Endogenous Retroviruses and Human Evolution v. 2

[AV1611VET]

What I am asking is for you to show how the ERV evidence is inconsistent with what evolution would produce.

How can I do that, when the ERV is a part of the evolution paradigm?

 

[Loudmouth]

How can I do that, when the ERV is a part of the evolution paradigm?

If you don't believe in evolution, do the ERVs appear in different parts of the genome? If you don't believe in evolution, do you get a different order of bases when sequencing these genomes?

 

[AV1611VET]

If you don't believe in evolution, do the ERVs appear in different parts of the genome? If you don't believe in evolution, do you get a different order of bases when sequencing these genomes?

Oh, now I don't believe in evolution?

 

[Loudmouth]

Oh, now I don't believe in evolution?

Oh, now you can't address what other people post?

 

[loveofourlord]

Sure. I am not suggesting that the offspring need to experience the
same exposure to get the same result. I'm not sure why you are.

Well what are the chances of all of species X and all of species Y some how magickally getting all the same ERV's in the EXACT SAME SPOT. ERV inseration points are 100% random, and not going to show up in the same spot by chance, wether it's ERV or HGT neither of wich have a determined insertion poiunt.

 

[loveofourlord]

Because we have been eating them a long time.
Same environment, same food supply, and we
eat them.

African scientists warn that eating monkeys
and apes could cause 'the next HIV'

This isn't going to cause HIV to pop into our DNA in the same place, show how a random event is going to cause the exact same thing, ESPECIALLY when it fits the pattern of evolution. Why don't we find ERV's common with GOrilla's but not chimps?

 

[loveofourlord]

I don't have a clue as to what I'm asking, but I'll ask it anyway:

1. What if it can only insert itself into just so many places, and thus it wouldn't be as coincidental?

Like playing darts on two different dart boards.

Just by coincidence, two darts hit the same spot on their respective boards, yet if there are only two or three spots they can hit, then it's less coincidental.

2. For every one that inserts itself in the same place, how many insert themselves in other places?

Well yeah they have limited locations, after all a ERV going into a hemoglobin genes going to kill the offspring so won't work, but the locations are still millions of base pairs long, its' still too big a area for them all to line up. And to fit the evolutionary tree.

 

[SkyWriting]

This isn't going to cause HIV to pop into our DNA in the same place, show how a random event is going to cause the exact same thing, ESPECIALLY when it fits the pattern of evolution. Why don't we find ERV's common with GOrilla's but not chimps?

Past events are always a guess. I can't work with double negative questions anyway.

 

[SkyWriting]

ERV insertion points are 100% random

Nothing in nature is random. What we normally call “random” is not truly
random, but only appears so. The randomness is a reflection of our
ignorance about the thing being observed, rather than something inherent
to it.

But DNA can transfer horizontally through viruses and diet
as well as
vertically to offspring.

 

[loveofourlord]

Past events are always a guess. I can't work with double negative questions anyway.

You might want to reread my question, it's not a double negative. to clarify since you can't read. Why don't we find ERV's the are only in Gorilla's and humans if your right, by your logic we should find ERV's that are related that way, after all it's just HGT. Yet, apparently you think HGT just happens to only occur right along evolutionary lines, why is that? If your right we should see Gorilla's and humans sharing ERV's but not Chimps, or chimps and Orangutans sharing ERV's that no one else does. It's almost like ERV's prefer to work based on evolutionary theory...what a odd conicidence.

 

[SkyWriting]

You might want to reread my question, it's not a double negative. to clarify since you can't read. Why don't we find ERV's the are only in Gorilla's and humans if your right, by your logic we should find ERV's that are related that way, after all it's just HGT. Yet, apparently you think HGT just happens to only occur right along evolutionary lines, why is that? If your right we should see Gorilla's and humans sharing ERV's but not Chimps, or chimps and Orangutans sharing ERV's that no one else does. It's almost like ERV's prefer to work based on evolutionary theory...what a odd coincidence.

I've not claimed what you insist I have.
Please use the quote function, and
address my comments directly.

 

[loveofourlord]

Nothing in nature is random.

But DNA can transfer horizontally through viruses and diet
as well as
vertically to offspring.

This is bacteria, not moderns animal cells wich don't share DNA that way, and hate to break it to you, this works across bacterial 'species' that arn't even related and have no analagous placement. A ecoli and a Staphylococcus can share antibiotic resistance even though they arn't fully related and wouldn't appear on the same spot, this isn't the same thing as animal cells that are designed to not allow foreign DNA in them, otherwise we be full of animal DNA from many species we eat not just those closly related to us.

 

[SkyWriting]

Wow, I thought I was the first to coin that quote... I said almost the same lines some time ago and never heard this one before!

It's very common for someone to have 3 or more exposures
to information before remembering having read it before.

 

[SkyWriting]

This is bacteria, not moderns animal cells wich don't share DNA that way, and hate to break it to you, this works across bacterial 'species' that arn't even related and have no analagous placement. A ecoli and a Staphylococcus can share antibiotic resistance even though they arn't fully related and wouldn't appear on the same spot, this isn't the same thing as animal cells that are designed to not allow foreign DNA in them, otherwise we be full of animal DNA from many species we eat not just those closly related to us.

Researchers in that area believe that while the field is very new, it has many more insights to deliver.
It's amusing that you constantly refer to "closely related to us" since that is the debated conclusion.

 

[SkyWriting]

You were born with over 200,000 ERVs in your genome. Your relatives have these same insertions at the same locations in their genomes, what we call orthologous ERVs. These were not created by 200,000 infections while you were still in the womb. These are retroviral sequences that were already a part of your ancestors' genomes. They were passed down vertically from your common ancestors. The same logic applies to other species.

But we don't know the origin of those insertions that are now inherited.

 

[sfs]

But we don't know the origin of those insertions that are now inherited.

Well, we know they came from viral infections. I'll try asking again: how did the same virus get into the identical location in the genomes of different species?

 

[whois]

. . . , this isn't the same thing as animal cells that are designed to not allow foreign DNA in them, otherwise we be full of animal DNA from many species we eat not just those closly related to us.

sorry, there isn't an insurmountable barrier to HGT, and that is what ERVs essentially are.
i'll find the source on my hard drive and post it.

here:
The significance of horizontal gene transfer (HGT) in eukaryotic evolution remains controversial. Although many eukaryotic genes are of bacterial origin, they are often interpreted as being derived from mitochondria or plastids. Because of their fixed gene pool and gene loss, however, mitochondria and plastids alone cannot adequately explain the presence of all, or even the majority, of bacterial genes in eukaryotes. Available data indicate that no insurmountable barrier to HGT exists, even in complex multicellular eukaryotes. In addition, the discovery of both recent and ancient HGT events in all major eukaryotic groups suggests that HGT has been a regular occurrence throughout the history of eukaryotic evolution.
Horizontal gene transfer in eukaryotes The weak-link model.htm

 

[AV1611VET]

Well, we know they came from viral infections. I'll try asking again: how did the same virus get into the identical location in the genomes of different species?

Isn't this like asking:

You have two metropolitan communities ... say ... 3000 miles apart.

Within those two communities, you have a house with the same address: 1870 Williamsburg Court.

What are the chances of two families named Laxtonhite moving into both dwellings?

I would say pretty slim.

But if they were name Smith instead, the chances dramatically increase.

If you have a quintillion viruses hovering over two same locations on two different genomes, then the chances of getting two locations the same are phenomenal.

Again, it would be like a cargo plane flying over two golf courses and releasing 30,000 golf balls; then claiming both courses are related because they found a golf ball in the 7th hole of both courses.

Wouldn't it?

 

[Loudmouth]

Past events are always a guess. I can't work with double negative questions anyway.

We are always told that creationists are using the same evidence as evolutionists. Apparently, we aren't. We evolutionists are using DNA evidence found in the present to test our hypotheses of what happened in the past. Creationists won't use DNA evidence. They apparently won't look at it. This isn't a matter of different interpretations. This is a matter of creationists refusing to interpret the evidence.

 

[Loudmouth]

But we don't know the origin of those insertions that are now inherited.

We can observe retroviruses creating ERVs right in the lab. We can even use the consensus sequence from HERV-K infections to construct a retrovirus.

"Human Endogenous Retroviruses are expected to be the remnants of ancestral infections of primates by active retroviruses that have thereafter been transmitted in a Mendelian fashion. Here, we derived in silico the sequence of the putative ancestral “progenitor” element of one of the most recently amplified family—the HERV-K family—and constructed it. This element, Phoenix, produces viral particles that disclose all of the structural and functional properties of a bona-fide retrovirus, can infect mammalian, including human, cells, and integrate with the exact signature of the presently found endogenous HERV-K progeny."
http://genome.cshlp.org/content/early/2006/10/31/gr.5565706.short

Creationists often tell us that evolution isn't testable because we can't watch an ancestral ape turn into a human in the lab. With ERVs, we can directly watch retroviruses turn into ERVs right in the laboratory. It makes me think that the claims of creationists are quite hollow.