200,000 ERVs...

[Loudmouth]

Hi,

I have two questions:
1) If most of HERV-Ks integrated before the separation of hominids and Old World monkeys +-30-45 million years ago, why was no RhERV-K found to be (yet) orthologous to closely related HERV-K's and CERV-K's? (Article: Demographic Histories of ERV-K in Humans, Chimpanzees and Rhesus Monkeys)

Your age of integration is way off. Here is the entire abstract with added emphasis on the important bits.

PLoS ONE. 2007 Oct 10;2(10):e1026.

Demographic Histories of ERV-K in Humans, Chimpanzees and Rhesus Monkeys.

Romano CM, de Melo FL, Corsini MA, Holmes EC, de A Zanotto PM.

Laboratory of Molecular Evolution and Bioinformatics, Department of Microbiology, Biomedical Sciences Institute-ICBII, University of São Paulo, Brazil.

We detected 19 complete endogenous retroviruses of the K family in the genome of rhesus monkey (Macaca mulatta; RhERV-K) and 12 full length elements in the genome of the common chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes; CERV-K). These sequences were compared with 55 human HERV-K and 20 CERV-K reported previously, producing a total data set of 106 full-length ERV-K genomes. Overall, 61% of the human elements compared to 21% of the chimpanzee and 47% of rhesus elements had estimated integration times less than 4.5 million years before present (MYBP), with an average integration times of 7.8 MYBP, 13.4 MYBP and 10.3 MYBP for HERV-K, CERV-K and RhERV-K, respectively. By excluding those ERV-K sequences generated by chromosomal duplication, we used 63 of the 106 elements to compare the population dynamics of ERV-K among species. This analysis indicated that both HERV-K and RhERV-K had similar demographic histories, including markedly smaller effective population sizes, compared to CERV-K. We propose that these differing ERV-K dynamics reflect underlying differences in the evolutionary ecology of the host species, such that host ecology and demography represent important determinants of ERV-K dynamics.

The average insertion time for RhERV-K was ~10 million years before present, well after the Old World monkeys lineage split off.

2) Is there an example of any mammal that is capable of reproduction without ERV envelope genes playing a role in placental physiology?

Thank you!

It hasn't been confirmed that every mammal requires ERV genes, but there are several where this has been confirmed. Your point? (see Red Herring in my previous post).

Edit: Wait, make that 3 (sorry):
3) Why was one of the CERV1 subfamilies dated to 7.8my and two CERV2 families dated at 21.9my and 14.1my? They have no orthologues in humans... (Article: Identification, characterization and comparative genomics of chimpanzee endogenous retroviruses)

From the paper:

The estimated ages of the two subfamilies are 5 MY and 7.8 MY, respectively, suggesting that at least one subfamily was present in the lineage prior to the time chimpanzees and humans diverged from a common ancestor (about 6 MYA). This conclusion, however, is inconsistent with the fact that no CERV 1/PTERV1 orthologues were detected in the sequenced human genome. Moreover, we were able to detect pre-integration sites at those regions in the human genome orthologous to the CERV 1/PTERV1 insertion sites in chimpanzees, effectively eliminating the possibility that the elements were once present in humans but subsequently excised. Consistent with our findings, the results of a previously published Southern hybridization survey indicated that sequences orthologous to CERV 1/PTERV1 elements are present in the African great apes and old world monkeys but not in Asian apes or humans [30]. These results suggest that some members of the CERV 1/PTERV1 subfamily entered the chimpanzee genome after the split from humans through exogenous infections from closely related species and subsequently increased in copy number by retrotransposition.​

In other words, the estimated time of integration based on sequence is thrown off by the ERV jumping around on the chromosome and from older ERV's from closely related species jumping into the chimp lineage (some researchers even suggest that this was caused by eating meat that contained CERV1).

 

[brakepads]

Ok Thanx!

 

[RichardT]

thats it i dont believe in God anymore. this proof is just to overwhelming.

see more solid proof that GOd was an idiot if he did exsist. why would he do this kind of creation. man you guys have got to be kidding.

I'm wondering. Are you being serious?

 

[Schroeder]

I'm wondering. Are you being serious?

your kidding right. of course i am NOT serious.

 

[Schroeder]

You only looked at one part of the prediction. It's and "if . . . then" prediction, you only focus on the "if". The prediction is this: If two species have the same function (flying) then the features should be similar. They aren't. The prediction is falsified. No bird has a membranous wing. No bat has an airfoil wing. They are completely different wings. We can also include the insect wing and the flying fish wing if you want. We could also compare the cephalopod eye, the insect eye, and the vertebrate eye. We could compare the gills of the basing shark with the baleen of a whale. We could compare the thumb of an ape with the thumb of a panda. There are hundreds of comparisons which falsify the prediction made by Spyridon.

why couldnt birds have evolved from flying fish? (a joke) Glad to see it cleared up So it ONLY falsifies Spyridon prediction or statement. Still think he/she was just a bit simple in the statement. Besides these dont falsify a creation all. And theycould be from evolution process as well to some extent.

 

[TheOutsider]

Besides these dont falsify a creation all.

Technically nothing can possibly falsify creationism. That's kind of the problem. Since it is unfalsifiable, there is no way for it to make any kind of predictions. Unfalsifiable models are unscientific and not really that useful.

 

[RichardT]

your kidding right. of course i am NOT serious.

I'm sorry. Forgive me.

 

[Schroeder]

Technically nothing can possibly falsify creationism. That's kind of the problem. Since it is unfalsifiable, there is no way for it to make any kind of predictions. Unfalsifiable models are unscientific and not really that useful.

depends the RTB(hugh ross he is an old earth creationist) does make predictions. If that is what you want to call them. it think there a bit silly. You get all the info then see and then say the theory would have edthis. BUT they say the theory predicts this. It didnt predict anything it saw the info and THEN stated it WOULD, they just dont say it that way. They also said the coeranth was 80 million years dead yet we still have it around. there are NO fossils of it for 80 milllion years of history. thats amazing. does the theory predict this. sure it does, things can be hard to fossilize.

 

[Loudmouth]

depends the RTB(hugh ross he is an old earth creationist) does make predictions. If that is what you want to call them.

RTB? What is that?

Anyway, what predictions does creationism make that are different from the predictions made by the theories you disagree with? This is an important question. This is what scientists ask every time a competing theory is brought forward. As an example, Einstein's theory of relativity proposed that light would be bent a specific amount by large masses. His prediction differed from the predictions made by Newton's theory, the accepted theory of the time. Einstein's theory was shown to be the correct one after observing a solar eclipse where starlight was bent by the sun at the angle predicted by Einstein's theory.

it think there a bit silly. You get all the info then see and then say the theory would have edthis. BUT they say the theory predicts this. It didnt predict anything it saw the info and THEN stated it WOULD,
they just dont say it that way.

Postdictions are just as important as predictions. A good theory must explain the observations we already have, as well as predicting what observations will be made in the future.

They also said the coeranth was 80 million years dead yet we still have it around. there are NO fossils of it for 80 milllion years of history. thats amazing. does the theory predict this. sure it does, things can be hard to fossilize.

I am guessing that you mean "coelacanth". Spelling is important. Don't be egnorant (egnorant is the new pwn, just a little joke).

What do we see in the fossil record? 100-200 fossil species of coelacanth, almost all of which are found in shallow aquatic or marine settings. What do we find today? Two coelacanth species that are very different from any fossil species. They also live in deep water, a place that does not result in easy to find fossils like shallow water environments. When was the last time you heard of a fossil dig in 200 meters of water?

 

[TheOutsider]

RTB? What is that?

I assume that he means Reasons to Believe, an OEC website.

 

[Schroeder]

RTB? What is that?

Anyway, what predictions does creationism make that are different from the predictions made by the theories you disagree with? This is an important question. This is what scientists ask every time a competing theory is brought forward. As an example, Einstein's theory of relativity proposed that light would be bent a specific amount by large masses. His prediction differed from the predictions made by Newton's theory, the accepted theory of the time. Einstein's theory was shown to be the correct one after observing a solar eclipse where starlight was bent by the sun at the angle predicted by Einstein's theory.

Reasons to believe. RTB. But this is nnot the type of predictions the thoery uses. it doesnt make a prediction and down the road it is found true. for one becasue it is based on the PAST life that cant be examined or observed or tested. It only deals with current info which as far as i see only show evolution and none that shows the thoery is possible. at least to me.

Postdictions are just as important as predictions. A good theory must explain the observations we already have, as well as predicting what observations will be made in the future.

well lets make one. i predict if the theory is true that we will in the future see animals evolve out of there class into another. seeing how this had to have happened in the past to create the class. maybe we will see a land mammal go back into the water like the whale. OR maybe a amphipian turn into a reptile or the like. dont see why it couldnt still happen. Dont know why we couldnt see it nowadays either since it has been going on so long. i guess we are in that time frame of eguilibrium. i guess we are in a stable environment that doesnt make useful mutations that useful.

I am guessing that you mean "coelacanth". Spelling is important. Don't be egnorant (egnorant is the new pwn, just a little joke).

It is i am just not that good at it. and am to lazy to go look it up.

What do we see in the fossil record? 100-200 fossil species of coelacanth, almost all of which are found in shallow aquatic or marine settings. What do we find today? Two coelacanth species that are very different from any fossil species. They also live in deep water, a place that does not result in easy to find fossils like shallow water environments. When was the last time you heard of a fossil dig in 200 meters of water?

what does any of this got to do with it. we find species of exstinct species that used to be in oceans not around. your saying just not these. And why again have they not been found in the record for 80 million years again. they changed alot yet we still new right off that it was a coelacanth. This would help my theory of a creation of many species at once changing over time into what we have know. They are very different but rather easy to see they are still what they were. Even if it was over millions of years as old earth creationist see it. And the hierarchy shows this true as does morphology etc.

 

[Hawkins]

Well again, without reading the whole thread through, I am asking the same question;

is it possible that humans and chimps sharing the same viral DNAs due to inter-breeding to the two species over a period of time in history?

 

[Fed]

Well again, without reading the whole thread through, I am asking the same question;

is it possible that humans and chimps sharing the same viral DNAs due to inter-breeding to the two species over a period of time in history?

Let's see, first you'd need humans, chimps, bonobos, gorillas, orangutans, and gibbons to interbreed all together. Then you'd need humans, chimps, bonobos, and gorillas to inter-breed with each other but not the other species (gibbons and orangutans). Then just humans, chimps, and bonobos to interbreed but not gorillas. You get the picture.

So aside from the fact that they're all separate species and therefore can't interbreed and the fact that you need a lot of time for genetic drift to spread the ERVs through the breeding populations, sure it's possible... it's also possible 100 monkeys sitting at typewriters will randomly type out Hamlet but come on.

 

[Hawkins]

Let's see, first you'd need humans, chimps, bonobos, gorillas, orangutans, and gibbons to interbreed all together. Then you'd need humans, chimps, bonobos, and gorillas to inter-breed with each other but not the other species (gibbons and orangutans). Then just humans, chimps, and bonobos to interbreed but not gorillas. You get the picture.

So aside from the fact that they're all separate species and therefore can't interbreed and the fact that you need a lot of time for genetic drift to spread the ERVs through the breeding populations, sure it's possible... it's also possible 100 monkeys sitting at typewriters will randomly type out Hamlet but come on.

I think I asked a neutral question, I expect a neutral answer.

If only chimps interbreeded with humans, disregarding other breeding possibility, will they both get the same ERVs in the same locations, that's my question.

If you want my question to be even more specific, I am asking during the period of crisis which resulted the common Black Eve, how possible is human gene pool got infected by the chimps during the same period.

As for chimps can't interbreed with humans, prove that they couldn't along the history of both humans and chimps, which belongs to another topic thou.

 

[Fed]

I think I asked a neutral question, I expect a neutral answer.

If only chimps interbreeded with humans, disregarding other breeding possibility, will they both get the same ERVs in the same locations, that's my question.

All chimps and humans would have to be in the same gene pool and you'd need sufficient time for genetic drift, but yes, they would get orthologous ERVs. Of course, the problem is still that doesn't explain all the ERVs humans and chimps share with other primates. And we don't see humans and chimps in the fossil record, but rather common ancestor-like primates.

As for chimps can't interbreed with humans, prove that they couldn't along the history of both humans and chimps, which belongs to another topic thou.

Humans and chimps could interbreed - back when they were the same species, or the human-chimp common ancestor. If they can successfully interbreed (save for a few exceptions), they're not "humans and chimps" anymore - they're a single species.

 

[Hawkins]

All chimps and humans would have to be in the same gene pool and you'd need sufficient time for genetic drift, but yes, they would get orthologous ERVs. Of course, the problem is still that doesn't explain all the ERVs humans and chimps share with other primates. And we don't see humans and chimps in the fossil record, but rather common ancestor-like primates.


Humans and chimps could interbreed - back when they were the same species, or the human-chimp common ancestor. If they can successfully interbreed (save for a few exceptions), they're not "humans and chimps" anymore - they're a single species.

K, thanks very much for the information.

 

[Fed]

If you want my question to be even more specific, I am asking during the period of crisis which resulted the common Black Eve, how possible is human gene pool got infected by the chimps during the same period.

I have no idea what this Black Eve is, but unless you think back then humans had 24 (sex cell) chromosomes instead of 23, he answer is "basically impossible".

 

[Fed]

K, thanks very much for the information.

Sure, no problem.