Endogenous Retroviral Insertions: Another Way to Silence Creationism

[Orthodox_Freethinker]

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/images/retrovirus.gif
Figure 4.4.1. Human endogenous retrovirus K (HERV-K) insertions in identical chromosomal locations in various primates

Endogenous retroviruses provide yet another example of molecular sequence evidence for universal common descent. Endogenous retroviruses are molecular remnants of a past parasitic viral infection. Occasionally, copies of a retrovirus genome are found in its host's genome, and these retroviral gene copies are called endogenous retroviral sequences. Retroviruses (like the AIDS virus or HTLV1, which causes a form of leukemia) make a DNA copy of their own viral genome and insert it into their host's genome. If this happens to a germ line cell (i.e. the sperm or egg cells) the retroviral DNA will be inherited by descendants of the host. Again, this process is rare and fairly random, so finding retrogenes in identical chromosomal positions of two different species indicates common ancestry...
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section4.html

The only way to defeat creationism is to attack the meme on its own terms.
The search for 'irreducible complexity', unevolvable traits in living organisms, has not succeeded. The best counterargument, however, would be traits that are effectively undesignable - traits which are undeniably evidence for common descent that only a deceptive and devilish designer would intentionally fabricate.

The next time you talk with a young earther, if you have to, deal the trump card of ERV's. I only hope that there is more evidence like this.

[Oxymoron]

Splendid!

That leaves us free to stamp on the rest of xianity and its absurd fairy tales.

[Orthodox_Freethinker]

That leaves us free to stamp on the rest of xianity and its absurd fairy tales.

No, don't make such a hasty generalization. The majority of the world's Christians find no real conflict between Scripture and common descent.
Just because young earthism is a fairy tale does not mean that Christianity itself is absurd in nature.

[buckshot23]

No, don't make such a hasty generalization. The majority of the world's Christians find no real conflict between Scripture and common descent.
Just because young earthism is a fairy tale does not mean that Christianity itself is absurd in nature.
In this forest it is. The only religion that is tolerated is Occam's Razorism. If it fails that test then by universal decree it is absurd and false.

[Orthodox_Freethinker]

The only religion that is tolerated is Occam's Razorism.

The simplest explanation for the origin of the Christian faith is that the Apostles did, in fact, witness the post-resurrection Messiah. Maybe Jesus is a lesser god, maybe he is an alien in disguise, but the resurrection historically occurred.

[buckshot23]

The simplest explanation for the origin of the Christian faith is that the Apostles did, in fact, witness the post-resurrection Messiah. Maybe Jesus is a lesser god, maybe he is an alien in disguise, but the resurrection historically occurred.
Of course I agree. Occam however doesn't allow miracles to occur.

[Oxymoron]

Just because young earthism is a fairy tale does not mean that Christianity itself is absurd in nature.

I didn't imply that it did. Xianity is absurd for a whole host of reasons.

[DMC]

What if God just put those HERV-K thinggies there to fool ya?

[Sven]

In this forest it is. The only religion that is tolerated is Occam's Razorism. If it fails that test then by universal decree it is absurd and false.
Strange that you don't complain if anyone (including you!) uses Occam on any other occasion - only when it cuts against your interpretation of the bible, you start to whine.

[King Bowser Koopa]

Rhetroviruses are my favourite proof of evolution because a) it's very simple to explain, b) it makes no reference to the fossil record or ratiometric dating (two topics that creationists often can't get past), and c) it's rock solid- How can a creationist possibly explain the fact that they share genetic markers representing an infection in their ancestry with chimps?

The only religion that is tolerated is Occam's Razorism. If it fails that test then by universal decree it is absurd and false.
Occam's Razor is necesarilly true. You can challenge it's use but you can't hope to sucessfully argue against it's validity.

The simplest explanation for the origin of the Christian faith is that the Apostles did, in fact, witness the post-resurrection Messiah. Maybe Jesus is a lesser god, maybe he is an alien in disguise, but the resurrection historically occurred.
This is obviously not the simplest explanation.

[Valentine Pontifex]

Splendid!

That leaves us free to stamp on the rest of xianity and its absurd fairy tales.

1) This does not in any way, shape, or form disprove Christianity. It only is yet another piece of evidence, which with millions of others, disproves fundamentalist interpretations of Christianity.

2) The fundamentalist anti-science types have "explainations" for all of this. Sure they are bunch of bull, but that does not matter to the true believers. There is simply going to be no magic pill to eliminate creationism. Only hard work and persistent efforts of many over the course of decades will do.

3) Why do we need to "stamp" on Christianity or anything else? All beliefs should be tolerated assuming good behavior. And such a stamping, only makes fundamentalists versions stronger. After all fundamentalists seem to need the belief that everyone is out to get them.

[Oxymoron]

1) This does not in any way, shape, or form disprove Christianity. It only is yet another piece of evidence, which with millions of others, disproves fundamentalist interpretations of Christianity.

2) The fundamentalist anti-science types have "explainations" for all of this. Sure they are bunch of bull, but that does not matter to the true believers. There is simply going to be no magic pill to eliminate creationism. Only hard work and persistent efforts of many over the course of decades will do.

3) Why do we need to "stamp" on Christianity or anything else? All beliefs should be tolerated assuming good behavior. And such a stamping, only makes fundamentalists versions stronger. After all fundamentalists seem to need the belief that everyone is out to get them.

Please excuse my British irony :D

I find it amusing that a Xian expends so much energy dismissing one ludicrous sect of his creed when the rest of it is just as nutty.

[Valentine Pontifex]

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/images/retrovirus.gif
Figure 4.4.1. Human endogenous retrovirus K (HERV-K) insertions in identical chromosomal locations in various primates


One thing that might be a nice project for someone who is good at the literature is to fill in an omission (of a sort) in this diagram.

The diagram shows that humans have some ERIs, that the larger group has some more, that the larger group has some more, etc. That is, of course, consistent with evolution. But the twin-nested heirarchy suggests that far stronger presentation can be presented. The charts is human-centric in that it only looks at humans and the increasingly larger groups. So it should be possible to look at ERIs that are in chimps and do the same thing. And likewise all the groups. This would show the totality of the twin-nested heirarchy.

Now that the common chimp's genome is sequenced it should be possible to do what I am calling the chimp-centric diagram. Has anyone looked yet for ERIs that exist only in the other species as opposed to checking to see if a particular human ERI is present? Where it has been done, we have a nice little test of the cladogram pictured above.

Prediction: For the VAST majority of ERIs they will fall into a position of being "monophyletic" on the diagram. A small fraction will two distict clades because the segment of DNA they were one got deleted. Statistic tests exist for handling that sort of thing.

(Quick explanation of term for those who need it: Monophyletic groups are a group that includes every descendant from a common ancestor. They are often called clades. Note that reptiles as traditionally defined are not monophyletic (but rather paraphyletic) since they include all descendents of a common ancestor with the exceptions of two clades: mammals and birds.)

[Valentine Pontifex]

Please excuse my British irony :D

I find it amusing that a Xian expends so much energy dismissing one ludicrous sect of his creed when the rest of it is just as nutty.

Well nutty is in the eyes of the beholder. To the degree that they don't threaten others and violate the common law they should be tolerated. The non-fundamentalists often have no problem dealing with the facts and many are great defenders of freedom. It seems to me that religion and Christianity in particular can do great good or great harm depending on the individual. Religion in the hands of the narrow-minded fundamentalist is often very harmful. They oppose the science of their time, progress towards a better society, etc. (And then after the debate say they supported reform all along.) In non-fundamentalists, religion often does a great deal of good. It inspires them to correct injustice, do great things, etc. Think of Martin Luther King. Think of beautiful contribution to the arts. Think of the many contributions to science done by religous people who considered nature to be as much a revelation as any scripture. And so on.

Lets reserve the word "nutty" to those who try to ignore reality that has been overwhemingly shown to be true by evidence. And in particular to those who the most opportunity to have been exposed to that evidence. Hovind is a nut. But your nice neighbor who has never been exposed to the evidence is probably not a nut.

[Mr. Bird]

. . . the Apostles did, in fact, witness the post-resurrection Messiah. Maybe Jesus is a lesser god, maybe he is an alien in disguise, but the resurrection historically occurred.

Sorry but I don't know how this can even come up in E/C or how it is relevant to endogenous retroviral insertions but, in the meantime, I'll be waiting patiently over in BC&H for proof of the resurrection's historicity . . .

[Coragyps]

The next time you talk with a young earther, if you have to, deal the trump card of ERV's.

I've tried that, and seen it tried lots of times. 100% ineffective. They either ignore it completely, leave the discussion, or say "that's not a virus! That's something god put there for a reason, but just didn't tell us the reason."

It may help a lot with lurkers, though.

[Valentine Pontifex]

I've tried that, and seen it tried lots of times. 100% ineffective. They either ignore it completely, leave the discussion, or say "that's not a virus! That's something god put there for a reason, but just didn't tell us the reason."

It may help a lot with lurkers, though.

Lurkers who are on the fence. If we can consistently win on the fence, we will eventually over the course of decades win against evolution denial. (Of course by then fundamentalists types will accept evolution and some other debate that we can't yet imagine will come up.)

As I said before a simple magic pill will not work. It will come by providing the youth with a broad education that deals with a variety of evidence. Mere independent trivia, no matter how much it supports evolution, will not do the job unless people understand what evolution is in the first place and know a little bit about biology, etc.

[buckshot23]

Strange that you don't complain if anyone (including you!) uses Occam on any other occasion - only when it cuts against your interpretation of the bible, you start to whine.
Where do I use Occam? Furthermore where have I said it is totally useless?

[RBH]

King Bowser Koopa wroteOccam's Razor is necesarilly true. You can challenge it's use but you can't hope to sucessfully argue against it's validity.On the contrary, Occam's Razor is a criterion of last resort, a pragmatic (but not necessarily true) criterion for choosing between two competing explanations when both explain the availabe data equally well. There is way too much careless waving of the Razor about in these kinds of discussions.

The problem with intelligent design and creationism in general is not that they violate Occam's Razor, but that they offer no account that explains why this happens but that does not. That is, by not identifying limits on the skill set of the putative designing/creating agency, they can "explain" any possible outcome, and thus actually explain none. ANy observation at all is consistent with an unlimited and unspecified designer, and thus no amount of data can settle the issue. The problem with intelligent design creationism is not that it can't explain something, it's that it can "explain" anything and thus is immune to data. (That's a short and sketchy version of "unfalsifiable", another concept over-used in these kinds of discussion. "Testability" is a much more useful concept.)

RBH

[Sven]

Where do I use Occam?
IIRC, I gave you an example some time ago. It was along the lines that if your car stops and the fuel gage says that you've run out of fuel, you just don't think that an invisible space ship landed right in front of your car, thus stopping it, and the aliens just hypnothiszed you to think that you've run out of fuel. No. You immediately accept the simplest explanation: You've run out of fuel.
That's Occam. Get over it.

Furthermore where have I said it is totally useless?
Where did I say that you said this? I only pointed out that you throw the razor away as soon as it conflicts with your interpretation of the bible.

[buckshot23]

IIRC, I gave you an example some time ago. It was along the lines that if your car stops and the fuel gage says that you've run out of fuel, you just don't think that an invisible space ship landed right in front of your car, thus stopping it, and the aliens just hypnothiszed you to think that you've run out of fuel. No. You immediately accept the simplest explanation: You've run out of fuel.
That's Occam. Get over it.
I don't remember writing that. Appology pending....
Where did I say that you said this? I only pointed out that you throw the razor away as soon as it conflicts with your interpretation of the bible.
Since I doubt I made the above argument I don't think I do employ the razor.

[buckshot23]

Not only did I not say that but it was YOU who said that. That has to be an all time low.
http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?p=2976363#post2976363
Talk about hillarious!

[Evoken]

The best counterargument, however, would be traits that are effectively undesignable - traits which are undeniably evidence for common descent that only a deceptive and devilish designer would intentionally fabricate.

And what makes you think that a theistic evolutionist or IDer is safe from this argument?


Valz

[Soralis]

Not only did I not say that but it was YOU who said that. That has to be an all time low.
http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?p=2976363#post2976363
Talk about hillarious!

He said that he was the one that said it:

I gave you an example some time ago.

[buckshot23]

He said that he was the one that said it:
Then why bring it up when I asked where I use it?:huh: Thats just stupid.

[King Bowser Koopa]

On the contrary, Occam's Razor is a criterion of last resort, a pragmatic (but not necessarily true) criterion for choosing between two competing explanations when both explain the availabe data equally well. There is way too much careless waving of the Razor about in these kinds of discussions.
This is incorrect, but only because you do not understand an essential element of Occam's razor. OR is a way of choosing between two explanations of the same set of facts.

Occam's Razor is necesarilly true, and here's why:

Two competing explanations of A:
1) B, or 2) B + C

OR dictates that (1) is the better answer here unless C is a fact. If C is a fact then explanation (1) does not explain the set of facts.

OR is necesarilly true because it dictates that in any situation we must go with the answer that only acknowledges the facts, not the one that petitions unnecesary entities, nor the one that does not take into account all the facts.

OR is always then going to be true, regardless of how you feel about it's use against the God concept.

[Sven]

I don't remember writing that. Appology pending....

Where did I say that you wrote this? :confused:
Why is an apology necessary? Because I somehow misjudged you and you prefer the alien explanation? :confused:

Since I doubt I made the above argument I don't think I do employ the razor.
See above.

Not only did I not say that but it was YOU who said that. That has to be an all time low.
http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.p...63#post2976363
Talk about hillarious!
Thanks for providing the link! And I said nothing else here. I said explicitely that I gave you an example. How can one possibly interpret this as me claiming that you said this?

[Sven]

Then why bring it up when I asked where I use it?:huh: Thats just stupid.
I thought you would use the "out of fuel explanation" instead of the "alien explanation". IOW, I gave you an example of a situation in which you would use Occam. Comprende?

[buckshot23]

Thanks for providing the link! And I said nothing else here. I said explicitely that I gave you an example. How can one possibly interpret this as me claiming that you said this?
Maybe because you didn't answer the question I asked. First you tell me that I use the razor and then I ask where then you talk about a situation where you say I would use the razor in the scenerio of your making. You attack me for ignoring the razor when inconvenient when I never have invoked it in the first place. Just a fantasy scenerio you dreamt up.

[buckshot23]

I thought you would use the "out of fuel explanation" instead of the "alien explanation". IOW, I gave you an example of a situation in which you would use Occam. Comprende?
So you are attacking me for invoking the razor in your imaginary scenerio and ignoring it when inconvenient. No wonder I didn't get it. Usually when you tell someone they do something it has some basis in reality. In Sven's world all he needs is a made up story where he thinks I will do something to be able to attack me for doing it. This is simply amazing Sven.

[RBH]

On the contrary, Occam's Razor is a criterion of last resort, a pragmatic (but not necessarily true) criterion for choosing between two competing explanations when both explain the availabe data equally well. There is way too much careless waving of the Razor about in these kinds of discussions.
This is incorrect, but only because you do not understand an essential element of Occam's razor. OR is a way of choosing between two explanations of the same set of facts.Which is precisely what I wrote. Compare my italicized prhase to your underlined phrase.

Occam's Razor is necesarilly true, and here's why:

Two competing explanations of A:
1) B, or 2) B + C

OR dictates that (1) is the better answer here unless C is a fact. If C is a fact then explanation (1) does not explain the set of facts.

OR is necesarilly true because it dictates that in any situation we must go with the answer that only acknowledges the facts, not the one that petitions unnecesary entities, nor the one that does not take into account all the facts.

OR is always then going to be true, regardless of how you feel about it's use against the God concept.Occam's Razor tells us nothing whatsoever about the "truth" of one explanation vs. another explanation. It tells us that (all else being equal) the simpler is preferable, but it has no reference to "truth", either logical "truth" or empirical "truth". That the simpler anwer is "better" has no bearing on its truth or falsity, since in the context of OR "better" is defined solely in terms of simplicity, and there is no guarantee that the universe is simple. We make the assumption that our explanations should be as simple as possible and still account for the data at hand, but it is far from a logical necessity and is quite certainly not some kind of absolute truth.

On occasion Occam's Razor has been profitably violated. For example, the postulation of a purportedly massless and undetectable (at the time) particle to preserve the law of conservation of matter and energy was a violation of OR. Yet the neutrino turned out to be subsequently detectable with new technology, and constituted a notable extension of particle physics. Carelessly wielded, Occam's Razor has the potential to cut away meat as well as fat.

RBH

[King Bowser Koopa]

Which is precisely what I wrote. Compare my italicized prhase to your underlined phrase.

Occam's Razor tells us nothing whatsoever about the "truth" of one explanation vs. another explanation. It tells us that (all else being equal) the simpler is preferable, but it has no reference to "truth", either logical "truth" or empirical "truth". That the simpler anwer is "better" has no bearing on its truth or falsity, since in the context of OR "better" is defined solely in terms of simplicity, and there is no guarantee that the universe is simple. We make the assumption that our explanations should be as simple as possible and still account for the data at hand, but it is far from a logical necessity and is quite certainly not some kind of absolute truth.

On occasion Occam's Razor has been profitably violated. For example, the postulation of a purportedly massless and undetectable (at the time) particle to preserve the law of conservation of matter and energy was a violation of OR. Yet the neutrino turned out to be subsequently detectable with new technology, and constituted a notable extension of particle physics. Carelessly wielded, Occam's Razor has the potential to cut away meat as well as fat.

RBH
The conclusions drawn can be wrong if OR is used incorrectly, but it is necesarilly true that if you have two explanations of he same set of facts the simpler is true.
The reason that this is the case is that if the more complex explanation is true then the two explanations do not explaian the same set of facts and are no longer in competition.

Let's look at it with regard to the origin of existence;
The atheist says that existence is explained by natural law, the theist says that existence is explained by God. If the atheist is correct then we can use OR to deem him to be so, however if the theist is correct then OR will deem him to be so because the atheistic explanation does not account for the fact of a Creator.

The principle of OR is always true, the only problem with it is that from our persepctive we can never know that we are using it correctly because we can never know that we have all the facts.

OR doesn't prove anything, but the principle will always be true.

[RBH]

KBK wroteThe principle of OR is always true, the only problem with it is that from our persepctive we can never know that we are using it correctly because we can never know that we have all the facts.Which is why it is a rule of thumb -- a pragmatic guide -- rather than some sort of infallible way of finding "truth". I don't think we significantly disagree given that OR might find "truth" if we know all the relevant facts. It's just that after 45 years of working in science and technology, I'm real wary of claims of techniques that claim to find the "truth", regardless of who makes them or on what basis, because I know (truth claim) that we don't know all the facts. One day's too-complex explanation may be the next day's simplest explanation. But one gets from one to the other by doing relevant research, not by making "in principle" claims.

RBH

[King Bowser Koopa]

KBK wroteWhich is why it is a rule of thumb -- a pragmatic guide -- rather than some sort of infallible way of finding "truth". I don't think we significantly disagree given that OR might find "truth" if we know all the relevant facts. It's just that after 45 years of working in science and technology, I'm real wary of claims of techniques that claim to find the "truth", regardless of who makes them or on what basis, because I know (truth claim) that we don't know all the facts. One day's too-complex explanation may be the next day's simplest explanation. But one gets from one to the other by doing relevant research, not by making "in principle" claims.

RBH
We can't rely on OR to find truth for us, it will always be inductive, but this does not mean that OR is not a true principle, it is just a principle that is beyond our means to use with certainty. It's like an equation- the equation can be true but if we are not sure of the values that we put into the equation we cannot be sure of the value that comes out.
OR is necesarilly true, but we can't use it with any degree of certainty.

[Ponzi]

I didn't read this thread for a discussion of Occam's Razor, it's retroviral insertions that I want to find out about. Specifically, if evolution is false, then what is the explanation for this? How does this fit into a biblical creation? buckshot23, not that I'm trying to single you out, but as far as i know you're the only young earth creationist participating in this thread, so can you give us your take on it?

[Sven]

ETA: I suppose I have to note that the "alien explanation" is just a place holder for overcomplicated (often supernatural/paranormal) explanations, invoking additional entities. If buckshot is more satisifed with gods, he can easily substitute "Jesus" for the aliens - this does not change the essence of my post.

Maybe because you didn't answer the question I asked. First you tell me that I use the razor and then I ask where then you talk about a situation where you say I would use the razor in the scenerio of your making. You attack me for ignoring the razor when inconvenient when I never have invoked it in the first place. Just a fantasy scenerio you dreamt up.
Sorry, I really don't understand the difference. Your car running out of fuel is certainly not a "fantasy scenario", but something people (including you) can and do encounter everyday.
Again: If you think I misjudged you in any way, and you'd prefer the alien explanation, sorry. Then I'd of course agree that you don't (necessarily) use the razor.

So you are attacking me for invoking the razor in your imaginary scenerio and ignoring it when inconvenient.
Exactly. I already said so in post #9. If you disagree, please provide me with an example when you don't use the razor even thought the point in question is not addressed by your interpretation of the bible.


No wonder I didn't get it. Usually when you tell someone they do something it has some basis in reality.
Umm, yes. Since when does a car running out of fuel does not have a basis in reality?

In Sven's world all he needs is a made up story where he thinks I will do something to be able to attack me for doing it. This is simply amazing Sven.
Again: If you think I misjudged you in any way, and you'd prefer the alien explanation, sorry. Then I'd of course agree that you don't (necessarily) use the razor.
And I would find this amazing.

[premjan]

Isn't OR more a statement about logic than about science? The simplicity or complexity of an explanation is really unimportant as long as it does not impinge on reality in some way.

[Baloo]

I'm with Ponzi: any chance we could see the Occam's Razor broken into a separate thread?

[_Naturalist_]

No, don't make such a hasty generalization. The majority of the world's Christians find no real conflict between Scripture and common descent.
Just because young earthism is a fairy tale does not mean that Christianity itself is absurd in nature.
That's possible only if they disregard selected parts of God's Word. Or does the Genesis account of creation agree with modern scientific findings, and if so, how?

[ninewands]

The simplest explanation for the origin of the Christian faith is that the Apostles did, in fact, witness the post-resurrection Messiah.
<EDIT> I was going to reply to this but it is OT and I don't want a derail on my conscience.

Maybe Jesus is a lesser god, maybe he is an alien in disguise, but the resurrection historically occurred.
<EDIT> Likewise

[Santas little helper]

For those interested in Occam's razor there are a number of threads already:
1 (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=112172&highlight=Occam%27s+razor), 2 (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=99965&highlight=Occam%27s+razor), 3 (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=92742&highlight=Occam%27s+razor), 4 (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=72166&highlight=Occam%27s+razor), 5 (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=61658&highlight=Occam%27s+razor).

[Santas little helper]

So buckshot, in Sven's scenario which explanation would you choose ?

[SophistiCat]

One question that came to me while reading this post about the retroviruses was why did they persist in the genome? Viruses infect organisms for their own nefarious purposes, not to do them a favour. So what kind of a selection advantage can there be in having a piece of an alien genome stuck in your DNA?

To find the answer to this question I followed some of the references. Here is what this paper has to say:

Best S, Le Tissier PR, Stoye JP. Endogenous retroviruses and the evolution of resistance to retroviral infection. Trends Microbiol 1997;5:313–318.
Clearly, an endogenous provirus, which
interrupts an essential gene or gives rise to a
pathogenic virus that rapidly kills its host,
is unlikely to become widely distributed in
the general population. However, some proviruses
have survived and spread, reaching
very high copy numbers, even though they
can cause disease or mutation. This raises
the question of whether they are present in
such high numbers simply because they are
efficiently replicated and are very hard to
eliminate. Alternatively, some endogenous
retroviruses might provide selective advantages
to their hosts and thereby improve
their own chances of survival, for example by
interfering with infection by other, possibly
more pathogenic, exogenous retroviruses.

It goes on to demonstrate that certain retroviral infections do seem to promote resistance.

Interesting stuff.

[steamer]

The simplest explanation for the origin of the Christian faith is that the Apostles did, in fact, witness the post-resurrection Messiah. Maybe Jesus is a lesser god, maybe he is an alien in disguise, but the resurrection historically occurred.

The simplest explanation is that a small group of cult followers not unlike Charles Mansons group, made up a bunch of shit to control the gullible, got a little too much notice and was squashed like a bug by the authorities. When asked how come their so-called god was so easily killed they made up stories about him.

Your idea that an infinitely complex being existed to raise a dead man from the grave is the oddest interpretation of simple I've ever come accross.

[dmarker]

What if God just put those HERV-K thinggies there to fool ya?

So your god is a liar?

Explains a lot.

[Ravear]

On occasion Occam's Razor has been profitably violated. For example, the postulation of a purportedly massless and undetectable (at the time) particle to preserve the law of conservation of matter and energy was a violation of OR. Yet the neutrino turned out to be subsequently detectable with new technology, and constituted a notable extension of particle physics. Carelessly wielded, Occam's Razor has the potential to cut away meat as well as fat.

RBHI fail to see how that follows. Was the neutrino unfalsifiable (in principle) when first hypothesized?

[Sven]

I fail to see how that follows. Was the neutrino unfalsifiable (in principle) when first hypothesized?
Since it was undetectable at this time (did scientists think that it would never be detectable?), yes.

[FatherMithras]

The simplest explanation for the origin of the Christian faith is that the Apostles did, in fact, witness the post-resurrection Messiah. Maybe Jesus is a lesser god, maybe he is an alien in disguise, but the resurrection historically occurred.

It seems no matter how many times the falsehoods inherent in this statement are dimantled, he keeps making the same argument. *sigh*

[RBH]

I fail to see how that follows. Was the neutrino unfalsifiable (in principle) when first hypothesized?Yes. In fact, IIRC (I don't have a reference)) Pauli (who postulated it) was very unhappy that he had to invoke an undetectable (therefore "unfalsifiable", though that's a strange word to use in that context) entity. Not unhappy enough not to do it, but unhappy about it.

RBH

[Sven]

Yes. In fact, IIRC (I don't have a reference)) Pauli (who postulated it) was very unhappy that he had to invoke an undetectable (therefore "unfalsifiable", though that's a strange word to use in that context) entity. Not unhappy enough not to do it, but unhappy about it.

Here you are (http://www.pp.rhul.ac.uk/~ptd/TEACHING/PH2510/pauli-letter.html) [emphasis mine; apparently what we call "neutron" today had another name at this time]:
[...]I have hit upon a desperate remedy to save the "exchange theorem" of statistics and the law of conservation of energy. Namely, the possibility that there could exist in the nuclei electrically neutral particles, that I wish to call neutrons, which have spin 1/2 and obey the exclusion principle and which further differ from light quanta in that they do not travel with the velocity of light. The mass of the neutrons should be of the same order of magnitude as the electron mass and in any event not larger than 0.01 proton masses. The continuous beta spectrum would then become understandable by the assumption that in beta decay a neutron is emitted in addition to the electron such that the sum of the energies of the neutron and the electron is constant...

I agree that my remedy could seem incredible because one should have seen these neutrons much earlier if they really exist. But only the one who dare can win [...]

[dmarker]

The simplest explanation for the origin of the Christian faith is that the Apostles did, in fact, witness the post-resurrection Messiah. Maybe Jesus is a lesser god, maybe he is an alien in disguise, but the resurrection historically occurred.

I'm thinking about the zombie phenomenon in Haiti. One kind of zombie comes from drugging the victim with a concoction that produces a death like state. After a shallow burial, the coffin is dug up and the victim revived and told that he is now a zombie and should serve the witch docter.

Jesus could have received a simular drug in the sponge. Already weak from the crucifixion, he could have succumbed easily. His friends could have removed him from the tomb later and revived him.

Thus, people saw what they thought was a resurrection, but actually wasn't.

[Ravear]

Sven and RBH

From that link, it seems to me he made some very specific predictions so I wouldn't say it was unfalsifiable in principle. I therefore don't think you can justify using occam's razor. It would be like using occam's razor to kill string theory even before it's been falsified. In fact that would be naiive falsification, seeing as string theory "is still in a larval stage: it possesses many features of mathematical interest, and it may yet become supremely important in our understanding of the Universe" (link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/String_theory))

[starling]

"Evolution!"
"Creation!"
"Science!"
"God!"
"Experiment!"
"Faith!"
"Endogenous Retroviral Insertions!"
"... I got nothing."

Yet another creationist shown the light of day. :D

[Santas little helper]

I was virtuously trying to remain within topic but I cannot resist the temptation any longer.


On occasion Occam's Razor has been profitably violated. For example, the postulation of a purportedly massless and undetectable (at the time) particle to preserve the law of conservation of matter and energy was a violation of OR.
So what explanation would have been consistent with OR ?

[RBH]

I was virtuously trying to remain within topic but I cannot resist the temptation any longer.


So what explanation would have been consistent with OR ?Beats me. Magic? My point is that OCcam's Razor is a heuristic guide, not some sort of logical or formal principle.

RBH

[premjan]

Occam'r Razor is just a fancy name for KISS (Keep It Simple Stupid)

[Santas little helper]

Beats me. Magic? My point is that OCcam's Razor is a heuristic guide, not some sort of logical or formal principle.

I agree with O.R. being a heuristic guide but in the case of the neutrino , unless you can suggest a simpler explanation consistent with what was known at the time , then it doesn't look as if O.R. was violated.