Attention All Creationists, Here's Your Big Chance

[Subduction Zone]

It's well defined. In fact it's the first definition in the dictionary... It's your term species that has 26 separate definitions and is not well defined to the extent they admit to having a species problem...

Definition of SPECIES

a : kind, sort
b : a class of individuals having common attributes and designated by a common name specifically : a logical division of a genus or more comprehensive class confessing sins in species and in number
c : the human race : human beings —often used with the survival of the species in the nuclear age
d(1) : a category of biological classification ranking immediately below the genus or subgenus, comprising related organisms or populations potentially capable of interbreeding, and being designated by a binomial that consists of the name of a genus followed by a Latin or latinized uncapitalized noun or adjective agreeing grammatically with the genus name
(2) : an individual or kind belonging to a biological species
e : a particular kind of atomic nucleus, atom, molecule, or ion

You failed.

Once again, how would you tell if two different groups were the same "kind" or not. It is a simple question, why can't you answer it? If your beliefs are true there should be a simple way to tell.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Apparently you don't understand that it is a foreign retrovirus that is known to carry DNA from one host to another.....

Wrong. Try again. ERV's are technically no longer viruses. Can you tell me why. When you admit that you do not know then I will answer questions.

 

[Subduction Zone]

And yet you are still unable to produce a single common ancestor, which is supposed to be the basis for your cladistic classifications.

So basically your classifications are all based on hypothesized common ancestors that can't be found, because they never existed and so one can say they contain any features one likes....

So your classifications are all based upon imagination of what a common ancestor would look like, yet it can't be found because nothing looks like it.....

Wrong again. But until you learn what is and what is not evidence there is no point in correcting your questions.

First you need to learn what is and what is not evidence, then you can demand answers.

 

[Sky Rivers]

Rude? Not really. The God of creationists is a weak and ineffective God. The problem with ID is that it is not science. It is religion. It cannot be taught in schools. There is no scientific evidence for it.

Calling God, or anyone’s god “weak” is incredibly rude, especially if this is supposed to be a forum for all religions and views to exist, tolerant of one another.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Calling God, or anyone’s god “weak” is incredibly rude, especially if this is supposed to be a forum for all religions and views to exist, tolerant of one another.

Not if a person proposes a weak god. It is only being honest. Perhaps that statement demonstrated to you what was wrong with your belief and you took the wrong part seriously.

 

[Salvador]

ERV's prove no such thing since virus simply develop attack routines for similar cells. They are located in the same locations because that is the type of cells those ERV's have devloped specific invasion routines for.....

You are confusing Invasion when two separate species lived alongside one another as meaning common descent.

If Virus did not attack the same similar sites, then genetic alteration could never be performed. It would produce random results, not specific results.

The chances that a virus was inserted in the exact same position in similar cells is 100%, since that is exactly why genetic alterations work. They use virus that attack only specific types of cells and insert their genetic alteration into the exact place wanted. If the odds were 1 in 3,000,000,000 as you claim, then genetic alteration of specific cell types would be virtually impossible. So we can discount your numbers as pure hyperbole.....

Notice readers he shys away from a number such as 1 in 3,000,000,000 yet gladly accepts one 10,000 times larger as fact when it comes to the odds of life from non-life..... Numbers made up out of the air to suit their pseudoscientific beliefs. Odds are not a hindrance except when they don't want to believe something....

Anytime an evolutionists starts quoting odds, you can be sure he or she is trying to avoid reality....

"Endogenous retroviruses (or ERVs) are remnant sequences in the genome left from ancient viral infections in an organism. The retroviruses (or virogenes) are always passed on to the next generation of that organism that received the infection. This leaves the virogene left in the genome. Because this event is rare and random, finding identical chromosomal positions of a virogene in two different species suggests common ancestry."

Reference: Theobald, Douglas (2004). "29+ Evidences for Macroevolution; Protein functional redundancy]". The Talk Origins Arc

"Cats (Felidae) present a notable instance of virogene sequences demonstrating common descent. The standard phylogenetic tree for Felidae have smaller cats (Felis chaus, Felis silvestris, Felis nigripes, and Felis catus) diverging from larger cats such as the subfamily Pantherinae and other carnivores. The fact that small cats have an ERV where the larger cats do not suggests that the gene was inserted into the ancestor of the small cats after the larger cats had diverged."

Reference: Van Der Kuyl, A.C.; Dekker, J.T.; Goudsmit, J. (1999). "Discovery of a New Endogenous Type C Retrovirus (FcEV) in Cats: Evidence for RD-114 Being an FcEVGag-Pol/Baboon Endogenous Virus BaEVEnv Recombinant". Journal of Virology. 73 (10): 7994–8002. PMC 112814. PMID 10482547.

"Another example of this is with humans and chimps. Humans contain numerous ERVs that comprise a considerable percentage of the genome. Sources vary, but 1% to 8% has been proposed. Humans and chimps share seven different occurrences of virogenes, while all primates share similar retroviruses congruent with phylogeny."

References:

Sverdlov, E.D. (February 2000). "Retroviruses and primate evolution". BioEssays. 22(2): 161–71. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1521-1878(200002)22:2<161::AID-BIES7>3.0.CO;2-X. PMID 10655035.

Belshaw, R.; Pereira, V.; Katzourakis, A. et al. (April 2004). "Long-term reinfection of the human genome by endogenous retroviruses". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 101 (14): 4894–9. Bibcode:2004PNAS..101.4894B. doi:10.1073/pnas.0307800101. PMC 387345. PMID 15044706.

 

[Skwim]

What evolution?

Ahhh, you mean mistaken classifications....

Husky mates with Husky and produces only Husky. Mastiff mates with Mastiff and produces only Mastiff. Only when Husky mates with Mastiff is variation (the Chinook) seen within the species. It comes into the record suddenly, with no single visible common ancestor. But this is important to understand. neither the Husky nor the Mastiff evolved into the Chinook. The Husky remained Husky and the Mastiff remained Mastiff.... Exactly what we observe in the fossil record....

I understand they merely have bones in the fossil record. They can not see what mated with what. If all they had were bones of the Husky, Mastiff and Chinook, and the Chinook appeared later in the stratum, they would conclude the Husky or Mastiff evolved into the Chinook. The common ancestor where the split occurred would be missing because it never existed....

My condolences for your ignorance.

.

.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

You failed.

Once again, how would you tell if two different groups were the same "kind" or not. It is a simple question, why can't you answer it? If your beliefs are true there should be a simple way to tell.

Already answered... Apparently you can't comprehend d)(1) because you have 25 other definitions you use interchangeably....

 

[Sky Rivers]

Not if a person proposes a weak god. It is only being honest. Perhaps that statement demonstrated to you what was wrong with your belief and you took the wrong part seriously.

As you seem to enjoy telling others here...
“Wrong, try again.”

 

[Subduction Zone]

As you seem to enjoy telling others here...
“Wrong, try again.”

Then why did you get so offended? If it was not an accurate depiction it should not have bothered you.


And why believe creation myths in the first place? We know that parts of the Bible are clearly wrong. Interpreting the Bible literally in effect refutes it. It is not a wise belief to have.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Already answered... Apparently you can't comprehend d)(1) because you have 25 other definitions you use interchangeably....

No, you did not. Let me ask the question one more time:

How would you tell if two different groups of animals were the "same kind" or not? What tests would you do? You cannot simply point to vague definitions. You need to demonstrate that you know how to tell the difference.

 

[Audie]

How so? Cladistics is simple and consistent. It is why more and more biologists are switching over that as a classification system.

It was bad enough with "sharks are fish". Now ostriches
are fish.
You figure humans are fish but descendants unto the
billionth generstion will still be hunan beings.

 

[Sky Rivers]

Then why did you get so offended? If it was not an accurate depiction it should not have bothered you.


And why believe creation myths in the first place? We know that parts of the Bible are clearly wrong. Interpreting the Bible literally in effect refutes it. It is not a wise belief to have.

“So offended”? No, I wasn’t, “so offended”. I simply found your comment to be rude and decided to tell you as much.

Furthermore, I’m not at all concerned with being perceived as right by those who don’t share my beliefs. I believe as I do and that’s my decision. As I stated before, there are worse things to be than wrong. For example, being a rude person who chooses to call the gods of others as “weak”.

 

[Audie]

Then why did you get so offended? If it was not an accurate depiction it should not have bothered you.


And why believe creation myths in the first place? We know that parts of the Bible are clearly wrong. Interpreting the Bible literally in effect refutes it. It is not a wise belief to have.

Um, because it is dismissive like "whatevs"?

 

[Audie]

What evolution?

Ahhh, you mean mistaken classifications....

Husky mates with Husky and produces only Husky. Mastiff mates with Mastiff and produces only Mastiff. Only when Husky mates with Mastiff is variation (the Chinook) seen within the species. It comes into the record suddenly, with no single visible common ancestor. But this is important to understand. neither the Husky nor the Mastiff evolved into the Chinook. The Husky remained Husky and the Mastiff remained Mastiff.... Exactly what we observe in the fossil record....

I understand they merely have bones in the fossil record. They can not see what mated with what. If all they had were bones of the Husky, Mastiff and Chinook, and the Chinook appeared later in the stratum, they would conclude the Husky or Mastiff evolved into the Chinook. The common ancestor where the split occurred would be missing because it never existed....

If you think "they merely have bones" in the fossil
record you are like a person who has not gotten to
fractions trying to argue differential calculus.

Making things up just makes you look silly. (er)

 

[Justatruthseeker]

If you think "they merely have bones" in the fossil
record you are like a person who has not gotten to
fractions trying to argue differential calculus.

Making things up just makes you look silly. (er)

Oh sure, they got soft tissue, but then played that one off. They got some forms in amber, but still can't see what mated with what..... And the ones in aber look the same from the oldest one found for it to the youngest one found for it.

At least I'm not trying to do calculus when I'm still trying to add and subtract....

 

[Justatruthseeker]

“So offended”? No, I wasn’t, “so offended”. I simply found your comment to be rude and decided to tell you as much.

Furthermore, I’m not at all concerned with being perceived as right by those who don’t share my beliefs. I believe as I do and that’s my decision. As I stated before, there are worse things to be than wrong. For example, being a rude person who chooses to call the gods of others as “weak”.

He's too busy promoting his god evolution....

Just remember when it comes to rudeness and insults it is because they realize they have already lost and that's all that's left for them to do....

Ptolemy claimed he was right, and the entire world believed his epicycles based upon epicycles.... So don't let majority view concern you much, since in every point in history the majority has always been wrong.....

 

[Subduction Zone]

It was bad enough with "sharks are fish". Now ostriches
are fish.
You figure humans are fish but descendants unto the
billionth generstion will still be hunan beings.

One cannot evolve out of one's heritage. Try to find a definition of "fish" that is monophyletic.

 

[Subduction Zone]

He's too busy promoting his god evolution....

Just remember when it comes to rudeness and insults it is because they realize they have already lost and that's all that's left for them to do....

Ptolemy claimed he was right, and the entire world believed his epicycles based upon epicycles.... So don't let majority view concern you much, since in every point in history the majority has always been wrong.....

Now now, you should know better than to make false claims about others. Your Bible even has a Commandment about that.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Oh sure, they got soft tissue, but then played that one off. They got some forms in amber, but still can't see what mated with what..... And the ones in aber look the same from the oldest one found for it to the youngest one found for it.

At least I'm not trying to do calculus when I'm still trying to add and subtract....

Why not try to learn what is and what is not evidence so that you can ask proper questions? It is a rather simple concept.