Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
ERV have been found to have a purpose and probably where viruses get their genetic code from.
Comparing genes doesn't lead to turning animals into scientist.
Yes where did all that genetic code came from and exactly where does virus gets it's code since it can't reproduce of itself? Code and information is a real problem for evolutionist.Whether ERV's have function has zero to do with where they came from.
Also, ERV's get their code from exogenous viruses, not the other way around. You only get functional viruses when you use a consensus sequence of ERV's, as you would expect if exogenous viruses produced the ERV's.
The biggest changes are not due to genes so gene alone will not turn an animal into a scientist.The comparison of genes is the evidence for the cause of human intelligence, as already explained. It seems that you are left with a single option, to pretend that you don't understand plain English.
Yes where did all that genetic code came from and exactly where does virus gets it's code since it can't reproduce of itself?
Code and information is a real problem for evolutionist.
The biggest changes are not due to genes so gene alone will not turn an animal into a scientist.
So where did all that genetic code come from the start with. You believe a virus just popped into existence with it's code and start to insert to living cells?It gets it by reverse transcribing its RNA genome into DNA, and then inserting that DNA into the host genome. Once there, the LTR's act as strong promoters, tricking the host transcriptional systems to produce tons of copies of the viral particles. Those viral particles bud off at the surface of the cell and repeat the process when they bind to and insert into another host cell.
Not a problem for this evolutionist. I have forgotten more about code and information than you have learned.
That doesn't change the fact the biggest difference are not due to genes.It is due to changes in DNA sequence, whether that be in a promoter region, a DNA protein binding region, or in the amino acid sequence of a protein.
So where did all that genetic code come from the start with.
You believe a virus just popped into existence with it's code and start to insert to living cells?
That doesn't change the fact the biggest difference are not due to genes.
And different creatures have an eye in common and they are unrelated. Many creatures have wings in common and they are unrelated. Humans and bears may sort of share a mammal shape but they dont share that mammal shape with a lot of other mammals like the whale, kangaroo, elephant or bat for example.What animals look like "completely formed from their own separate shapes"? Humans and chimps share the same ape shape. Humans and baboons share the same primate shape. Humans and bears share the same mammal shape. Humans and fish share the same jawed vertebrate shape. What exactly are you referring to?
It seems that humans and apes dont have as much similar placed ERV as thought from the research I have read. Plus the is a boig question mark over how thousands of viruses could survive andIrrelevant as it applies to using ERV's as evidence of common ancestry. Wherever the first retrovirus came from, we know how they acted once they were here. They act by inserting themselves into host genomes among millions of possible insertion sites. Finding the same retroviral insertion at the same location in two different genomes is evidence for a single insertion in a common ancestor since the chances of it happening independently are improbable.
Actually they do if you examine the bone structure.And different creatures have an eye in common and they are unrelated. Many creatures have wings in common and they are unrelated. Humans and bears may sort of share a mammal shape but they dont share that mammal shape with a lot of other mammals like the whale, kangaroo, elephant or bat for example.![]()
And different creatures have an eye in common and they are unrelated.
Many creatures have wings in common and they are unrelated.
Humans and bears may sort of share a mammal shape but they dont share that mammal shape with a lot of other mammals like the whale, kangaroo, elephant or bat for example.![]()
It seems that humans and apes dont have as much similar placed ERV as thought from the research I have read.
Plus the is a boig question mark over how thousands of viruses could survive and
We identified a human endogenous retrovirus K (HERV-K) provirus that is present at the orthologous position in the gorilla and chimpanzee genomes, but not in the human genome.
Humans contain an intact preintegration site at this locus.
Based on analysis of finished BAC chimpanzee genome sequence, we characterize a retroviral element (Pan troglodytes endogenous retrovirus 1 [PTERV1]) that has become integrated in the germ line of African great ape and Old World monkey species but is absent from humans and Asian ape genomes.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1054887/
It also seems there maybe hot spots or specific sites where these ERV may target so it may be no surprise that they end up in similar spots for different creatures.
There are similarities with EVR locations for unrelated creatures as well.
So its not so straight forward to be drawing any conclusions as to how these were obtained in the first place or whether they perform so important role and are needed anyway.
Large-scale discovery of insertion hotspots and preferential integration sites of human transposed elements.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2836564/
http://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.0020234
p
Remarkably, we have found many cases of parallel intron gains at essentially the same sites in independent genotypes. This strongly argues against the common assumption that when two species share introns at the same site, it is always due to inheritance from a common ancestor.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/12/091210111148.htm
And different creatures have an eye in common and they are unrelated. Many creatures have wings in common and they are unrelated. Humans and bears may sort of share a mammal shape but they dont share that mammal shape with a lot of other mammals like the whale, kangaroo, elephant or bat for example.![]()
Explain how evolution can turn an animal into a scientist.
That makes the shapes pretty broad then. You may be able to find some similarities with some bone structures. But the two are very differentActually they do if you examine the bone structure.
Have a look at while fins versus fish fins.
All this can be the same evidence for common design. Afterall a car designer doesnt make a completely different car shape and features when he brings out different models.Yes they do. Four limbs, head with two eyes a nose and a mouth, two ears, fur, give birth to live young etc etc.
Look at the skeletons and they are amazingly similar. For example upper limb bones. Whale fins, bat wings and human hands contain exactly the same bones (though obviously somewhat different sizes and shapes).
There's quite a few sites about it but here's one that sums it up http://www.sussexvt.k12.de.us/science/Evolution/Evidence for Evolution.htm
You seem to left out the whole fact that man is wired to think as a scientist. If it was that easy we could take any animal and make them a scientist on a regular bases. A evolving intelligence doesn't exist. Just by slapping "evolution" on to something doesn't magically turn an animal into a scientist. We only know what we already know.a) evolve intelligence
b) using intelligence, develop culture
c) Using culture, develop science.
Well, that was easy.
This seems to be the recognized understanding by most who disagree with evolution.
So as opposed to a guided process that knows what its doing. Wouldn't that be design or intelligence. Or is it the intelligence you have when your not having an intelligent and guided process.
I can never understand this. Its like something that was created out of nothing or life from non life somehow becomes its own creating factory that produces life in a directed manner pumping out complex bits of living creatures. If it were anything but evolution it would be an ingenious designed machine produced by the greatest brains in the world.
But its a blind process in that the mutations that produce one tiny part of something like a tiny bit of a complex feature or system in living things doesn't know what part is needed next to continue building that bigger thing.
Natural selection can only work with what it is given. So its blind to what is needed in each step of the process for building parts. Its like a car assembly line that may mutate some wheels but doesn't know it needs a steering wheel as part of the building process. So it throws out all sorts of things that may be totally unconnected to building a car. Then one day by chance it produces a steering wheel.
It has to do this with every step of the way and sometimes needing several parts at the same time to be blindly produced so that it makes the other parts work properly as single parts are useless on their own. The chances of that happening as a chance and blind process is like throwing millions of letters up in the air to come down and write a novel.
Scientists havnt even began to explain how abiogenesis has created life from non life. In fact its such a problem that one of the more popular theories now is that the building blocks for it to start came on the back of a meteorite.
No, new information has not been added that did not already exist. Those T's, A's, C's and G's "already existed," you simply create variation within the species - i.e. new breeds - just as with real life. A new dominant or recessive trait, not a new genome from simpler makeup to more complex makeup - from CAT to CATG.
Dead matter does not possess the innate information necessary to produce the array of organized information packed structural and functional variation of the simplest life forms
Dead matter is not autocatalytic (it does not start doing things on its own, it MUST BE acted upon)
The principle of causality states that you can't get more in the effect than you had in the cause.
Dead matter never organizes itself under its own power.
Question: “Well then why then does the atheist insist on such an incredibly improbable explanation for the universe?
Answer: Because without it they cannot remain an atheist!
That makes the shapes pretty broad then. You may be able to find some similarities with some bone structures. But the two are very different
All this can be the same evidence for common design. Afterall a car designer doesnt make a completely different car shape and features when he brings out different models.
I do not expect slow gradual change over time. That model does not even work for geology. Evolution works off of extinctions and explosions (radiation) it works better with the creation model where God spoke and there was life. DNA being "the language of God" according to the book written by the leading expert on DNA.Why would you expect that much change in 100,000 years when there has been little change in the genus for tens of millions of years with the same generation times?
"Genomic mutation clock–based timings of the landmark speciation events leading to the evolution of D. melanogaster show that it shared most recent common ancestry 5.4 MYA with D. simulans, 12.6 MYA with D. erecta+D. orena, 12.8 MYA with D. yakuba+D. teisseri, 35.6 MYA with the takahashii subgroup, 41.3 MYA with the montium subgroup, 44.2 MYA with the ananassae subgroup, 54.9 MYA with the obscura group, 62.2 MYA with the willistoni group, and 62.9 MYA with the subgenus Drosophila."
http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/21/1/36.short
The genomes are very, very different. Bacteria do not have the same mutation rates or the same HOX genes that allow for morphological plasticity in animals.
If evolution is true, then no animal should evolve into a completely different animal. Fish and humans share a common vertebrate ancestor, and we are both still vertebrates. You stay on your branch of the tree of life.
Wings are not a new body part. They are a modification of already existing body parts.
The Drosophila genus began to diverge 60 million years ago. Why would you expect anything more dramatic than the current variation of fruit flies in a time period of just 100 years?
Again there are much better theory than your mutation theory. For example the theory that cooking made us human. Most theory for the evolution has to do with food to some degree. Often the nourishment we have can go to intelligence, strength, OR speed. Take your pick. The bird wants to fly so their energy is invested in strength for wings. The horse can be strong or fast. A race horse or a working horse. Need I go on?Through the accumulation of mutations that increase intelligence.