Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Creation & Evolution
A question of ERVs
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="pshun2404" data-source="post: 73480960" data-attributes="member: 301030"><p>Biologist Dr. Anjeanette Roberts again enlightens us when she reveals “<em>divergence of long terminal repeat sequences </em>(components of ERVs)<em> SOMETIMES <u>VARIES SIGNIFICANTLY from one species to another at shared sites</u>, even when normalized for mutation rates</em>.”</p><p></p><p>See how different many of these alleged “<em>same ERVs</em>” and “<em>shared sites</em>” actually are? We get the data, but then we INTERPRET the data (filtered through our presuppositions). For those already convinced of a Universal Common Descent, they see the data, and then explain it in light of this hypothesis, but for those who do not, these are simply different segments, and some are insertions. But there is no reason to assume Universal Common Descent. Perhaps there are multiple sources. Perhaps there never were (there certainly are none now) any such thing as “Self-Replicating” organic molecules in nature outside of a living system.</p><p></p><p>Then there is the question about functionality. By any reasonable conjecture, a virus having once been inserted in the system, after millions of years should no longer possess functionality (save their deleterious effects). Now I know we are told that “our common ancestor” (allegedly 6.5 mya) acquired these retro-viral infections and then they were inherited, but apparently in the opinion of other scientists what are now ERVs still have function in the genome, therefore that premise falls apart. As we just have seen, science has found that in fact many do have essential funvtion. Those that do have function still perform those functions. For example, out of 240,000, the Encode Project has determined that at least 51,195 of them are intimately associated with initiating transcription in the human genome, while 1743 were only found in the UTRs (the untranslated areas of the genome). That is more than 20%.</p><p></p><p>Their effect, just at p53 (a master gene regulator) helps the body fight cancer, and without their help we would all get cancer and die much more frequently. This alleged ERV is a necessary part of the genome that has served to preserve the species and because of this, it is equally likely it is not just some viral insertion. If it was not a normal and necessary part of us, the human race would have died out epochs ago.</p><p></p><p>Therefore these section/sequences were essential to the continuation of the human species since the very beginning of humanity. They are and have always been an essential part of who we are. Which means that as much as this may shake the hypothesis, this does not support that they were ever “acquired” into the human genome, but rather an essential part of it. But this does not show they were inherited from some pre- or quasi-human ancestor just that they were always there in humans.</p><p></p><p>If all these alleged ERVs ARE retroviral insertions then how did they get into the reproductive cells of the ancestor of the gaps without causing major damage? How could we have existed while diverging without their important functions? Why would harmful virus infected reproductive cells be selected as more fit in a natural selection process? These important questions are not even being asked, let alone answered.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="pshun2404, post: 73480960, member: 301030"] Biologist Dr. Anjeanette Roberts again enlightens us when she reveals “[I]divergence of long terminal repeat sequences [/I](components of ERVs)[I] SOMETIMES [U]VARIES SIGNIFICANTLY from one species to another at shared sites[/U], even when normalized for mutation rates[/I].” See how different many of these alleged “[I]same ERVs[/I]” and “[I]shared sites[/I]” actually are? We get the data, but then we INTERPRET the data (filtered through our presuppositions). For those already convinced of a Universal Common Descent, they see the data, and then explain it in light of this hypothesis, but for those who do not, these are simply different segments, and some are insertions. But there is no reason to assume Universal Common Descent. Perhaps there are multiple sources. Perhaps there never were (there certainly are none now) any such thing as “Self-Replicating” organic molecules in nature outside of a living system. Then there is the question about functionality. By any reasonable conjecture, a virus having once been inserted in the system, after millions of years should no longer possess functionality (save their deleterious effects). Now I know we are told that “our common ancestor” (allegedly 6.5 mya) acquired these retro-viral infections and then they were inherited, but apparently in the opinion of other scientists what are now ERVs still have function in the genome, therefore that premise falls apart. As we just have seen, science has found that in fact many do have essential funvtion. Those that do have function still perform those functions. For example, out of 240,000, the Encode Project has determined that at least 51,195 of them are intimately associated with initiating transcription in the human genome, while 1743 were only found in the UTRs (the untranslated areas of the genome). That is more than 20%. Their effect, just at p53 (a master gene regulator) helps the body fight cancer, and without their help we would all get cancer and die much more frequently. This alleged ERV is a necessary part of the genome that has served to preserve the species and because of this, it is equally likely it is not just some viral insertion. If it was not a normal and necessary part of us, the human race would have died out epochs ago. Therefore these section/sequences were essential to the continuation of the human species since the very beginning of humanity. They are and have always been an essential part of who we are. Which means that as much as this may shake the hypothesis, this does not support that they were ever “acquired” into the human genome, but rather an essential part of it. But this does not show they were inherited from some pre- or quasi-human ancestor just that they were always there in humans. If all these alleged ERVs ARE retroviral insertions then how did they get into the reproductive cells of the ancestor of the gaps without causing major damage? How could we have existed while diverging without their important functions? Why would harmful virus infected reproductive cells be selected as more fit in a natural selection process? These important questions are not even being asked, let alone answered. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Creation & Evolution
A question of ERVs
Top
Bottom