Is all TRUTH scientifically knowable?

[Scott J]

Originally posted by UTEOTW:
Do you care to explain what is wrong with this science? This material has all been peer reviewed. What did you find wrong with the papers that the reviewers missed?

When dealing with stuff like this, one has to be careful to mine for facts and recognize when the arguments shift from what was actually observed and recorded to suppositions determined by a TOE bias.

Maybe you would like to assert yourself into the discussion we have been having about ERVs and furnish a mechanism that explains the observations.

I posted a refutation from observation that two identical inserts could not independently take place.

 

[UTEOTW]

"I posted a refutation from observation that two identical inserts could not independently take place."

No you did not.

You posted about SINEs, a type of transposon. I was posting about endogenous retroviral inserts.

You also fail to realize that the same location is only one leg. The others are the same sequence AND the phylogenic trees from the patterns of mutation that consistently match each other and those from disparate means.

[ February 07, 2005, 05:08 PM: Message edited by: UTEOTW ]

 

[Scott J]

What is the proposed source for the inserts?

Once again, how many of these inserts are shared between humans and apes?

 

[Scott J]

BTW, I have read enough on the subject to know that these things aren't the clear and clean proof that you claim they are. You infer that there is a perfectly consistent model expressed in this- that does not seem to be the case from what I have read.

If you want to believe that a generalization can be made and that provides proof for common ancestory then that is your judgment. I won't follow that course without much better proof.

BTW, I don't necessarily reject common descent as a mechanism to explain this phenomenon other than in the case of humans. I do reject the notion that this proves common ascent however.

 

[UTEOTW]

"What is the proposed source for the inserts?"

Endogenous retroviral inserts. This is segments of viral DNA that have been inserted during infection.

"Once again, how many of these inserts are shared between humans and apes?"

http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/3/2714/10.html#000143

"BTW, Have you found the number of shared ERV inserts between men and apes? I would be interested in how many there are compared to those shared between apes species as well.

Again, the only one I have seen you post as shared between man and ape is the one effecting Vitamin C production. "

You are talking apples and oranges.

The vitamin C gene is an example of a shared pseudogene.

I have given a link to a paper that details twelve specific ERVs. My impression from what I have read is that there are on the order of magnitude of dozens of inserts that are unique to the apes.

Some of the ones in the paper are HERV-K HML6.17, HERVK-18, HERV-K(C4), RTVL-la, RTVL-Ha, RTLV-Hb, RTLV-H.

I can only remember coming across one insert that is in humans but not the other apes.

 

[UTEOTW]

Originally posted by Scott J:
BTW, I have read enough on the subject to know that these things aren't the clear and clean proof that you claim they are. You infer that there is a perfectly consistent model expressed in this- that does not seem to be the case from what I have read.

If you want to believe that a generalization can be made and that provides proof for common ancestory then that is your judgment. I won't follow that course without much better proof.

BTW, I don't necessarily reject common descent as a mechanism to explain this phenomenon other than in the case of humans. I do reject the notion that this proves common ascent however.

Then what else explains all the details?

The exact same inserts.

The exact same locations.

And, most importantly, the agreement between phylogenies generated from disparate sourses.

 

[Phillip]

Originally posted by UTEOTW:
This is why I have tried hard in the past to get you to come down on one side of the fence or the other. Either you think the world is young and the data shows it. Or you think the world is young and God made it appear to be the product of long term processes for some unknown reason. If the former, then we can get back to the data. If the latter, well we have nothing to discuss once you admit that everything supports OE yet you still reject it.

I have explained my position. I do not base it on my knowledge since it is not my major, however, I will say that the scientists that I have known over the years have shown me that proof of Old Earth is not necessarily true. Therefore, although SOME evidence seems to point towards old earth, some points towards young earth. So, the side of the fence I take is based on the only witness that we have, the witness we must believe and that is the Holy Scriptures. I do NOT believe they should be reinterpreted just because a scientist thinks he has evidence of a theory called evolution.

You keep making statements to the effect that evolution is fact and not theory. This is where brain-washing in universities occurs and is a result of such brain-washing.

God says he made the Earth in six days; I take his word for it and I don't try to reinterpret it to fit the facts.

Just like I told you earlier. If the science starts showing that Jesus is not the Son of God are you going to go with science or the Bible?

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by UTEOTW:
"I posted a refutation from observation that two identical inserts could not independently take place."

No you did not.

You posted about SINEs, a type of transposon. I was posting about endogenous retroviral inserts.

According to the same site Ex 21, ERV's are a type of transposon.

http://www.trueorigin.org/theobald1e.asp

 

[Glory2God]

De 29:29 The secret things belong unto the LORD our God: but those things which are revealed belong unto us and to our children for ever, that we may do all the words of this law.

Science can't even cure the common cold!! Leptons,Bayrons,Quarks,DeoxyribonucleicAcid, BIG DEAL!!!!

2Ti 3:7 Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.

Kinda' reminds me of all the bible correcters on the other threads.

 

[UTEOTW]

Originally posted by Scott J:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by UTEOTW:
"I posted a refutation from observation that two identical inserts could not independently take place."

No you did not.

You posted about SINEs, a type of transposon. I was posting about endogenous retroviral inserts.

According to the same site Ex 21, ERV's are a type of transposon.

http://www.trueorigin.org/theobald1e.asp </font>[/QUOTE]Here is a long page on just transposons. Please go read it.

http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultranet/BiologyPages/T/Transposons.html

You will find that ERVs and transposons are different things. Having said that, retroviruses have a gene called an integrase which is homologous to the transposases of DNA transposons in that it is what allows the insertion to take place.

You will also find that the SINEs that you posted about are a very special class of very short transposons. So from some SINEs perhaps showing a preference to certain areas you extend that to all transposons and then further to retroviral inserts. Seems a bit of a stretch.

 

[Scott J]

UT, I am basically willing to let this vein of debate settle with this:

You are biased toward evolution and naturalism. When it presents possibilities, you tend to favor them over explanations that ultimately rely on supernatural creation (or support creation) even when they are highly improbable or when no more possible than alternatives that don't support evolution.

I take the opposite tack. I favor Creationism and favor its explanations absent conclusive proof to the contrary... however, I am not dependent on probability but rather divine choice and will.

The naturalist has a conditioned negative response to answers that do not conform to naturalism. They cannot even be honestly considered.

I have presented you with alternatives that operating from your presuppositions might seem highly unlikely. That's understandable. However choice/will/design renders a 100% probability.

I find the things you propose as proofs highly speculative... and totally dependent on very unfavorable probabilities.

 

[Paul of Eugene]

Scott, I hope you never serve on a jury charged with convicting a truly guilty man, because you are capable of explaining away anything!

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by Paul of Eugene:
Scott, I hope you never serve on a jury charged with convicting a truly guilty man, because you are capable of explaining away anything!

Actually if you were on trial, you should hope for someone like me... that wouldn't just vote guilty because the prosecutor's theory sounded impressive and fit some of the known facts.

In fact, I would vote "not guilty" if I knew of an attempt by the prosecutor to suppress the presentation of alternative theories.

I am not attempting to explain anything away... but I won't be convinced by arguments that use the fallacy of limited alternatives either.

The Bible says "God created...". Many scientists recognize the characteristics of design throughout creation. Intelligence is the one known source for information/design.

Yet evolutionists would dismiss all of these things because they don't conform to the presuppositions of naturalism. That would be alot like arbitrarily limiting the suspect list to left handed people then interpretting all of the evidence to fit the assumed limitation... and then mocking anyone who suggests the criminal might be right handed.

Sorry but if you ever want me to give any more credence to the things you present than I do now... you will have to validate evolution's premise of (or even overwhelming preference for) naturalism. If you want me to "convict" then you will have to validate your premise, present a much more persuasive theory than you do now, then put forth a case of evidence that points to one conclusion to the exclusion of all others.

Otherwise, I will revert to the one Eyewitness who said He did it.

 

[Phillip]

Originally posted by Scott J:
Otherwise, I will revert to the one Eyewitness who said He did it.

I would certainly have problems disagreeing with this.

Scott, have you ever seen my "supernatural variable" vs. "bad science" question answered?

I haven't. They seem to run and hide when we debate from the grounds of Spiritualism and not scientific observation.

 

[UTEOTW]

"Scott, have you ever seen my "supernatural variable" vs. "bad science" question answered? []

I haven't. They seem to run and hide when we debate from the grounds of Spiritualism and not scientific observation."

I took a quick glance back through some of the recent threads and found at least a few attempts at answers to your question. So it is not true that no one has tried.

Ute
http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/3/2714/7.html#000099
http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/3/2714/11.html#000159

Deacon
http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/3/2730/8.html#000108
http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/3/2730/18.html#000257

Craigbythesea
http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/3/2710/19.html#000274

Benfranklin403
http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/3/2730/8.html#000106


And I recently left a question for you.

http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/28/3044/4.html#000045

 

[Phillip]

I appologize UTEOTW, I did will review these answers. and look at your question.

 

[UTEOTW]

There have been several of these threads going on at once, so it is not surprising to have missed a few. Even within each thread, there several different topics going on. The responses might not come immediately or they might be buried in the midst of other topics. And not everyone has responded, either. Just some.

BTW, congrats on achieving moderator status. Now you have to herd all of these discussions in addition to participate. Good luck and have fun.

 

[Phillip]

Thank you UTEOTW, I appreciate it.