are a much better example of common ancestry. More accurately, ORTHOLOGOUS ERV's are consistent with the predictions of common ancestry. Once the insertion time is mapped by using the theory of evolution then one can determine the possible importance of an ERV where the evolution of both the host and retrovirus are concerned. Most ERV's accumulate mutations at a rate consistent with neutral drift, as would be expected if most ERV's are neutral. In fact, some ERV insertions sites are polymorphic among humans, but there is no altered phenotype associated with the presence or lack of the ERV. However, there are ERV's linked to both benefice and detrimental conditions. This means that ERV's are no different than any other random mutation. They can be neutral, beneficial, or detrimental.

quote:

As stated above, some humans have a specific ERV and some do not. There is no observable phenotypic difference between them. Also, there are ERV's linked to disease, such as diabetes (DQ-LTR13). Does ID predict that the intelligent designer inserted LTR's to induce disease? Does ID predict that ERV's will accumulate mutations equal to that of neutral drift? Does ID predict a nested hierarchy among orthologous ERV's? Can ID explain sequence differences between ERV's? Evolution can answer these questions in spades, but what of ID?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Agahnim

quote:

Well, again, this has very little to do with the OP and is even leaving the purpose of the Science and Origins section of this forum. The statement was made that I don't cling to ideas if science disproves them, and I wanted to just set the record straight as to what that means. I'd be happy to discuss this topic further in another thread, though.

As the one who posted this thread, I don’t have a problem with discussing this topic here. I think it’s pretty clear that none of the creationists here other than you are going to have anything to say about this topic, and in your case I don’t think there’s very much left to prove about the OP itself. You’ve already agreed that based on what we can currently see in this line of evidence, it appears to suggest a relationship between humans and chimps, so the question now is just whether it’s appropriate to revise your understanding of the Bible based on that knowledge.

There’s an essay I’ve posted at Christian Forums related to this idea that I think you might be interested in reading: http://christianforums.com/t6933703

To summarize the point I’ve made there, it isn’t possible to understand anything without the use of observation and reason, not even the Bible. We rely on our eyes in order to read the Bible, and we rely on our understanding of the world in order to determine that the Bible is more likely to be divinely inspired than any of the dozens of other religious texts that claim this, such as the Koran. More specifically, the only way to be certain that the Bible is divinely inspired is because the things it says about the world appear to be true. How is it, then, that when our understanding of the world runs contrary to our interpretation of the Bible, the latter can be considered a higher authority than the former? When both your certainty that the Bible is divinely inspired and your chosen interpretation of Genesis depend on the same human understanding that has been used to conclude common descent from ERVs, I don’t think it’s reasonable to say that the first overrules the second.

There’s a bit more to my point about this than can be summarized in a single paragraph, so I recommend that you read the essay I linked to, whenever you have the time for it. I’d like to discuss this particular topic with you eventually, whether it’s here or in a new thread.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

Well, I have never understood the 'evolutionary' part of the ERV argument as ERVs are said to be the product of external entities rapidly modifying the genomes of organisms; that isn't of course an evolutionary process in the Neo-Darwinian sense of the word.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Agahnim

quote:

Well, again, this has very little to do with the OP and is even leaving the purpose of the Science and Origins section of this forum. The statement was made that I don't cling to ideas if science disproves them, and I wanted to just set the record straight as to what that means. I'd be happy to discuss this topic further in another thread, though.

As the one who posted this thread, I don’t have a problem with discussing this topic here. I think it’s pretty clear that none of the creationists here other than you are going to have anything to say about this topic, and in your case I don’t think there’s very much left to prove about the OP itself. You’ve already agreed that based on what we can currently see in this line of evidence, it appears to suggest a relationship between humans and chimps, so the question now is just whether it’s appropriate to revise your understanding of the Bible based on that knowledge.

There’s an essay I’ve posted at Christian Forums related to this idea that I think you might be interested in reading: http://christianforums.com/t6933703

To summarize the point I’ve made there, it isn’t possible to understand anything without the use of observation and reason, not even the Bible. We rely on our eyes in order to read the Bible, and we rely on our understanding of the world in order to determine that the Bible is more likely to be divinely inspired than any of the dozens of other religious texts that claim this, such as the Koran. More specifically, the only way to be certain that the Bible is divinely inspired is because the things it says about the world appear to be true. How is it, then, that when our understanding of the world runs contrary to our interpretation of the Bible, the latter can be considered a higher authority than the former? When both your certainty that the Bible is divinely inspired and your chosen interpretation of Genesis depend on the same human understanding that has been used to conclude common descent from ERVs, I don’t think it’s reasonable to say that the first overrules the second.

There’s a bit more to my point about this than can be summarized in a single paragraph, so I recommend that you read the essay I linked to, whenever you have the time for it. I’d like to discuss this particular topic with you eventually, whether it’s here or in a new thread.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DanJames
Endogenous is an unfortunate term then. It implies that the retrovirus is actually produced by the body, but I am but a babe in scientific data that strays too far from a freshmen biology textbook unless it has to do with plants. Thanks very much for clearing that up.

quote:

I didn't notice this until Method responded to your post.

What makes you say that the rewriting of DNA by an "external entity" is not part of the evolutionary process in the neo-Darwinian sense of the word?

The neo-Darwinian definition of evolution is a change in the distribution of alleles in the gene pool over generations. How new alleles originate--whether the originating agent is internal or external-- is irrelevant to that definition.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud
Even if one assumed all this, ERVs are not particularly strong evidence that evolutionary mechanisms can do what they are purported to do.

quote:

So, if all humans share certain ERVs, and only some humans suffer from a genetically linked form of diabetes, then it would follow that it is not the ERV itself that causes the disease, but some mutation of it.

quote:

And while ID does not negate the existence of mutations, it does a much better job of explaining why some ERVs appear to be critical to the existence of certain organisms,

quote:

and would predict that, much as has occurred with the initial failed idea of 'junk DNA' proposed by evolutionists, ERVs will eventually be found to be generally useful, indeed essential components of genetic systems found within living organisms. That would be the predictive power of ID.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud
Well, if 'neo-Darwinism' is indifferent to the origin of genetic information, then it certainly has no reason to discount ID.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

quote:

I didn't notice this until Method responded to your post.

What makes you say that the rewriting of DNA by an "external entity" is not part of the evolutionary process in the neo-Darwinian sense of the word?

The neo-Darwinian definition of evolution is a change in the distribution of alleles in the gene pool over generations. How new alleles originate--whether the originating agent is internal or external-- is irrelevant to that definition.

Well, if 'neo-Darwinism' is indifferent to the origin of genetic information, then it certainly has no reason to discount ID.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize

quote:

ORIGINAL: DanJames
Endogenous is an unfortunate term then. It implies that the retrovirus is actually produced by the body, but I am but a babe in scientific data that strays too far from a freshmen biology textbook unless it has to do with plants. Thanks very much for clearing that up.

Danjames, read my post 3 and the link to it. I go into detail about ERV's and how it's not evidence for evolution (and I try to make it as simple as possible). If you have any questions, feel free to ask, I would try to explain things the best I can when I have time. Basically, someone who inherits an ERV may pass it onto his offspring, but they have to inherit it from their germ line. However, if an ERV doesn't pose any advantages, there is no reason for an entire population to acquire so many ERV's, instead, it should be that some members have some that other members don't. For example, some members of a population have green eyes, some have blue, some have brown, etc... Not all members have acquired blue eyes or green eyes. Both parents, at the exact time(s) of speciation, would have to have the same ERV(s), and this would have to be the case for every ERV that exists among all humans that entered the "tree." If ERV's don't provide an advantage, then this makes no sense from an evolutionary perspective (it's highly unlikely). If they do provide an advantage, then it makes sense for a designer to put that code there (because it helps the organism out). Otherwise, we would expect different people to have all sorts of different ERV's (kinda like different people have different hair color, eye color, etc...). We wouldn't expect code with no selective advantage to wind up in our entire population, that's just nonsense (and if this is the case, I consider it to be a problem for evolution).

and if you read the thread, "empirical evidence for evolution" you can see that there is really none. gluadys clearly contradicted himself (as unk pointed out), the best evidence they can come up with is poorly interpreted circumstantial evidence (some highly distorted bones with much dispute over, even among the secular community), and the alleged falsifiers have been addressed many times in other threads (ie: Darwin made falsifiers for UCD, he turned out to be wrong, and it didn't falsify UCD. So the secular community simply changes the alleged falsifiers when, in reality, their falsifiers are not even relevant. I can just as easily say, "if you prove the sky is purple, it would falsify UCD", or "if you find an organism in nature that doesn't use ATP, it would falsify ID or creationism." Just because someone can make up some falsifier does not make UCD falsifiable, the falsifiers have to be relevant and many of the relevant falsifiers have been falsified (ie: the ones Darwin made)).

While you may not be well versed in biology (at least not yet), I think it is a good thing you have come to this forum. You will have an opportunity to look at both sides of the evidence and I believe that, after looking at both sides of the evidence and getting a better understanding of the arguments on both sides, you will reasonably be able to conclude that UCD and other naturalistic philosophies are no more scientific than Creationism or ID.

quote:

What is in contention is the ability of already present genetic information to undergo unguided mutation followed by selection to produce the biodiversity we see today