My Graduate Challenge

[Justatruthseeker]

What are orthologous ERV's? Can you describe them?

Can you also show how the species distribution of orthologous ERV's contradicts evolution?



Show us the science.

Just did, you just still refuse to read it is all.

 

[Loudmouth]

Just did, you just still refuse to read it is all.

I did read it. Nowhere did it address orthology.

Perhaps this question will help. What is the difference between an orthologous ERV and a non-orthologous ERV?

 

[Loudmouth]

That you rely of wrong information and mis-classifications is your problem in understanding, not mine.

http://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/oct/17/skull-homo-erectus-human-evolution

Three specimens from the same transitional species are still transitional.

 

[bhsmte]

That you rely of wrong information and mis-classifications is your problem in understanding, not mine.

http://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/oct/17/skull-homo-erectus-human-evolution

"Over decades excavating sites in Africa, researchers have named half a dozen different species of early human ancestor, but most, if not all, are now on shaky ground...."

"...Some palaeontologists see minor differences in fossils and give them labels, and that has resulted in the family tree accumulating a lot of branches,..."

And with DNA evidence, you got no ground to stand on at all.

http://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?paperID=19566#.VW9lAUYjYih

Of course, geneticists would strongly disagree with you, but what do they know?

http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/genetics

 

[HitchSlap]

Agreed, so why do evolutionists believe despite 200 years of solid scientific evidence that contradicts them?

Evidence...

 

[Justatruthseeker]

I did read it. Nowhere did it address orthology.

Perhaps this question will help. What is the difference between an orthologous ERV and a non-orthologous ERV?

Something you don't seem too familiar with.

"In order to replicate itself, a retrovirus needs to use the molecular machinery of a host, and it begins the process by first binding its extracellular and transmembrane glycoproteins to a cell’s coreceptors."

ERV's are not native to the host, no matter how long they have been in a host's genetic line.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endogenous_retrovirus

"The replication cycle of a retrovirus entails the insertion ("integration") of a DNA copy of the viral genome into the nuclear genome of the host cell."

I don't care what part of the genome it was found in, coding or non-coding - it is foreign to the host and the sites of those foreign genomes. It is your pre-conceived "belief" that makes you think it is vertical decent by lineage - when it was merely inserted into the host at that time by that retrovirus, not gained from "evolving" from another species.

That's why it appears as a vertical decent - because at the time of insertion is when it began being passed down in the completely separate species that became host to that retrovirus. And in bonding to that host the retrovirus acquires part of the host genome - and upon reproduction they get passed to other species.

What, you think your big words fool anyone? I mean really.

You can't show vertical descent except within the species itself. Between every species the most you can do is draw a horizontal line between species - because that line is where the ERV inserted (horizontally), to a completely separate species. You know it as well as I do, why deny it?

 

[Loudmouth]

Something you don't seem too familiar with.

"In order to replicate itself, a retrovirus needs to use the molecular machinery of a host, and it begins the process by first binding its extracellular and transmembrane glycoproteins to a cell’s coreceptors."

ERV's are not native to the host, no matter how long they have been in a host's genetic line.

I already know that. I am not disputing that.

Why does the retroviral origin of ERV's disqualify them as genetic markers that can be used to test common ancestry?

"The replication cycle of a retrovirus entails the insertion ("integration") of a DNA copy of the viral genome into the nuclear genome of the host cell."

I don't care what part of the genome it was found in, coding or non-coding - it is foreign to the host and the sites of those foreign genomes. It is your pre-conceived "belief" that makes you think it is vertical decent by lineage - when it was merely inserted into the host at that time by that retrovirus, not gained from "evolving" from another species.

Where do you think the 200,000 ERV's that are in your genome at the moment of conception came from? Why do you think your siblings and extended family have the very same 200,000 ERV's at exactly the same position in their genomes?

Are you aware that those 200,000 orthologous ERV's that you share with the rest of your family come from a common ancestor, and that you inherited those ERV's vertically from that common ancestor?

That's why it appears as a vertical decent - because at the time of insertion is when it began being passed down in the completely separate species that became host to that retrovirus. And in bonding to that host the retrovirus acquires part of the host genome - and upon reproduction they get passed to other species.

That would not produce an orthologous ERV. Separate infections in separate species would produce ERV's AT DIFFERENT PLACES IN THE GENOME.

Orthologous ERV's are evidence of vertical inheritance of an ERV insertion that occurred in a common ancestor.

 

[JacksBratt]

Without having any hard data I can't give a definite answer. It's very possible that a YEC could go through the motions, graduate, and still remain a YEC. If they were a YEC due to ignorance of current science then I would say the chances of them still being a YEC after graduation is fairly low. If they are a YEC due to self delusion then the chances are higher that they will remain a YEC.

This post assumes that the TOE is truth, believers in YEC are unintelligent and ignorant and deluded.

This is exactly the attitude of the education system. Students are bullied into regurgitating the TOE farce in order to obtain passing grades.

This is the reason that many accredited scientists are reluctant to report, present, or write papers that are in any way abrasive to the TOE.

However, this is changing. More and more events are unfolding where the TOE is going to have a hard time explaining the events.

 

[Loudmouth]

This post assumes that the TOE is truth, believers in YEC are unintelligent and ignorant and deluded.

This is exactly the attitude of the education system. Students are bullied into regurgitating the TOE farce in order to obtain passing grades.

Just like they are bullied into regurgitating the idea that the Earth moves about the Sun, and that matter is made up of atoms.

This is the reason that many accredited scientists are reluctant to report, present, or write papers that are in any way abrasive to the TOE.

They don't have any research to publish.

 

[quatona]

In your opinion, what are the chances of a YEC entering a secular college or university today and graduating as a YEC after getting a degree in life sciences?

28.6%.

 

[crjmurray]

This post assumes that the TOE is truth, believers in YEC are unintelligent and ignorant and deluded.

This is exactly the attitude of the education system. Students are bullied into regurgitating the TOE farce in order to obtain passing grades.

This is the reason that many accredited scientists are reluctant to report, present, or write papers that are in any way abrasive to the TOE.

However, this is changing. More and more events are unfolding where the TOE is going to have a hard time explaining the events.

Where did I say unintelligent?

 

[crjmurray]

28.6%.

Any evidence for that? Or is it just like my 61% guess?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

I already know that. I am not disputing that.

Why does the retroviral origin of ERV's disqualify them as genetic markers that can be used to test common ancestry?

You still don't understand, do you. Those genomes that you say imply common decent are from retrovirus processes. You are not seeing when man evolved from a ape, but when the ape genome was inserted into the human genome. This is why Chimpanzee fossils are not found half as old as human fossils, despite the claim they are our ancestors.

Where do you think the 200,000 ERV's that are in your genome at the moment of conception came from? Why do you think your siblings and extended family have the very same 200,000 ERV's at exactly the same position in their genomes?

Because that's when and where the retrovirus was inserted that carried that ape genome into the human lineage. I know exactly how different breeds pass on their genes, which is why chimpanzee fossils are not found anywhere in the record as early as man is. They are a new breed and their genome was inserted into humans "after" that breed came to be - from mating with other breeds of apes.

Are you aware that those 200,000 orthologous ERV's that you share with the rest of your family come from a common ancestor, and that you inherited those ERV's vertically from that common ancestor?

And that's when the ERV inserted itself into the lineage? So what? And yet every human is easily recognized as a human genetically. Every ape is easily recognized as an ape genetically. Again, it is not my fault you mistake the point ERV's inserted foreign genome as designating previous lineage. I've also got genomes that match the guy next door. So what?

That would not produce an orthologous ERV. Separate infections in separate species would produce ERV's AT DIFFERENT PLACES IN THE GENOME.

Oh, but it's ok if a mutation in one animal spreads to the entire worldwide population through magical evolution? Or are we to assume logically they came from the same original pair - and so would be worldwide?

Orthologous ERV's are evidence of vertical inheritance of an ERV insertion that occurred in a common ancestor.

Agreed - it is evidence that the ERV progressed through vertical descent once it inserted itself into the genome. Before then it did so from another host. So I agree that ape genome has been passed down vertically after the retrovirus inserted it into our genomes.

 

[quatona]

Any evidence for that?

No, none at all. The OP asked...sorry..."challenged" me to give a guess, and so I did.
I have no idea how to possibly make an educated guess, though.

Or is it just like my 61% guess?

Well, mine is more precise.
(I haven´t read the thread, but just the OP.)

 

[crjmurray]

No, none at all. The OP asked...sorry..."challenged" me to give a guess, and so I did.
I have no idea how to possibly make an educated guess, though.

Well, mine is more precise.
(I haven´t read the thread, but just the OP.)

Dagnabbit. Foiled by decimals.....

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

ERV's are foreign viruses, they bring foreign DNA to the host which the host uses for proteins......

Just a nitpick here . . . the foreign DNA the virus brings in starts out as just a bit of junk DNA and mostly it stays junk DNA but some of it gets coopted by mutation into something useful, whether a regulatory instruction or a part of a protein building instruction.

 

[Loudmouth]

You still don't understand, do you. Those genomes that you say imply common decent are from retrovirus processes. You are not seeing when man evolved from a ape, but when the ape genome was inserted into the human genome. This is Chimpanzee fossils are not found half as old as human fossils, despite the claim they are our ancestors.

Those are retroviral genes, not ape genes. That's why they are called endogenous retroviruses, not endogenous ape genomes.

The retrovirus does not take host DNA with it. Only the viral genome is used to make a new viral particle.

Because that's when and where the retrovirus was inserted that carried that ape genome into the human lineage.

None of the ape genome is carried in ERV's. Viral particles only contain the viral genome.

Also, are you saying that ERV's only appeared in the human genome the day that you were conceived? Did these retroviruses spread across the globe while you were just a baby, creating the same 200,000 ERV insertions across the entire human population? Do you really think that?

Or could it be that you share these 200,000 ERV's at the same position with your other family members because you inherited those ERV's from a common ancestor?

What we observe is that orthologous ERV's are inherited vertically, not horizontally. Independent insertions produce non-orthologous insertions.

And that's when the ERV inserted itself into the lineage? So what?

Orthologous ERV's shared with chimps shows that those ERV's entered into the lineage of our common ancestor before the chimp and human lineages split.

" 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

And yet every human is easily recognized as a human genetically. Every ape is easily recognized as an ape genetically. Again, it is not my fault you mistake the point ERV's inserted foreign genome as designating previous lineage. I've also got genomes that match the guy next door. So what?

You haven't shown that I am mistaken. All you have done is invent this myth that retroviruses take host DNA with them. It doesn't happen.

Oh, but it's ok if a mutation in one animal spreads to the entire worldwide population through magical evolution? Or are we to assume logically they came from the same original pair - and so would be worldwide?

Do you understand how babies are made? It isn't magic, although it can be magical.

Agreed - it is evidence that the ERV progressed through vertical descent once it inserted itself into the genome. Before then it did so from another host. So I agree that ape genome has been passed down vertically after the retrovirus inserted it into our genomes.

The fact that we find the same ERV at the same location in the chimp genome is that evidence that it was inherited by both chimps and humans from a common ancestor. If an ERV popped out of an ape genome and then inserted into the human genome it would produce a non-orthologous ERV, an ERV that was in a different position in the human genome compared to the ape genome.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Just a nitpick here . . . the foreign DNA the virus brings in starts out as just a bit of junk DNA and mostly it stays junk DNA but some of it gets coopted by mutation into something useful, whether a regulatory instruction or a part of a protein building instruction.

In your opinion this may be true. But other biologists have other opinions because they are following the science, not ignoring it.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10607609

Also tells you why the genome is degrading over time, not evolving.

But why ignore my point?

"Oh, but it's ok if a mutation in one animal spreads to the entire worldwide population through magical evolution?" But an inserted ERV can not do the same thing????

Hey if you got a beef with evolutionists go talk to them. They are the ones claiming ERV's are paramount in evolution. Now you seem to be implying they ain't really important??? Just wish you were all consistent so one would know who's opinion he is to believe?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Those are retroviral genes, not ape genes. That's why they are called endogenous retroviruses, not endogenous ape genomes.

The retrovirus does not take host DNA with it. Only the viral genome is used to make a new viral particle.



None of the ape genome is carried in ERV's. Viral particles only contain the viral genome.

Also, are you saying that ERV's only appeared in the human genome the day that you were conceived? Did these retroviruses spread across the globe while you were just a baby, creating the same 200,000 ERV insertions across the entire human population? Do you really think that?

Or could it be that you share these 200,000 ERV's at the same position with your other family members because you inherited those ERV's from a common ancestor?

What we observe is that orthologous ERV's are inherited vertically, not horizontally. Independent insertions produce non-orthologous insertions.



Orthologous ERV's shared with chimps shows that those ERV's entered into the lineage of our common ancestor before the chimp and human lineages split.

" 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



You haven't shown that I am mistaken. All you have done is invent this myth that retroviruses take host DNA with them. It doesn't happen.



Do you understand how babies are made? It isn't magic, although it can be magical.



The fact that we find the same ERV at the same location in the chimp genome is that evidence that it was inherited by both chimps and humans from a common ancestor. If an ERV popped out of an ape genome and then inserted into the human genome it would produce a non-orthologous ERV, an ERV that was in a different position in the human genome compared to the ape genome.

Sure it happens. You just don't want to face up to the facts and the implications thereof:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10607609

https://scholar.google.com/scholar?...ansfer+in+primates&btnG=&as_sdt=1,37&as_sdtp=

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0966842X00017030

"In bacteria, horizontal gene transfer (HGT) is widely recognized as the mechanism responsible for the widespread distribution of antibiotic resistance genes, gene clusters encoding biodegradative pathways and pathogenicity determinants."

We are just now beginning to study it in humans and primates - and the more we learn, the more the evidence points to it.

Quite probable, carrying entire genes - not just your little bits.

http://online.liebertpub.com/doi/abs/10.1089/hum.1997.8.10-1195

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

This is why Chimpanzee fossils are not found half as old as human fossils, despite the claim they are our ancestors.

Nobody in science ever claimed Chimpanzees are our ancestors. You prove once again you don't know the science your are criticizing.

Because that's when and where the retrovirus was inserted that carried that ape genome into the human lineage.

Viruses never did carry the ape genome into the human lineage. They only carried in their own tell tale markers that they were there.

I know exactly how different breeds pass on their genes, which is why chimpanzee fossils are not found anywhere in the record as early as man is. They are a new breed and their genome was inserted into humans "after" that breed came to be - from mating with other breeds of apes.

Woah! Is it your view that men mated with other species apes and there were viable descendants from these matings whose genes carry on with us today? That is very weird.

Again, it is not my fault you mistake the point ERV's inserted foreign genome as designating previous lineage. I've also got genomes that match the guy next door. So what?

You have a common ancestor way way back with the guy next door. Why you think, therefore, that your common genes with him represent an outlier example that will disprove common descent is a mystery.

Oh, but it's ok if a mutation in one animal spreads to the entire worldwide population through magical evolution? Or are we to assume logically they came from the same original pair - and so would be worldwide?

More complete fail to understand the evolutionary theory. No magic! Never a single original pair! Never a single event of the arrival of thousands of inserts - rather, each one a single insert over millions and millions of years!