A question I don't think creationists will answer.

[sfs]

What you don't seem to understand is that I'm simply using "explanations" that are already routinely used by evolutionists. I don't have to speculate here.

No, you're not. You're just making stuff up.

Whether or not it is intended, that is the function it serves. If genes are discordant to expected phylogeny, then evolutionists will simply say it was incomplete lineage sorting that occurred in these mysterious "common ancestors". There is no potential falsifiability,

A simple falsehood. I assume you don't know that it's false. You're not deliberately lying (I hope) -- merely making up stuff about a technical subject in which you have zero expertise. Do you honestly think that's likely to be a fruitful route to the truth?

Something that 'explains' practically any variety of genetic discordance between humans, chimps, and gorillas, is not actually an explanation of that genetic discordance. It's like saying that each group will have genomic data. It explains nothing.

Incomplete lineage sorting explains certain patterns under certain circumstances. Under most circumstances, it does not apply and will not be invoked. If humans shared large numbers of ERV insertions with macaques, incomplete lineage sorting could not be invoked.

Understanding that fish don't turn into people over time is not personal incredulity.. it's called dealing with the reality that nature isn't magic like evolutionists want it to be.

I don't think this argument even rises to the level of personal incredulity. It's argument by stamping your foot and repeating something loudly because you want it to be true.

I think you're confused. sfs was the one asserting a certain gene tree pattern between humans,chimps, and gorillas would rule out incomplete lineage sorting as an explanation. But I don't think he can explain how.

That's odd. I think I already did explain how. Which part did you not understand?

 

[dad]

Actually claiming evolution or any science for that matter a religions is nothing more than taunting.

That depends on whether the science or evolution is here in the real world, or a mere extension of present day logic and rules, welded onto the past. All origins issues where science or evolution is claimed are religion. 100% No one needs you to agree.

 

[USincognito]

What you don't seem to understand is that I'm simply using "explanations" that are already routinely used by evolutionists. I don't have to speculate here.

Sorry champ. I've seen Creationist grade personal incredulity deployed as a weapon man times. This is another example. Oddly enough, you still have yet to give us an example of ILS that would falsify evolution, but would be "rescued" by some made up appeal to an ancient atavistic (or whatever) something. More hand waving and repeating your claim is not the same as providing evidence supporting it.

I forget is that the thread where you were saying we know Evolution is true because we don't find insect-people ?

Yeah. Just like this sentence proves the existence of straw men.

Whether or not it is intended, that is the function it serves. If genes are discordant to expected phylogeny, then evolutionists will simply say it was incomplete lineage sorting that occurred in these mysterious "common ancestors". There is no potential falsifiability,

Of course there is potential falsifiability. The problem here is that you're looking at a well understood phenomena (see this link if you don't quite understand how it works) as if it were something it's not.
- ILS is represented by handfuls of alleles of handfuls of genes.
- ILS happens in populations, not individual common ancestors.
So some alleles are present in certain ancestral populations and disappear in certain derived populations while remaining in others.

This takes place in, say, 2% of the genome. A potential falsification would be finding chimps, humans and gorillas had 85% ILS.

...yet at the same time specific genetic patterns such as ERVs are routinely offered as "proof" of common descent. Yet if those patterns were all scrambled up, then it would be "proof" of incomplete lineage sorting. Get it? Heads I win, Tails you lose.

Feel free to point out where any gorilla or gibbon has an orthologous ERV insertion that chimps lack and humans posses. ERVs don't work the same as gene alleles, and they do form a nested hierarchy when analyzed.

If by "well established" you mean "presupposed to be true", then I would agree with you.

No. I mean well established. Some dude on the Internet not liking something because it disagrees with his weltanshauung is his problem, not reality's.

Understanding that fish don't turn into people over time is not personal incredulity.. it's called dealing with the reality that nature isn't magic like evolutionists want it to be.

I'm sure your rhetoric makes you feel better and elicits images of the peanut gallery cheering as your clever words make Evilutionists look stupid. Good luck with that.

I think you're confused. sfs was the one asserting a certain gene tree pattern between humans,chimps, and gorillas would rule out incomplete lineage sorting as an explanation. But I don't think he can explain how.

According to my watch 20 June 2014 at 9:19pm CDT was less than 24 hours ago...

We know how much incomplete lineage sorting occurred in the great ape lineage, because we've compared their genomes. Since there are hundreds of thousands of ERVs, it would be immensely unlikely that most of them happened to fall into the regions where humans and gorillas are the closest pair, unlikely enough that that hypothesis would be rejected.

Alternatively, even if we hadn't measured the amount of incomplete lineage sorting, simply knowing that humans and chimpanzees are substantially less diverged than humans and gorillas would rule out incomplete lineage sorting as an explanation for your hypothetical situation.

Could you try to come up with an argument that has at least a little substance? This one was trivially wrong.

 

[sfs]

Feel free to point out where any gorilla or gibbon has an orthologous ERV insertion that chimps lack and humans posses. ERVs don't work the same as gene alleles, and they do form a nested hierarchy when analyzed.

Polymorphic ERV insertions in the ancestral population will work like any other allele (assuming no selection, of course), so I wouldn't be surprised to find some gorilla-human shared insertions. Since there are few polymorphic ERVs at any given time, I wouldn't expect to find many of them, however.

 

[USincognito]

Polymorphic ERV insertions in the ancestral population will work like any other allele (assuming no selection, of course), so I wouldn't be surprised to find some gorilla-human shared insertions. Since there are few polymorphic ERVs at any given time, I wouldn't expect to find many of them, however.

So finding a couple would be expected (or at least not unexpected), but finding a bunch would be problematic?

 

[PsychoSarah]

That depends on whether the science or evolution is here in the real world, or a mere extension of present day logic and rules, welded onto the past. All origins issues where science or evolution is claimed are religion. 100% No one needs you to agree.

No one needs you to agree to the fact that evolution is not a religion, although we will freely express our distain at your ignorance

 

[dad]

No one needs you to agree to the fact that evolution is not a religion, although we will freely express our distain at your ignorance

If you are talking about a flu bug mutating now, or how viri transfer now...you may talk about evolution with some knowledge.

Beyond this nature and state, you shall not pass.

 

[PsychoSarah]

If you are talking about a flu bug mutating now, or how viri transfer now...you may talk about evolution with some knowledge.

Beyond this nature and state, you shall not pass.

Beyond this forum, you shall not pass. This is as far as your ideas will ever go here and youtube.

In any case, I have shown how evolution can be useful even of your prior state was correct, seeing as certain things evolve so quickly that humans can observe it. And it aids in maintaining our health.

 

[dad]

Beyond this forum, you shall not pass. This is as far as your ideas will ever go here and youtube.

Ha. Taken to prophesying eh?

The bible's ideas have rocked this world. No better interpretation on earth exists for how the bible record really could have been very real, than a DSP.

In any case, I have shown how evolution can be useful even of your prior state was correct, seeing as certain things evolve so quickly that humans can observe it. And it aids in maintaining our health.

I agree. Evolution is a created trait and has been quite useful, as God knew it would be!

 

[sfs]

So finding a couple would be expected (or at least not unexpected), but finding a bunch would be problematic?

What you need to know is the rate at which insertions were occurring during the time that led up to the split into gorillas and us, and the how long that period was.

The first I can make a rough estimate of. Take a modern human, chimpanzee and gorilla chromosome and trace them back to the point when the gorilla line split from the others. Only insertions that were polymorphic at that point could experience ILS in the three species. Polymorphic insertions would be those that occurred between that point and the most recent common ancestor of those chromosomes. The mean time to the common ancestor for 3 chromosomes is (mumble) 8/3 * Ne, where Ne is the effective population size at that period. The effective population size then is difficult to estimate precisely, but the evidence is that it was pretty large, something like 50,000 maybe. That would give a time to the MRCA of 130,000 generations, or about 2.7 million years.

That number times the rate at which ERVs have entered and fixed in our history will give you the total number of candidates for gorilla-human shared ERVs. Roughly 15% of our genome is most closely related to gorilla, so ~15% of the candidates should be shared only by humans and gorillas (or only be seen in chimp). About 4 times as many of the candidates should follow the species genealogy, and be either only in humans and chimps, or only in gorillas. Assuming the insertion rate was constant (not a good assumption, unfortunately), the number of human-specific insertions -- those that occurred after the human-chimp speciation) should be roughly 2 times higher than the number of ILS candidates (since the human-chimp speciation time is ~2 times 2.7 million years), or about 13 times higher than the ERVs that follow the human-gorilla vs chimp genealogy (2 x 1/.15). How many human-specific ERVs are there?

That's a very crude estimate. It doesn't take into account that ERV insertion rates have varied, and it ignores some other things too. (And of course, I could have done something wrong.) Getting a proper answer would require some real modeling.

ETA: Correction: I was assuming that ERVs that ended up either in the human-gorilla line or in the chimp line (in regions of the genome where humans and gorillas are most closely related) should be counted, but that's wrong. Those ending up in the chimp lineage will look like chimp-specific insertions, and not violate the species tree. So cut my above estimate of tree-violating ERVs by a factor of two; that makes my crude estimate be that the number of human-gorilla shared ERVs (missing in chimp) should be about 4% of the human-specific ERVs.

 

[Bolleke]

I don't know what your question means.

OK I see now how ERV's can settle in our DNA and remain locked there, as it becomes part of our genome. Right til that part, ok?
So now they are looking at human ERV's and brought one to life, right? As I understood this virus causes a bad mutation, cancer. I may have been wrong about leukemia. I read they are the pathogenis of cancer.

These ERVS are locked in chimps as well, so this means....
The ERV they brought to life was already locked in the DNA of our common ancestor and got passed on to chimps and humans, for we are of the same lineage. And that's how they see we are related?
Then how do they trace such a technique all the way back to a lungfish 400 mya? This only adds up to our common ancestor which hasn't been found yet.

Is that about right?

 

[Subduction Zone]

OK I see now how ERV's can settle in our DNA and remain locked there, as it becomes part of our genome. Right til that part, ok?
So now they are looking at human ERV's and brought one to life, right? As I understood this virus causes a bad mutation, cancer. I may have been wrong about leukemia. I read they are the pathogenis of cancer.

These ERVS are locked in chimps as well, so this means....
The ERV they brought to life was already locked in the DNA of our common ancestor and got passed on to chimps and humans, for we are of the same lineage. And that's how they see we are related?
Then how do they trace such a technique all the way back to a lungfish 400 mya? This only adds up to our common ancestor which hasn't been found yet.

Is that about right?

No, the ERV that was revived was a very recent one. So it is in the human line only. Since ERV's are basically junk DNA they are not subject to natural selection. As a result mutations that would be deadly to the ERV itself are not filtered out. To counteract that they got the ERV's from several different bloodlines. They figured that different bloodlines would evolve differently so mutations would not be repeated between individuals. When there were several genes to choose from they chose the gene that appeared in the most genomes.

I know nothing of this virus causing cancer. Again, curing or causing cancer is a common claim given to lazy journalists. I would not put too much stock in that claim.

The have also done the same with ERV's from chimps.

 

[Bolleke]

Evidence is lacking to link it up to diseases, but Finlay does
It's not like Einsteins are born everyday on Earth to figure it all at once out.
But you can figure out a retrovirus isn't gonna cause a happy mutation. It's called retro because it starts writing the codes of cells backwards with it in it. So the virus writes itself in the cell, which duplicates itself with the hacked recoded cell. A contaminated cell now releasing the virus to contaminate other cells.

The ERV they brought to live, wasn't that already code in our common ancstor which got passed on to us and chimps?

We can not see that in our common ancestor anymore, but we see it in the chimp as well, so we must be related according to the experiment.

ERVs - Evidence for the Evolutionary Model
Scroll down to "Three layers of ERV's evidence for common ancestor

The ERV was already written in the junk DNA by our common ancestor, passed on to the rest (the way I understand it)

 

[PsychoSarah]

Well no duh, we didn't evolve from chimpanzees, we just share the closest common ancestor to them than any other species

 

[Bolleke]

Well no duh, we didn't evolve from chimpanzees, we just share the closest common ancestor to them than any other species

We and chimps evolved from a common ancestor.
I never said we evolved from chimps.
But in our markers there is something we share, that passed on through our common ancestor.

 

[dad]

Well no duh, we didn't evolve from chimpanzees, we just share the closest common ancestor to them than any other species

Just like we shared flatworms as a common ancestor. What tripe. No wonder evos gawk at any skull fragments they can dig up, hoping it may be that elusive supposed common ancestor..even in some cases committing fraud.

What a bunch of darkness lovers.

 

[Bolleke]

Just like we shared flatworms as a common ancestor. What tripe. No wonder evos gawk at any skull fragments they can dig up, hoping it may be that elusive supposed common ancestor..even in some cases committing fraud.

What a bunch of darkness lovers.

But what about this:

This is a timespan of 50 million years.

I don't know about its origins, but I sure see evolution happening there.
But when I get into insects, I start seeing our nature as a very intelligent design. Though, I see how it works as a design, I have not seen the hand of God yet.

 

[Delphiki]

Just like we shared flatworms as a common ancestor. What tripe. No wonder evos gawk at any skull fragments they can dig up, hoping it may be that elusive supposed common ancestor..even in some cases committing fraud.

What a bunch of darkness lovers.

Science = darkness?

While we're name calling, your attitude is expected as one of millions of evil book worshipers.

 

[bhsmte]

Beyond this forum, you shall not pass. This is as far as your ideas will ever go here and youtube.

In any case, I have shown how evolution can be useful even of your prior state was correct, seeing as certain things evolve so quickly that humans can observe it. And it aids in maintaining our health.

He only needs to convince himself Sarah. And oh boy, is it fun watching him go through this effort.

 

[dad]

But what about this:


This is a timespan of 50 million years.

That is where you drift off into religious beliefs and la la land.

What I see, most likely here is some horses from after the flood, and some changes they went through over the time involved since the flood, which is known.
Since the timeframe is something like 4500 years give or take a few centuries, that means the adapting came very very rapidly.

I don't know about its origins, but I sure see evolution happening there.

Evolution is just the created ability to adapt and evolve as needed! Thank God for it! Obviously the present nature and state do not represent the former state with respect to how evolving happens..how fast..etc.

The mistake science has made is to assume this nature existed, and therefore assume that the evolving took a long time as it now would.

But when I get into insects, I start seeing our nature as a very intelligent design. Though, I see how it works as a design, I have not seen the hand of God yet.

Keep looking. You seem to be on the right track.