How did lungs, blood vessels, blood, liver, kidneys and heart evolve at the same time? Which was fi

[Speedwell]

Oh, I completely understand what I'm being told to think, I just don't think it.

I agree that you understand--that if you ask for something science can't give you, you won't get it. On the other hand, if you asked for something science can give you, you would have to deal with it.

 

[Loudmouth]

There are all types of articles out there that say tons of stuff that I don't buy into on evolution or whatever, but when any article tells me you don't get proof because we don't have to give it because this person explains why, makes me suspicious to say the very least.

"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)."

We share over 200,000 ERVs with chimps. That's 200,000 pieces of proof (beyond a reasonable doubt).

 

[PsychoSarah]

are you sure?:

Expression of Human Endogenous Retrovirus env Genes in the Blood of Breast Cancer Patients

"Human ERV (HERV) is now part of the human genome, occupying nearly 8% of the total genome, with approximately 98,000 ERV elements and fragments"

where did you get the 200000 number from?

-_- you counted the fragments of just 1 of the viruses, not all of them.

 

[Loudmouth]

are you sure?:

Expression of Human Endogenous Retrovirus env Genes in the Blood of Breast Cancer Patients

"Human ERV (HERV) is now part of the human genome, occupying nearly 8% of the total genome, with approximately 98,000 ERV elements and fragments"

where did you get the 200000 number from?

Why would the expression of retroviral proteins in breast cancer patients put the origin of ERVs in doubt?

We get the number of human ERVs from the human genome paper, table 11 (ERV classes I-III):

Initial sequencing and analysis of the human genome : Article : Nature

We get the number of lineage specific ERVs in the human and chimp lineages from the chimp genome paper, Table 2:

Initial sequence of the chimpanzee genome and comparison with the human genome : Article : Nature

The lineage specific ERVs are the ERVS not found at the same locus in both species. It's a matter of subtraction to figure out the number that are shared at the same locus.

 

[Loudmouth]

we can also arrange designed objects in hieirarchy,

That is an empty claim until you actually do it.

but again: it doesnt prove any commondescent.

Why not?

 

[Loudmouth]

-_- you counted the fragments of just 1 of the viruses, not all of them.

The ERV evidence for common ancestry does not require all ERVs to be non-functional. This is a common and misguided creationist argument. What it demonstrates is that they either don't understand the argument or failed to read the argument in the first place.

ERVs are evidence of evolution because they are found at the same base in the genome of two species, not because they lack function.

 

[Kenny'sID]

"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)."

We share over 200,000 ERVs with chimps. That's 200,000 pieces of proof (beyond a reasonable doubt).

How is that the least bit related to the post you answered to? Are you all just going to go incoherent on me now?

I agree that you understand--that if you ask for something science can't give you, you won't get it. On the other hand, if you asked for something science can give you, you would have to deal with it.

Not sure who you are agreeing with or how you stretched that out of the comment you replied to, but this is getting weird. And BTW, science can give nor take anything, as I've said several times. Science cannot think at all... it's what people do with science that often proves, neither can some of them.

I'll keep an eye on the thread to see if it picks up, but as it stands, it's gone pretty stagnant.

 

[USincognito]

are you sure?:

Expression of Human Endogenous Retrovirus env Genes in the Blood of Breast Cancer Patients

"Human ERV (HERV) is now part of the human genome, occupying nearly 8% of the total genome, with approximately 98,000 ERV elements and fragments"

where did you get the 200000 number from?

Do you understand what endogenization is?

 

[xianghua]

We get the number of human ERVs from the human genome paper, table 11 (ERV classes I-III):

The lineage specific ERVs are the ERVS not found at the same locus in both species. It's a matter of subtraction to figure out the number that are shared at the same locus.

ok. first: according to talkorigin source there are only about 7 shared ervs (from 32000 in total). so from what source you get the 200000 number?

secondly: what about the possibility that ervs evolved from the genome and not the opposite?

 

[Loudmouth]

How is that the least bit related to the post you answered to? Are you all just going to go incoherent on me now?

"There are all types of articles out there that say tons of stuff that I don't buy into on evolution or whatever, but when any article tells me you don't get proof because we don't have to give it because this person explains why, makes me suspicious to say the very least."--KennyID

I gave you an article that has the proof (beyond a reasonable doubt) you are asking for.

Any response to the proof that has been given?

 

[Loudmouth]

ok. first: according to talkorigin source there are only about 7 shared ervs (from 32000 in total).

That's false. The talkorigin page only talks about 7 shared ERVs. It doesn't state that those are the only ones.

so from what source you get the 200000 number?

See post 244.

secondly: what about the possibility that ervs evolved from the genome and not the opposite?

1. We can directly observe in the lab that retroviruses produce ERVs.

2. When you remove the mutations from ERVs through the use of a consensus sequence you get functional retrovirus. This is the opposite of what we should see if ERVs were the source of retroviruses.
Identification of an infectious progenitor for the multiple-copy HERV-K human endogenous retroelements

3. Divergence of the 5' and 3' LTRs is consistent with insertion of retroviruses over time. When a retrovirus inserts the 5' and 3' LTRs are identical. If ERVs are the product of retroviral insertion then ERVs created a long time ago will have more LTR divergence than more recent insertions as determined by species distribution. This is exactly what we see. An ERV shared by many primate species has more LTR divergence than an ERV shared by just humans and chimps.

 

[xianghua]

That's false. The talkorigin page only talks about 7 shared ERVs. It doesn't state that those are the only ones.

here is from talkorigin: "In humans, endogenous retroviruses occupy about 1% of the genome, in total constituting ~30,000 different retroviruses . 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"

from 7 to 200,000 in a several years seems like a big jump.

1. We can directly observe in the lab that retroviruses produce ERVs.

true. but we can find the opposite too- a retrovirus that get "infected" by the host.

2. When you remove the mutations from ERVs through the use of a consensus sequence you get functional retrovirus. This is the opposite of what we should see if ERVs were the source of retroviruses.

why?

3. If ERVs are the product of retroviral insertion then ERVs created a long time ago will have more LTR divergence than more recent insertions as determined by species distribution. This is exactly what we see. An ERV shared by many primate species has more LTR divergence than an ERV shared by just humans and chimps.

its just a regular phylogeny. like any regular gene.

 

[Loudmouth]

here is from talkorigin: "In humans, endogenous retroviruses occupy about 1% of the genome, in total constituting ~30,000 different retroviruses . 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"

from 7 to 200,000 in a several years seems like a big jump.

That's what happens when you sequence the whole genome, numbers can change. The 1% and 30,000 numbers came before the human genome project was finished.

true. but we can find the opposite too- a retrovirus that get "infected" by the host.

Example?

Why?

If ERVs were the result of retroviral insertion over time then we would expect the accumulation of mutations over time in ERVs. This is supported by the fact that removing those accumulated mutations produces a viable retrovirus.

its just a regular phylogeny. like any regular gene.

Unlike what we would expect from common design or special creation. There is no reason that a designer would have to have more divergent LTRs in an ERV shared by all primates compared to one shared by just chimps and humans.

 

[Kenny'sID]

Any response to the proof that has been given?

I think I made some reasonable requests concerning your challenge when I accepted it. If you choose not to meet them, and expect me to take the time to get a PHD so I understand how all this works because you refuse to simply bring it here and explain it, that's up to you.

I accepted on those grounds so I didn't waste tons of time with something of which I'm already aware of the general outcome. However I was willing to take some time but we're both going to have to make a bit more effort than
"go take a look at this"...something I stopped doing a long time ago, and insist you bring your argument here to the table to avoid the very unfair balance of effort.

IOW, go read the Bible, or a book or 2 of it, or wherever I choose to send you, and get back with me with any questions, or disagreements. See?

And BTW, did you accept the task of going to the thread I linked to, and taking a look at where this very thing had been discussed to see if you could get some insight on my ideas on it, making this challenge unnecessary, or was that too much trouble?

I thought I'd made my thoughts on this clear enough in the past, but regardless, I went into details here because I will be saving this should the occasion rise again.

 

[Loudmouth]

I think I made some reasonable requests concerning your challenge when I accepted it. If you choose not to meet them, and expect me to take the time to get a PHD so I understand how all this works because you refuse to simply bring it here and explain it, that's up to you.

Copying from a post I made in another thread . . .

We could point to endogenous retroviruses. These are places in our genome where a virus is inserted, and we can still find the viral genome right where it inserted. These retroviruses insert randomly all over the genome which makes them useful as genetic markers.

If humans and chimps were created separately then we would expect to find these insertions at different places in each of the genomes due to the random nature of retroviral insertion. If you have two people drawing random numbers then you would expect them to have different sets of random numbers. The same logic applies to endogenous retroviruses.

However, what we find when we look at the human and chimp genomes is that out of the 203,000 endogenous retroviruses found in the human genome, over 99.9% of them are found at the same spot in the chimp genome. That is like two people drawing 200,000 random numbers and getting the same number 99.9% of the time. It won't happen.

The only explanation for these shared endogenous retroviruses is that they inserted once, in a common ancestor. That is why we find them at the same position in both the human and chimp genome.

And BTW, did you accept the task of going to the thread I linked to, and taking a look at where this very thing had been discussed to see if you could get some insight on my ideas on it, making this challenge unnecessary, or was that too much trouble?

Isn't this the very thing you are complaining about? You want me to sift through hundreds of posts?

 

[Kenny'sID]

Isn't this the very thing you are complaining about? You want me to sift through hundreds of posts?

Give that man a cigar.

 

[Kenny'sID]

Copying from a post I made in another thread . . .

We could point to endogenous retroviruses. These are places in our genome where a virus is inserted, and we can still find the viral genome right where it inserted. These retroviruses insert randomly all over the genome which makes them useful as genetic markers.

If humans and chimps were created separately then we would expect to find these insertions at different places in each of the genomes due to the random nature of retroviral insertion. If you have two people drawing random numbers then you would expect them to have different sets of random numbers. The same logic applies to endogenous retroviruses.

However, what we find when we look at the human and chimp genomes is that out of the 203,000 endogenous retroviruses found in the human genome, over 99.9% of them are found at the same spot in the chimp genome. That is like two people drawing 200,000 random numbers and getting the same number 99.9% of the time. It won't happen.

The only explanation for these shared endogenous retroviruses is that they inserted once, in a common ancestor. That is why we find them at the same position in both the human and chimp genome.

And here I was with the idea you were actually paying attention to what I was saying in post 254. Oh well..

 

[Loudmouth]

Give that man a cigar.

I am more than happy to go through the evidence with you if you are willing to discuss it. However, it would be a waste of my time trying to explain the evidence if you or others have no interest in discussing it. I will continue to explain the ERV evidence and answer any questions you have as long as you continue to discuss it.

 

[Loudmouth]

And here I was with the idea you were actually paying attention to what I was saying in post 254. Oh well..

I did pay attention. You wanted me to explain why ERVs are evidence in a way that doesn't require a PhD in a scientific field. That's exactly what I did.

 

[Kenny'sID]

I did pay attention. You wanted me to explain why ERVs are evidence in a way that doesn't require a PhD in a scientific field. That's exactly what I did.

5yr old?...ring a bell? You'll need to keep that in mind as you proceed, it's simple to do but important...time consuming? oh well.

You have to understand, just for starters, all the terms have to be explained first, and probably in depth, but I'll leave it up to you at what level as you are the one that will know what I need to know due to knowing what you will be presenting. Again, think 5yr old.

See, I' don't take the time to know this stuff any more than one would take the time to educate themselves on anything that supposedly substantiates something they feel is preposterous. if it was explained to me in the past, I'd completely forget it, it's just not a priority to me. It would take entirely too much of my time to look it all up for every argument here, and learn it, and all in order to have a supposed reasonably productive debate and if the past is any indication, to no profitable/productive end.

Also, it would be a good idea to consider early on, the very things that have ended these things in the past, Assumptions as I call them, or just to name one "millions/billions" of yrs old won't be acceptable to me, as there are two sides to that, and it will end up in another argument before we even get in the door and settled. Things like "Yeah this is a fact, but we can't prove it because science proves nothing" no good. Main point on that is anything that is not fact can't play into this, or at the very least not certain beyond some doubt, I won't be completely unreasonable on that, we'll just have to see how it goes. Just sayin' if your findings are going to depend on too much of that, or things you accept as fact but you can see how I would have good reason not to, then either try to rearrange your arguments or skip them altogether if you can, and still make your point.

Still, I'll work with you. Best to condense it and just stick with what I'll need to know. The suggestion to go dig up replies for the other thread were meant to help you understand a point, but now that I think about it, that may be less time consuming for you... you decide.

You/others go on about me not understanding, I think it's an untrue catch all, but we'll be sure that's covered here. Make me understand.