Alternatives to Modern Evolutionary Theory

again: we have evidence for the opposite too.

first: can you show that its possible at all? second: even if it was possible its still a belief raher then a fact.

You mean we have evidence of inserted retroviruses being expressed? Yes, that’s how they do it. It’s part of their life cycle. And sometimes they pick up a piece or two of the host genome.

1 Like

The ability of that ERV to do something was first a neutral mutation. The “thing” it could do was not yet important!

@scd

In a court of law, beliefs regarding genetic paternity can be expressed with probabilities.

And the more data ooints… the more credible … which is how “beliefs” become established fscts.

Paternity is just a special case of Common Ancestry.

Your objections are futile compared to forensic realities.

1 Like

if a virus can take a gene/part of the host genome then its also possible that the entire virus was made by this way. and remember that we are talking about no more then 3-4 genes.

Now who’s speculating? No, it isn’t possible. The core of the virus doesn’t come from human sequences.

1 Like

The origin of retroviruses 100’s of millions of years ago has nothing to do with the argument for common descent. However retroviruses came about, they still insert their genome throughout the genome which would produce non-orthologous insertions in the vast, vast majority of cases.

1 Like

Not at all. We are simply observing what happened and drawing a conclusion. Evolution is the assumption here as it is not supported by the molecular observations.

You are the one committing the Sharpshooter fallacy by making an observation the drawing the circle of evolution around it.

In order to calculate probabilities you also need to know what didn’t happen.

Bare assertion.

Where?

1 Like

Every time you look at historical sequences you assume they are the result of evolution. This is the sharp shooter fallacy. Looking at holes in a wall in close proximity and assuming the shooter intended the pattern and then drawing a target around the pattern.

That evolution over deep time has occurred isn’t an assumption Bill. It’s a well verified scientific fact.

1 Like

and how do you know that?

First, that’s not the Sharpshooter fallacy. Second, I conclude they are the result of evolution because they fall into a nested hierarchy, transitions outnumber transversions, and exons show conservation relative to introns. I don’t assume they are the result of evolution. The theory of evolution predicted these features, so we aren’t drawing patterns after the data was already in.

1 Like

again; just an assumption.

Again, it is an observation, not an assumption. You can read all about it in my ERV thread.

3 Likes

Because it appears only in ERVs and in free viruses, not in isolation within the human genome. And because ERVs predate the existence of humans.

you didnt observed whats happen millions of years ago. you assume it.

what genes are you referring to?

Notably, reverse transcriptase.

2 Likes

Ah, a basic misunderstanding of how science works, very common in creationists. All science is inference from observation. We can infer events we did not observe directly (and “direct observation” is a problematic concept) based on the evidence they leave behind. We can infer the existence of alpha particles based on the trails they leave in bubble chambers. We can infer the existence of atoms based on the constant ratios of compounds. We can infer the existence of gravitational force (or curved space, if you prefer) based on the movements of objects. And we can infer common descent based on the nested hierarchy of homologous characters. Same thing.

4 Likes