Evolution: Genetic Evidence - Endogenous RetroVirus

[darkfur35]

evolution makes me fart.......evolution is silly.

[oneznzeroz]

Wow this video explained ERV's so well a creationist could understand it.

[WolverineNauru]

As a creationist, I believe this video is misleading to claim ERV proves Evolution! Show me a live human with an ERV rewritten genome (an evolved human). Some has ERV5 some has not? Does this set of genome exist today? Show me & I'll change faith as a creationist to Intelligent Designer (not Natural Selection) Furthermore if such complexity exists, did the big bang write these DNA? Is evolution merely MAGIC not science? ie. Nothing.. Bang!.. Complex Universe.. complex DNA sequences.. wow magic!

[Casshyr]

Creationists: did you guys actually watch this video??? I'm looking at your comments and none of them address ErV...is your purpose here only to spread your shitty gospel?? jeebus!

[acolony22]

@troyboulay. Lol. The dinosaurs were real. People drew pictures of them before they were discovered. Dragons are believed to be myth. People drew pictures of them. See the difference? Your comment was idiotic. Can't compare things that don't match. One was real. One supposedly isn't. Got it moron? People, please make good arguments. Your just making me sound really smart.

[HConstantine]

@acolony22 Making you sound really smart would require one of the world's great rhetoricians. I'm afraid your interlocutor wasn't up to the task--Lincoln or Cicero wouldn't have been up to the task. Quit lying about the dinosaurs and you won't look like such an ass.

[mouthyweasel]

It's academic now. Iron-clad as anything can be. Persisting in evolution denial is now tantamount to campaigning for belief in a flat-earth. In other words, you'd have to be some sort of lunatic crackpot to keep whining for creationism.

[acolony22]

Plus, aids, leukemia? They can be passed on to chimps other ways. Sorry evolutionists. Your still losing the battle. Besides, how could "prehistoric" man paint pictures of dinosaurs in caves if they've never seen them before? That right there proves your whole evolution religion wrong.

[troyboulay]

@acolony22 Well, how could the Chinese draw pictures of dragons if they've never seen them before.. so dragons must be real too. Since there are drawings of the flying spaghetti monster he must exist too, otherwise how could someone have drawn it .. you know, having not seen it. I keep telling myself that people can't be this stupid, and people keep proving me wrong.

[LukeScientiae]

@troyboulay Exactly, and in 1000 more years archeologists will be digging up our graves and artefacts and see that we had DVDs of aliens, zombies and all the rest. So will they be entitled to conclude that aliens and zombies were around now? @acolony22 shows us how creationism makes people believe that the weakest of arguments is actually valid and disproves huge swathes of science. That is a failure of the education system to teach kids to reason well enough early enough.

[HConstantine]

@acolony22 You didn't pay any attention to the video. What you are talking about AIDS and Leukemia, and them being passed to chimps through infection is totally off the point and shows you don't understand the issues involved. You don't seem to understand what an ERV is. Second of all, it is just a lie to say that there are cave paintings of dinosaurs. So you've displayed ignorance and lies. That will make you argument look good, won't it?

[HConstantine]

@acolony22 Also, you've taken up the recent fashion of calling evolution a religion (which is a lie so fantastic no one could believe it). What this reveals is that you recognize that your own position, based on religion, is weak and lacks the explanatory power of science, you're tired of being reminded of the fact, and just decided to throw it back in the face of your accusers, despite it not making any sense. it's what a 6 year old would do on the playground.

[ScootyPuffJr1212]

@acolony22 At this point in our history we have come to know many things about how the world works, including biology. There are many examples like the one in this video and much evidence to support the theory of evolution, as well as the scientific community backing it.

Now tell me, how can a rational thinking person reject all of this and instead take one of the many creation stories (that were told thousands of years ago by people ignorant of most of what we now know) as literal truth?

[MrIhaveacat]

@acolony22 umm. actually ur just a religious fanatic

[omlas6]

@acolony22 evolution is real and its proven, your argument is invalid, get back in the closet

[acolony22]

Ancestors****

[acolony22]

Haha. This is ridiculous. Anything that is evidence for common ancestry can also be used as evidence for common creator. Also this whole thing is based upon the assumption that the retroviruses are passed on only by their descendants.

[HConstantine]

@acolony22 Only if the creator is trying to make it look like common ancestry--only if he's trying to deceive. If you want to worship something like that, go ahead.

[drshamast]

Assumptions and imagination do not make weak hypothesis of evolution true..........

watch?v=4zK81Zti9BM&feature=ch­­annel_video_title

[OMGames13]

@drshamast "Weak hypothesis" proven by hundreds of scientists vs. magic. K bro, keep telling yourself that.

[Lemonz1989]

@drshamast ppsimmon's is an untruthful and closed minded person. He emphesizes scientific integrity, but bans all comments and ratings for his videos, EVEN when he tells "evolutionists" to answer his questions. He is not interested in finding the truth or doing research, he is only interested in cherry picking articles that support his views and mixes the hypothesis of abiogenisis with the theory of evolution. If he was scientific, then he would encourage critisism and debate.

[Lemonz1989]

@drshamast I compared to you don't "feel" about groups of people. Those are my opinions of him due to his actions. Those are not my opinions of "creationists" or "IDers", unless they act like him - like you currently are. I have the same opinions of "evolutionists" that say the same about scientific integrity but ban comments and debate. Science can't exist without scrutiny from others. If "creationists" can do (honest) research, then I will listen, but there just aren't any that I've seen.

[drshamast]

@Lemonz1989 Thank you for reply...you are opinionated and indoctrinated in hypothesis of evolution and from your comments I can see you have not done your research. I was a supporter of evolution but after seeing overwhelming evidence now I'm a supporter of ID. Good luck in your Faith in Weak hypothesis of Evolution.Open your eyes and think. Is it you opinion? or is it adaptation to your academic environment ? or is it that you think you may not survive natural selection of Majorities Ideas?

[Lemonz1989]

@drshamast I was raised in a Christian home, went to church and Sunday School, but I rejected the notion of religion because I don't think it makes sense (to me at least). I was against evolution in the past, because my peers required it of me, so I went on the typical religious crusade to "disprove" it, and started to study it. Lo and behold, I started to see it made more sense than my religious indoctrination did. So yes, I know I can survive the "majorities ideas", since I went against it.

[drshamast]

@Lemonz1989 The only people who stagnate science are foolish evolutionists and atheists. The very fact that science uses logic and assumes intelligible universe, shows intelligence and design, otherwise nothing would make sense in scientific thinking. The fact that a scientist wants experiments and wants to discover an intelligible law of the universe or the design of a living organism makes ID the true sience in scientific thinking. You need to do more research for yourself.

[Lemonz1989]

@drshamast Even if there was an intelligent creator(s) we can still understand how it works. Evolution by definition doesn't rule out any natural or supernatural creator, even though I reject the notion. We just don't know for sure yet. Science isn't supposed to assume anything, even if people are naturally inclined to do so. Also, what is logical now doesn't have to be logical in the future, and physics is already pushing that boundery with quantum mechanics. Logical, after all, is learned.

[drshamast]

@Lemonz1989 "Science isn't supposed to assume anything, even if people are naturally inclined to do so" If you believe in what you just said than weak hypothesis of evolution has a lot of Assumptions. without these assumptions it doesn't even Compute. Darwinian Evolution Is not Based on Fact But it is based On many Assumptions.

[Lemonz1989]

@drshamast Parts of it are hypotheses, but not all of it. Even if one part is wrong then there are other's that probably aren't, and if there are parts that are wrong, then you look for other explanations. There probably isn't a make all, break all discovery for evolution. That's why you don't "prove" scientific hypotheses, you "validate" them. It can still work, even if it isn't complete - just like the theory of general relativity isn't complete, we can still use it.

[drshamast]

@Lemonz1989 Congratulation that was the first comment you made that made scientific sense. we creationists take weak hypothesis of evolution for what it is ,not as a fact there are some fact in it. for example , genetic recombination , but when you guys want shaw down so called beneficial mutation and Speciation a process by which new biological species arise as fact that is when I say you should separate the fact form fiction.Look there are many assumptions that you guys call facts

[Lemonz1989]

@drshamast It only makes more sense to you, because it seems to agree with you a bit more. Speciation has been observed in both laboratory experiments with selective breeding, producing sterile hybrid offspring where there were fertile before, and natural speciation has been observed (especially often in plants) and animals. You only need to the read the papers. One example of beneficial mutation in humans is lactase persistence which has multiple origins around the world.

[drshamast]

@Lemonz1989 I sure you think that you have a valid point but let me tell you ,my position differently! I don't think simple organism like Amoeba are changed to more complex Animal just with time and physical laws Without Intelligent Factor.B/c of that I say Darwinian evolution is mathematically impossible.

[Lemonz1989]

@drshamast The intelligent factor isn't scientific. We can't make such a claim without some sort of evidence, and we don't have that evidence. It might seem we "have" to have something intelligent directing it, but then it begs the questions - where or what is it, and where did it come from? It's pointless to speculate about it and say you "believe it must be so", and instead modify evolution or whatever if we ever find something like that. The Theory of Evolution is a very useful tool as is.

[drshamast]

@Lemonz1989 "where or what is it" ....That statement is Not Logical .The Question" Where and what' Does not refute existence or necessity of intelligence factor. I say, It's pointless to speculate or use assumptions and mathematically impossible for Evo. Forensic Science is good to see for intelligence cause vs accidental cause, that you can use To look and see if ID does make sense But I think your mind is so closed and indoctrinated that will not let you see any other way of thinking!!

[Lemonz1989]

@drshamast Yes it is logical. We don't know if there is a necessity for anything intelligent. It's the same as saying "you deny God, but that doesn't refute his existence". No it doesn't, but it doesn't prove that he exists either. Evolution isn't mathematically impossible, as I wrote in the post you conveniently chose to ignore. Besides, forsenics isn't accepted as a science in the scientific community, since it hardly uses any scientific principles. Lol, I'm the indoctrinated one? :p

[drshamast]

@Lemonz1989 " forensics isn't accepted as a science in the scientific community" we are going back to so call scientific community let the so call politcal non elect do the thnking for you.

[Lemonz1989]

@drshamast That depends on how you define "more complex"? Evolution Through Natural Selection isn't a mathematical impossibility, since we have computer models to predict future changes in organisms. Especially in the medicinal industry. Computer models work on matematics. Also, mathematics is a formal science, and doesn't always translate well into the natural world. You have proof in mathematics, while you don't in natural sciences.

[drshamast]

@Lemonz1989 did you check how many assumption were put in to the computer?

[Lemonz1989]

@drshamast "Logic", I mean... It's late here... :P

[Lemonz1989]

@drshamast Also, even if evolution is partly or even completely wrong, that doesn't validate that anything was designed - and if you can validate that it was designed, then how do you prove who designed it and how he/she/it/they designed it? If evolution is wrong, then science will venture in another direction, trying to unlock life's secrets. If you just reject it and say it was designed, then you aren't scientific and you have your answer - which makes that branch of science stagnate.

[iliveon]

Smithsonian, princeton, harvard, cambridge, pbs all have evolution departments. All creationists fail. and all paleontology societies support evolution. Just look up "paleontological society evolution"

[CarboniteRezinBones]

MY main problem with evolution is that all these videos are just 3-d images.No actual footage of what they are talking about.That and to many "if that happened then this must also" or "if you imagine that this is that well then of course"...

Where is some real proof not just some disney video of genomes on a computer?

[troyboulay]

@CarboniteRezinBones The proof is actually just evidence. There is no "proof" per say in the same way that there is proof that 2+2=4. The reason why they talk about "if this is what happened" ; "then we'd expect to see that" is because they're demonstrating why it's a scientific theory. It allows you to say, "fine if evolution is true, then 'thing x' had to have happened; let's devise a test and see if it did."

(continued below)

[troyboulay]

@CarboniteRezinBones

This problem is that it isn't simple. You can't reproduce the experiment in your kitchen with a potato, a penny and a nickle like you can for other concepts. But Evolution isn't alone there, Atomic theory is the same, yet it isn't questioned. People understand that they may not be able to understand how we know the exact numbers of protons in the nucleus of an atom, and yes, only computer graphics can be used to demonstrate it, but it is still accepted as true.

[CarboniteRezinBones]

@troyboulay "People understand that they may not be able to understand how we know the exact numbers of protons in the nucleus of an atom, and yes, only computer graphics can be used to demonstrate it, but it is still accepted as true. "--Thats the same claim Atheists make against Creationists.That they except Jesus as the truth,without actually talking to him..Just an observational comparison to facts about peoples reasons for believing or not believing what they do...

[Monkeyman3Dz]

@CarboniteRezinBones

Computer graphics aren't the "only" thing to show the number of protons in a an atom. We use scientific measurements to create data which absolutely proves how many proton a certain atom contains. Computer graphics are there to demonstrate the data which wouldn't be in an attractive or visual display which would allow people outside the Scientific field to understand what was taking place. This is completely differant from Christians who have NO data to support them.

[troyboulay]

@CarboniteRezinBones

In other diciplines people understand that some people know more than them, when these people "prove" something, other people (who know more than the public on the given subject) will check their work and expose any mistakes they've made. This is science and evolution is no different. Only with evolution people who know nothing, feel comfortable in saying "I don't believe in evolution..." then turn around and suggest that the alternative is simply ... magic.

[CarboniteRezinBones]

@troyboulay I never said that evolution was false(as far as I can remember).Also it doesn't disprove a GOD.

3rdly Your misuse of the word magic is implying you either do not know its definition or you do not like people who do have a deity.

[HConstantine]

@CarboniteRezinBones He sued it correctly. when god said, let there be light, and there was light, etc. it means that speech becomes reality in the physical world. That is precisely what magic is. And ti doesn't work outside of the human imagination.

[BobUnderhill]

@CarboniteRezinBones

You try making videos of nanometer-wide cells.

[CarboniteRezinBones]

@BobUnderhill true dat

[drshamast]

@CarboniteRezinBones you are totally right only simple minded fool takes this video as a fact .

Psalm 14:1

The fool says in his heart, “There is no God.”

They are corrupt, their deeds are vile; there is no one who does good

[CarboniteRezinBones]

This is horrible.

If we evolved from our"Cousin" we would get all the same virus's not just a few.

[troyboulay]

@CarboniteRezinBones

Some people are immune to AIDS. Some Caucasian men have a genetic mutation that means their cells lack one of the molecular hooks that HIV latches on to, meaning they cannot be infected. If one of my If my uncle's son had been born with this mutation he would not have the ability to become infected with all the same virus's as me.

we split from our common ancestor with Chimps around 2million years ago, 2 million years is a lot of time for genetic differences to happen.

[CarboniteRezinBones]

@troyboulay That is acceptable.However the fault I find with this evolution is that it is being used by new agers as some sort of "evolutionary consciousness enlightenment:.Which is complete bull,even religion itself along with physics denotes that energy cannot be created or destroyed.Same for the souls ideal.Thus this type of evolution is boguss.Change is inevitable.That aside did you know aids is man made?(Genetically altered for to profit off the suffering of the mass's by pharma elitists)

[troyboulay]

@CarboniteRezinBones As far as the new agers and 'evolutionary consciousness enlightenment' ; I agree. But it's hardly evolution that's at fault, any more than E=mc2 is "at fault" for a child being disintegrated just before lunch on Aug. 9th 1945. Facts and Probability are all I care about when it comes to truth. And I try to remain as consistent as I possibly can. ie.. if I accept the probability that a DNA match is right in court, then the same is true for a DNA match in Evolution.

[CarboniteRezinBones]

@troyboulay Glad to see an Atheist not blinded by Darwinism.

Yet as an ATheist I must examine all arguments.My question to you is-How does evolution disprove Intelligent design?@nd I find it imposing that the creationist argument can make its way into every single theory about biology & physics.Without the simple phrase"Deity did it".I have heard read really,allot of arguments that reasonably infer a deitys existence.It has been tested by every human who contemplates it.

[troyboulay]

@CarboniteRezinBones It doesn't disprove intelligent design. Evolutionary biology has nothing to say about intelligent design. Evolution is simply the natural explanation that we have the most evidence for. My biggest question towards intelligent design is what is it's predictive capabilities? For instance Antibiotic resistant bacteria Natural selection explains perfectly why it happens. What would intelligent design have to say about this process. Is there any test we could do to prove it.

[CarboniteRezinBones]

@troyboulay A creationist would say that all mutations are the preset reactionary components,as in all interactions between various organism is planned.Like poop being flammable,because of its elemental make up.

You can test this by incinerating some cells with fire,yup they still burn.

Interesting thought:Evolution doesn't disprove I.D. but I.D. disproves evolution(not the organic functions but the original causation of the ability to mutate).

[HConstantine]

@troyboulay It would have to predict that god is constantly tampering with diseases to make them more difficult for us to treat--oh wait, whenever evolution can be directly observed they admit it happens. How convenient for them.

[itzahazylife]

@CarboniteRezinBones

"How does evolution disprove Intelligent design?"

evolution occurs via blind, unintelligent natural processes. evolution doesn't really disprove intelligent design, it just makes the supposed designer out to be deceiving, because why would an intelligent designer use unintelligent processes to construct his creations?..basically, if mere unintelligent process can result in life, why is a transcendent intelligence even necessary?

[CarboniteRezinBones]

@troyboulay Hey,I didn't mean your video sucked,I meant the acceptance of 3-d images as concrete evidence for a claim in general.The video itself is actually ok.

[PlasteredDragon]

@CarboniteRezinBones the phylogenetic layout of ERV's can be confirmed by yourself by accessing other forms of media than this one video. What's the problem?

[Naiant]

ERVs are, to my mind, the most impressive piece of evidence in favor of evolution. They are one more nested hierarchy, with no rational explanation other then common descent. Thanks for this video which explains them simply and clearly.

[koitheawesome]

I don't want to get involved in some retarded argument between creationism and evolution, but I think that the two aren't mutually exclusive. On the one hand, there is good evidence to support genetic links between different species, and on the other hand, the world is still a big box of mysteries and unanswered questions. Even if science proved everything, we can still just as easily praise God for the miracle of science.

[dragoon414]

he says "only by those species with a common ancestor" but thats a contradiction because according to the chart were all from the same original source.....Evolution has never failed to contradict itself, not once.

[dragoon414]

I would like to know where this guy thinks these ERVS came from...lol

[dragoon414]

the random chance of amino acids forming into a protein(essential to all life) without the instruction of DNA is about the same odds as shaking a big box with all the parts of a boeing 747 and having them randomly fit together and then having the key land in the ignition and then your stll stuck with no ability to turn the key...

[dasgregorian]

The fact that we see 30,000 endogenous retroviruses in human DNA, of which 7 are shared with SOME other primates is certainly not "a nail in the coffin" of creation. Assuming these retroviruses came from a common ancestor, this means from the beginning of evolution until this common ancestor... we got 7. And since the split between primate and man... we got 29,993 more.

See a problem in the rate there?

[dasgregorian]

Yes, If there were only 1, and we happened to share it, that would be interesting. If there were only 7 and we shared ALL 7... that would be VERY strong evidence. But the fact that only 7 out of 30,000 match up implies nothing more than coincidence.

[dragoon414]

@dasgregorian lol he wont respond to this because hes dumbfounded

[HConstantine]

@dasgregorian Your misunderstandings aside, how do you explain even a single shared ERV between humans and chimps without a common ancestor?

[BrophyBass]

The bible clearly sais that mankind and animals started living shorter lives which is a dyrect result of getting viruses as well as just simply not having as good of an immune system lol. Point in case there should be trillions of transitional fossils but there isnt a single one not to mention cambrian life litterally popped out of nowheres with sponge spores preserved underneath it so we know the layers were suitable to preserv soft & small life forms but there is zero transitional fossils HAHA

[Thunderios]

@BrophyBass I call you a troll.

[ytgv3fc7]

@BrophyBass There's at least a dozen transitional fossils found, you are blind to say otherwise.

[dragoon414]

@ytgv3fc7 lol 12 is hardly enough to call them transitional fossils...you would need over 100,000 to even come close to saying they could be transitional fossils, considering the amount of species still alive today...

[ytgv3fc7]

@dragoon414 12 is MORE than enough for EACH such situation. ONE is enough for ONE transition. Period. The structure is CLEAR-CUT and in many cases you can still get DNA out of them. It's tricky but it can be done. You lose. Again. Evolution INCLUDING speciation is a 100% proven fact OBSERVED LIVE TODAY in species of orchids, birds and bees too. 100% recorded, proven fact only a BLIND MAN could not see. Willfully blind screaming LA-LA-LA-LA NO-SEE-IT

[ClamCrunchy]

@ytgv3fc7 Absolutely, the evidence for evolution is unmistakable. Anyone who has studied the evidence in some depth or had it explained to them will see evolution is an absolute fact.

[HConstantine]

@dragoon414 All fossils are transitional fossils, idiot, and the discrete fossil lineages of horse, whale, birds, humans, and countless other animals are well known.

[HConstantine]

@BrophyBass Keep lying: that is what your god loves.

[omaritorxs123]

but, couldn't evolution be the answer to how not why?



[Nickname727]

It seems that some individuals here assume that the statement 'There are at least seven distinct instances of identical retrogene insertions shared between chimps and humans' is enough to say "see it's all a lie, only 7?". According to a study by Palle Villesen, Lars Aagaard and some more, there were 7832 HERVs found on the human genome (H stands for Human). Furthermore, far the majority of research done on ERVs is on the human genome.

[Nickname727]

That's why it's not a wonder they didn't find that many similarities. Besides millions of years the genomes of both chimpanzees and human have been exposed to mutations, deletions etc.,which makes it much harder to find the similarities.

Just for the record, I couldn't find any journal describing 7 identical ERVs. I'm not sure if he got that from a reliable source. It wouldn't surprise me if there were way more similarities known by now.

[mysql0]

Congratulations to this video for successfully debunking the plague known as Christianity, and the many tens of thousands of other BS belief systems. (Christianity and Scientology etc, being the most modern religions, when we look at the full scale spectrum of human belief systems)

[LongFingered]

...GEE nome......it's pronounced GEE NOME. XD lol

[wintershins]

you must like viruses a lot....^_^

[BrophyBass]

All this shows is that animals have acquired different viruses over time. It wouldent be beyond the scope of reallity to think that mammals can acquire the same viruses universally. They say millions of years I say Noah's Flood.

[kusalaviro]

@BrophyBass But it's the PATTERN that we see. Our closer relatives share more ERV's in common with us and it decreases as we move away. Plus, there are over 3,5 billion bases for the viruses to lodge in. What's the chance they are all gonna lodge in the same place as if to 'look like' evolution is true. You seem to not understand the extent or the implications of ERV's...

[dragoon414]

@kusalaviro when you say ALL your talking about 7 of 30,000 ? LOL

[kusalaviro]

@dragoon414 You're wrong with BOTH numbers there my friend. A clear indication that you ONLY read creationist literature. The research is ongoing with ERV's and many more are expected to be found. Also, the sequence of common ERV's that we observe between us and the other primates fits EXACTLY onto the phylogenic tree. World's biggest coincidence???

[Thunderios]

@BrophyBass Not different viruses. Out of the millions of places the ERVs could have inserted, they got at exactly the same spot in the reproductive cells of the common ancestor of two species. The chance that we would get the same insertions seperately is incredibly small. Also, animals that have split from our ancestral line longer ago have fewer common insertions. And Noah's Flood doesn't support the notion of thousands of viruses: they could not have survived in merely 2 animals per specie.

[dragoon414]

@Thunderios considering the 2 animals would contain all the prvious ERVs you are 100% wrong lol you just contradicted yourself

[HConstantine]

@BrophyBass Why isn't there any evidence of a genetic bottle neck in humans or any of the other plants and animals Noah would have had to carry? Where did the water come form and go? Why are there numerous cities that show continuous occupation for longer than 6000 years (more for more than 5000)? Oh, that's right. God cleaned up the crime scene (how many millions of people did he murder in the flood?) with magic. of course

[drshamast]

@AmurgAprins is not random comment

This video is a good Imaginatin not facts

[drshamast]

Good Immagination

[troyboulay]

@drshamast ah .. the spelling of a creationist.

[LetReasonPrevail1]

Endogenous RetroVirus evidence is the preverbial nail in the coffin of Creationists.

In spite of this, they go on spewing their fallacious bullshit or flat-out lies. Sad & pathetic, eh?

Thanks a bunch for sharing this video. It is amazing stuff.

Cheers

[AmurgAprins]

@drshamast What kind of a fucked up random comment is that ?

[96rorrim]

@drshamast

I know! I just hate all the imagination engaged by doctors and judges when they use the science of genomes and DNA to cure diseases and solve crimes & paternity suits!!! Can't they see that atheist-driven science is fake and from Beelzebub? No, because they don't have the Holy Spook channeling knowledge to them.

LOL! DENIAL MUCH??

[hugenex2000]

The more I hear about ERVs the more I wonder if you have ever done any genomic alignments of your own or picked up a medical journal in the past ten years or so. Think for yourself for a moment; over 30,000 Human ERVs and only seven identical in Chimp are mentioned yet HERVs have been identified as a mechanism for embryonic implantation, placental growth and stem cell differentiation. ERVs disprove evolution outright because without them there is no descent at all, common or otherwise.

[troyboulay]

@hugenex2000 "ERVs disprove evolution outright" .. That's funny enough on it's own, but "picked up a medical journal in the past ten years or so." and "Think for yourself for a moment" is rich coming from someone stupid enough to organize their lives around the screeds of a roaming band of ignorant illiterate, bronze age nomadic desert goat herders. I'm sorry, but if you 'believe' in anything supernatural you forfeit your right to question observable reality. moron.

[troyboulay]

@hugenex2000 Actually, sorry you don't forfeit your 'right to question', you just forfeit your right to be thought of as anything other than an ignorant credulous fool who believes in things that are every bit as stupid as believing in unicorns and leprechauns.

[hugenex2000]

@troyboulay - Who exactly are you to say what my rights are or to say what I should or shouldn't believe? Can you tell me what and where the HTLV-1 receptor is or on what chromosomes these coding sequences appear?

p.s. - An "ignorant credulous fool"? Now that's funny.

[hugenex2000]

@troyboulay - From an intellectual I would have expected at least one question so I rule out that you are an intellectual. ERVs disprove evolution specifically because universal common descent requires offspring and without ERVs there are no offspring. I have evidence for what I believe.

[HConstantine]

@troyboulay er...Iron Age merchants. not bronze age goat herders. they also lie about when and by whom their book was written .

[Atharkas]

@hugenex2000

Actually seven common ERV exclusively with the chimps, but the same shared with all other primates, the ones shared with all the mammals, the ones shared with all vertebrates and the ones shared with all eukaryote.

[DLSorrow]

this is crap the theory of evolution is a total waist of time that trys to prove God doesnt exist. there are traits that change over time but a human will always be human, a monkey will always be a monkey, and a rat will always be a rat. thats what all of those examples have always been. no matter what type of crap you can think of, it will never prove the truth wrong and the truth is God exist!!!

[troyboulay]

@DLSorrow You're right .. zeus does exist..

That's who you were talking about right?

[hudfadz]

@troyboulay

no I dont think he is talking about a God made up along pagan lines. He is talking about the creator, the one true God.

[troyboulay]

@hudfadz ah, the one true god, ok.. so lord Brahma, the creator. Understood.

[HConstantine]

@hudfadz Then not Yahweh? Because according to the bible he is part of a pantheon including EL, Asherah, Mot, and Yam, and host of lesser divine beings.

[DLSorrow]

@troyboulay no God as in Christ exist theres no REAL proof of evolution because is a dumb theory. all people that put down what i belive in shows so much evil. evil is the absence of God in someones heart like dark is absence of light. you would understand if youd let him save you. im not tellin you what to do im just asking you give it a chance because 1 more saved is always priceless and livingwith god in your heart is happier than believing in what isnt real and being lost to the true God.

[troyboulay]

@DLSorrow Ok, I'm going to answer you seriously. I cannot believe in god. "believing" is not something that I can force myself to do. I could pretend, but unfortunately I'm honest, and regardless of what I'd do or say to show that I believed, I'd know that I really didn't believe. Just put religion out of your mind for one second and Imagine that I tell you believe in fairies. Is there any amount of convincing that I could do to make you believe without evidence? That is how god is to me.

[Revurg]

@troyboulay You believe in the religion of Evodelusionism. Arguing creation versus evoldelusion is not an argument. Both are based on faith and belief. goto The Neutral Evolution Forum and get free of this.

[DLSorrow]

@troyboulay i feel sorry for you. when you know god you feel his presence, and god answers prayers. he answered mine. i just wish you could see that the evidence you seek isnt of this world.

[troyboulay]

@DLSorrow presumably your god made me this way. If he answers prayers why don't you ask him to reveal himself to me. The evidence I seek could easily be made part of this world if your god truly has the powers you believe. If you say that you feel his presence I have no reason to doubt your sincerity; you perhaps have very good reason to believe, however, a feeling you have is not reason for anyone else to believe just as my feeling for the color red doesn't mean you should feel the same.

[mysql0]

@DLSorrow 6000 years before Christ, the Sumerians talk of the Reptile Men (the Gods) flying down from heaven to Planet Earth and creating man in their own image. They called the first man 'Adamu'. And they called the land the 'Eh Den'. I wonder where the modern religion, Christianity, stole the Genesis story from :P

[itzahazylife]

@DLSorrow

evolution doesn't necessarily disprove god. but, it does disprove the story of adam and eve. but, since adam and eve is the literal story of how man originated, and the story of adam and eve is in the bible, and the bible is the supposed word of god, it kinda does weaken the idea that the christian god exists.

[TurboDally]

"no REAL proof of evolution"

Just as there's no REAL proof of the atomic germ theory? So the fact that there is a consensus amongst biological scientists in these fields, their experience means nothing to you?

"than believing in what isnt real"

I only believe in things which have been demonstrated to exist- objectively. Hence I don't believe in that which isn't real.

"god answers prayers. he answered mine."

What makes you so special that the prayers of a starving Ethiopian are of no worth?

[HConstantine]

@DLSorrow God in your heart? You mean he's like a parasitic worm? Ewww!

[HConstantine]

@DLSorrow Then you ought to go in fear of him smiting you for lying.

[Inferno067]

idk what to say except evolution isnt real.. its soo exaggerated.  i think. but im a christian and im not hold anything against " no- believers of Jesus Christ " but so stuff jus doesnt make since n everyine shud no that that science is only 50 percent accurate.

[troyboulay]

@Inferno067 Congrats. You've just exercised your right to be thought an ignorant fool.

[Airlightf]

I had not seen such stupidity like this one in my entire life.

[troyboulay]

@Airlightf care to be more specific, which facts do you dispute, and on what grounds?

[Airlightf]

@troyboulay Did you hear the stupidity about "an ancient creature " ?

[Airlightf]

@troyboulay Did you hear the stupidity about "an ancient creature " ?

[imperiumdiaboli]

@Airlightf Well, now I know who thumbed the video down. Would you mind explaining why this is stupidity? Or are you just personally offended by the prospect of this being true?

[ShalomYal]

I will show this to all my biology classes - thanks

[troyboulay]

@EvolutionNoEvidence "asked by scientists in a famous interview" .. care to be more specific. As for "new information arising by chance" Lenski's team has proven this is possible, specifically "an increase in complexity provided by a beneficial mutation", anyway, not that any of this matters, the "god bless" or as I prefer "god b less" at the end shows that actual facts mean nothing to you.

[EvolutionNoEvidence]

dont be silly

[patrickledford420]

@EvolutionNoEvidence did you not watch any of the videos? have you never looked up anything

[EvolutionNoEvidence]

@patrickledford420 i dont need to watch any of the videos, thousands of scientists who have degrees in science and evolution and Archaeology and have studied the subject there whole lives, some times 30 and 40yrs have walked away from the THEORY of evolution as the facts just DONT DONT AND DONT add up ,so go and talk to them and ask them if they havnt studied it,God Bless and kind regards

[patrickledford420]

@EvolutionNoEvidence i bet you can not name one thousand scientists (recent, not ones in the past that even beleived in alchemy) that denie evolution, and i bet ANY that you do name, have not even the slightest evidence against evolution. name ONE fact out of the millions that does not match evolution

[judoyodan]

@EvolutionNoEvidence, the level of willful ignorance needed to deny evolution is staggering.

This phenomena is clear evidence that religions, like christianity, are a bane to society and should be ridiculed out of existance.

[HConstantine]

@EvolutionNoEvidence Another lie? Who are they. I know you;ll point me to the list. The problem is, none on it is an evolutionary biologist.

[itzahazylife]

@EvolutionNoEvidence

u need a titanium chain wrapped around your neck and tied to a rocket full of hydrogen gas to pull your head out of the deep, dark, depths of your ass.

[DisturbingClown]

Great overview.

[fsami18]

whats the difference between the virus dna and human dna.that make us certain that it was a viral infection rather a silent gene

[NeoBongoism]

reverse transcriptase dna which allows the virus to make an RNA copy of itself, in a null form shows pretty conclusively that it was a retro virus especially when u have sequence f functional retrovirises for comparrison.

[STFUNOWlol]

@fsami18 : Because we know what the virus DNA looks like, I believe.

[fsami18]

i think u right cos there are some viral DNA sequence which corresponds with some junk DNA sequence that we have, so probably it was inserted back in time

but i dont know why they are silent

[fsami18]

i think u know this subject very well so can u explain why some genes become silent and dose the viral dna code for new virus and if not why not

thanks

[troyboulay]

The following is from another website, ie. these are not my words but the author explains it very well.

"Endogenous retroviruses are weird, but how they got into our genomes and what they mean, evolutionarily, isnt too hard to understand. A retrovirus has to not only accidentally infect a germ-line cell (sperm/egg), that particular egg/sperm has to successfully mediate fertilization, ... " (Cont. Below)

[troyboulay]

Cont...

"and where the retrovirus randomly inserts has to not cause trouble for the resulting offspring (cell cycle arrest, cancer, etc), for an endogenous retrovirus to form."

[orquidean1]

amaizing!!!

[troyboulay]

Ya, the retrovirus evidence is pretty solid. I really love the pseudo gene video, only like a minute long; so absolutely elegant and rock solid.