Let's start fresh. Creation vs. Evolution models.

Using your standard for veracity of the source, this pro-evolution site is immediately suspect and of no value, as you have claimed for Creationist sites. But we both know that is false. Science is science and both Christianity and Evolution are religions.

Opinions in the article;

".. even if it was far more target-specific than observed"
"..This leaves only one way the majority of these ERVs could have been inherited: "
".. must share common ancestry."
"..They are wholly inexplicable by the model of uncommon ancestry."
".. Any mutations to one LTR become quite apparent,"
".. if the evolutionary model is correct,"
".. deviation from the pattern—likely caused by "

Red Herring
".. As previously explained, although the LTRs of a provirus must be identical upon insertion"

Regardless, I read the piece and found numerous opinions formulated form select portions of the data, while omitting raw data that seems (since it is not referenced) to refute the author's own opinion, which a good portion of which the piece is comprised.


Evolution's Best Argument Has Become Its Worst Nightmare


The reason why both chimpanzees and men have such similar-looking transposons in similar chromosomes could be because the sequences were programmed to serve similar biological functions. Or, they could have followed similar biologically significant patterns when they were being copied and inserted, for reasons that are no longer discernible.
Since transposons did not come from ancient viruses, but are instead essential parts of genomes, they can no longer be used to support the belief that chimpanzees and humans evolved from a common ancestor. And this means that one of evolution's best arguments has failed, just like the debunked parade of prior "best" arguments.13
The demotion of transposons as an evolutionary "proof" is reminiscent of the old, discredited "vestigial organ" argument. One hundred-eighty organs in the human body had been cited as useless leftovers from an evolutionary past, but each has been found to have an important function, including the appendix and tonsils.14 Now that these vast expanses of genetic material are known to be information-rich, the concept of "junk DNA" has to be junked. And with no spare genetic material for it to mutate, what mechanism is left that broad-scale evolution could have used to produce the variety of life observed today?
It is difficult, if not impossible, to imagine how evolution could tinker with transposons without disrupting their precise coordination, which is vital to life forms. But it is easier now to see that the original people--like the first chimpanzees, plants, and even single-cell life forms --were expertly fashioned, through and through, by a brilliant Engineer.

http://www.icr.org/article/evolutions-best-argument-has-become/

 

It does make it a silly fairy tale. Explain the step by step process by which the muscles needed for the function of the sexual reproduction organs in a whale detached from the original location in the cow-like land animal and reattached itself to the vestigial bone in the whale's abdomen. Then explain how the half-whale/half-cow was able to reproduce while the muscles were in mid detach/reattach. This will be a good one.

- - - Updated - - -

What does that prove. Some guy made a list?

 

It proves that we are loyal subjects of the Animal Kindom and not a Kingdom of Heaven.

 

WoW! That's a stretch based on your say so.

 

Why do you say that; one tends to prove evolution while the other doesn't seem to be provable enough for men to be better Angels on Earth who have not the need for the Expense of Government.

 

Go do your homework.

 

That would be like supplying data to prove that at the quantum level information is involved. Since QM is not materialistic, they have no trouble with the idea that information is involved. Materialistic evolutionary theory has no room for it. Like much of the theory of evolution involving probability and chance, the data for that is not available either. Yet they have no problem assuming that it these two things exist, without hard evidence for it.
So neither information nor probability can be proven with hard data. And don't act like the materialists have it, for they do not. I know you guys want to try to make the theory of evolution and the rising of life a hard science like physics, but it is a soft science in this area. Some things that are incorporated into the theory can be proven, like adaptation, by showing it in real experiments. But the other parts of the theory? There is so much conjecture and assumptions in it, that it resembles more an atheistic philosophy than hard science. It isn't hard science, deal with it.

 

Let me break it down so even you should be able to understand it.

1) Since retroviruses insert themselves into the DNA of the host, if they infect the host's gametes they leave a mark that is passed down to successive generations. While it is possible for two a retrovirus to insert itself at the same location in two different hosts, it is not very likely.
2) Over many generations, these marks are subject to other random mutations. That two organisms share the same ERV in the same location with the same mutations would be extremely unlikely. Humans and chimpanzees alone share hundreds of such ERVs.
3) Nested hierarchy in biology is nothing more than the classification used to describe how closely different organisms are related (Kingdom, Phylum, Class, Order, Family, Genus, Species). That the distribution of shared ERVs matches these classifications virtually guarantees that life evolved.

 

OMFG.....are you seriously tying QM theory to Evolution?

WTF are you attempting to do here?

QT is the attempt to theorize a world that cannot be seen visually...whereas evolution deals with a Macro reality clearly seen and examined with the naked eye.

I understand you wish not to note the massive data and evidence that supports the theory of evolution...I am confused how you can fit this blind spot into Quantum theory however.

 

Where do you think the ischiocavernosus muscle is attached in mammals, including humans and cows?

 

So the so called "nested hierarchy" is an opinion or some guy's classification method?

 

There are too many other examples like this for evolution to be logical. Besides, if the cows legs shrank that is evidence for evolution in reverese. Another example of a loss of information or function. Don't your even see that?

 

The scientific term is Phylogenetics and has been around for 150 years. That's where the "tree of life" idea came from.

Your inability to understand evolution has nothing to do with the logic of it. Evolution doesn't have a direction so there is no such thing as "evolution in reverse". And if you think this is an example of "loss of information", then you don't know what information means.

 

You have succeeded in leading me around in circles with your evolution blather. I still have not received any evidences that are not mixing science with evolution doctrinal opinions. But you and your fellow believers just can not objectively see through the fog of b.s. and discern the actual facts from fiction. I've given it my best shot. You are on your own.

 

I think I was showing that the limitations of classical physics, necessitated the move into quantum mechanics. A move away from materialism. And that biology is stuck concreted in materialism, as a way to try to understand the origin of life and its evolution. There was no place for information, in physics, until it was needed with new discoveries at the quantum level. There is a need for information in evolutionary biology, but being stuck in materialism, they simply reject, even considering it, for they demand no intelligent information. This is because the T of E began its life as atheism, and a great need to prove that no sort of intelligence was necessary. Yet regardless of what you say, or the consensus, there is no hard proof of this. It's theory, and there are many scientists who say its a weak theory at best.

The origin of life and materialist based evolution is just a story, with not enough hard proof on the most important principles to ever call it anything but a soft science at best. The knowledge is so limited, and from that limited knowledge they have taken great leaps in pure conjecture, putting lipstick on the pig. When you cannot understand morphology, that we cannot find anything genetically to explain it, but you then claim evolution is proven, it's utter nonsense. And it isn't just morphology that we are in the dark on, but a vast number of biological things, and yet with such a limited knowledge, we can claim we know that the theory of the origin of life and its evolution is factual? Frankly, the absurdity of it points to intellectual arrogance.

We will not get close to understanding this stuff, until we stop trying to make it a strictly materialistic science. This is holding back the science, because we insist on materialism, even when we have an example in the hard science of physics, that materialism can only explain a part of the big picture. We are gonna have to do as physics had to do, in order to take evolution to the next level, and admit that an intelligent information is essential to the origin of life and its evolution. I am not talking about a god here, just information, that is coherent. It probably is in the very fabric of the universe, and underlies the reason why there is an order involved in the universe and in the rise of life and its evolution.

 

If the rest of the world appears to be going in circles, maybe you're the one on the merry-go-round.

 

I am still waiting for your reply to the debate you started about the retrovirus and for the one you started about whales. It is considered trolling to toss out a debate topic then run and hide at the first reply counter to your assertion. Are you a troll?

 

I did; you are the one who has nothing but diversion and that form of fallacy and repugnance to philosophy if not a god.

 

That you quoted my direct response to the debate about retroviruses and I answered your question about whales in Post 810, suggests that you have run out of arguments against evolution. That you resort to suggesting I'm a troll confirms it.

 

so con he is putting you on ignore too because damn it you have facts.

 

If by your reply you you mean repeating the same fallacies I proved bogus, then okay, I get it, you have nothing.

It is common knowledge that there is no scientific evidence to prove evolution even rises to the level of a scientific theory and can only be honestly considered a religion.

• Theory: In science, a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses.

 

If by proof you mean the article by IRC that attempts to pass itself off as science, then your argument is even weaker than I though. Mr. Thomas blows it with the very first sentence:

The simple fact that about 95 million single-cell organisms are developing into humans every day disproves the rest of his article.

I find when people claim something is "common knowledge" without any evidence to back it up, the truth is usually the exact opposite.

 

Evolution is a fact in Nature; it is only the origin of species that is controversial.