More evolution questions

[OldEnglishSheepdog]

So you mean to tell me that if you were having a chat with your neighbor and you got onto this topic, you'd tell him "Yeah I think we were created with viruses built into our genome." ?

Nope.

Every Christian I've ever spoken to has stated that we didn't have any defects or corruption until after Eve ate the forbidden fruit.

Yep. We don't know the origin of viruses or if they always required cells of other organisms or whatever anymore than the naturalist does, but what you're presenting here is not a problem here. I don't see why you think it is.

Okay the data is, we share several pieces of genetic material that we refer to as "retroviruses" with the Chimpanzee's. Are you telling me that the more logical approach is to suggest that a God put it there?

Possibly, or that we both were hit by the same virus that had a similar effect... like I already pointed out.

What you are suggesting is that we toss aside what we would easily expect based on what we know about organisms, in favor of an answer that is absolutely absurd. That humans and chimpanzees got infected with the same virus...on the Ark?!?! You are more than free to believe that kind of thing but that isn't something I'm willing to entertain.

You see? You have a priori assumptions that evolution did happen and anything else is simply absurd. Then, according to that presupposition you interpret the evidence and present your interpretations as facts.

It doesn't matter that I presented you with an actual scientific problem for your subjective interpretation.

It doesn't matter that your opinion of what is absurd is simply a qualitative feeling and I presented a quantitative challenge that is based on what we observe.

And round and round we go with you asserting that genetics supports evolution, but when it comes down to examining the science of it, no it doesn't.

All you've got is you’re feelings that creationism is absurd, so by contrast evolution is the straight-forward explanation, even though I've shown that it's internally inconsistent.

The genetic material matches up EXACTLY with what we have...

Uh... yippee?

this doesn't out of thin air, it SCREAMS common descent.

Once again, who's talking about thin air?

I know you may not like that, sometimes the truth is not what we prefer.

Snore.

We're not talking about preferences here Stargaze.

You prefer not to discuss the observable and repeatable and instead continue to drive home your fallacy of affirming the consequent.

Once again, if we were both designed similarly, and a virus hit both humans and chimps, then the outcome would be the same without common descent.

There's simple and straightforward interpretations here too, and our system is internally consistent, yet you still can't deal with the evidence.

I don't think you've demonstrated that naturalism contradicts anything.

And yet you haven't even tried to provide an explanation for how it doesn't.

You've come up with a handy answer for any link that we have with other primates, simply say "yeah God did that, it's part of our common design".

You're committing a bait and switch fallacy.

I wasn't saying that the argument from design shows that naturalism contradicts itself.

It was the volume of changes since the last departure from a common ancestor from the chimps that was inexplicable.

But notice that if naturalism has an ad hoc answer that isn't immediately disconfirmed in a particular case study but contradicts the evidence when examined in a larger context you start talking about how great of an explanation it is (by virtue of the fallacy of affirming the consequent), but if creationism has a tidy explanation that does not contradict the evidence at large you dismiss it as a handy answer.

You don't only have double standards, but even with your double standards you're still ignoring the actual, repeatable, quantitative evidence.

[OldEnglishSheepdog]

Well there are a ton of other creatures out there that had the same designer as us humans but we don't have these same genetic similarities.

So?

You're asking me to believe that these similarities are just going to show up with other primates [primarily] and that's what creationism would predict.

Stargaze, the point remains: We've always known we were similar to other primates. It's never been a problem before.

I don't even see how you think it's a problem here.

You guys are making cover up explanations after the data is found, this isn't impressing me.

What's not impressing me is that you claim that genetics is on your side but maintain only a demonstrable fallacy of affirming the consequent, while refusing to deal with the actual implications of genetic information, according to what we can quantify, and according to what we observe.

This is typical of the naturalist to claim to have the empirical data but then argue endlessly about qualitative values (subjective philosophical preferences) and ignore entirely quantitative supports (science).

[OldEnglishSheepdog]

You'll notice that the survival advantage evolution speaks of is "natural selection", not one species hunting and trying to destroy another one to extinction. I don't think you've read much on evolution.

You're kidding, right?

As a naturalist i.e. someone who believes that all there is is nature, aren't we a part of nature, since it's the only fabric of your worldview?

And what does that mean that I haven't read too much on evolution? You by 'evolution' do you mean 'speculation'?

What scientific data could you use to support that natural selection doesn't include selective pressure from one species on members of it's own species?

Wolf packs kill each other off.

Male lions and tigers eat the young of their rivals.

Are you even thinking about your responses anymore, or are you just trying to undermine my points with passive-aggressive innuendo since you can't deal with the data?

Because in our society we have the means to take care of the sick and weak. Do you think that if the planet was nearly destroyed by a meteor that people would be looking out for the elderly or disabled?? No, the few humans left would be trying to survive.

This is the 'is-ought' fallacy, followed by... I dunno, the meteor fallacy?

I've got to run, but really Stargaze I think you've just shut off and are arguing for the sake of defending your point, right or wrong.

You're bringing nothing to the table expect thinly vieled insults.

[OldEnglishSheepdog]

You're missing a key point, it's not like we got the flu and the chimps have a touch of the same flu. This virus has embedded it's genetic code into the host however long ago in the past. There are two possibilities, the one that you suggest which is so unlikely it's comical or what makes absolute sense from a biological standpoint.

No Stargaze, what's comical is that you claimed that genetics supposts evolution, and yet all you've got is an instance of the fallacy of affirming the consequent, like I said.

The following comes from the article you linked "Creationists and intelligent design advocates like to think that because some ERVs have useful functions in the human genome, they must have been deliberately put there by a creator / designer with that particular purpose in mind. Of course, no-one can explicitly prove that that is incorrect - it's not a falsifiable hypothesis, and therefore it's not science."

If some supposed ERV's have useful functions so then they can be interpreted to actually be a valid part of a design instead of damage from an ERV, which the article fully admits cannot be demonstrated to be incorrect - so we interpret the usefulness of the commonality one way and you guys interpret commonality apart from the usefulness because you think destructive forces can consistently produce useful outcomes. Fine.

The funny thing is, while our interpretation is not a flasifiable hypothesis... guess what - neither is yours.

That's the point I've been trying to make.

Since our interpretation is not science because it's not falsifiable, then your interpretation is not science either as neither is it falsifiable.... so you have no scientific case, only a double standard.

So, I don't care about how you interpret the data. It's not falsifiable so we simply differ on our interpretation, neither one of us can falsify the interpretation of the other, hence the reason I've been too bored to get into the nitty-gritty details on this with you because as I've been telling you from the get go, this is simply a fallacy of affirming the consequent.

Whereas I have not been pretending that the creationist interpretation of this data is evidence itself.

What I have been pointing to is an actual, quantitative problem with which evolution cannot deal based on simple, straight-forward observable, repeatable measures.

Stargaze, please tell me that you finally understand. It couldn't get any clearer.

You're calling your non-falsifiable hypothesis science because you have a double standard, and you can't deal with the science I present because evolution isn't equipped to deal with the facts.

The dragon is not breathing fire, but simply contradictory rhetoric.

It would be comical that you seem to think you're making some kind of a valid point here, but this is just so weak it's sad that once again while claiming to look to the evidence the naturalist retreats to philosophical fallacies while the creationist wants to look at the science.

[MorningGlory]

Stargaze, you JUST a few minutes ago wrote that the fossil record is irrelevant. And I quote:

What 50 foot firebreathing dragon? Genetics only cements the foundation for the Creator....you do realize that, right?

In order to show evidence of common descent we do not need the fossil record, we have genetics that give us enough evidence of this. I'm not saying the fossil record is useless...merely that it's not needed to show that we share a common ancestor with other primates. If you don't understand this after reading it, it's evidently over your head.

There is absolutely nothing you can say or post that is over MY head......but you're welcome to try. It would seem that you need to work on your articulation and mastering the art of actually answering what's put to you (like the bolded sentence above). You would probably attract more notice that way.

[OldEnglishSheepdog]

I'm not an expert in the matter but I would think that if we found these same ERV's in a species of animal that is not closely related to us [non mammal] then it would truly throw a wrench into things.

I don't see why. That would just be said to demonstrate how far back the ERV started, since we all supposedly originated from the same single celled organism way back.

Someone had actually challenged the author with the same argument you did. Here is the dialogue:

From someone named Stuart

You dismiss arguments from design with an 'it's not a falsifiable hypothesis, and therefore it's not science.' If you will permit me to say it however, your just so story is also not falsifiable. You assert: Some insertions are shared between humans and mice and represent truly ancient viral infections. But you actually have no evidence that there ever was such an infection as you suppose. It is an inference - it may be a valid inference - from the appearance of similar sequences in the two genomes, but it is not the only valid inference that can be taken. Your assertion and your inference are not falsifiable and are therefore, on your own terms, no more science than you claim the ID inference is.

Her response:

Stuart arcs:

Welcome! I'm glad you've realised that I'm happy to (rationally) debate other points of view.

The main counter argument to your POV is that it makes things so much more complicated. Given that we can observe modern day retroviruses inserting with patterns that are identical to those of ancient ERVs (see this blog for the example of the mouse mammary tumour virus), and given that we have a very good understanding of the mechanisms that generate point mutations, I really don't see the need to bring in a designer who inserts sequences that look like retroviruses and in some cases produce retroviral proteins, and who comes up with ever so slightly different sequences for them that perform the same function in different species.

I know that in some complex cases a designer can seem to make things easier to understand, but when the underlying mechanisms are so well understood, why create a scenario where you suddenly have to answer so many new questions?

In either case you have to answer so many new questions.

For evolution the whole issue of irreducible complexity demonstrates how naturalisms' explanations beg tons of questions.

Once again, this is simply a double standard, and he's not on any level demonstrating that his hypothesis is falsifiable, so this is a red herring fallacy anyways.

e.g. what is the nature of the designer? Who/what designed the designer? Who/what designed the designer's designer? And so on.

I’m sorry but those questions are stupid.

In order to know that an explanation is the best you don’t need an explanation of the explanation.

If you find an arrowhead you know it was carved by some person, regardless of how little you know about the person.

The argument from design does not target the attributes of the designer.

I have arguments that do so in a powerful way but to imply that an argument for design is not successful unless it reveals the characteristics of the designer is simply stupid.

[OldEnglishSheepdog]

You say:

"You claimed to have made and had tested a falsifiable prediction, but all that was demonstrated was that one sequence which did a particular job was a good as a different sequence which did a similar or the same job."

I know I wrote a very long post initially - if brevity is the soul of wit, then I am a half-wit. But I think you've mixed up two different parts of it. My falsifiable hypothesis did not refer to the different sequences of the ERV promoter in different primates. Here's my original statement:

"I hypothesised that the ERV was only allowed to persist (that is, its meddling in gene regulation didn't kill the first organism in which it inserted, which was therefore able to pass the insertion on to its offspring) because the incoming ERV promoter behaved in a very similar way to the original host cell's gene promoter."

The falsifiable hypothesis was that the original host cell's gene promoter behaved in a similar way to the incoming ERV promoter. I wasn't able to identify the original promoter (looking in the wrong tissue - d'oh!) but another group did. It had the same patterns of activity, and bound the same regulatory proteins, as the ERV promoter. That is specifically what I was referring to.

OK, here’s the bait and switch fallacy I was telling you that someone sold you on.

The falsifiable part is not relevant to the question at hand because what he’s submitting to falsification is not the hypothesis that ERV’s occurred in a common ancestor of humans and other primates. So he’s saying here that the falsifiable hypothesis is different from the hypothesis that that ERV’s occurred in a common ancestor of humans and other primates, for which creationists have a competing (also non-falsifiable) hypothesis.

So right, your point remains not science just as our does and only confirms exactly what I told you… that someone sold you a double standard through a bait-and-switch fallacy.

See how my prediction came true? I made a falsifiable statement about how and why you were in error and the evidence strongly confirms my hypothesis – that’s how science is done, son.

Elsewhere in my original post I said: "What we can show is that ERVs provide evidence in support of the theory of evolution".

Notice the difference?

He’s not saying that the hypothesis that the similarities in the human and other primate genomes are a result of ERVs is falsifiable, just that ERV’s can be used to support for the theory of evolution (which he undoubtedly defines as simply a change in allele frequency, and I fully agree that a change of that calibre is supported).

It’s a slight of hand (bait-and-switch) that’s done by slippery semantics, but the point is that the hypothesis that you were positioning as evidence that humans and chimps have a common ancestor is not falsifiable.

Please note that I did not say evidence of evolution, I said evidence in support of the theory of evolution.

See, at least he has integrity enough to level with you at the end.

You told us that genetics provides evidence of evolution, and this guy’s not so bold. All he’s saying is that by affirming the consequent you’re not disconfirming the possibility that ERV’s explain the similarities between humans and other primates, which is exactly what I said in the first place.

There is lots of it. In contrast, I have never seen any evidence in support of the theory of intelligent design. As I said, you can not prove a negative.

That’s funny. If he’s never seen support for ID it’s because he’s willfully blind, but of course you can prove a negative.

There are no living elephants on my desk right now. I’m not a single celled organism. This guy’s arguments are not good. These are all things that are demonstrably proven negatives.

But if I had to gamble every single thing I own, I would bet that there is no designer

Tragically, as we see from Pascal’s Wager, he is gambling every single thing and his willful ignorance will not be an excuse when it’s time to pay up.

and that modern day species evolved from a common ancestor. And my poker buddies consider me to be a conservative gambler, easily intimidated by a $2 bet...

And I’ll raise...

[MorningGlory]

You either

have reading comprehension issues or it was over your head.

No reading comprehension issues here and, as I said, YOU are not able to post anything that is over my head. Incomprehensible babble to me, maybe, but not over my head.

If our genome is evidence of a Creator, then this creator was a fumbling, tinkering, being that struggled to design things. We eat and drink through the same pipe that we breathe with....good job Jesus.

How insulting to the Lord; duly reported.

It's a cycle that will continue until people stop trying to place myths on the same pedestal as science, that works ok under the steeple but not with people who are concerned with evidence and reason.

Who would that be?

[OldEnglishSheepdog]

We have two options OES, that evolutionary theory is correct and the several ERV's we share with Chimps is due to genetic inheritance, or "God put it there". Either we have the exact same cytochrome C protein sequence with Chimps due to shared traits of a common ancestor, or "God put it there". To be honest, I'm still surprised that you suggest that we were created with virus remnants built into our genome, I've NEVER heard that from anyone before.

You're right, just like you're not hearing it now.

That the cytochrome C protein sequence is virus remnants is not proven.

Or the idea that we primates can't internally synthesis vitamin C, is that part of our intended design? Or is this due to mutation?

Could be a number of things. I can't be bothered to look into it because it's not a scientific question because it's not falsifiable.

You introduced this as an argument from genetic evidence, so this is supposed to be a scientific discussion, so if we're going to have a meaningful discussions we have to start speaking on things that we can actually observe, quantify and therefore extrapolate.

I think scientists have done a better job answering these questions than creationists have.

And yet they're not scientific questions by the definition you provide.

Once again, what you're labelling science is not science and I'm bringing to the table a problem for your non-scientific interpretation which you're refusing to entertain.

As I pointed out earlier, it is the Creationist who wants to examine the science and the Naturalist who wants to dwell on subjective interpretations.

[OldEnglishSheepdog]

We have two options OES, that evolutionary theory is correct and the several ERV's we share with Chimps is due to genetic inheritance, or "God put it there". Either we have the exact same cytochrome C protein sequence with Chimps due to shared traits of a common ancestor, or "God put it there". To be honest, I'm still surprised that you suggest that we were created with virus remnants built into our genome, I've NEVER heard that from anyone before. Or the idea that we primates can't internally synthesis vitamin C, is that part of our intended design? Or is this due to mutation?

I think scientists have done a better job answering these questions than creationists have.

QFT

I'd also like to point out our fused chromosome #2; either we have a common ancestor with the non-human great apes, or God decided to give us a fused chromosome from the beginning.

I don't at all see how you figure, D-9.

Humans are the only ones who have those chromosomes fused, so it's not indication of common ancestory, and we don't know what fused them or at what point, or even if there's something advantageous about having them fused.