The New Retrovirus Thread

[florida2]

So ignorant does not mean: "lacking knowledge or awareness in general; uneducated or unsophisticated". This is a personal attack against me and it is a violation of the rules.

The definition you quoted is an observation that can be made about your posts.

 

[joshua 1 9]

The definition you quoted is an observation that can be made about your posts.

Yes this is something we all have to be careful of. The Bible says as you judge you shall be judged.

 

[46AND2]

So ignorant does not mean: "lacking knowledge or awareness in general; uneducated or unsophisticated". This is a personal attack against me and it is a violation of the rules.

We are all ignorant about a lot of things...

 

[USincognito]

I think I've seen you post this about three times, now, an have yet to see any real creationist response.

Will this time be different?

A certain long time member might swing by, aver that ERVs are a homology argument, say he's not impressed and slink away.

 

[USincognito]

How does that, in any way, adress the OP?

All of JohnR7's sockpuppets have had a hard time staying on topic.

 

[Loudmouth]

Calling me ignorant is not an attack on me?

I said that you were using an argument from ignorance. I wasn't calling you ignorant. Those are two different things. Also, still waiting for you to reply about the information I posted on the random insertion of retroviruses in gene therapy studies.


"The frequency of provirus-mediated mutagenesis of the mammalian genome at a single-copy locus (in this case the X-linked hprt gene) by a single provirus insertion has previously been estimated by Goff to occur at a frequency of about one inactivating mutation in 10^6 virally exposed cells.18"

http://www.nature.com/gt/journal/v10/n19/full/3302059a.html

It takes 1 million insertions for a virus to insert into a specific locus. The other 999,999 insert at different loci in the genome. Also, the locus they are talking about spans thousands of bases, not a single base. The chances of two insertions occurring at the same base are much less than 1 in 1 million.


"Attenuated retroviruses are currently the most widely used vectors in clinical gene therapy because of their potential to effect stable and permanent gene transfer. Since gene delivery is accompanied by random insertion of foreign genetic material into the recipient chromosomal DNA, the potential for insertional mutagenesis exists."
http://www.nature.com/gt/journal/v10/n19/full/3302059a.html

 

[Loudmouth]

Yes this is something we all have to be careful of. The Bible says as you judge you shall be judged.

You used an argument from ignorance, which is a logical fallacy.

"The argument from ignorance (or argumentum ad ignorantiam and negative proof) is a logical fallacy that claims the truth of a premise is based on the fact that it has not been proven false, or that a premise is false because it has not been proven true. This is often phrased as "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence".

If the only evidence for something's existence is a lack of evidence for it not existing, then the default position is one of mild skepticism and not credulity. This type of negative proof is common in proofs of God's existence or in pseudosciences where it is used as an attempt to shift the burden of proof onto the skeptic rather than the proponent of the idea. The burden of proof is on the individual proposing existence, not the one questioning existence."
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

I was pointing out the flaws in your argument, which is completely within the rules of the forum.

 

[joshua 1 9]

I said that you were using an argument from ignorance.

What argument was that? It looks to me like you are chasing butterflies again. The fact remains that it is against the rules for you to call me ignorant no matter how much you try to worm your way out of what you have done.

I was pointing out the flaws in your argument

You do not have to call me ignorant to point out alleged flaws in an argument. Which of course you failed to do.

 

[Loudmouth]

What argument was that?

"If we win then we win by default because the evolutionists simply fail to present their case."--joshua19 post 43

That is an argument from ignorance. Creationism doesn't become true just because we are ignorant of how life developed.

The fact remains that it is against the rules for you to call me ignorant no matter how much you try to worm your way out of what you have done.

I didn't call you ignorant, no matter how much you try to worm your way out of it.

You are still also trying to worm your way out of the claims you made about gene therapy. Still waiting for a response.

"The frequency of provirus-mediated mutagenesis of the mammalian genome at a single-copy locus (in this case the X-linked hprt gene) by a single provirus insertion has previously been estimated by Goff to occur at a frequency of about one inactivating mutation in 10^6 virally exposed cells.18"

http://www.nature.com/gt/journal/v10/n19/full/3302059a.html

It takes 1 million insertions for a virus to insert into a specific locus. The other 999,999 insert at different loci in the genome. Also, the locus they are talking about spans thousands of bases, not a single base. The chances of two insertions occurring at the same base are much less than 1 in 1 million.


"Attenuated retroviruses are currently the most widely used vectors in clinical gene therapy because of their potential to effect stable and permanent gene transfer. Since gene delivery is accompanied by random insertion of foreign genetic material into the recipient chromosomal DNA, the potential for insertional mutagenesis exists."
http://www.nature.com/gt/journal/v10/n19/full/3302059a.html

 

[Loudmouth]

There are creationists making the assertion that we just assume that humans and chimps share a common ancestor. The evidence presented in this thread demonstrates that we do have the proof.

"Given the size of vertebrate genomes (>1 × 10^9 bp) and the random nature of retroviral integration (22, 23), multiple integrations (and subsequent fixation) of ERV loci at precisely the same location are highly unlikely (24). Therefore, an ERV locus shared by two or more species is descended from a single integration event and is proof that the species share a common ancestor into whose germ line the original integration took place (14)."
http://www.pnas.org/content/96/18/10254.full