Smoking-gun evidence domestic cats and wild cats share a common ancestor!

WinAce · #1 24th October 2002, 09:44 PM

TalkOrigins 29 Evidences for Evolution

Endogenous retroviruses are molecular remnants of a past parasitic viral infection. [The process by which they occur and insert their DNA fragments into the genome is directly observable in the lab, BTW - Allan] 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.

[...]

The standard phylogenetic tree has small cats diverging later than large cats. The small cats (e.g. the jungle cat, European wildcat, African wildcat, blackfooted cat, and domestic cat) share a specific retroviral gene insertion. In contrast, all other carnivores which have been tested lack this retrogene (Futuyma 1998, pp. 293-294).

Who here disagrees that something like a directly observable process, which leads fingerprints in the genome that are passed on to all ancestors, linking wild cats and domestic cats, is undeniable, irrefutable evidence they evolved from a common ancestor?

chickenman · #2 24th October 2002, 10:12 PM

not me

kaotic · #3 24th October 2002, 10:14 PM

Originally posted by chickenman
not me

What he said.

Pete Harcoff · #4 24th October 2002, 10:15 PM

"But they're still the same kind! This is microevolution, not macroevolution! Show me a cat giving birth to a dog/monkey/dolphin/lobster!"

etc...

WinAce · #5 24th October 2002, 10:46 PM

Well, technically it's macroevolution, since they're different species now... but that wasn't really what I was talking about.

My point was, do identical snippers of leftover retroviral infections shared at the exact same spots between wild cats and domestic cats provide irrefutable evidence of common ancestry?

Let's see some creationist opinions on this, as well.

Caffeine Socialism · #6 24th October 2002, 11:32 PM

I'd like to see a cat give birth to a lobster. I wonder, would it purr?

Pete Harcoff · #7 24th October 2002, 11:42 PM

Originally posted by WinAce
Well, technically it's macroevolution, since they're different species now... but that wasn't really what I was talking about.

Thing about discussing "macroevolution" with some creationists, is they have a different definition of what "macroevolution" is.

Their argument would be that it's still a "cat", and hasn't evolved into anything completely different (like... a lobster).

This is, coincidentally, why it's so frustrating to try and discuss this with people who draw an arbitrary, invisible line between "micro" and "macro" evolution.

Personally, I just avoid the terms "micro" and "macro" altogether.

WinAce · #8 25th October 2002, 12:12 AM

*Waits for creationists to comment on whether this is proof that cats and wild cats share a common ancestor*

ern · #9 25th October 2002, 12:23 AM

The excerpt itself says it only "indicates" common ancestry, and if domestic and wild cats have common ancestors, how is that evidence against creation, as far as i can tell, they are still cats.

Flaming Blaze · #10 25th October 2002, 01:24 AM

I agree with ern. A cat is a cat is a cat.

All cats (domestic, wild, whatever) have the same genes. This is an example of rearranged genes, not new ones. They have adapted to there environment, to have the greatest odds for survival. This is an example of microevolution, not macroevolution.