Scientists Baffled-New Discoveries-Darwinian Evolution Crumbling-Scientists Abandon Theory

I will pray for you lost souls who have not God. Know this, life is not meaningless, death is not your end, the soul goes on. Time is of the essence, repent for your wickedness and accept Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior. Do not hesitate the sooner you do this the better it will be for you.

Look around, this universe of precise super symmetry that you study so intently, this simulated reality, this "real" MMO for your soul to play in was constructed by the ultimate mind. You may be confused due to the evil displayed on this plain of reality, but our earth has been taken over and violated by the prince of darkness satan/Lucifer. Do not lose hope, again death is not the end, escape your paradigm, you are not mere apes you are human beings conditioned by the illuminati to believe in evolution.
Transcend your pathetic weak foolish world view and ensure the future of your souls. They have scientifically proven that information can be teleported, this is what happens when you die. Your soul (an information packet) is moved into the afterlife. One thing is for sure, two things for

certain: Science as of yet cannot prove how life began, or what happens to a persons consciousness after they die...

[link to www.youtube.com (secure)]

Im sorry guys, I know you think this retro virus AKA AIDS, proves that rhinoceros and horses share a common ancestor, but I think its total horsesh!t.. Couldn't multiple species have contracted the same retro virus making it look as though it were inherited from some ancestor. Guys you don't have proof of transitional evolution because it is not a thing. maybe one type of finch adapted a beak to point up whereas there cousin's beak points down, but there is no way in hell that a tyrannosaurus evolved into a chicken, I am sorry.....

You're 'sorry'? What makes you think you're an authority on this? Your opinion is irrelevant. You don't have a clue.

"Couldn't multiple species have contracted the same retro virus making it look as though it were inherited from some ancestor."

Retro viruses infect hosts at a random position in the genome. So the odds of a single retrovirus infecting two individuals in the same position is 1 in billions. Yet primates share hundreds of thousands of ERVs. This video will give you some idea of how unlikely that is:

Yet chimps have the HIV virus....

So what? HIV is not an ERV, and HIV does not infect humans and chimps at the exact same location in the genome.

Proving my point that different kinds of animals could have the same retro virus...

You're not listening. Primates share thousands of ERVs in the same exact position of the genome. HIV is not an ERV, and HIV does not infect hosts at the same position in the genome.

No body is saying that different species cant have the same retrovirus, which shows you don't understand the argument. Do you know the difference between an ERV and a retrovirus?

No

If a retrovirus infects a germline cell, its genes are integrated into the host's gametes (sperm/eggs). Those genes will now be inherited by subsequent generations, and we refer to these genes as an endogenous retrovirus (or ERV). Endo=internal, genous=created/produced. Internally produced retroviral genes.

We are born with ERVs. Humans and chimps are born with thousands of ERV's in the exact same locations. Again, retroviruses insert their genes into a random position of the host's genome (sequence of genes.)

The number of ERVs that any two organisms share aligns perfectly with how close they are taxonomically. And this same pattern perfectly matches the sequence in which different clades appear in the fossil record.

That being said, I have two questions:

-Couldn't ERVs affect different species simultaneously?

and

- How would that disprove the possibility of a genetic tailor?

1: Retroviruses insert their genes into a random location within the genome. Which means that the odds of two individuals having a single ERV at the same location (when not inherited from a common ancestor) are billions to one. Yet there are hundreds of thousands of these ERVs in identical locations.

2: It would require that the genetic tailor created every taxon by modifying the DNA of a preexisting taxon, in exactly the same order that evolution theory predicts. ie; the tailor took a fish, modified its DNA and made amphibians. Then took an amphibian and modified its DNA to produce reptiles. Took a reptile and made synapsids. Then mammals. Then primates. Then apes. Then humans. With millions of little steps inbetween.

The burden of proof is not on me to disprove a tailor, it is on you to prove a tailor. Since we have never observed this tailor, yet we do constantly observe animals diverging into different lineages, then the common ancestry model is most supported by the data.

Fascinating, I will require time to ponder your response. I feel that I am too inebriated to propose a valid counter argument. I will check in tomorrow. That being said, couldn't a genetic tailor have a plethora of animal species, with humans at the apex, to demonstrate the potential of all our animalistic instinct's, thereby isolating the ones with the most noble virtues?!?!?

All I know is that humans seem to have the behavioral potential of the entire animal kingdom. As of now my thought s can only reach so far. Allow me tomorrow morning to ponder your challenge. For now, it seems to me that we exist in a persistent illusion whereas there seems to be some deeper truth evading our five sensory perceptions..If there were a God, why not use the animal world to demonstrate the range of potential that is within our souls I.E. Lowly vs Noble

I don't see what that has to do with how modern life got to where it is.
If there is a God, why not create a universe in which nature would automatically produce the life we see through the process of evolution?

The model of common ancestry can explain why everything appears the way it does, and it does so using natural phenomena that we already observe directly.

Except how life originated.

Again, the burden of proof is on the positive claim. The tailor model is not correct by default until we disprove it. You have to actually provide evidence for this tailor.

I can't disprove that a genie used time travel to go back and magically generate organisms with ERV's in order to play a joke on scientists. That doesn't mean there's any reason to think it's true.

Have you considered that this 'tailor' might use natural phenomena (like evolution) to create life?

And here we go again.

Occam's razor completely ignored.

Postulating a theory of death and destruction as an explanation for all novelty by a 'tailor' is just fucking retarded bro.

Thats like making 50 bikes and then destroying them and make one motorbike. Completely, fucking, retarded.
Not to mention you need at least one mind to make one bike and one mind to make one motorbike. You'll also need a livable universe for this creative organism creating bikes and motorbikes and some major laws to hold the grand masterpiece together. But I am convinced you have all of this figured out.

For science

You're not listening.

Yes, it doesn't explain how life originated, nor is it supposed to. What I mean is that it explains why lifeforms are the way they appear in the present. It explains why every organism we discover fits into a single nested hierarchy, with a time frame, and pattern of divergence that looks exactly like a big family tree.

I don't see what that has to do with how modern life got to where it is.
If there is a God, why not create a universe in which nature would automatically produce the life we see through the process of evolution?

The model of common ancestry can explain why everything appears the way it does, and it does so using natural phenomena that we already observe directly.

Really, without one exception?

You don't know how they started, you just have a best guess.

Yes, it doesn't explain how life originated, nor is it supposed to. What I mean is that it explains why lifeforms are the way they appear in the present. It explains why every organism we discover fits into a single nested hierarchy, with a time frame, and pattern of divergence that looks exactly like a big family tree.

For the bible to be real, animals would have to be able to adapt to changing circumstances.

The nature of reality is so far beyond what they hypothesised in darwins time, that at this point anything is possible.

That being said, a single cell is more sophisticated than our most advanced technology, I have a hard time believing that it came about without a designer.

I am not saying anything new, people are entitled to their opinions, however Darwinism has caused irreparable damage to western society, only by a miracle will we get out of this in tact.

[link to www.nature.com (secure)]

Was the universal common ancestry proved?
Takahiro Yonezawa & Masami Hasegawa
Nature volume 468, page E9 (16 December 2010) | Download Citation

Abstract
Arising from D. L. Theobald Nature 465, 219–222 (2010)10.1038/nature09014; Theobald reply

The question of whether or not all life on Earth shares a single common ancestor has been a central problem of evolutionary biology since Darwin1. Although the theory of universal common ancestry (UCA) has gathered a compelling list of circumstantial evidence, as given in ref. 2, there has been no attempt to test statistically the UCA hypothesis among the three domains of life (eubacteria, archaebacteria and eukaryotes) by using molecular sequences. Theobald2 recently challenged this problem with a formal statistical test, and concluded that the UCA hypothesis holds. Although his attempt is the first step towards establishing the UCA theory with a solid statistical basis, we think that the test of Theobald2 is not sufficient enough to reject the alternative hypothesis of the separate origins of life, despite the Akaike information criterion (AIC) of model selection3 giving a clear distinction between the competing hypotheses.