Creation & EvolutionForum for the discussion of this important topic. This forum is open to non-believers. There is a Christians-only forum in the Christians-only section too.
Hmmmm... So there ARE cases where a Gorilla and a human share an ERV not found in Chimps. I understand what your saying about the heterozygous populations, and I agree it could happen this way, but now this line of evidence is no longer falsifiable (indeed, I asserted that if this was found it would falsify it, so I should be an instant creationist again .
If it can happen then it doesn't falsify the theory. The chances of a heterozygous allele becoming fixed in one lineage while being eradicated in another is rare, but it is not impossible. Therefore, this should be a rare event, and it is. The overall, overwhelming signal is a nested hierarchy as predicted. There are even ERV's in humans that are not fixed. Some are found in only 10-20% of the population so we know that ERV's can be heterozygous within a population.
Are there any examples that are more extreme, like a human sharing with an oranatun but not a chimp? And do we have any rates for how long genetic drift takes? (since presumably the time between the gorilla and human/chimp split was a large number of generations before the chimp and human split) Could we stay [/size][/color][/font]heterozygous for that long?
[font=Arial][color=Black][size=3]
GREAT! Now I have to rethink if I believe in common discent
Could you reword this one. I know what "conflating shared and lineage specific ERV's" means.
Creationists like to confuse the reader by acting as if all ERV's are equal. They trot out the tired argument that all of these primates were infected with the same virus. Of course, this would not result in the same ERV insertion at the same genomic position but they try very hard to hide this fact.
The claim here is that common ancestry is the only viable explanation for “finding [ERVs] in identical chromosomal positions of two different species.” It is based on the premise that ERVs are (and always have been) nonfunctional products of retroviral infection that have, for the most part, inserted randomly into the genome of the host organism. The presumed nonfunctionality of ERVs is thought to eliminate the explanation of design (because a Designer could have no purpose in placing nonfunctional sequences at the same locus in separate species). The presumed randomness of ERV insertion is thought to eliminate the explanation of chance (because the DNA “chain” is too long for coincidental insertion at the same locus to be a realistic possibility). That leaves common ancestry as the remaining explanation.
Even worse, Camp tries to suggest that the ToE does not predict a nested hierarchy:
It is not a prediction of the hypothesis of universal common ancestry or the more specific hypothesis of Neo-Darwinism that the same ERVs will exist in the same chromosomal location in two or more species. Evolution does not even predict the existence of ERVs, much less that they will be found at the same location in two or more species. After all, evolutionary theory was considered robust prior to the discovery of ERVs. This is but another example of taking an observation, claiming it as a prediction of evolution, and then using the fact the observation fits the prediction as evidence for the truth of evolution.
__________________ "Since YAC [Young-Age Creation] epistemology accepts Biblical claims over physical evidence and human reason, logical or evidential arguments for evolution and/or against YAC are likely to be ineffective in converting most YACists."--Kurt Wise
backing your claims up rather than merely asserting it would be rather nice.
(Initial sequence of the chimpanzee genome, Nature 2005, available online)
__________________
“Gärtner, by the results of these transformation experiments, was led to oppose the opinion of those naturalists who dispute the stability of plant species and believe in a continuous evolution of vegetation. He perceives in the complete transformation of one species into another an indubitable proof that species are fixed with limits beyond which they cannot change.” (G. Mendel)
If it can happen then it doesn't falsify the theory.
I agree that it doesn't falsify the theory. I was just making a joke since in my ealier post, just minutes before, I stated that if such an example existed it would falsify the theory (this, because I hadn't thought of the heterozygous explanation.) Therefor, to be honest and to be honest with my creationist brothers of whom I have asserted I will rejoin if I can be shown the proper evidence, I made the joke.
However, I still assert that it makes the use of ERVs unfalsifiable evidence for common descent, since any example on the contrary (like the one above) has an explanation. How far can we push this explanation? If Oran gutans and humans did share a ERV not shared with chimps or apes, would this also be filed under the explanation of a heterozygous population, this time for an even greater amount of time? I guess it is still falsifiable in that if, for instance, ducks and humans shared an ERV not present in any other more recent common ancestor (such as all the other mammals) then no one would claim it could have been heterzgenous for that long. And yet, the counterexample is unsettling to me in giving some weight to Camp's continued attack that the evidence is actually unfalsifibale.
Thank you for the other explanations. And yes, I agree that Camps's final statement (that you quoted) is non-sensical.
It looks like an attempt to me to poison the well. note the flippant suggestion that the writers of that article are lying.
I never said they were lying nor made any such insinuation. What I said was that they were inaccurate which is typical of TO. This argument was based on early reports of ERVs when they were thought to be 1%:
In humans, endogenous retroviruses occupy about 1% of the genome, in total constituting ~30,000 different retroviruses embedded in each person's genomic DNA
“Gärtner, by the results of these transformation experiments, was led to oppose the opinion of those naturalists who dispute the stability of plant species and believe in a continuous evolution of vegetation. He perceives in the complete transformation of one species into another an indubitable proof that species are fixed with limits beyond which they cannot change.” (G. Mendel)
As a Creationist, I have to admit, that what we know so far, endogenous retroviruses does help the common descent case and something creationist needs to look into. The same when evolutionist comes to a paradox or something hard for them to explain (like the origin of sex) they don't throw out their beliefs and views but hope they will find answer in the future. For all we know these endogenous retroviruses could have once had a propose or later find out they still do.
So while these retroviruses makes a good case yet when looking at the whole picture I'm personal still isn't convince that universal common descent is the gospel.
__________________ Romans 1:16 "For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to everyone that believeth:..."
Romans 3:3-4 "For what if some did not believe? shall their unbelief make the faith of God without effect? God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar;"
As a Creationist, I have to admit, that what we know so far, endogenous retroviruses does help the common descent case and something creationist needs to look into. The same when evolutionist comes to a paradox or something hard for them to explain (like the origin of sex) they don't throw out their beliefs and views but hope they will find answer in the future. For all we know these endogenous retroviruses could have once had a propose or later find out they still do.
So while these retroviruses makes a good case yet when looking at the whole picture I'm personal still isn't convince that universal common descent is the gospel.
The origin of sex isn't much of a conundrum. Bacteria were swapping bits of DNA 3 billion years ago, and that's all sex is at the basic level.
As a Creationist, I have to admit, that what we know so far, endogenous retroviruses does help the common descent case and something creationist needs to look into. The same when evolutionist comes to a paradox or something hard for them to explain (like the origin of sex) they don't throw out their beliefs and views but hope they will find answer in the future. For all we know these endogenous retroviruses could have once had a propose or later find out they still do.
So while these retroviruses makes a good case yet when looking at the whole picture I'm personal still isn't convince that universal common descent is the gospel.
If you scan up a couple of posts you will find that ERV class 1 has over 200 ERVs in the chimpanzee genome over 1 million base pairs in length. Compare that to the human genome and ask a single question, did they all happen before or after the split? If before they were deleted from the human genome at an astonishing rate, if after then we are talking astronomical insertions into the chimpanzee genome.
Lets break it down a little, 5 million into 200 million base pairs. Since the bulk are found in chimpanzees lets say 1 ERV, 800 base pairs in length per generation for 5 million years.
There is a simple way to settle if this is possible, just find out how active this retrovirus is in modern chimpanzees.
__________________
“Gärtner, by the results of these transformation experiments, was led to oppose the opinion of those naturalists who dispute the stability of plant species and believe in a continuous evolution of vegetation. He perceives in the complete transformation of one species into another an indubitable proof that species are fixed with limits beyond which they cannot change.” (G. Mendel)
I see what your getting at and I want to follow your line of reasoning. But I don't understand your numbers. Could you redo it and slow it down a bit to make it clearer. For instance, are there 200 different virus insertions in the Chimpanzee, each 1 million base pair long? And is you final statement that 1 800 base pair long virus must be inserted every generation (for 5 million years), and if so, how do you get to that number? Shouldn't there be 200 virus insertions, one for each ERV or is an ERV not a one to one equivalent to a virus insertion? And finnally, how many years per generation for chimpanzees (it would seem like you would need this information but it is not listed).
I see what your getting at and I want to follow your line of reasoning.
Mark seems to get confused about a lot of topics. He was referring to mutations for quite a while now, and his mind seems to get blown away by large numbers making him miss the point.
The point isn't the amount of viral DNA inserted. The point is WHAT viral DNA is inserted, WHERE we find it in the genome and ARE there matches between primates that form a nested hierarchy.
Everything else he's raising on this issue is a red herring meant to distract.
__________________ (The Library of Alexandria) questioned the permanence of the stars, but did not question the justice of slavery - Carl Sagan in Cosmos
Smidlee in post #35:
"The same when evolutionist comes to a paradox or something hard for them to explain (like the origin of sex) they don't throw out their beliefs and views but hope they will find answer in the future."
I have commented on the origin of sex in primitive worms. The evidence is that worms came together and exchanged DNA before sexual organs developed to facilitate this process. Form follows function, as they say, in this case quite literally.
__________________ The Land Tax: Untaxing Labor & Capital
.
Linear Mode
