Researchers: Asteroid Destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah
- *A clay tablet that has baffled scientists for 150 years has been
identified as a witness's account of the asteroid suspected of being
behind the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah.
- --- In CreationTalk@yahoogroups.com, "tylerdemerchant"
> This is exactly what I am sugesting, though have there been papers
> show that viruses are selective.of sperm or eggs in order to be passed
> Viruses are not living organisms. They enter the body and then find
> their way into a cell because the immune system does not recognize
> them. They have to infect the germline or during the developement
> onto the child. If anything, theInfection is not random with respect to species. Immunological
> cell would be selective of where it places the DNA.
responses vary from one species to another and a pathogen that might
cause an infection in species x could be neutralized in species y.
>There are genomic locations that are preferential as far as the
> I have a hard time believing that the cell would plant a retrovirus
> in a random location. If this were so, than every humans DNA should
> be dramatically different.
insertion location is concerned. But it may not be the virus itself
that is inserted but rather genomic sequences coming about through
the hijacking of the host transcription function. Such inserts are
then theorized to relocate throughout the genome perhaps randomly
> I want to right a paper on this subject, but I want to spark more
> interest and debate in the subject first. I would love to hear what
> Ashcraft has to say.
> --- In CreationTalk@yahoogroups.com, "Charles Creager Jr" <cpcjr@>
> > The key assumption in Evolutionists claims about ERVs is that
> > insert themselves into a random location within a genome. This
> assumption is
> > questionable however, since there is evidence that they are
> > However even if the insertion was random the locations where they
> are not
> > harmful may be few.
> > _____
> > From: tylerdemerchant
> > Thankyou all those who have posted comments so far aswell as
> > I received a private e-mail regarding the issue with some morelinks
> > http://www.answersi
> > ngenesis.org/docs2006/1219herv.asp
> > http://www.answersi
> > <http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v1/n2/human-and-
> > ngenesis.org/articles/am/v1/n2/human-and-chimp-dna
> > http://www.answersi
> > <http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2006/0802human-evolution.asp>
> > ngenesis.org/docs2006/0802human-evolution.asp
> > I would very much like people to discuss this, as these are not
> > exactly issues that I have from misunderstanding, but I think it
> > important to discuss key evolutionary theories for common decent.
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> Infection is not random with respect to species. Immunologicalmight
> responses vary from one species to another and a pathogen that
> cause an infection in species x could be neutralized in species y.Yes I understand this. I am merely questioning the location of
these "inserted" DNA pieces.
> > I have a hard time believing that the cell would plant a
> > in a random location. If this were so, than every humans DNAshould
> > be dramatically different.This is what I am implying. If primates and humans share similar DNA,
> There are genomic locations that are preferential as far as the
> insertion location is concerned.
then it would seem plausible that these preferential locations would
be similar in both primates and humans, showing common "infection"
persay, not common descent.
>But it may not be the virus itselfYes this makes sense. However, this is assuming the nature of viruses
> that is inserted but rather genomic sequences coming about through
> the hijacking of the host transcription function. Such inserts are
> then theorized to relocate throughout the genome perhaps randomly
> perhaps not.
to be random. Ashcraft has pointed out possible original design
purposes. It is important to remember that the virus is non-living,
thus, it is subject to the cells machinery. I dont know what the cell
says..."Oh, theres some DNA, better do what it says". Thus, the cell
is basically allowing the DNA to be implimented into itself. So it
seems to me two majour possibilities.
1. The random replications possition themselves in particularly
random locations, subsiquently undergoing natural selection(HIV
destroys host), repair mechanisms(irradication of retrovirus from
replication), or neutralization(endigenous state). Consiquently,
retroviral DNA becomes focused on particular locci where elimination
process does not occur, forcing similar locci of endigenous
retrovirus on commonly infected baramin with similar genetic makeup.
2. Designed purpose of endigenous DNA not retroviral, but assumed to
be because of similar structure and inactivation. Retroviral nature
must be assumed, as it represents no difference from normal DNA
(correct me if I am wrong here). Thus, majority of ERV's are original
genes in baramin with similar genetic makeup.
The question remains... Will neanderthals have these ERV's, which
moves us onto Neanderthals.
Any further discussion on ERV's is definately welcome.
- *Scientific American published a commentary called "Summarized Cinema"
in which the author gives a one line plot summary of famous films. It
is meant to be funny, but this one betrays the author's bias:
Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed*
A sad sack seeks a way to turn back time so he can live in the Dark Ages.