Creationists

[cbirch2]

really, do you believe that any amount of information will make that poster less blind, ignorant, or dishonest? I do not. A person who wants to give words their own definition because obviously the actual definition proves their point moot is just dishonest. A person who continually posts crap that has been completely proven false and swears that no one can prove it false, is just dishonest. A person who lies about their qualifications to try and make their crap look more reasoned when they obviously do not even understand elementary school science, is a fraud and a liar.

your only defense in the face of undeniable evidence is to call the source a liar. Why dont you look up the species yourself, and find the evidence at an unbiased source. No i bet you wont do that because you'd prefer to wallow in your own ignorance.

i think you are quoting the wrong person here!

 

[Youwerecreated]

Stop dancing around my question about endogenous retroviruses.

Evolution: Genetic Evidence - Endogenous RetroVirus - YouTube

You'd have a pretty hard time explaining the hierarchy of ERV's that matches our evolutionary timeline.

You'd have an even harder time explaining why those ERV's are located in the exact same location on the chromosome throughout the hierarchy, considering viruses insert their DNA randomly.

But then again, i suspect your response will be to label genetics pointless and scream "PICS OR IT DIDNT HAPPEN!!!!!"

From Dr. Brown he is a very reasonable creationist more then myself.

Dear Mike,

This came on the asa net. Do you have an explanation ?

Hi list,

Dick Fischer's ORIGIN'S SOLUTION mentions the dreaded endogenous retroviral sequence common to both chimp and human DNA as a strong lobbyist for common descent. Anybody have any other reasonable explanation?

(Name withheld)

Hi ,

This is an extremely important question that Creationists have to face. It is exactly the same question that I sought to answer with my research on Pseudogenes. In my talk at Andrews University, I introduced the idea of "Common Mechanism" as an alternative to "Common Descent". I also discussed evidence that shows "Common Mechanism" is being a possible answer to the origin of the many common sequences found in different species.

The common sequences that have given us problems in the past are sequences that don't seem to have a function for the organism. Common sequences that are easily identified as being functional, can easily be explained as existing because God designed them in the same way. I don't like the term "Common Designer, " because it has connotations of a deficient God who designs different animals in the same way because he is running out of ideas, or because it is too much effort to redesign the different animals.

A rocket designer designs a rocket. It works. Now he is asked to design a larger rocket. What he does is to use what he has already learned from his previous experience to save on effort and time. His larger rocket is going to look much like the smaller one. That is what Common Designer means. It takes too much effort not to use what has already be done before.

The question is, do we want to say the same thing about God? Is God designing the various animals in such a similar fashion because it would be too much effort to completely design a completely different design? Like the rocket designer?

I don't think so. I think this is our chance to start looking for alternative ideas. Instead of thinking of God as a designer, maybe we should think of Him as an artist (well, maybe both). If we go into a new house, maybe Mexican style, we might expect the whole house to have common features throughout. We would expect to see various artistic themes throughout the whole house. Also we would expect to see various differences in the house that is due to artistic variations of the Mexican themes found in the house.

I might expect God to have created the Earth in the same way. The animals (and plants) have many common features which I attribute as being artistic themes. Also, all one has to do is to look at a comparative anatomy text book to see the artistic variations of themes God has placed in this world.

I might expect the same artistic theme aspect of God's creation to be as deep as the very molecules we are made of. This could also include proteins and DNA.

I introduced this whole issue in my talk at Andrews.

back to the other issue. . .

The b-hemoglobin Pseudogene is a excellent example of a functionless portion of the genome. Yet the same Pseudogene is found in different species (only 6 differences between human and chimp in the whole sequence!).

Why are they there? Maybe there is some sort of function. The problem is that function has been sought by many for a number of years. Nothing yet has surfaced. Of course this is an open ended search. Jim Gibson by the way, wrote an article supporting the idea that there must be some purpose that is yet undiscovered. His article is on the internet in the Geoscience web pages.

The other possibility is that there is no function. That the sequence is what it looks like, defective. Many say that the presence of the b-hemoglobin Pseudogene is very strong evidence for a common ancestor. Human, Chimp, Gorilla, Monkeys (both new and old world), Baboon, etc., all have virtually the same Pseudogene. (However as more species are compared, the differences also increase as well)

In my yet unpublished work, (don't spread my research around yet) I see evidence for the existence of either viral or enzymatic activity that creates mutations.

So I think there is a mechanistic process that has produced many of the Pseudogenes that we have, rather than a random process. If the Pseudogene is truly defective and if the mutations are truly found in patterns (not random), then the idea that it's a common mechanism is possible. Viruses have enzymes that, under the same conditions, do repeatable reactions.

If the DNA in Humans, Chimps, Monkeys, etc., are very similar, then if they are all infected by the same virus, would we expect the virus to do the same thing in the different species? I think so.

The "dreaded endogenous retroviral sequence common to both chimp and human DNA" is probably the major example of Common Mechanism. Viral enzymes (proteins) react with specific DNA sequences. If both chimp and human DNA have the same active sites, I would expect the viral proteins to react in the same exact way to both human and chimp.

Common descent or common Ancestor is not the only answer.


Pseudogenes: a description of the problem: Molecular History Research Center

Im not talking about Pseudogenes. Im talking about insertions of viral DNA that occur during an infection.

So your basically just denying the entire concept of viruses?

Look it is this simple, you can take car designers using the same materials with the same sort of performance but look drastically different but suffer from the same problems with the same type of parts.

But a vw bug is not a honda civic and they are not related they just came from similar technology and materials.

 

[cbirch2]

From Dr. Brown he is a very reasonable creationist more then myself.

Dear Mike,

This came on the asa net. Do you have an explanation ?

Hi list,

Dick Fischer's ORIGIN'S SOLUTION mentions the dreaded endogenous retroviral sequence common to both chimp and human DNA as a strong lobbyist for common descent. Anybody have any other reasonable explanation?

(Name withheld)

Hi ,

This is an extremely important question that Creationists have to face. It is exactly the same question that I sought to answer with my research on Pseudogenes. In my talk at Andrews University, I introduced the idea of "Common Mechanism" as an alternative to "Common Descent". I also discussed evidence that shows "Common Mechanism" is being a possible answer to the origin of the many common sequences found in different species.

The common sequences that have given us problems in the past are sequences that don't seem to have a function for the organism. Common sequences that are easily identified as being functional, can easily be explained as existing because God designed them in the same way. I don't like the term "Common Designer, " because it has connotations of a deficient God who designs different animals in the same way because he is running out of ideas, or because it is too much effort to redesign the different animals.

A rocket designer designs a rocket. It works. Now he is asked to design a larger rocket. What he does is to use what he has already learned from his previous experience to save on effort and time. His larger rocket is going to look much like the smaller one. That is what Common Designer means. It takes too much effort not to use what has already be done before.

The question is, do we want to say the same thing about God? Is God designing the various animals in such a similar fashion because it would be too much effort to completely design a completely different design? Like the rocket designer?

I don't think so. I think this is our chance to start looking for alternative ideas. Instead of thinking of God as a designer, maybe we should think of Him as an artist (well, maybe both). If we go into a new house, maybe Mexican style, we might expect the whole house to have common features throughout. We would expect to see various artistic themes throughout the whole house. Also we would expect to see various differences in the house that is due to artistic variations of the Mexican themes found in the house.

I might expect God to have created the Earth in the same way. The animals (and plants) have many common features which I attribute as being artistic themes. Also, all one has to do is to look at a comparative anatomy text book to see the artistic variations of themes God has placed in this world.

I might expect the same artistic theme aspect of God's creation to be as deep as the very molecules we are made of. This could also include proteins and DNA.

I introduced this whole issue in my talk at Andrews.

back to the other issue. . .

The b-hemoglobin Pseudogene is a excellent example of a functionless portion of the genome. Yet the same Pseudogene is found in different species (only 6 differences between human and chimp in the whole sequence!).

Why are they there? Maybe there is some sort of function. The problem is that function has been sought by many for a number of years. Nothing yet has surfaced. Of course this is an open ended search. Jim Gibson by the way, wrote an article supporting the idea that there must be some purpose that is yet undiscovered. His article is on the internet in the Geoscience web pages.

The other possibility is that there is no function. That the sequence is what it looks like, defective. Many say that the presence of the b-hemoglobin Pseudogene is very strong evidence for a common ancestor. Human, Chimp, Gorilla, Monkeys (both new and old world), Baboon, etc., all have virtually the same Pseudogene. (However as more species are compared, the differences also increase as well)

In my yet unpublished work, (don't spread my research around yet) I see evidence for the existence of either viral or enzymatic activity that creates mutations.

So I think there is a mechanistic process that has produced many of the Pseudogenes that we have, rather than a random process. If the Pseudogene is truly defective and if the mutations are truly found in patterns (not random), then the idea that it's a common mechanism is possible. Viruses have enzymes that, under the same conditions, do repeatable reactions.

If the DNA in Humans, Chimps, Monkeys, etc., are very similar, then if they are all infected by the same virus, would we expect the virus to do the same thing in the different species? I think so.

The "dreaded endogenous retroviral sequence common to both chimp and human DNA" is probably the major example of Common Mechanism. Viral enzymes (proteins) react with specific DNA sequences. If both chimp and human DNA have the same active sites, I would expect the viral proteins to react in the same exact way to both human and chimp.

Common descent or common Ancestor is not the only answer.


Pseudogenes: a description of the problem: Molecular History Research Center

Im not talking about Pseudogenes. Im talking about insertions of viral DNA that occur during an infection.

So your basically just denying the entire concept of viruses?

Look it is this simple, you can take car designers using the same materials with the same sort of performance but look drastically different but suffer from the same problems with the same type of parts.

But a vw bug is not a honda civic and they are not related they just came from similar technology and materials.

Ok so your argument is that god just put the ERV's in our genome to fuck with us?

Great to know.

Idiocy.

You get what an ERV is right? Its not our DNA (well i supposed it is now), but it is not DNA that serves a function in a human. Its viral DNA left behind from previous infections.

Basically your just saying you dont know what ERV's are.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Im not talking about Pseudogenes. Im talking about insertions of viral DNA that occur during an infection.

So your basically just denying the entire concept of viruses?

What you are talking about proves nothing,yes.

KK so ERV's dont happen because of viruses? Is it all a coincidence?

You dont have many options here.

Either god put the ERV's there to mislead us, which is no better than saying satan planted dinosaur bones. Its a fools argument.

Or its a result of a viral infection. And if its a result for viral infection, then its a pretty good indicator of relation. Either that, or the infections are all coincidence. And if its all coincidence, you should probably explain why the ERV's are all in the same location since viruses insert their genome randomly.

You dont get to dismiss evidence just because you wont expend the mental energy to comprehend the argument.

Here is your debate.

Similarities in anatomy and DNA sequences simply reflect the fact that the organisms had the same designer.

http://creationwiki.org/Similarities_in_DNA_and_anatomy_are_due_to_common_design_(Talk.Origins)


Here is another rebuttal.


Abstract

Retroviruses that are not normally present in healthy hosts are called exogenous viruses, while DNA sequences in cellular genomes that are homologous to retroviruses are called endogenous retroviruses (ERVs). While the belief that all ERVs are remnants of germline infection seems logical, there are also facts against the endogenization theory, such as xenotropic ERVs and essentiality of some ERVs in host physiology. Syncytins, products of the env gene of HERV-W and HERV-FRD, contribute to human placenta development. Similar genes are also found in mouse and sheep. Indeed, the sheep ERV genes have been shown essential for sheep reproduction. Furthermore, regulation of the human syncytin-1 gene involves a complex regulation network including both viral and host factors. Conclusion: While intact ERVs with positional polymorphism are likely germline copies of exogenous viruses, ERVs with fixed locations and conserved beneficial genes may have been incorporated into the host genome at the time of creation. Exogenous retroviruses may have been created to help the ERVs and to transfer useful genes between hosts


Were Retroviruses Created Good? - Answers in Genesis

 

[Youwerecreated]

Im not talking about Pseudogenes. Im talking about insertions of viral DNA that occur during an infection.

So your basically just denying the entire concept of viruses?

Look it is this simple, you can take car designers using the same materials with the same sort of performance but look drastically different but suffer from the same problems with the same type of parts.

But a vw bug is not a honda civic and they are not related they just came from similar technology and materials.

Ok so your argument is that god just put the ERV's in our genome to fuck with us?

Great to know.

Idiocy.

You get what an ERV is right? Its not our DNA (well i supposed it is now), but it is not DNA that serves a function in a human. Its viral DNA left behind from previous infections.

Basically your just saying you dont know what ERV's are.

Not what i am saying.

 

[cbirch2]

Look it is this simple, you can take car designers using the same materials with the same sort of performance but look drastically different but suffer from the same problems with the same type of parts.

But a vw bug is not a honda civic and they are not related they just came from similar technology and materials.

Ok so your argument is that god just put the ERV's in our genome to fuck with us?

Great to know.

Idiocy.

You get what an ERV is right? Its not our DNA (well i supposed it is now), but it is not DNA that serves a function in a human. Its viral DNA left behind from previous infections.

Basically your just saying you dont know what ERV's are.

Not what i am saying.

No thats exactly what your saying. Your saying that ERV's do not come from viral infections.

Therefore, you are a fucking retard that doesnt understand what ERV's are.

Some may have been integral in evolution, sure. Viral infection is well associated with the evolution of the placenta, according to many biologists.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Ok so your argument is that god just put the ERV's in our genome to fuck with us?

Great to know.

Idiocy.

You get what an ERV is right? Its not our DNA (well i supposed it is now), but it is not DNA that serves a function in a human. Its viral DNA left behind from previous infections.

Basically your just saying you dont know what ERV's are.

Not what i am saying.

No thats exactly what your saying. Your saying that ERV's do not come from viral infections.

Therefore, you are a fucking retard that doesnt understand what ERV's are.

Some may have been integral in evolution, sure. Viral infection is well associated with the evolution of the placenta, according to many biologists.

A retard with a degree in molecular biology what degree do you hold ? You and limo are proving one thing ,you are immature and can't debate honestly without trying to insult your opponent. You can believe as you wish but your beliefs are based on assumptions just as mine are. Your views are based in imagination that will one day be shown to be nonsense just like many of your theories.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Ok so your argument is that god just put the ERV's in our genome to fuck with us?

Great to know.

Idiocy.

You get what an ERV is right? Its not our DNA (well i supposed it is now), but it is not DNA that serves a function in a human. Its viral DNA left behind from previous infections.

Basically your just saying you dont know what ERV's are.

Not what i am saying.

No thats exactly what your saying. Your saying that ERV's do not come from viral infections.

Therefore, you are a fucking retard that doesnt understand what ERV's are.

Some may have been integral in evolution, sure. Viral infection is well associated with the evolution of the placenta, according to many biologists.

Have you come up with a viable explanation of how non-life brought life into existence ? have come up with a viable explanation as to how non-intelligence created intelligence ? can you come up with a viable explanation as to how this planet is so unique that it gives the impression of intentional creation to sustain life. do you believe it was just coincidence ?

 

[Photonic]

Not what i am saying.

No thats exactly what your saying. Your saying that ERV's do not come from viral infections.

Therefore, you are a fucking retard that doesnt understand what ERV's are.

Some may have been integral in evolution, sure. Viral infection is well associated with the evolution of the placenta, according to many biologists.

A retard with a degree in molecular biology what degree do you hold ? You and limo are proving one thing ,you are immature and can't debate honestly without trying to insult your opponent. You can believe as you wish but your beliefs are based on assumptions just as mine are. Your views are based in imagination that will one day be shown to be nonsense just like many of your theories.

You are not a microbiologist, this is abundantly clear to everyone. If you are, you are not an accredited one.

 

[LOki]

Have you come up with a viable explanation of how non-life brought life into existence ?

Yes. Provided every time you asked with intellectually valid support.

Have you? No. Not one intellectually valid explanation. Not one.

have come up with a viable explanation as to how non-intelligence created intelligence ?

Yes. Provided every time you asked with intellectually valid support.

Have you? No. Not one intellectually valid explanation. Not one.

can you come up with a viable explanation as to how this planet is so unique that it gives the impression of intentional creation to sustain life.

Yes. Provided every time you asked with intellectually valid support.

Have you? No. Not one intellectually valid explanation. Not one.

do you believe it was just coincidence ?

Considering the valid and verifiable evidence, "coincidence" is a better explanation than this WHOLLY IMAGINARY "God" of yours.

 

[LOki]

No thats exactly what your saying. Your saying that ERV's do not come from viral infections.

Therefore, you are a fucking retard that doesnt understand what ERV's are.

Some may have been integral in evolution, sure. Viral infection is well associated with the evolution of the placenta, according to many biologists.

A retard with a degree in molecular biology what degree do you hold ? You and limo are proving one thing ,you are immature and can't debate honestly without trying to insult your opponent. You can believe as you wish but your beliefs are based on assumptions just as mine are. Your views are based in imagination that will one day be shown to be nonsense just like many of your theories.

You are not a microbiologist, this is abundantly clear to everyone. If you are, you are not an accredited one.

"You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Photonic again."
​

 

[daws101]

Not arrogance,just confidence that there is only one creator and his name is YAHWEH.

are you Jewish or Israeli? that's the name they gave to god....if your anything else you're plagiarizing.

No but YAHWEH is Jesus.

The name Jesus (which in the Hebrew is Yeshua, or perhaps Yehoshua, and equivalent to the English name Joshua) means "The salvation of Yahweh"
Actually Yahweh is just a scholarly assumption for the pronunciation of the name of God which was revealed to Moses at the burning bush (Exodus 3:14), and recorded in Hebrew by 4 Hebrew letters (referred to by scholars as the tretragrameton, meaning simply 'four letters'), and translated in most versions by the phrase "I am that I am", or "I am who I am", which is God's way of saying to us that He is the self-existent One, the One who is uncreated and self-sustained; namely, that He is GOD!

 

[daws101]

Post #2334. You did not quote me and some other poster to whom you were responding, you quoted only me (and yourself).

Your signature is a silly oversimplification, but I'm sure you know that.

You didn't just say some things in the bible can be confirmed by science, you said the bible can be confirmed by science. That is obviously ridiculous. Walking on water, a serpent talking, water into wine, living inside a whale, etc. etc. etc....there are many things in the bible that cannot be confirmed by science and often go against the observed rules of the natural world. You believe they are possible through god, and that is fine; when you claim they are confirmed by science, you are lying.

If I pull some quotes from other holy books of things that can be confirmed by science, does that make those books confirmed by science?

Of course, many of the scripture quotes you bring up as being confirmed by science are nothing of the sort, as has been pointed out to you by many posters. At best, your interpretation of those quotes conforms with scientific knowledge. That interpretation is neither universally held nor, in many cases, clear to anyone who does not already agree with you. Some of the connections you make strain the bonds of credulity to breaking.

I'm not sure why you feel the need to try and shoehorn this book of faith into modern scientific knowledge.

I think I do, fundamentalists like many "believers" have somehow deluded themselves in to the idea that our species is Superior and separate from all others on this planet.
that's a lie.

We are at the top of the food chain.

that statement does not answer the question "Superior and separate"
and it's only partially true, until very recently in our evolution, we were not the top predators on the planet .
from most of that time(100.000 years) we were prey.
even with the invention of weapons ,spears, bows etc.. we were still just barely holding our own.
it wasn't until gun power was invented (around 800 AD by the Chinese) that the balance was tipped, but only in certain parts of the world.
in this country it wasn't until the late 19th century that people entering the woods or other wild places could be fairly sure that they would not be attacked by other predators.

 

[daws101]

From Dr. Brown he is a very reasonable creationist more then myself.

Dear Mike,

This came on the asa net. Do you have an explanation ?

Hi list,

Dick Fischer's ORIGIN'S SOLUTION mentions the dreaded endogenous retroviral sequence common to both chimp and human DNA as a strong lobbyist for common descent. Anybody have any other reasonable explanation?

(Name withheld)

Hi ,

This is an extremely important question that Creationists have to face. It is exactly the same question that I sought to answer with my research on Pseudogenes. In my talk at Andrews University, I introduced the idea of "Common Mechanism" as an alternative to "Common Descent". I also discussed evidence that shows "Common Mechanism" is being a possible answer to the origin of the many common sequences found in different species.

The common sequences that have given us problems in the past are sequences that don't seem to have a function for the organism. Common sequences that are easily identified as being functional, can easily be explained as existing because God designed them in the same way. I don't like the term "Common Designer, " because it has connotations of a deficient God who designs different animals in the same way because he is running out of ideas, or because it is too much effort to redesign the different animals.

A rocket designer designs a rocket. It works. Now he is asked to design a larger rocket. What he does is to use what he has already learned from his previous experience to save on effort and time. His larger rocket is going to look much like the smaller one. That is what Common Designer means. It takes too much effort not to use what has already be done before.

The question is, do we want to say the same thing about God? Is God designing the various animals in such a similar fashion because it would be too much effort to completely design a completely different design? Like the rocket designer?

I don't think so. I think this is our chance to start looking for alternative ideas. Instead of thinking of God as a designer, maybe we should think of Him as an artist (well, maybe both). If we go into a new house, maybe Mexican style, we might expect the whole house to have common features throughout. We would expect to see various artistic themes throughout the whole house. Also we would expect to see various differences in the house that is due to artistic variations of the Mexican themes found in the house.

I might expect God to have created the Earth in the same way. The animals (and plants) have many common features which I attribute as being artistic themes. Also, all one has to do is to look at a comparative anatomy text book to see the artistic variations of themes God has placed in this world.

I might expect the same artistic theme aspect of God's creation to be as deep as the very molecules we are made of. This could also include proteins and DNA.

I introduced this whole issue in my talk at Andrews.

back to the other issue. . .

The b-hemoglobin Pseudogene is a excellent example of a functionless portion of the genome. Yet the same Pseudogene is found in different species (only 6 differences between human and chimp in the whole sequence!).

Why are they there? Maybe there is some sort of function. The problem is that function has been sought by many for a number of years. Nothing yet has surfaced. Of course this is an open ended search. Jim Gibson by the way, wrote an article supporting the idea that there must be some purpose that is yet undiscovered. His article is on the internet in the Geoscience web pages.

The other possibility is that there is no function. That the sequence is what it looks like, defective. Many say that the presence of the b-hemoglobin Pseudogene is very strong evidence for a common ancestor. Human, Chimp, Gorilla, Monkeys (both new and old world), Baboon, etc., all have virtually the same Pseudogene. (However as more species are compared, the differences also increase as well)

In my yet unpublished work, (don't spread my research around yet) I see evidence for the existence of either viral or enzymatic activity that creates mutations.

So I think there is a mechanistic process that has produced many of the Pseudogenes that we have, rather than a random process. If the Pseudogene is truly defective and if the mutations are truly found in patterns (not random), then the idea that it's a common mechanism is possible. Viruses have enzymes that, under the same conditions, do repeatable reactions.

If the DNA in Humans, Chimps, Monkeys, etc., are very similar, then if they are all infected by the same virus, would we expect the virus to do the same thing in the different species? I think so.

The "dreaded endogenous retroviral sequence common to both chimp and human DNA" is probably the major example of Common Mechanism. Viral enzymes (proteins) react with specific DNA sequences. If both chimp and human DNA have the same active sites, I would expect the viral proteins to react in the same exact way to both human and chimp.

Common descent or common Ancestor is not the only answer.


Pseudogenes: a description of the problem: Molecular History Research Center

Im not talking about Pseudogenes. Im talking about insertions of viral DNA that occur during an infection.

So your basically just denying the entire concept of viruses?

What you are talking about proves nothing,yes.

it proves without doubt that you YWC are dodging.
put your big boy pants on and answer the question.

 

[daws101]

From Dr. Brown he is a very reasonable creationist more then myself.

Dear Mike,

This came on the asa net. Do you have an explanation ?

Hi list,

Dick Fischer's ORIGIN'S SOLUTION mentions the dreaded endogenous retroviral sequence common to both chimp and human DNA as a strong lobbyist for common descent. Anybody have any other reasonable explanation?

(Name withheld)

Hi ,

This is an extremely important question that Creationists have to face. It is exactly the same question that I sought to answer with my research on Pseudogenes. In my talk at Andrews University, I introduced the idea of "Common Mechanism" as an alternative to "Common Descent". I also discussed evidence that shows "Common Mechanism" is being a possible answer to the origin of the many common sequences found in different species.

The common sequences that have given us problems in the past are sequences that don't seem to have a function for the organism. Common sequences that are easily identified as being functional, can easily be explained as existing because God designed them in the same way. I don't like the term "Common Designer, " because it has connotations of a deficient God who designs different animals in the same way because he is running out of ideas, or because it is too much effort to redesign the different animals.

A rocket designer designs a rocket. It works. Now he is asked to design a larger rocket. What he does is to use what he has already learned from his previous experience to save on effort and time. His larger rocket is going to look much like the smaller one. That is what Common Designer means. It takes too much effort not to use what has already be done before.

The question is, do we want to say the same thing about God? Is God designing the various animals in such a similar fashion because it would be too much effort to completely design a completely different design? Like the rocket designer?

I don't think so. I think this is our chance to start looking for alternative ideas. Instead of thinking of God as a designer, maybe we should think of Him as an artist (well, maybe both). If we go into a new house, maybe Mexican style, we might expect the whole house to have common features throughout. We would expect to see various artistic themes throughout the whole house. Also we would expect to see various differences in the house that is due to artistic variations of the Mexican themes found in the house.

I might expect God to have created the Earth in the same way. The animals (and plants) have many common features which I attribute as being artistic themes. Also, all one has to do is to look at a comparative anatomy text book to see the artistic variations of themes God has placed in this world.

I might expect the same artistic theme aspect of God's creation to be as deep as the very molecules we are made of. This could also include proteins and DNA.

I introduced this whole issue in my talk at Andrews.

back to the other issue. . .

The b-hemoglobin Pseudogene is a excellent example of a functionless portion of the genome. Yet the same Pseudogene is found in different species (only 6 differences between human and chimp in the whole sequence!).

Why are they there? Maybe there is some sort of function. The problem is that function has been sought by many for a number of years. Nothing yet has surfaced. Of course this is an open ended search. Jim Gibson by the way, wrote an article supporting the idea that there must be some purpose that is yet undiscovered. His article is on the internet in the Geoscience web pages.

The other possibility is that there is no function. That the sequence is what it looks like, defective. Many say that the presence of the b-hemoglobin Pseudogene is very strong evidence for a common ancestor. Human, Chimp, Gorilla, Monkeys (both new and old world), Baboon, etc., all have virtually the same Pseudogene. (However as more species are compared, the differences also increase as well)

In my yet unpublished work, (don't spread my research around yet) I see evidence for the existence of either viral or enzymatic activity that creates mutations.

So I think there is a mechanistic process that has produced many of the Pseudogenes that we have, rather than a random process. If the Pseudogene is truly defective and if the mutations are truly found in patterns (not random), then the idea that it's a common mechanism is possible. Viruses have enzymes that, under the same conditions, do repeatable reactions.

If the DNA in Humans, Chimps, Monkeys, etc., are very similar, then if they are all infected by the same virus, would we expect the virus to do the same thing in the different species? I think so.

The "dreaded endogenous retroviral sequence common to both chimp and human DNA" is probably the major example of Common Mechanism. Viral enzymes (proteins) react with specific DNA sequences. If both chimp and human DNA have the same active sites, I would expect the viral proteins to react in the same exact way to both human and chimp.

Common descent or common Ancestor is not the only answer.


Pseudogenes: a description of the problem: Molecular History Research Center

Im not talking about Pseudogenes. Im talking about insertions of viral DNA that occur during an infection.

So your basically just denying the entire concept of viruses?

Look it is this simple, you can take car designers using the same materials with the same sort of performance but look drastically different but suffer from the same problems with the same type of parts.

But a vw bug is not a honda civic and they are not related they just came from similar technology and materials.

hey major dumbass if the parts are the same even though the body may look different the basic design, I.E. THE FRAME AND WEELS ARE IN THE SAME PLACE, THE ENGINES PERFORM THE SAME FUCTION, ARE NO DIFFERENT.
THEY ARE THE SAME IN FUCTIONALITY AND ARE RELATED ON A MUCH MORE FUNDIMENTAL LEVEL THE THE COSMETICS OF THE THE BODY STYLE.
THEY ARE BOTH CARS!

 

[daws101]

Not what i am saying.

No thats exactly what your saying. Your saying that ERV's do not come from viral infections.

Therefore, you are a fucking retard that doesnt understand what ERV's are.

Some may have been integral in evolution, sure. Viral infection is well associated with the evolution of the placenta, according to many biologists.

A retard with a degree in molecular biology what degree do you hold ? You and limo are proving one thing ,you are immature and can't debate honestly without trying to insult your opponent. You can believe as you wish but your beliefs are based on assumptions just as mine are. Your views are based in imagination that will one day be shown to be nonsense just like many of your theories.

YOU KEEP SAYING YOU HAVE A molecular biology DEGREE! SHOW US IT AND THE SCHOOL YOU GOT IT FROM
i'll wait.

 

[cbirch2]

Not what i am saying.

No thats exactly what your saying. Your saying that ERV's do not come from viral infections.

Therefore, you are a fucking retard that doesnt understand what ERV's are.

Some may have been integral in evolution, sure. Viral infection is well associated with the evolution of the placenta, according to many biologists.

A retard with a degree in molecular biology what degree do you hold ? You and limo are proving one thing ,you are immature and can't debate honestly without trying to insult your opponent. You can believe as you wish but your beliefs are based on assumptions just as mine are. Your views are based in imagination that will one day be shown to be nonsense just like many of your theories.

Lol you with a degree. LMAO. The most education you've ever had when it comes to molecular biology was my overview of organic molecules. I have been your teacher, and you my student. Thank me for bestowing intelligence upon you, although you might not have received it well.

And i keep pointing this next point out to you, and you cant seem to get it. Maybe im a bad teacher.....

There is a vast difference between my insults and your insults. Yours come when you have nothing to say, mine come complimented by facts that youre unable to explain.

Every time you use a phrase like "you cant debate without insulting", your trying to avoid an indisputable fact that ive presented. Im not going to let you ignore them.

 

[cbirch2]

Not what i am saying.

No thats exactly what your saying. Your saying that ERV's do not come from viral infections.

Therefore, you are a fucking retard that doesnt understand what ERV's are.

Some may have been integral in evolution, sure. Viral infection is well associated with the evolution of the placenta, according to many biologists.

Have you come up with a viable explanation of how non-life brought life into existence ? have come up with a viable explanation as to how non-intelligence created intelligence ? can you come up with a viable explanation as to how this planet is so unique that it gives the impression of intentional creation to sustain life. do you believe it was just coincidence ?

Lol tell me where your god came from.

Ill wait.

Your argument suffers from the same logical fallacy as mine, you just hide yours behind bullshit. I just try to get at the solution through evidence.

 

[Youwerecreated]

No thats exactly what your saying. Your saying that ERV's do not come from viral infections.

Therefore, you are a fucking retard that doesnt understand what ERV's are.

Some may have been integral in evolution, sure. Viral infection is well associated with the evolution of the placenta, according to many biologists.

A retard with a degree in molecular biology what degree do you hold ? You and limo are proving one thing ,you are immature and can't debate honestly without trying to insult your opponent. You can believe as you wish but your beliefs are based on assumptions just as mine are. Your views are based in imagination that will one day be shown to be nonsense just like many of your theories.

You are not a microbiologist, this is abundantly clear to everyone. If you are, you are not an accredited one.

A degree from the University of Arizona,yes it is an accredited school you think ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

No thats exactly what your saying. Your saying that ERV's do not come from viral infections.

Therefore, you are a fucking retard that doesnt understand what ERV's are.

Some may have been integral in evolution, sure. Viral infection is well associated with the evolution of the placenta, according to many biologists.

Have you come up with a viable explanation of how non-life brought life into existence ? have come up with a viable explanation as to how non-intelligence created intelligence ? can you come up with a viable explanation as to how this planet is so unique that it gives the impression of intentional creation to sustain life. do you believe it was just coincidence ?

Lol tell me where your god came from.

Ill wait.

Your argument suffers from the same logical fallacy as mine, you just hide yours behind bullshit. I just try to get at the solution through evidence.

Yes there are many questions about my God I cannot answer.

My God defies logic according to mans understanding. The proof is no one has a viable explanation to how my God created everything we see.

Man is not even close to understanding how life began. How it can adapt,he can only assume through imagination.

I don't pretend to have all the answers, but I do have opinions. That does not mean I can't be wrong just as man has been wrong many times.