Unless I’m mistaken, the functional viral insertions acquired functionality as a result of later mutations.
Yes, it’s hard to know whether a DNA section that’s missing in some members of a species might have some utility that is rarely needed, and that those who lack it haven’t missed.
My immediate reaction is “it’s complicated”. From my reading, some of these functions are pretty close to the function the original viral sequences performed. For example, the primer sequences that upregulated expression of viral proteins can also upregulate expression of host genes, and expressed endogenous viral proteins can prime immune reactions that help reduce infectivity of live infections.
At the same time, I would suspect mutations play a very important role in deactivating the initial insertion so that it no longer produces a viable retrovirus. There could even be cases where the initial insertion itself goes a bit haywire and results in a non-viable provirus. But as a rule, it appears there are many mechanisms in the cell that try to silence expression of ERVs so functional ERVs are the exception and not the rule.
Mmm, I can see how a regulatory sequence that’s inserted by a virus can immediately become a regulatory sequence in the host’s genome, and that might be immediately beneficial, and hence selectable; but I’d hesitate to classify that as necessary for the simple reason that it didn’t previously exist.
Dividing DNA into junk vs non-junk can’t cope with cases where a sequence’s usefulness varies depending on the environment or on happenstance.
When does useful junk stop being junk?
When it is selected for by natural selection as evidenced by sequence conservation (or evidence of positive selection). The reliance on an objective standard like sequence conservation helps get around subjective “just so” stories that Gould often talked about.
Wow. Brilliant.
What if there was already a regulatory sequence but the viral sequence was more effective/useful?
I am not saying that. I have stated the importance of testimony as generic evidence already. I believe some eyewitness testimony to be credible and some to be not credible.
The former is beyond serious historical dispute. The latter is certainly questionable. It’s clear some followers of Jesus thought he rose from the dead. Whether or not the Gospels are consistent on this or Acts gets the 40 days thing correct are different issues. There is no way to falsify or corroborate what Acts says here.
I feel confident Jesus probably had an eyewitness follower named Matthew. Whether or not that person wrote the Gospelnof Matthew is a much disputed opinion. Some have identified the author of Mark as being one of the 70 sent out by Jesus but this is speculation and cannot be confirmed.
That the author of Luke was a traveling companion of Paul and knew the apostles personally is far from certain. GLuke dates anywhere from 60-150CE. Pinning down a precise date is notoriously difficult. .
None of this has anything to do with who wrote the gospels, when they were writing, if they were preserved correctly and if they are historically accurate. All completely separate questions.
Eyewitnesses lie, make mistakes or can imagine things happened that did not all the time. Especially when in an emotional state after the person they put their trust in and left home to follow as God’s chosen instrument is brutally murdered by Rome. That some of Jesus’s original followers believe He rose from the dead does not make it so. I do not dispute that some of them clearly believed this.
History works under the principle of methodological naturalism. It cannot reconstruct miracles.
Incorrect. Eyewitness testimony has to be carefully vetted, sifted through and cross-examined. As hundreds of DNA exonerations have shown, eyewitness testimony gets it wrong very often. I’m guessing there are thousands more cases where the same has happened. Testimony is important but people lie and truth be told, we all have different standards on how we accept testimony. If my friend told me they saw a new movie last night I would most likely ask “how was it.” If they told me they travelled faster than light I wouldn’t believe them because I think the underlying laws of physics are more reliable than human testimony though I admit we are reliant on testimony for those laws.
Give me six-sided dice and I can evaluate probability. Miracles are the most improbable of events by definition to me. History tries to reconstruct what is most probable. That means miracles don’t fit in with its method.
There are two accounts of the flood mixed together with contradictory details. Which one is from Noah? Also, how do you know the account is eyewitness testimony from a man who allegedly lived 5,000 years ago?
Only Jesus’s thoughts on the flood are relevant to me. Peter was most likely not written by Peter anyways. The guy you claim to have written Acts and have known Peter personally called him unlettered. My thoughts on Jesus and the flood are here:
Of course eyewitness testimony counts as historical evidence.
We can sit together then.
Vinnie
Interestingly the fact that 40 was a highly symbolic number in Judaism at the time actually argues for it being the actual time period: Jesus would have used it in order to emphasize the importance.
Twelve-sided would be more ‘biblical’. 
No it doesn’t. It can just as easily be the author chose 40 for its significance. I personally find the author contradicts his own ending to GLuke in Acts as well.
That’s false
How does that work with memory regarding miracles in an individual"s life? Not to convince others, but knowing something for yourself.
I think that is only recounted history by a proffessional.
History itself just is. How we understand ot precieve it can be subjective as in
History is written by the victor.
But the eye witnesses are not deliberately lying, unless they are trying to deceive… They believe what they think they saw.
Your argument would imply that the Gospels are fabricated and not based on real testimony that reflects real history.
Of course, the Gospels are not written by historians trying to recount history without bias. The Gospels are a unique form of writing that uses history to give a message. They include what they wish t and ignore anything that would not give the right message.
Does that invalidate them?
I would say no. As long as yo understand what they are.
Does that mean that miracles did nit actually happen?
Again no. The stories exist as real memories and understanding. Whether there are explanations for the miracles is actually irrelevant in the context of the genre of writing.
Richard
Heard or read a saying somewhere recently …
“You can’t change the future. But you can change the past.”
Took me a minute. But yes, in today’s culture, where heroes become villains and villains heroes.
Sounds like Goebbels.
So, law enforcement should act on a random claim that you are embezzling money from your employer, cheating on your wife, and supplementing your income selling drugs?
What should that action be? What level of action? Arrest you? Put the accuser on the stand and let you go down for it all? Because it’s testimony?
Maybe you don’t see a difference here. It seems incredibly gullible to me to accept one claim to be as good as another without investigation.
In some of your other posts in this thread you talk about trust. Trust must be based on something. But I haven’t seen any reasons listed for trust. I hope you have criteria. Maybe you could list them.
This was sidestepping the issue.
On what is your opinion formed? It sounds like it’s formed on the historian’s agreement with you.
They may also find nothing that convinces them of it. Period.
I know a few former Christians who have begged God to help them see the resurrection as possible. They WANTED to believe.
If you can only say an event occurred because you find the person making testimony trustworthy, and your only reason is that they agree with you, you aren’t providing the person in doubt much to go on, but you blame their prior beliefs.
To be triply clear, you are still sidestepping what I’ve said.
How is such an eyewitness claim any more reliable than the example I gave, claiming you are committing crimes?
You must have some criteria! So far you have only mentioned accepting historians conclusions because they affirm your prior belief.
Or maybe all claims, eye-witnesses, “eye-witnesses,” testimonies, rumors, statements, and the like carry the same weight in your eyes and need no further investigation. That’s a dangerous way to live.
Regarding Methodological Naturalism, you sidestepped my point as well:
An event like this would be open to the tools of Methodological Naturalism: all forms of observation. And with more eye-witnesses than any other event on the planet. Every sick person, that is every person, well. Hospitals, operating tables, sanitoria, sick beds, death beds, ambulances, suddenly, simultaneously emptied of the blind, the lame, the infirm, the dying. No naturalist would be able to deny what happened for long, because there would be no reason to.
There would be no explanation they could provide, and there would be no doubt about it. No testimony necessary. Everyone a witness.
.
.
.
Perhaps you would like to enlighten those of us who have not read Keener what he has to say on the matter. Otherwise, there’s no point in dropping his name.
This is a really good example and explanation about what you mean by testimony and why you find it trustworthy. And you use the magic word here:
From what I’ve read of you here, you don’t just accept a claim as “testimony” and therefore “evidence”. You expect it to be vetted. YOU yourself have vetted claims. While I have only read a small part of what you’re written in this forum, you don’t simply accept someone else’s “testimony” because they tell you what you already think. This is what I’ve been getting at elsewhere in this thread.
Exactly.
And historians’ efforts to gather work from other writers close to the time and place has been part of the process of “vetting.”
I’m not sure what you’re getting at here, Vinnie. From what I’ve read of your work in the forum, this quote above seems not to be what you actually believe. It seems like you are using hyperbole, but I’m missing your point, if it’s to me.
No. That wasn’t my point at all. I was pushing back against what I think is a biased claim HeyMike3 made about methodological naturalism. I was imagining a circumstance under which there could be no doubt of an explanation that can’t be provided via methodological naturalism. Might even demonstrate to philosophical naturalists that there is something outside of natural explanations.
Parousia will do it.
If you honestly have trouble with the authenticity of the writers of the bible cannon, you need to start reading the likes of Tertulian, Polcarp, Eusebius, Tacitus, Jerome, Josephus…you clearly dont read anything like that and yet come up with wives tales views about who didnt write what!
Do you at least agree that the apostle John wrote Revelation whilst on Patmos?
I ask this because Tertulian, Pliny, and Tacitus all write about it! If we know from historical facts that John was a real disciple who wrote Revelation, its not particularly hard to believe and even prove beyond the balance of probabilites that the rest are authentic.
One method is the internal correlation between each story…if they align well and claim to be eyewitnesses, theres a pretty strong chance they are.
A second method is the stink test, lies usually.produce an ever increasing number of inconsistences and even dissagreements. The fact that this isnt the case in the writings of the new testament gospels is another proof of authenticity. (We dont need to time waste with the minor differences claim…already heard this before its been addressed and falsified by scholars…i dont need to reinvent the wheel in explaining that)
Offhand, I just wanted to say that reference to Keener was intended for @Vinnie as he is a scholarwe both share a considerable amount of respect for. I was also trying to engage Vinnie in a conversation, and would love to respond to him if he is interested in pursuing the subject further.
I need to reread your comment and pick up on the points relevant to our previous discussion to have anything further to add.
Does “junk” DNA have a function in development? Excessive focus on the work of protein-coding genes led to dismissive attitudes to the rest of the genome. However, it turns out that some of the other regions are important in gene regulation. A pseudogene RNA transcript may interfere with the translation of the actual gene RNA transcript, for example. So there are some things relevant to development that may have been dismissed as “junk” at one point. However, it has long been recognized that genes that aren’t needed in the adult are critical at other times; a classic example would be the different versions of hemoglobin used by the embryo versus post-birth in mammals (due to the different oxygen balances).
What would a creator do? That is a major weakness in both claims to detect a designer and claims to detect lack of design in science. Actual scientific detection of design requires either some knowledge of the purpose for a design or adequately large samples of “designed” and “undesigned” items. For example, my background in geology was useful for design detection in a temp job in archaeology - is this an artifact or a rock not modified by humans?
Nested hierarchies are a specific prediction of evolutionary systems. A designer could use evolutionary methods or some other method to implement a design. We can say that, in principle, a designer is not limited to evolutionary methods. The fact that we do see patterns that fit evolutionary expectations strongly supports the conclusion that evolutionary methods were used in creating new kinds of organisms. But that does not tell us anything about whether a designer was involved; it is merely a description of the physical pattern. As everyday experience and historical data, including from the Bible, indicate that God mainly works through ordinary, non-miraculous ways, finding physical means for the process of creation is unsurprising. If the goal is to create a wide diversity of organisms, evolution works quite well; but that goal is merely a guess. Organisms commonly do not show a high level of engineering “optimization”, but that is generally assuming a mechanical definition of the “optimum”. For example, not having any non-functioning DNA makes for the most efficient, fastest copying. But there’s not much to draw on if there are any problems. Lots of backups and spare DNA clutters things up but can be handy as a potential source of new useful mutations. Introns allow a mix and match approach to proteins, taking useful subunits and recombining them in different ways. Organisms have to balance myriad different pressures, and the most extreme effectiveness in one area is likely to have disadvantages in other situations. Simultaneous maximizing of multiple functions is not an easy task even with advanced math; the try some things and tweak what works approach of evolution is often a rather effective option.
How do.you.figure that when genesis chapters 1 and 2 specifically stste He created from nothing? (He spoke many things into existence).
I would argue there is no evidence that the universe predates God.
So given thst.problem, how can you.claim he used physical means for any of this?
In addition to the above, the very essence of the biblical future is salvation, the outcome of which is redemption…these are clearly miraculous.
So heres what i see in theistic evolution
The trouble here is, we csnnot just pick and choose what we interpret when the book already does that all for us.
So if the historical account in the bible doesnt align with your theories in science, then your theories must be wrong. Given there is an ever increasing amount of evidence that aligjs with the historocal biblical revelation, we should not be concerned that secularism dissagrees with our interpretation of the science. As your side says, it isnt the science thats the prblem…to which i maintain, its the interpretation thats at fault.
The easiest way to pick a deficient christian belief is by inconsistent and even unbiblical fundamental error in theology and doctrine.
So if you believe my bible theology akd doctrine are errant, then you.would need to.first prove that before there is any chance of altering which interpretation of science i follow.
“Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.” -Colossians 4:6
This is a place for gracious dialogue about science and faith. Please read our FAQ/Guidelines before posting.