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.
I have to ask a favor!
Could some people summarize what the "endigenous retroviruse" is?
I didn't really understand the article or win-ace's post.
So I would really appreciate someone explaining it to me in simpler terms!
You're the expert who knows all about how wrong we are, right? Fortunately you're not saddled with any inconvenient actual knowledge :rolleyes:
LOL Either you posted just as I was posting Loudmouth, ot I didn't see it.
-- Okay, so it's established that it is a virus because of conducted tests.
-- All races of humans have same identical imprint.
-- The exact same imprint as apes.
-- Concluding a common ancestor.
1: is this imprint in an identical position in ALL humans and ALL apes ?
That would depend on where in the history of the line it was inserted. If the viral DNA appeared in the genome after gorillas split off from the line that later produced chimps and humans, we would find the insertion in humans and chimps, but not in gorillas.
EDIT: If we were to find an insertion in humans and gorillas, but not chimps, and there were no indication of a deletion mutation at the position in the genome, this would serve as a fairly effective falsification of the nested heirarchy of species as we understand it. Since we never do, we can conclude that this evidence pretty solidly supports common ancestry.
EDIT: If we were to find an insertion in humans and gorillas, but not chimps, and there were no indication of a deletion mutation at the position in the genome, this would serve as a fairly effective falsification of the nested heirarchy of species as we understand it. Since we never do, we can conclude that this evidence pretty solidly supports common ancestry.
Indeed. This is another method of falsifying common ancestory. I don't see how creationists, with a straight face nonetheless, claim that evolution and common ancestory can not be falsified. This, and many other tests, could have falsified evolution. It is strange that each new discovery, both in the fossil record and in genetics, keep supporting the Theory of Evolution. If creationism were true, or we were misinterpreting the data, it should have been blazingly obvious by now.
ERVs are identifiable due to the presense of sequences that code (or once coded) for viral proteins, including gag (structural proteins), pol (viral enzymes), and env (surface proteins), as well as tell-tale LTRs (long terminal repeats).
If we honestly think that that answer is going to suffice, we deceive ourselves.
First, if it's an ancient virus, how do we know what it's sequence was?
If it's around today, how do we know it wasn't independently inserted in "hotspots"?
How do we know that it codes for a viral protein? Don't different sequences encode for different things at different loci? Which fossils were they discovered in? And most importantly, is there any citation of evidence of such every possibly being discovered, or may we safely file this under theoretical biology?
I know that these questions seem critical, and they are, but before I use them I want to make sure that they are, for all practical purposes, irrefutable.
ERV's have my special interest in evidences for evolution, but I cannot use this unless I know that it has actually happened. TTYL Jesus loves you!
First, if it's an ancient virus, how do we know what it's sequence was?
It is assumed that viruses in distant history had similar sequences to what we find today. Of course, the sequences will be slightly different due to eons of mutation and selection. Also, viral sequences are flanked by tandem repeats, sections of repeating sequence such as AGGCAGGCAGGCAGGC, for example.
If it's around today, how do we know it wasn't independently inserted in "hotspots"?
It would have to have been very lucky and very accurate to become part of the entire human populations genome. Remember, it has to integrate into a germ line cell in order to become part of the genome. If viruses were actively inserting themselves into germ line cells the human genome would be littered with these sequences. If our genomes were 50% primary viral sequence then we could conclude that viral insertions are very common. However, this is not the case. There are, however, remanants of viral code that has been transposed and moved around in the genome. This also helps in tracking phylogenies by comparing the movement of the manipulated viral code as it moves through the genome.
How do we know that it codes for a viral protein? Don't different sequences encode for different things at different loci?
Talked about above. By comparing the sequence of the genes to extant viruses.
Which fossils were they discovered in?
None that I know of. ERV research is done on extant species. They construct cladograms, or trees, that correspond to the viral insertions. These trees match what we find in the fossil record.
And most importantly, is there any citation of evidence of such every possibly being discovered, or may we safely file this under theoretical biology?
We might be able to find ERV in recently extinct species, such as neanderthals or wooly mammoths. This would require extremely well preserved specimens, but could be possible. As an example, they have been able to sequence neanderthal mitochondrial DNA, showing that they are distinctly different from humans in this respect.
Science generally doesn't deal with Omphalos hypotheses for good reason, because there is no reasonable way to verify or falsify them; they throw explanatory and predictive power, much less parsimony, entirely out the window.
Excellent essay on ERV's.
However, the killer argument against Oomphalos' arguments doesn't come from science. As you pointed out, science can't falsify them. The killer argument comes from Christianity. No Christian can tolerate the Oomphalos' argument for the simple reason that it makes God into a liar. That is, God put the ERV's into the genome that give evidence for evolution when, supposedly, evolution did not happen! God deceived us.
As I said, for a Christian, God as deceiver is not acceptable. It might rescue God creating by the desires of creationists, but the cost is a God that can't be trusted, one that can't save people, and one that can't be worshipped. The cost, therefore, is a complete destruction of the Christian God. That's way too high a price to pay to preserve Biblical literalism and creationism.
__________________ "If sound science appears to contradict the Bible, we may be sure that it is our interpretation of the Bible that is at fault." Christian Observer, 1832, pg. 437
"Christians should look on evolution simply as the method by which God works." Rev. James McCosh, theologian and President of Princeton, 1890
If everyone is still interested, I would like a reference to the actual loci where ERV's were detected, simply for clarification purposes. I know this argument is a potential gold mine,and so I would prefer to be able to quote the exact chromosome when using this argument. Is it theoretical, or have these actually been detected, and in which species of hominids and primates have they been detected?
Linear Mode
