200,000 ERVs...

alloytoo said:

That doesn't mean it tells us NOTHING.

It tells us something that must be taken in context.

Click to expand...

I never said it says nothing.

I simply said it says nothing about our immune system or vulnerability to other retroviruses. And that is regardless of the context, whatever that may mean.

Blayz said:

I never said it says nothing.

I simply said it says nothing about our immune system or vulnerability to other retroviruses. And that is regardless of the context, whatever that may mean.

Click to expand...

So what you're saying is that our Trim5a protein's response to ancient retroviruses will tell us absolutely nothing (and can never tell us anything) about it's response to future retroviruses.

On your say so of course.

You may be right, but I think your position is logically deficient.

alloytoo said:

So what you're saying is that our Trim5a protein's response to ancient retroviruses will tell us absolutely nothing (and can never tell us anything) about it's response to future retroviruses.

On your say so of course.

You may be right, but I think your position is logically deficient.

Click to expand...

I was being too dogmatic, I apologise. You are correct, I was wrong.

This thread needs another bump.

Human endogenous retroviruses (HERVs)—evolutionary “junk” or God’s tools?
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2006/1219herv.asp

SpyridonOCA said:

Human endogenous retroviruses (HERVs)—evolutionary “junk” or God’s tools?
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2006/1219herv.asp

Click to expand...

I did a quick "Find" on the article and nowhere do they use the words "orthologous" or "hierarchy". I can only guess that they never address the main argument that has been made multiple times. Why do ORTHOLOGOUS ERV's fall into a nested hierarchy among primates (including humans), the very same hierarchy that is produced by a comparison of morphology?

ERV's, like any mutation, can be neutral, detrimental, or beneficial. No one is arguing that ERV's are evidence of common descent because they have no function. What we are arguing is that ERV's are evidence of common descent because they are shared at the same spot in the genome of divergent species (e.g. chimps and humans) and that they fall into the nested hierarchy predicted by the theory of evolution.

Loudmouth said:

ERV's, like any mutation, can be neutral, detrimental, or beneficial. No one is arguing that ERV's are evidence of common descent because they have no function. What we are arguing is that ERV's are evidence of common descent because they are shared at the same spot in the genome of divergent species (e.g. chimps and humans) and that they fall into the nested hierarchy predicted by the theory of evolution.

Click to expand...

Could it be that ERV's serve similar functions for similar species? Does that in and of itself prove common descent?

SpyridonOCA said:

Could it be that ERV's serve similar functions for similar species?

Click to expand...

Yes it could

Does that in and of itself prove common descent?

Click to expand...

Of the viruses, perhaps.

Feel free to keep ignoring the main point brought up over and over again, that of orthologous integration sties. I can understand why you idolators keep ignoring the point, given you have no answer for it.

SpyridonOCA said:

Could it be that ERV's serve similar functions for similar species?

Click to expand...

No doubt the functional ones do.

Does that in and of itself prove common descent?

Click to expand...

Of course not. There is no single 'smoking gun' argument or line of evidence for common descent, and 'proof' is a meaningless notion in any case.

This is noteworthy because common descent *predicts* an inheritance pattern. It is, in fact, the only framework that does so absent ad hoc rationalization.

Wouldn't it make sense for similar species to have similar mechanisms for the absorption of retroviruses, thus having ERV's in the same places? An evolutionary explanation isn't necessary.

SpyridonOCA said:

Could it be that ERV's serve similar functions for similar species? Does that in and of itself prove common descent?

Click to expand...

An orthologous ERV in humans and orangutans could serve the same function and be completely absent in all other primates. This is completely within the realm of possiblity for creationism. However, evolution predicts that if an ERV is found at the same genomic position in both orangutans and humans it should also be found in chimps and gorillas. Creationism makes no such prediction. What do we find? Exactly what evolution predicts. The question of function or non-function has nothing to do with the argument for common descent. Placement and distribution does.

SpyridonOCA said:

Wouldn't it make sense for similar species to have similar mechanisms for the absorption of retroviruses, thus having ERV's in the same places? An evolutionary explanation isn't necessary.

Click to expand...

a) Even assuming ERV "hotspots" in genomes, this doesn't mean they would integrate in identical spots in different primates.

b) And even assuming they had to intergrate in identical spots in genomes (which they don't), this still wouldn't explain why it results in a phylogenetic tree which coincides with other trees dervived from independent criteria.

SpyridonOCA said:

Wouldn't it make sense for similar species to have similar mechanisms for the absorption of retroviruses, thus having ERV's in the same places? An evolutionary explanation isn't necessary.

Click to expand...

Cellular invasion and DNA integration are completely different mechanisms. It is observed that retroviruses insert randomly among thousands of integration sites EVEN IN GENETICALLY IDENTICAL CELLS. I would strongly suggest that you read this paper. Pay careful attention to the following table:



Figure 1
Relationship between Integration Sites and Transcriptional Intensity in the Human Genome The human chromosomes are shown numbered. HIV integration sites from all datasets in Table 1 are shown as blue “lollipops”; MLV integration sites are shown in lavender; and ASLV integration sites are shown in green. Transcriptional activity is shown by the red shading on each of the chromosomes (derived from quantification of nonnormalized EST libraries, see text). Centromeres, which are mostly unsequenced, are shown as grey rectangles.

As you can see, retroviruses insert randomly throughout the genome, not in one spot.

Loudmouth said:

An orthologous ERV in humans and orangutans could serve the same function and be completely absent in all other primates. This is completely within the realm of possiblity for creationism. However, evolution predicts that if an ERV is found at the same genomic position in both orangutans and humans it should also be found in chimps and gorillas. Creationism makes no such prediction. What do we find? Exactly what evolution predicts. The question of function or non-function has nothing to do with the argument for common descent. Placement and distribution does.

Click to expand...

Creationism predicts that the Creator would give species similar features for similar functions.

SpyridonOCA said:

Creationism predicts that the Creator would give species similar features for similar functions.

Click to expand...

Except the fact that if things were totally different, you would say "Creationists predict things to be unique for each creature." Unlike evolution, which demands similarity via genetic relation, Creationists can "predict" whatever it is the real world shows similarity or not, making it a totally worthless hypothesis because it fits any piece of evidence that could ever come up. There is no piece of evidence capable of showing a vague Creationism to be untrue.

SpyridonOCA said:

Creationism predicts that the Creator would give species similar features for similar functions.

Click to expand...

Really, so do tell me this, what marvelous predictions does creationism predict for the relationship between raccoons, the oppossum (an American marsupial) with a similar habitat to the raccoon, and the Australian wallaby (like a kangaroo, only smaller).

What mega-twisting of your fairy tale is required to explain that wallabies and oppossums are more closely related genetically?

And, of course, you continue to miss the point. Orthologous integration sites between chimps and humans but not in oragnutans. What similar functionality os going on there? Once again the idolators come up with zip.

Lucretius said:

Except the fact that if things were totally different, you would say "Creationists predict things to be unique for each creature." Unlike evolution, which demands similarity via genetic relation, Creationists can "predict" whatever it is the real world shows similarity or not, making it a totally worthless hypothesis because it fits any piece of evidence that could ever come up. There is no piece of evidence capable of showing a vague Creationism to be untrue.

Click to expand...

If species change, it is attributable to natural selection. When species do not change for millions of years, it is attributable to stabilizing selection. When species choose mates based upon features that are disadvantageous to their survival, it is sexual selection. Thus, it appears that evolution can explain everything and anything, and thus, explains nothing.

SpyridonOCA said:

If species change, it is attributable to natural selection. When species do not change for millions of years, it is attributable to stabilizing selection. When species choose mates based upon features that are disadvantageous to their survival, it is sexual selection. Thus, it appears that evolution can explain everything and anything, and thus, explains nothing.

Click to expand...

Post number 5 in which you have steadfastly refused to even address orthologous integration sites.

You are a mediocre creationist.

Blayz said:

Really, so do tell me this, what marvelous predictions does creationism predict for the relationship between raccoons, the oppossum (an American marsupial) with a similar habitat to the raccoon, and the Australian wallaby (like a kangaroo, only smaller).

Click to expand...

That there are strikingly similar species between marsupial and placental mammals actually helps Creation rather than evolution.

Blayz said:

Post number 5 in which you have steadfastly refused to even address orthologous integration sites.

You are a mediocre creationist.

Click to expand...

I am not a "creationist." I am an Orthodox Christian and believe in the traditional understanding of Genesis. That understanding might be wrong, but it is no more refutable than Darwinian evolution. In matters of prehistory, since no one was there to record what really happened, people look at the available evidence through their perspective presuppositions and worldviews.