Human ERV's Chimp ERV's

[tymygy]

Most of you reading this should know that Human DNA and Chimp DNA are very close. (roughly 98.5%, closer than horses and zebras)

And Along with this, when you match up both of our DNA you see that the ERV's (Endogenous Retro Virus') are in the exact same locations of both species.

Now ERV's are very random. VERY. they insert themselves in about 1% of the genome.

If you watch this youtube video at the bottom by my favorite Youtuber CDK007, he makes great points that it is almost impossible to have these ERV's in the same spots without evolution.

Creationists have almost no argument for this, and when they do squirt one out of their ass they have no proof,no evidence and it makes no sense.

So is there anyone that has anything to add to these ERV's? Like more genetic proof that creationists have no response too?


MAKE SURE AND WATCH THIS!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TUxLR9hdorI

[PoopShoot]

"But how do you know the viral insertions are random?"

Worst response ever.

[Thumpalumpacus]

The coagulation process in mammals is related in a similar manner to the antifreeze in cold-water fish.

[tymygy]

"But how do you know the viral insertions are random?"

Worst response ever.

Oh my god I know.

The ignorance of people.

[SSY]

"But how do you know the viral insertions are random?"

Worst response ever.

It's like saying "God buried the fossils to test us"

Also, thanks for posting that video, that chap got himself a new subscriber.

[tymygy]

It's like saying "God buried the fossils to test us"

Also, thanks for posting that video, that chap got himself a new subscriber.

Exactly...

But the worst thing is, I've actually heard creationists say that.  

[Ultima22689]

*sheds a tear*

That was beautiful. When  the bible thumpers use the test us argument I've tried pointing out their arrogance in simply claiming to know what God does and if we can't comprehend him how can they simply claim that he put those there to test us. It's worked once before, usually they just start shouting JESUS and walk away or they begin telling me how sorry they are for me.

[Ultima22689]

*sheds a tear*

That was beautiful. When  the bible thumpers use the test us argument I've tried pointing out their arrogance in simply claiming to know what God does and if we can't comprehend him how can they simply claim that he put those there to test us. It's worked once before, usually they just start shouting JESUS and walk away or they begin telling me how sorry they are for me.

[tymygy]

Yeah, science is just one big test. followed up by things like "evidence", and "fossils" all crafted by satan and his demons.

God put ERV's chimp and human DNA to confuse us and test our faith for him.

[pinkocommie]

Thanks for posting this.  

[joeactor]

I like it.  Very nice video... but ultimately futile.

If logical thinking and proof was all you needed to convince people, there wouldn't be an issue.

You're attacking magic with logic... NaGhannaDoIt!

... is it:
"Wow!  Look at those amazing odds!  Science must be right... Only a common ancestor would explain it!"
... or ...
"Wow!  Look at those amazing odds!  Science must be right... Only God could make something that improbable happen!"

Let's use "Occam's Electric Razor"... The simplest answer to understand is usually the correct one.
So, what's simpler?  Science+DNA+Evolution+Logic, or God?

Ah! There's the rub!

Off to shave,
JoeActor

[tymygy]

... is it:
"Wow!  Look at those amazing odds!  Science must be right... Only a common ancestor would explain it!"
... or ...
"Wow!  Look at those amazing odds!  Science must be right... Only God could make something that improbable happen!"

maybe if they weren't mind-raped as children in church they would understand and maybe except reality. But good point, no matter what scientists discover it is automatically added to the "god works in mysterious ways, so he must have done it" list.

[joeactor]

... is it:
"Wow!  Look at those amazing odds!  Science must be right... Only a common ancestor would explain it!"
... or ...
"Wow!  Look at those amazing odds!  Science must be right... Only God could make something that improbable happen!"

maybe if they weren't mind-raped as children in church they would understand and maybe except reality. But good point, no matter what scientists discover it is automatically added to the "god works in mysterious ways, so he must have done it" list.

Gotta remove the nonsense from childhood, and replace it with knowledge.
One without the other won't cut it.

Plenty of smart people just don't have the tools they need to work it out.

I had some very good teachers - in Catholic and public school both.  They made the difference.

[tymygy]

... is it:
"Wow!  Look at those amazing odds!  Science must be right... Only a common ancestor would explain it!"
... or ...
"Wow!  Look at those amazing odds!  Science must be right... Only God could make something that improbable happen!"

maybe if they weren't mind-raped as children in church they would understand and maybe except reality. But good point, no matter what scientists discover it is automatically added to the "god works in mysterious ways, so he must have done it" list.

Gotta remove the nonsense from childhood, and replace it with knowledge.
One without the other won't cut it.

Plenty of smart people just don't have the tools they need to work it out.

I had some very good teachers - in Catholic and public school both.  They made the difference.

Some religous people are smart enough, they just shun out everything that would make sense to an open minded person with the same amount of intelligence.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Let's use "Occam's Electric Razor"... The simplest answer to understand is usually the correct one.
So, what's simpler?  Science+DNA+Evolution+Logic, or God?

Ah! There's the rub!

Off to shave,
JoeActor

The word "usually" implies a statistical base.  Do you have one?  Has someone done a study on this?

Also, I'd disagree with your argument the the simplest argument "to understand" is usually correct on the factual level: by observation, A) a flat Earth is more understandable that a spherical Earth;  b) a static universe is more understandable than a dynamic universe; C) Hans the Counting Horse could actually count.  There are many more examples, with which I shall not bore you.  I reckon you get my point.

The simplicity of a theory isn't indicative of its truth-value unless explains the phenomena in a way that comports with reality.