I showed you what the null hypothesis is.
Unless you are oblivious, I have already addressed that. I pointed to the 40 million mutations that separate chimps and humans. Those mutations include those that are responsible for the differences in brain size and intelligence.
Please stop lying about my argument.
I have said over and over and over . . . IT IS A PHYLOGENETIC ARGUMENT.
Your all over the road and it's been a while since I took any of the convoluted mess seriously. Let's start with the fact that the OP and the proposal of the thread has been left unaddressed. See (
ERVs put chimp/human common ancestry beyond any reasonable doubt.) The ERVs are a dead issue, I have not the slightest intention of chasing this around the mulberry bush with you. This is the null hypothesis I proposed, more importantly, the one Darwin suggested:
If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. (On the Origin of Species, Chapter 6 - Difficulties on Theory)
The Phylogentic Argument is a waste of time it's already been dealt with at length. Taxonomy is a highly subjective means of organizing details, nothing more.
What we really know about ERVs:
- Most retroviruses infect somatic cells, but might infect of germline cells on rare occasions.
- ERVs have been inactivated by mutation for the most part and do nothing.
- ERVs have been proposed to be involved in multiple sclerosis (MS) and HERVs were found in greater frequency in the sera of people with schizophrenia.
- 98,000 human ERV elements and fragments making up nearly 8% of our genome and no HERVs capable of replication had been identified.
Endogenous retrovirus
The inverse logic is intuitively obvious, if the homology argument for things in common can prove common ancestry then differences can prove independent lineage, thus creation. Failure to accept the inverse logic is tantamount to an open admission of predicating all arguments on assumptions made before the evidence is considered.
One of the HERVs (Human ERVs) was reconstructed.
What makes this such a lackluster argument is that the Darwinian will just keep repeating that ERVs are the result of germline invasions, something that has simply been assumed as far as I can tell. Long technical discussions about how ERVs work are tedious so most Creationists won't bother with them. The researchers got the 'Phoenix Virus' to work, it had 20 amino acids and just one frameshift. In order to understand why this is important you would need to know how protein coding works on a molecular level.
Phoenix Virus research:
the characterization of the insertion sites of 11 (nearly) full-length HERV-K(HML2) endogenous elements gave a rather different result, with five of them found far from known human genes (>100 kb on each side), four being in the vicinity (<20 kb) of genes, and only two inserted within genes (M. Dewannieux, unpubl.). This discrepancy is probably due to the strong counter-selection that should operate in vivo against insertions within genes, which are most probably deleterious for the proper expression of the targeted genes. (Identification of an infectious progenitor for the multiple-copy HERV-K human endogenous retroelements (Genome Research, Oct. 31,2006)
The HERV-K (HML2) is less then 1% of the human genome and yet it is the most studied. When they revive this sequence they actually manage to reconstruct it but with one frameshift. What is interesting about the results is that only two are within genes. The explanation being that they are probably deleterious so their are defenses that prevent this. Doesn't it make sense that the germline cells would be protected as well?
The amino acids need an
open reading frame. When they got it working they they wanted to see how it would interact with living cells and it was introduced to live T cells. Guess what, it really can get into the DNA but I'm still waiting for the part where it's demonstrated that massive germline invasions are possible.
Let's take a look at a little Darwinian mythology and try to picture what they believe happened here. Our supposed ancestors from about 25 million years ago would have been inundated with a massive dose of these pathological ERV viruses. As a result the ERVs would replicate at random in the genomes until random mutations disrupted the reading frame, leaving fragments like the HERV K. Getting this far into the ancestry of apes in Darwinian evolution leaves you following a lot of long 'ghost lineages' but geographically always go back to the East African Rift valley. (
Nature, 30 May 2013)
This is an area that has made a number of paleontologists famous, especially the Leaky family who found so many of the Homo habilis and Homo erectus fossils in and around this area. So in case you were wondering when this supposed ERV onslaught of germline invasions would have happened it would have been right around there. What the Darwinian desperately wants to prove is a correlation between the molecular evidence and the fossil record. What they are doing is taking this highly technical ERV research, molecular clock age estimates and reconcile it with the fossil record. My positive argument here will simply be this, no matter how many ways it's reconstructed ERVs are just another homology argument.
You are trying to use an old statistical argument, specifically, the odds of mutations occurring at a specific loci. It's become one of the main stays of the Talk Origins arguments and since Creationists tend to ignore it they think it means it's irrefutable. It's not, it's just so obscure Creationists are bored to death with it.
Figure 4.4.1. Human endogenous retrovirus K (HERV-K) insertions in identical chromosomal locations in various primates
There are at least seven different known instances of common retrogene insertions between chimps and humans, and this number is sure to grow as both these organism's genomes are sequenced (
see Prediction 4.5: Molecular evidence - Endogenous retroviruses)
That's about it, Talk Origins wants you to accept the assumption that ERVs are the result of germline invasions then drop a probability argument in your lap. The essence of the argument is the strongest argument against germline invasions in the first place. They are rare and they are pretty much random. Once they hook you with the assumption that they must be the result of a germline invasion they use the probability argument for common ancestry. The only way it would be possible for mutations and insertions to be in the same place is a common ancestor. It's just another homology argument buried in highly technical viral research but it really comes down to a false assumption and some anecdotal comparisons.
You got nothing, you are way off topic and you are arguing from an outdated and ridiculous Talk Origins argument. It's pretty obvious what is going on here. You can't look at the actual fossils and comparative genomics in adaptive evolution so you pick the most convoluted argument available. If you lose the debate it's ok because nothing substantive is at stake and if you make a point no one will ever know the difference.
The ERVs are a dead issue, I refuse to chase this red herring with you. Why don't you at least try to honestly focus on the actual topic under consideration or start another thread on these pointless ERVs.
It isn't rejected a priori. It just so happens that you have no evidence. There is nothing for science to investigate....
That is not assumed.
Nonsense, the a priori assumption of universal common descent by exclusively naturalistic means is the very epicenter of Darwinian logic:
Lamarck was the first man whose conclusions on the subject excited much attention. This justly-celebrated naturalist first published his views in 1801; he much enlarged them in 1809 in his "Philosophie Zoologique,' and subsequently, in 1815, in the Introduction to his "Hist. Nat. des Animaux sans Vertébres.' In these works he upholds the doctrine that species, including man, are descended from other species. He first did the eminent service of arousing attention to the probability of all change in the organic, as well as in the inorganic world, being the result of law, and not of miraculous interposition. (Darwin, On the Origin of Species)
This should be in your signature, it's what you are arguing for and from. Instead of standing on the courage of your convictions you are denying the essential tenants of this driving force in modern evolutionary biology. My guess is you are simply unaware, otherwise you simply don't care about the subject matter and enjoy baiting serious debate without substance.
The unifying principle of modern evolutionary biology being categorically denied by an avid defender. That is what has done the most to convince me that you will not honestly admit to the actual evidence. You deny your own foundational premise. Sad really...
Have a nice day

Mark