Endogenous Retroviruses and Human Evolution v. 2

[Loudmouth]

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?

I think I have described this analogy to you before, but I could be mistaken.

The situations is much more like this. Let's say that we have two unabridged Oxford English Dicitionaries. Each has the same 30,000 entries. They are completely identical. We give these two dictionaries to two different people and put them in separate rooms. We ask them each to randomly pick 2 entries out of the entire dictionary. We compare their random picks. What are the chances that they both picked the same 2 words? Pretty low, right?

2 entries out of 30,000 is the same situation we have with the human genome. The haploid human genome is 3 billion bases and it contains 200,000 insertions, the same ratio as 30,000 to 2. Your math just doesn't hold up.

 

[Loudmouth]

sorry, there isn't an insurmountable barrier to HGT, and that is what ERVs essentially are.

Essentially, yes. However, they are only transferring retroviral genes between species. They aren't transferring functional genes that have evolved in one vertebrate lineage to another vertebrate lineage.

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

What is "significant"? That is what you never seem to address. From the one paper you did reference, there was only 3 detectable HGT events (other than ERVs) since the human lineage split from the primate common ancestor. Just 3.

 

[AV1611VET]

Your math just doesn't hold up.

Of course not.

You're showing 2/30000; whereas I'm showing 30000/2.

 

[Loudmouth]

Of course not.

You're showing 2/30000; whereas I'm showing 30000/2.

There are not 10,000 times more ERV insertions than there are bases in the human genome.

 

[AV1611VET]

There are not 10,000 times more ERV insertions than there are bases in the human genome.

Don't you mean 15,000?

And are you saying there are 15,000 times more bases than ERV insertions?

 

[The IbanezerScrooge]

You guys aren't getting it and I think it's on purpose because you know that this argument for common ancestry is very, very strong.

You keep going on and on about HGT, but ERVs are the result of viral infections and their insertion into DNA is unpredictable, i.e. there is a roughly equal chance that the insertion will occur at any location within the genome even when you take into account some viral "hot spots". We KNOW this. It's an observation that has been made in the lab as Loudmouth pointed out and cited in earlier posts. Even if some ERVs are the result of HGT you're still not addressing anything by pointing that out because it's the pattern that's important. If a father and son both have the same ERVs in the same locations in the DNA in every cell of their bodies the most parsimonious explanation based on everything we know about DNA replication and viral infections AND HGT is that those ERVs were passed on from father to son and that some ancestor at least 2 generations removed from the son was infected with the virus that produced the ERV in a germ-line cell.

It IS NOT parsimonious to assume that both the father and the son contracted the same virus at 2 different times and that the ERV was inserted into every cell in their bodies in the exact same location in both of them. This is what you're implicitly arguing when you keep talking about HGT and denying that this pattern of infection is the result of vertical transfer of DNA via known mechanisms of inheritance and known mechanisms of viral infection and NOT from separate infections in multiple individuals that by chance inserted viral DNA into the exact same location in those individuals. It's the only explanation that makes sense and it extends past the species level because there's no other known mechanism that will produce this pattern and we see it between humans and other primates.

In every other instance of long odds you guys (creationists) trumpet those odds as the reason to say that evolution couldn't have happened with no alternative mechanism to explain them, just assertions of divine beings being the cause, and yet when you offer an explanation for a pattern that produces similar long odds when we have known mechanisms that explain and predict the pattern we see that confirm the conclusion of common descent you opt to go with the long odds explanation instead and deny all the observations to the contrary. Why is that?

 

[Loudmouth]

Don't you mean 15,000?

And are you saying there are 15,000 times more bases than ERV insertions?

There are 3 billion places in the human genome where a retrovirus could insert.

There are only 200,000 places where there is a retroviral insertion.

When we expose human cells to retroviruses, they insert all over the place between those bases that currently don't have ERVs. In the following experiment, scientists exposed cultured human cells to 3 different types of retroviruses. Afterwards, they mapped those insertions in the human genome. The following figure has the full complement of autosomal chromosomes, and it shows how they inserted all over the place in completely new sites.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15314653

Each tiny lollipop looking marker is a mapped ERV from a new retroviral insertion.

 

[AV1611VET]

In every other instance of long odds you guys (creationists) trumpet those odds as the reason to say that evolution couldn't have happened with no alternative mechanism to explain them, just assertions of divine beings being the cause,

I don't normally discuss ERVs.

You won't see me within ten feet of an ERV thread.

I'm just doing this because I'm bored.

Really bored.

The fact of the matter is, I wish creationists (of which I am one) would stop trying to argue against evolution by employing science.

When scientists have to stoop to the molecular level (or lower) to try to sterilize Genesis 1, that should tell you something.

 

[Loudmouth]

I don't normally discuss ERVs.

You won't see me within ten feet of an ERV thread.

I'm just doing this because I'm bored.

Really bored.

The fact of the matter is, I wish creationists (of which I am one) would stop trying to argue against evolution by employing science.

When scientists have to stoop to the molecular level (or lower) to try to sterilize Genesis 1, that should tell you something.

All it shows is that the creation itself disagrees with your interpretation of the Bible.

 

[AV1611VET]

There are 3 billion places in the human genome where a retrovirus could insert.

There are only 200,000 places where there is a retroviral insertion.

I have no idea what you just said here.

Are you ... by comparison ... saying there are 3 billion holes on a golf course, but only 200,000 of those holes have golf balls in them?

 

[AV1611VET]

All it shows is that the creation itself disagrees with your interpretation of the Bible.

No kidding!

But where creation disagrees with the Bible, creation is wrong.

 

[Loudmouth]

No kidding!

But where creation disagrees with the Bible, creation is wrong.

The creation was created by God. The Bible was created by men. You think men trump God?

 

[AV1611VET]

The creation was created by God. The Bible was created by men. You think men trump God?

Then let me make it plainer.

Where creation disagrees with God, creation is wrong.

How's that?

Let me make it even plainer:

Where creation disagrees with how God did it, creation is wrong.

Better yet?

 

[Loudmouth]

Then let me make it plainer.

Where creation disagrees with God, creation is wrong.

Is the Bible your God?

 

[AV1611VET]

Is the Bible your God?

Sure is.

I tithe to It.

If the money is still there the next day, I assume It doesn't want them.

 

[DerelictJunction]

No kidding!

But where creation disagrees with the Bible, creation is wrong.

Indeed! Does that mean God created creation wrong? Was He not reading the Bible when he built creation?

 

[DerelictJunction]

Sure is.

I tithe to It.

If the money is still there the next day, I assume It doesn't want them.

And I tithe to God. I put the money in a coffee can for Him and if it is still there the next day, I assume He doesn't want it.

 

[Loudmouth]

Sure is.

I tithe to It.

If the money is still there the next day, I assume It doesn't want them.

Then I guess it is true that man created God.

 

[AV1611VET]

And I tithe to God. I put the money in a coffee can for Him and if it is still there the next day, I assume He doesn't want it.

Juan might get it.

Remember:

There's a little bit of Juan Valdez in every can.

 

[AV1611VET]

Then I guess it is true that man created God.

I'm sure you wouldn't settle for anythng more.