My Graduate Challenge

[Loudmouth]

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?hl=en&q=horizontal+gene+transfer+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."

Retroviruses are not bacteria. We are not bacteria.

Nowhere have you shown retroviruses taking a chunk of host DNA out of one genome, and inserting it into the orthologous position in another species.

Do you really think you are fooling anyone?

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

You haven't shown a single shred of evidence that retroviruses take host DNA with them, and then insert into the orthologous region in another species due to the transferred host DNA.

Not one of your references says anything about that.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

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.

That link discusses gene swapping among single celled creatures. I hardly think it is relevant to anything we are talking about.

"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?

(groan) the amount of misunderstanding is colossal. ERV's are not paramount in evolution. They are mostly junk DNA. They do make excellent evidence for evolution, but they are very little help to evolution. However, I have read that the mutation that gave us mammals a placenta was built on such an insert. Sure, once the ERV's are in the DNA, evolution will sometimes come along and co-opt them for something. SOMETIMES.

No, we who accept evolution only make a big deal of them because they are slam dunk absolute proof of common descent, as good as the proof DNA can offer as to who is your daddy.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

That link discusses gene swapping among single celled creatures. I hardly think it is relevant to anything we are talking about.

Then why did you ignore the one in the post after about primates?

(groan) the amount of misunderstanding is colossal. ERV's are not paramount in evolution. They are mostly junk DNA. They do make excellent evidence for evolution, but they are very little help to evolution. However, I have read that the mutation that gave us mammals a placenta was built on such an insert. Sure, once the ERV's are in the DNA, evolution will sometimes come along and co-opt them for something. SOMETIMES.

No, we who accept evolution only make a big deal of them because they are slam dunk absolute proof of common descent, as good as the proof DNA can offer as to who is your daddy.

Groan all you like, keep ignoring the science.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endogenous_retrovirus
Endogenous retroviruses (ERVs) are endogenous viral elements in the genome that closely resemble and can be derived from retroviruses. They are abundant in the genomes of jawed vertebrates and they occupy up to 8% of the human genome.[1][2] ERVs are a subclass of a type of gene called a transposon which is able to be packaged and moved within the genome to serve a vital role in gene expression and regulation.[3][4]"

The very thing we are talking about. The expression and regulation of genes being passed down. Don't try to fool people into believing scientist's don't think its important - versus your ostrich viewpoint..

 

[Subduction Zone]

No, one or two survived like the coelacanth - which DNA showed how incorrect evolutionists were. You know, real evidence that got it thrown off the transitory list. Some reptiles and fish survived. But are not similar to the new ones. But yes, I know, you just can't find all the millions of transnationals.

The problem is your lineage is falling apart as science advances.

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

https://sapientiaexanimo.wordpress....icists-disprove-out-of-africa-claim/#more-133

REF:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21896735

http://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?paperID=19566#.VW9dAEYjYig

No, one or two survived like the coelacanth - which DNA showed how incorrect evolutionists were. You know, real evidence that got it thrown off the transitory list. Some reptiles and fish survived. But are not similar to the new ones. But yes, I know, you just can't find all the millions of transnationals.

The problem is your lineage is falling apart as science advances.

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

https://sapientiaexanimo.wordpress....icists-disprove-out-of-africa-claim/#more-133

REF:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21896735

http://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?paperID=19566#.VW9dAEYjYig

Don't you love it when a creationist spews a bunch of nonsense based upon some articles that he did not understand?

Since you Gished your reply it can be undone by treating one error only.

Coelacanth is not a species of fish. It is is not a genus of fish. It is an entire order of fish. The coelacanth of the distant past is not the Coelacanth of today. Your mistake was on the order of calling a human being a lemur. And yes, coelacanth are still transitional. There are no lack of transitional fossils today.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

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.

The above link, as pointed out before, is inappropriate as it relates only to bacteria.

Our poster is asserting bacteria genomes are degrading over time, and I suppose that's why we are starting to encounter bacteria that are more and more resistant to our antibiotics. If only they really WERE degrading, instead of gaining on us like that.

 

[Loudmouth]

Our poster is asserting bacteria genomes are degrading over time,

More accurately, it is the genomes of obligate intracellular parasites which are losing previous functions because those functions are now being provided by the host. It is an example of vestigial structures.

 

[Loudmouth]

Then why did you ignore the one in the post after about primates?

Primates are not prokaryotes.

Groan all you like, keep ignoring the science.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endogenous_retrovirus
Endogenous retroviruses (ERVs) are endogenous viral elements in the genome that closely resemble and can be derived from retroviruses. They are abundant in the genomes of jawed vertebrates and they occupy up to 8% of the human genome.[1][2] ERVs are a subclass of a type of gene called a transposon which is able to be packaged and moved within the genome to serve a vital role in gene expression and regulation.[3][4]"

The very thing we are talking about. The expression and regulation of genes being passed down. Don't try to fool people into believing scientist's don't think its important - versus your ostrich viewpoint..

None of that info puts the evidence of common ancestry through orthologous ERV's in doubt. The evidence doesn't require ERV"s to be completely inert or completely inactive. All that it requires is that retroviruses insert all over the genome, and that is exactly what we observe in the lab.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endogenous_retrovirus
Endogenous retroviruses (ERVs) are endogenous viral elements in the genome that closely resemble and can be derived from retroviruses. They are abundant in the genomes of jawed vertebrates and they occupy up to 8% of the human genome.[1][2] ERVs are a subclass of a type of gene called a transposon which is able to be packaged and moved within the genome to serve a vital role in gene expression and regulation.[3][4]"

The very thing we are talking about. The expression and regulation of genes being passed down. Don't try to fool people into believing scientist's don't think its important - versus your ostrich viewpoint..

Oh, Lets look a little further down . . (from the same article)

The majority of ERVs that occur in vertebrate genomes are ancient, inactivated by mutation, and have reached genetic fixation in their host species. For these reasons, they are extremely unlikely to have negative effects on their hosts except under unusual circumstances . . .

Your problem is, you don't read for understanding and learning, you read for talking points instead. It leads you to think you have something that you don't have.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

More accurately, it is the genomes of obligate intracellular parasites which are losing previous functions because those functions are now being provided by the host. It is an example of vestigial structures.

thanks for pointing that out. Yes, we do see what might be called "degradation" of the genome in parasites . . . or one might call it "streamlining" or "shedding extraneous functions".

 

[Justatruthseeker]

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

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/06/140612-chimp-father-evolution-human-science/

So answer me this, if the common ancestor of a chimpanzee and a human is godzilla let's say, because we sure can't get any straight answers, then are you a subspecies of godzilla or a variety of a subspecies of the godzilla species, since Neanderthal, etc.? Species can only be divided into infraspecific taxa. So either your beliefs in evolution is wrong - or your entire classification system is incorrect, which is it?

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

In your dreams. Breed mates with breed and produces a third breed. The Chinook does not slowly or otherwise evolve from either the Husky or the English Mastiff. You have no evidence in which to back up any of your claims. Just incorrect classifications of different breeds in the fossil record as different species. Then you ignore the ERV's that are vital in gene expression and gene regulation. Talk about hypichritical.

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

"ERVs are a subclass of a type of gene called a transposon which is able to be packaged and moved within the genome to serve a vital role in gene expression and regulation.[3][4]"


Tell tale markers? Try regulating the genes of the host where they inserted that foreign DNA. I guess if gene regulation and expression is trivial, then why bother to look at gene regulation and expression in evolution????????

As for bacteria only.

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

"To develop a primate model for liver-directed gene therapy, we studied several gene transfer vehicles and routes in eight rhesus monkeys (Macaca mulatta). For this purpose, we used first-generation, replication-deficient adenoviral vectors carrying the Escherichia coli lacZ gene"

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2686361/
http://www.genomebiology.com/2015/16/1/50
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v464/n7293/abs/nature08939.html
http://www.pnas.org/content/105/44/17023.short

How do you put it, woah!

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.

It's weird you'd think such a thing. The Chinese breed of humans remain Chinese until they mate with a different breed of humans. And when they do an entirely new breed is born. The Chinese and the African do not slowly evolve into the Afro-Asian breed. Call it race because it's a human, but if it's breeds in dogs it's breeds in humans - after all, we share a common ancestor, right?

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!

Why should I believe that when with one mating between an English Mastiff and a Husky - a single original pair - I got an entirely new breed called a Chinook? No matter how far back you want to go in the human lineage - we end up with an original pair. The problem is when you want to make claims that do not fit the evidence.

There is no evolution - just the mating of breeds within the Kind producing new breeds. Call them breeds, races, subspecies, varieties, subvarieties, formae, whatever. Doesn't change the fact that there is nothing slow about that genetic diversity. That is caused by breed mating with breed.

http://jhered.oxfordjournals.org/content/94/1/81.full

"The results of this study support previous findings that a wide genetic variation exists between current dog breeds".

Changes do not occur slowly. They occur in an instant when two different breeds mate. There is no such thing as evolution. I take that back, there is such a thing.

http://media.mlive.com/kzgazette_impact/photo/stuffed-two-headed-cow-6c1ed4bed71953a4_large.jpg

It's just not a good thing when mutations make it past the gene repair mechanism is all. But otherwise no changes occur without the mating of two different breeds or different individuals within that breed. Although different individuals within the same breed never produces another breed.

Stop with the ostrich theory already.

 

[Loudmouth]

Species can only be divided into infraspecific taxa.

Populations can be divided into subpopulations which will diverge over time until they can be classified as separate species.

In your dreams. Breed mates with breed and produces a third breed. The Chinook does not slowly or otherwise evolve from either the Husky or the English Mastiff.

It does slowly evolve from a wolf. As the Chinook and wolf populations are kept from interbreeding you will get population specific mutations accumulating in each population.

You have no evidence in which to back up any of your claims. Just incorrect classifications of different breeds in the fossil record as different species.

How could H. erectus breed with A. afarensis when they are separated by millions of years?

Then you ignore the ERV's that are vital in gene expression and gene regulation.

Why is that a problem for the evidence demonstrating common ancestry?

Tell tale markers? Try regulating the genes of the host where they inserted that foreign DNA.

It is the location of that inserted DNA in each species that evidences common ancestry. Two ERV's found at the same location are due to a single insertion in a common ancestor.

As for bacteria only.

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

"To develop a primate model for liver-directed gene therapy, we studied several gene transfer vehicles and routes in eight rhesus monkeys (Macaca mulatta). For this purpose, we used first-generation, replication-deficient adenoviral vectors carrying the Escherichia coli lacZ gene"

Were the resulting insertions all found at the same location in every genome?

Also, the insertion of the lacZ gene was done artificially by human engineers. It does not occur naturally.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/06/140612-chimp-father-evolution-human-science/

So answer me this, if the common ancestor of a chimpanzee and a human is godzilla let's say, because we sure can't get any straight answers, then are you a subspecies of godzilla or a variety of a subspecies of the godzilla species, since Neanderthal, etc.? Species can only be divided into infraspecific taxa. So either your beliefs in evolution is wrong - or your entire classification system is incorrect, which is it?



In your dreams. Breed mates with breed and produces a third breed. The Chinook does not slowly or otherwise evolve from either the Husky or the English Mastiff. You have no evidence in which to back up any of your claims. Just incorrect classifications of different breeds in the fossil record as different species. Then you ignore the ERV's that are vital in gene expression and gene regulation. Talk about hypichritical.

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

"ERVs are a subclass of a type of gene called a transposon which is able to be packaged and moved within the genome to serve a vital role in gene expression and regulation.[3][4]"


Tell tale markers? Try regulating the genes of the host where they inserted that foreign DNA. I guess if gene regulation and expression is trivial, then why bother to look at gene regulation and expression in evolution????????

As for bacteria only.

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

"To develop a primate model for liver-directed gene therapy, we studied several gene transfer vehicles and routes in eight rhesus monkeys (Macaca mulatta). For this purpose, we used first-generation, replication-deficient adenoviral vectors carrying the Escherichia coli lacZ gene"

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2686361/
http://www.genomebiology.com/2015/16/1/50
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v464/n7293/abs/nature08939.html
http://www.pnas.org/content/105/44/17023.short

How do you put it, woah!



It's weird you'd think such a thing. The Chinese breed of humans remain Chinese until they mate with a different breed of humans. And when they do an entirely new breed is born. The Chinese and the African do not slowly evolve into the Afro-Asian breed. Call it race because it's a human, but if it's breeds in dogs it's breeds in humans - after all, we share a common ancestor, right?



Why should I believe that when with one mating between an English Mastiff and a Husky - a single original pair - I got an entirely new breed called a Chinook? No matter how far back you want to go in the human lineage - we end up with an original pair. The problem is when you want to make claims that do not fit the evidence.

There is no evolution - just the mating of breeds within the Kind producing new breeds. Call them breeds, races, subspecies, varieties, subvarieties, formae, whatever. Doesn't change the fact that there is nothing slow about that genetic diversity. That is caused by breed mating with breed.

http://jhered.oxfordjournals.org/content/94/1/81.full

"The results of this study support previous findings that a wide genetic variation exists between current dog breeds".

Changes do not occur slowly. They occur in an instant when two different breeds mate. There is no such thing as evolution. I take that back, there is such a thing.

http://media.mlive.com/kzgazette_impact/photo/stuffed-two-headed-cow-6c1ed4bed71953a4_large.jpg

It's just not a good thing when mutations make it past the gene repair mechanism is all. But otherwise no changes occur without the mating of two different breeds or different individuals within that breed. Although different individuals within the same breed never produces another breed.

Stop with the ostrich theory already.

OK . . . if all mankind started with exactly two individuals, and breeds can combine but not get new breeds from mere mutation, how did we wind up with at least three breeds of men . . . occidental, oriental, african?

 

[Ada Lovelace]

What about those who believe in a literal six-day creation, but believe "creation science" is a contradiction in terms?

In a way that belief has more of an organic, natural feel to it to me. It rests upon pure faith, and has more of a humbleness to it that I respect. Many of the older members of my family believe in a literal six-day creation, but few have likely heard of the term "young earth creationism," much less defined their faith by it. They haven't engaged in antagonism against science or with other Christians who accept evolution. They haven't claimed it is the exclusive truth. I was talking about this with my nana recently, actually. Her mother, my beloved great-nana I'm named after, believed in a literal six-day creation, but it wasn't anything that she built up or maintained. It simply was. She was born in 1917, had to drop out of school at 12 to help care for the family, and along with my great-grandpa became self-made successes through incredibly hard work. They never had the time to learn or ponder about evolution in depth. That was all tangential at best to their faith. They likely would have been receptive to learning more about it if they had the opportunity, and would have amended their faith. They definitely didn't and wouldn't have objected to their children learning about it. They strongly believed in their kids receiving the education they couldn't, and provided well for them. All of their children went to college, and all of their living grandchildren now work in medicine or science. I don't think anyone under the age of 60 in my family has ever considered not accepting evolution, or that it's impacted their faith.

Creation Science feels to me almost like a misappropriation of the Scriptures for greed and pride. It isn't content to rest upon humble faith. It instead tries to use faith as a hammer to break apart all evidence that conflicts with their belief. It convolutes and pollutes science and Christianity. It is a contradiction in terms. And it's a term that Henry Morris coined and a movement he established. I think one of the reasons my great-nana never heard of it is because it wasn't popularized until the 1960s. Some have analogized is as being like the vendors in the Temple because it's not just a faith, it's a business of textbooks, DVDs, and other propaganda materials. It's ad-revenue supported websites. I see creation science as something that is offensive both to science and to the scriptures, a Frankenstein of sewn together parts. And all I see from it is harm. It deprives kids of receiving an authentic and unadulterated education in science, it generates unnecessary conflict between religion and science, demeans the perception of Christianity, and causes division amongst Christians. I had studied belief in creationism from a religious and historical perspective in classes, but hadn't heard of the terms Young Earth Creationism or Creation Science until 2013. And I honestly wish I hadn't even learned about them. Sighs. Sorry, this is long. I'm in a blathering kinda mood.

 

[AV1611VET]

Many of the older members of my family believe in a literal six-day creation, but few have likely heard of the term "young earth creationism," much less defined their faith by it.

I never heard the terms YEC or TE either, until I came here.

My pastor is a YEC, but I've never heard him use that term.

They haven't engaged in antagonism against science or with other Christians who accept evolution.

That's because if they did, they would get vegomaticked and made into Freedom fries by those who know their science and keep themselves up to date on the latest fashion trend.

Creation Science ... is a contradiction in terms.

I've been saying that very same thing here for years and years ... telling even my brothers and sisters in Christ that I believe "creation science" is a contradiction in terms.

I deem it an insult -- almost to the point of blasphemy -- to try to factor science into a series of miracles that occurred by divine fiat over a period of six days.

Genesis 1 is a very sacred portion of Scripture to me, and while I take the whole Bible as sacred, Genesis 1 and Genesis 6-9 are, I believe, what God has called me to uphold.

In short, I believe that is my ministry.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Genesis 1 is a very sacred portion of Scripture to me, and while I take the whole Bible as sacred, Genesis 1 and Genesis 6-9 are, I believe, what God has called me to uphold.

In short, I believe that is my ministry.

Well, I will pray that you, like Saul who sincerely persecuted the church, will have the equivalent of his Damascus experience. Only without the drama of being blinded for a while . . . that part I would that you be spared.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Well, I will pray that you, like Saul who sincerely persecuted the church, will have the equivalent of his Damascus experience. Only without the drama of being blinded for a while . . . that part I would that you be spared.

One could argue he's already been blinded for a while...

 

[Blue Wren]

How many young earth creationists, go to a secular university - or a university, at all? We don't have young earth creationism, in Sweden, really, so this isn't something I know so much about. I never met anyone, who believed in this, at the universities I attended, whilst in the US. On this forum, it seems that many who believe in young earth, home school, and do not have much desire, to attend university, but I have no idea, if this is true, for a wider population of YEC believers.

 

[Mr Strawberry]

How many young earth creationists, go to a secular university - or a university, at all? We don't have young earth creationism, in Sweden, really, so this isn't something I know so much about. I never met anyone, who believed in this, at the universities I attended, whilst in the US. On this forum, it seems that many who believe in young earth, home school, and do not have much desire, to attend university, but I have no idea, if this is true, for a wider population of YEC believers.

I guess creationists need to live in a bubble and protect their beliefs from the information and education of the outside world. Depending on the size of the creationist community they live in, that bubble may be easier or harder to maintain. There are certainly creationist posters on this forum who seem to be completely oblivious to the world outside their own little bubble. The ultimate extreme of living in a creationist bubble I suppose would be the Amish who live in a time warp without any modern technology at all. It is a certainly a way of ensuring the children are only presented with one set of ideas. To be fair, the Amish do have a practice called rumspringa where in late adolescence they go and explore the outside world and decide whether they would prefer it there or not, but by then the indoctrination stands a good chance of sticking. I saw a documentary series about the Amish a few years ago (Trouble in Amish Paradise, Amish: A secret life, Leaving Amish paradise - available on youtube) and I was impressed by the sense of community and how kind of uncynical they all seemed but ... their beliefs were fiercely protected and shunning and excommunication were constant threats where you would not be able to see your friends and family again for either a specific time period of punishment, or forever. It all seemed a bit like mind control to me.

 

[Saricharity]

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?

I think it would depend on your upbringing as well as where you attend college or Univeristy.
I know many people who have attended secular colleges and universities and some even have degrees in science. It hasn't changed their view on scripture even a little. Secular schools are taught by man who is finite. Science is finite and constantly changing as well. Attending school need not change your worldview. I would even say that for some, it solidified their worldview because they were faced with whose worldview they actually owned. (Their own or their parents). I have to admit, I have never ever seen such a fuss over evolution and YEC until I came to this forum. This place has been eye opening to say the very least.

 

[Saricharity]

I guess creationists need to live in a bubble and protect their beliefs from the information and education of the outside world. Depending on the size of the creationist community they live in, that bubble may be easier or harder to maintain. There are certainly creationist posters on this forum who seem to be completely oblivious to the world outside their own little bubble. The ultimate extreme of living in a creationist bubble I suppose would be the Amish who live in a time warp without any modern technology at all. It is a certainly a way of ensuring the children are only presented with one set of ideas. To be fair, the Amish do have a practice called rumspringa where in late adolescence they go and explore the outside world and decide whether they would prefer it there or not, but by then the indoctrination stands a good chance of sticking. I saw a documentary series about the Amish a few years ago (Trouble in Amish Paradise, Amish: A secret life, Leaving Amish paradise - available on youtube) and I was impressed by the sense of community and how kind of uncynical they all seemed but ... their beliefs were fiercely protected and shunning and excommunication were constant threats where you would not be able to see your friends and family again for either a specific time period of punishment, or forever. It all seemed a bit like mind control to me.

I live close to a Mennonite community (it is a little different from Amish) I have played with Mennonite children growing up ( have some good friends who are Mennonite) and went to drivers ed with some Mennonite teens. They are an older order of Mennonite...they do have a certain amount of technology (modern appliances, computers and cars etc yet they dress very differently ...woman in dresses and men have beards once they marry, no jewellery, no pictures, no music or radio to name a few) I have seen no threat of shunning or the like and know they do not practice such things like the Amish. I also see a very happy community of Youth...none of them wishing to leave their belief or culture. They haven't believed in higher education being necessary until recently. Their elders approve it as certain needs have arose....for nursing for example. Most have trades and the woman stay home although more and more of the women are taking professions like nursing, midwifery etc.