Dogs only make more dogs - really?

[Justatruthseeker]

We wouldn't find those same insertions in chimps.

I have shown you that retroviruses insert randomly into genomes. Are you just going to ignore it?

According to you we do. Which is it, can we find those same insertions in chimps or can we not? According to you those same virus are found in both humans and chimps. Make up your mind which side you are arguing.

 

[Loudmouth]

Answer the question I asked several posts ago.

Why are not American Indians considered a separate species since they were reproductively isolated for 10's of thousands of years?

You wont answer because every answer you give will destroy your claims for Darwin's finches being separate species.

You won't face the genetic evidence demonstrating common ancestry between the separate species of chimps and humans because it destroys your argument.

 

[Loudmouth]

According to you we do.

Where did I say that the insertions produced in the paper I referenced are found in chimps?

Which is it, can we find those same insertions in chimps or can we not? According to you those same virus are found in both humans and chimps. Make up your mind which side you are arguing.

Of the 200,000 ERV's found in humans, more than 99.9% are found at the same position in the chimp genome. Are you talking about the ERV's found as part of the human and chimp genome projects, or the ERV's produced in the paper I referenced?

 

[Atheos canadensis]

According to you Which is it, can we find those same insertions in chimps or can we not? According to you those same virus are found in both humans and chimps. Make up your mind which side you are arguing.

But what rebuttal can you present to the evidence that insertion points vary widely and don't occur at the same spot in the genome? Can you present evidence for the claim that this is how it works in the wild and the apparent randomness is artificial?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

But what rebuttal can you present to the evidence that insertion points vary widely and don't occur at the same spot in the genome? Can you present evidence for the claim that this is how it works in the wild and the apparent randomness is artificial?

Some insertions would be random - but then it's not the random ones you rely on to prove ancestry is it? It's those that insert in the same spot you claim proves man-monkey relation - so randomness is just a strawman to deflect from the fact that virus that have developed a method of inserting into the genome would insert in the same place.

Like I said - make up your minds which side you want to argue. And what facts do you have that it is all random, since we also know that virus develop specific strategies for insertion to specific genomes? Are you arguing against the virologists now? Do evolutionists suddenly know more than they?

And it isn't random insertion - it is from being moved where needed at any given time - being they are used by the genome for protien production.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endogenous_retrovirus
"ERVs are a subclass of a type of gene called a transposon, which can be packaged and moved within the genome to serve a vital role in gene expression and in regulation."

And not all you think are ERV's may really be from insertion:

"Researchers have suggested that retroviruses evolved from a type of transposable gene called a retrotransposon, which includes ERVs; these genes can mutate and instead of moving to another location in the genome they can become exogenous or pathogenic. This means that not all ERVs may have originated as an insertion by a retrovirus but that some may have been the source for the genetic information in the retroviruses they resemble."

Just face the facts and admit there is not enough knowledge right now to be making any claims at all when it comes to ERV's.

 

[Atheos canadensis]

Some insertions would be random - but then it's not the random ones you rely on to prove ancestry is it? It's those that insert in the same spot you claim proves man-monkey relation - so randomness is just a strawman to deflect from the fact that virus that have developed a method of inserting into the genome would insert in the same place.

Interesting idea, but so far all you've done is reiterate it. So gain, can you cite any evidence that the roughly 200,000 insertion points shared by humans and chimps are shared because the virus was adapted to insert at that specific point? Can you cite any evidence that the insertion points are not basically random as experimental evidence indicates?

Like I said - make up your minds which side you want to argue. And what facts do you have that it is all random, since we also know that virus develop specific strategies for insertion to specific genomes? Are you arguing against the virologists now? Do evolutionists suddenly know more than they?

And it isn't random insertion - it is from being moved where needed at any given time - being they are used by the genome for protien production.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endogenous_retrovirus
"ERVs are a subclass of a type of gene called a transposon, which can be packaged and moved within the genome to serve a vital role in gene expression and in regulation."

And not all you think are ERV's may really be from insertion:

"Researchers have suggested that retroviruses evolved from a type of transposable gene called a retrotransposon, which includes ERVs; these genes can mutate and instead of moving to another location in the genome they can become exogenous or pathogenic. This means that not all ERVs may have originated as an insertion by a retrovirus but that some may have been the source for the genetic information in the retroviruses they resemble."

Just face the facts and admit there is not enough knowledge right now to be making any claims at all when it comes to ERV's.

I'm not disagreeing with virologists, I'm asking you to cite support for your position.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Interesting idea, but so far all you've done is reiterate it. So gain, can you cite any evidence that the roughly 200,000 insertion points shared by humans and chimps are shared because the virus was adapted to insert at that specific point? Can you cite any evidence that the insertion points are not basically random as experimental evidence indicates?



I'm not disagreeing with virologists, I'm asking you to cite support for your position.

I'm citing evolutionist's that claim it is those shared insertions that prove familial relations. Are you now arguing against this shared ERV'S showing relation?

Do you have any genes from those 100,000 year old ancestors to show when they were inserted besides the math based upon your beliefs of insertion?????

No, you don't do you, so any claims they did not also or did inhabit the same sites back then is just pure conjecture is it not? Based upon mathematical models - based upon a persons belief of how it occurs - not reality.

You dont even have the genome of an African more than 50 years old, let alone to be claiming what happened with genes hundreds of thousands of years ago.

There is no fact - merely belief in what people want it to be.

 

[Atheos canadensis]

I'm citing evolutionist's that claim it is those shared insertions that prove familial relations. Are you now arguing against this shared ERV'S showing relation?

Do you have any genes from those 100,000 year old ancestors to show when they were inserted besides the math based upon your beliefs of insertion?????

No, you don't do you, so any claims they did not also or did inhabit the same sites back then is just pure conjecture is it not? Based upon mathematical models - based upon a persons belief of how it occurs - not reality.

You dont even have the genome of an African more than 50 years old, let alone to be claiming what happened with genes hundreds of thousands of years ago.

There is no fact - merely belief in what people want it to be.

I think you missed this from my last post:

"can you cite any evidence that the roughly 200,000 insertion points shared by humans and chimps are shared because the virus was adapted to insert at that specific point? "

If you can provide such a citation, then do so. I engaged with your comment to see if you could cite any support for the claim that "most insertions sites would be in the same place every time since they have developed specific mechanisms for defeating that specific site already" and that "Only in the lab when they insert virus into a host at specific locations - does it appear random, because we force them to insert where they normally would not be attempting to".

So far you have been unable to support these assertions. All I'm interested in is whether they based on anything more than your personal opinion. If you refuse to clarify this point then my interest in continuing this particular dialogue will cease as having this question answered was the entire point of addressing you in the first place.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

I think you missed this from my last post:

"can you cite any evidence that the roughly 200,000 insertion points shared by humans and chimps are shared because the virus was adapted to insert at that specific point? "

I think you missed my point.

"can you cite any evidence that the roughly 200,000 insertion points shared by humans and chimps are shared because the virus was not inserted at that specific point? "

Besides someones mathmatical fudgery of how it supposedly happened?

After all, they are insertion points......


Because if it is random as you suggest, then show me any mathematical formula that can predict the outcome of a random event? If we had one then someone would be winning the lottery all the time. You know it is impossible as well as I do, that everything they say is just wishful thinking.

So if you can provide more than just a personal opinion, say such as 100,000 year old DNA that shows these matches existed or not back then????? Didn't think so - so it is in reality opinion either way is it not? The only DNA they have is from Neanderthal, which they believe might have mated with another, which is quite logical since as we know it takes two separate infraspecific taxa to create another.

 

[Atheos canadensis]

I think you missed my point.

"can you cite any evidence that the roughly 200,000 insertion points shared by humans and chimps are shared because the virus was not inserted at that specific point? "

Besides someones mathmatical fudgery of how it supposedly happened?

After all, they are insertion points......


Because if it is random as you suggest, then show me any mathematical formula that can predict the outcome of a random event? If we had one then someone would be winning the lottery all the time. You know it is impossible as well as I do, that everything they say is just wishful thinking.

So if you can provide more than just a personal opinion, say such as 100,000 year old DNA that shows these matches existed or not back then????? Didn't think so - so it is in reality opinion either way is it not? The only DNA they have is from Neanderthal, which they believe might have mated with another, which is quite logical since as we know it takes two separate infraspecific taxa to create another.

So you admit that your assertions are based solely on your opinion rather than on data.

My position is based on experimental data (posted earlier in the thread) that ERVs insert randomly. Thus shared loci imply common ancestry.

Perhaps you could explain in more detail what you mean by "mathematical fudgery".

 

[Herman Hedning]

So if you can provide more than just a personal opinion, say such as 100,000 year old DNA that shows these matches existed or not back then????? Didn't think so - so it is in reality opinion either way is it not? The only DNA they have is from Neanderthal, which they believe might have mated with another, which is quite logical since as we know it takes two separate infraspecific taxa to create another.

Maybe not 100,000 years old, but at least 45,000. Maybe someone that has full access to the Nature article can check if it contains information comparing HERVs in this genome to that of modern humans?

Genome sequence of a 45,000-year-old modern human from western Siberia

We present the high-quality genome sequence of a ~45,000-year-old modern human male from Siberia. This individual derives from a population that lived before—or simultaneously with—the separation of the populations in western and eastern Eurasia and carries a similar amount of Neanderthal ancestry as present-day Eurasians. However, the genomic segments of Neanderthal ancestry are substantially longer than those observed in present-day individuals, indicating that Neanderthal gene flow into the ancestors of this individual occurred 7,000–13,000 years before he lived.

 

[Loudmouth]

Do you have any genes from those 100,000 year old ancestors to show when they were inserted besides the math based upon your beliefs of insertion?????

We have direct observations of retroviruses inserting into genomes, and they do so randomly. They aren't beliefs. They are scientific facts, facts which you have to run away from.

 

[Loudmouth]

Because if it is random as you suggest, then show me any mathematical formula that can predict the outcome of a random event?

You can predict that a 7 has a 1 in 5 chance in the game of craps. Over millions of rolls, these odds are shown to be accurate.

It isn't that hard to do.

If we had one then someone would be winning the lottery all the time. You know it is impossible as well as I do, that everything they say is just wishful thinking.

The odds of independent insertions producing the same insertion is like the odds of winning the lottery. You are refuting your own claims.

So if you can provide more than just a personal opinion, say such as 100,000 year old DNA that shows these matches existed or not back then????? Didn't think so - so it is in reality opinion either way is it not? The only DNA they have is from Neanderthal, which they believe might have mated with another, which is quite logical since as we know it takes two separate infraspecific taxa to create another.

Why isn't the DNA we have now capable of testing the hypothesis?