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.
This shows that common ancestry is not required to explain similar
retroviral insertions between species.
You are making the study say things it is not. The preference is towards sequences upstream of active genes. These viruses have preference for certain areas, not specific sites (ie same nucleotide) on the genome. Referencing the very paper you mention, this table shows the insertions of the three viruses. You will notice that they are spread throughout the genome. In fact, the paper never says anywhere that the viruses were specific to a certain nucleotide, as would be necessary to explain the exact same insertion in two different species without them having a common ancestor. Therefore, common ancestory is still needed to explain why two different species share several viral insertions at the SAME NUCLEOTIDE instead of upstream of an actively transcribed gene.
Last edited by Loudmouth; 30th August 2004 at 03:22 PM.
Its just difficult to grasp that an entire species would originate from one pair of creatures.
Do a google search on "common ancestor" and that will explain it to you. It has more to do with the more recent common ancestor, as compared to the oldest common ancestor. In theory, some people believe our most recent common ancestor could be as recent as 700 years ago.
My son was talking about the movie "Braveheart". Sense we are of scottish decent on one side of our family, there is a good chance that one way or the other, he is related to the hero of the movie.
It is only a matter of time, before they use DNA to map out the entire human genologys, so we will know exactly who we are related to all the way back to the beginning. The mormons for one have done a lot of research on this.
What do you want to know about retroviruses? I would be glad to help you.
Actually, what I am wondering about is common ancestor. It has been established that there is a most distant common ancestor, but is there also a most recent common ancestor?
Is it possible that this retroviruses could have come to us all in a way so that it did not go though our most distant common ancestor?
Actually, what I am wondering about is common ancestor. It has been established that there is a most distant common ancestor, but is there also a most recent common ancestor?
I don't quite follow this, but I think I understand.
You can put a recent common ancestor depending on who you are looking for the ancestor to. What i mean, is that at every branch on the evolutionary bush, there is a common ancestor before the branching begins. Say you wanted to know who was the most common ancestor of elephants and mammoths, then you would go to the bush and find that fork. the "handle of that specific fork would be the most recent ancestor.
Is it possible that this retroviruses could have come to us all in a way so that it did not go though our most distant common ancestor?
not really. Go back to the beginning of the ERV thread and read the possible YEC rebuttals for their take on other methods of infection or reasons for the existence of these things.
__________________ Jesus said, "If a blind person leads a blind person, both of them will fall into a hole." Thomas 34
"On blind faith they place reliance, what they need more of is science"- MC Hawking
Go back to the beginning of the ERV thread and read the possible YEC rebuttals for their take on other methods of infection or reasons for the existence of these things.
The arguement "against" Endogenous retroviruses does not come from YEC's, it comes from science. The very foundation that this theory is built on has already been falsified. So it is just a matter of time before the whole theory is going to come down like a stack of cards. Two key points are "vestages" & "junk DNA". These both have been and continue to be falsifed theorys.
Even though these so called "junk DNA" makes up 8% of the human genes it is thought to have no function. Yet experments in mice show that if you remove the so called "vestage" or "junk DNA" the mice do not survive. Leaving us with the obvious conclusion that their function is not yet known. Yet they are still essential for the mice to live.
The bottom line is, no insult intended, the fifty year old theory of DNA is destine for the junk pile. As more information becomes available, then a new theory is going to need to be developed.
So, science still has the burdon of proof that this so called "junk DNA" was not there from the beginning and that it got picked up somewhere along the way. Even if it were to get picked up somewhere along the way, that still leaves the question of where did it come from in the first place
ERV's are not "Junk" DNA. We know what they are. Has someone removed these sequences from humans to see if they are necessary? Other viruses are inserted in our genes as well. they actually cause cancer when "activated". So God deliberatly inserted disease causing viruses in our genome?
The papers are in NCBI, not talkorigins
__________________ Jesus said, "If a blind person leads a blind person, both of them will fall into a hole." Thomas 34
"On blind faith they place reliance, what they need more of is science"- MC Hawking
ERV's are not "Junk" DNA. We know what they are. Has someone removed these sequences from humans to see if they are necessary?
What they removed was pseudogenes. This falsifies the "junk" DNA theory as well as the vestages theory.
"This pseudogene (named makorin1-p1) is a greatly shortened copy of makorin1, an ancient gene that mice share with fruit flies, worms and many other species. Although researchers don't know what makorin1 does, they do know that mice have lots of makorin1 pseudogenes and that none of them can make proteins. But if pseudogenes do nothing, why were these mice dying when they lost one?" http://www.mindfully.org/GE/2003/Junk-GenomeNov03.htm
Unless you want to volunteer to allow them to remove some of the Endogenous Retorviruses from your DNA, then it maybe a good idea to allow them to carry on their experments using the mice.
So God deliberatly inserted disease causing viruses in our genome?
From a Christian perspective Adam was created 6000 years ago, and he was never to get sick, and he was never to die. Then sin entered into the world. The question them becomes, what did God intend the so called "virus" to do, what was their origional function or intention, back when everything was "good", and back before creation fell from God's purpose and intention.
What they removed was pseudogenes. This falsifies the "junk" DNA theory as well as the vestages theory.
"This pseudogene (named makorin1-p1) is a greatly shortened copy of makorin1, an ancient gene that mice share with fruit flies, worms and many other species. Although researchers don't know what makorin1 does, they do know that mice have lots of makorin1 pseudogenes and that none of them can make proteins. But if pseudogenes do nothing, why were these mice dying when they lost one?" http://www.mindfully.org/GE/2003/Junk-GenomeNov03.htm
Unless you want to volunteer to allow them to remove some of the Endogenous Retorviruses from your DNA, then it maybe a good idea to allow them to carry on their experments using the mice.
just because some pseudogenes have a function does not mean all pseudogenes have a function. we know for a fact that removal of certain massive stretches of DNA has no effect. nevertheless, this is besides the point, we are not discussing pseudogenes, we are discussing ERVs. totally different topic.
__________________ MSci MSc ARCS DIC PhD..... yes, I am bragging.
Linear Mode
