-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
-
CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
Another poor response to ERV evidence for common ancestry by a creationist.
- Thread starter MolecularGenetics
- Start date
That support is in the opening post.
Then this would be the place to present this evidence as it relates to the distribution of ERV's in humans and other apes.
You first. In the opening post we have evidence of common ancestry between humans and other apes. The fact that both LTR divergence and orthology matches the predictions made by the theory of evolution is evidence for common ancestry. Please deal with this evidence.
Already presented. Here it is again:
"We might counter by arguing that if the speed of light had changed then so would the decay rates of cobalt-56 and cobalt-57, and since their decay rates have been observed in SN1987A (and appear normal) that should settle it. After all, in observing SN1987A we are seeing it as it was in the past. The decay rates of cobalt-56 and cobalt-57 haven't changed, so light hasn't slowed down."
SN1987A and the Age of the Universe
We also have the Oklo reactors:
"The Oklo reactor was the site of a natural nuclear reaction 1,800 million years ago. The fine structure constant affects neutron capture rates, which can be measured from the reactor's products. These measurements show no detectable change in the fine structure constant and neutron capture for almost two billion years (Fujii et al. 2000; Shlyakhter 1976)."
CF210: Constancy of Radioactive Decay Rates
This, and the entire field of astronomy. All of them show the constancy of physical laws. I have the proof. You do not.
Then those records are wrong as the evidence demonstrates.
Upvote
0
Astridhere
Well-Known Member
- Jul 30, 2011
- 1,240
- 43
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
See this kind of debate below....
He then quoted from the abstract of Barbulescu et al. (2001), regarding HERV-K-GC1, before providing the following:
It seems that the most plausible explanation for this is an independent insert in the gorilla and chimpanzee lineages. Notice that the intact preintegration site at the pertinent locus in humans precludes the possibility of the HERV-K provirus having been inserted into the genome of the common ancestor of humans, chimpanzees and gorillas, and subsequently lost from the human genome by processes of genetic recombination. The inserts in the chimpanzee and gorilla lineages must be independent events.
This response not only ignores what I wrote about HERV-K-GC1, but also ignores what Dr. Barbulescu and her colleagues wrote in the body of that very paper. Below, I will restate a portion of what I stated in the “Common creationist responses” section of my ERV essay:
Since [HERV-K-GC1] is an unrepresentative deviation from a pattern, all that needs to be done is identify mechanisms that can account for that deviation. There are at least two known mechanisms to account for it (Barbulescu et al., 2001):1) The insertion was in an allele that remained heterozygous in the populations across two divergences, given genetic drift and the divergent sub-population size (allelic segregation).
2) The insertion was in a duplicate section of the chromosome that underwent homologous recombination in each respective linage
Evolution News - Evidence for the Evolutionary Model
Then this bit from the essay....
When the mutations in shared ERVs are examined, many are found to be identical to others. Just as will the distribution of ERVs, some shared mutations within a single shared ERV fall into nested hierarchies; some are shared by all, many by subsets of the whole, and each set falls within another set
SOME shared mutations, MANY are found to be identical. In other words..pick what fits and come up with a host of maybes and possibly's to explain away the rest.
You are looking at relics and ghosts that are supposedly remnants of a past viral infection that had mutated. I really don't think these researchers know what they are looking at.
Then of course the once thought to be junk DNA is not junk at all. Now these scientists are trying to tell us that ERV's, dead mutated relics, are functionally vital at least in some cases. Sheep need JSRVs to maintain pregnancy. So you are trying to tell us that prior to the viral infection sheep ancestors used a different function to maintain pregnancy. Why? Why would natural selection select another method of function if there was nothing wrong with the way pregnancy was maintained previously.
Researchers Discover That Sheep Need Retroviruses For Reproduction
So a virus related to cancer is the remnant that sustains pregnancy in sheep! How about goats? I guess goats also sustain pregnancy the same way or do they? Yet they are closely related. If researchers find that goats do not use this ERV to sustain pregnancy and you have to come up with a host of non plausible or possible maybes as to why goats do not then I'd say this is confirmation that all this talk about ERVs demonstrating common ancestries is a heap of wishlisting, rather than science.
I think this whole ERV thing is a nonsense and so are the nested hierarchies proposed from it. Researchers use what suits as examples to the commmunity and then come up with fantastic scenarios as to why some aren't there that should be or are there and shouldn't be.eg purged from lines where it should be!!!!
Last edited:
Upvote
0
It is expected that a handful out of the 200,000 orthologous ERV's will suffer from problems with fixation. There are known and obvious natural mechanisms that will cause a heterozygous ERV allele to disappear in one lineage and become fixed in another. These occurences are expected to be very rare, and they are.
Greater than 99.99% of the ERV's fit the predicted pattern. This is what we would expect to see if humans share a common ancestor with other apes.
This has been explained to you both here and at the other forum where we had this discussion already. I pointed to your errors there, and you are repeating them here. That makes you a liar, a person who knowingly keeps pushing known falsehoods. Are those HERV-K insertions at orthologous positions in humans and rhesus monkeys? Nope. Therefore, they do not refute the argument. You lose, again. Please quit lying about this paper. Non-orthologous ERV's inserted after common ancestry does not refute the orthologous ERV's that evidence common ancestry. This has been explained to you over and over, and yet you still lie about it. Why do you do this?
Yeah, they do. When a consensus sequence for HERV-K insertions is produced it is a viable retrovirus that is identical to modern retroviruses:
Phoenix Rising: Scientists Resuscitate A 5 Million-year-old Retrovirus
ERV's are from retroviral insertion. I have shown you this multiple times both here and at another forum. Why do you continue to ignore this?
Just because some ERV's have function does not indicate that they all have function, nor does it put their origin in doubt. This has also been explained to you multiple times, both here and at another forum. Why do you continue to ignore it and repeat the same misconceptions over and over?
Of course you think it is nonsense. It disagrees with your religiously dogmatic beliefs so you ignore it. Such is the blindness caused by creationism. You still have not refuted a single thing related to ERV's.
Upvote
0
- Jan 17, 2005
- 44,905
- 1,259
- Country
- Canada
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Private
Not at all. Quite the opposite. Try sifting through the OP and produce a few points, rather than make false statements.
The OP is largely some guy with a chip on his shoulders setting up a stawman, and trying to beat it to death!
"Jonathan M. routinely presented arguments verbatim that were addressed in the common creationist responses section of the essay he claimed to be responding to. For instance, he presented the HERV-K-GC1 argument, where he concluded that the inserts in the chimpanzee and gorilla lineages must be independent events,
I don't think that apes or monkeys or man catching a virus in the far past has to be some fluke or independent event necessarily. Do you assume that the only way they were passed around was by birth? If so, then what evidence can you show us here and now to support that!?? If not, boy, do you have no case!
The people and events of the bible need no more presentation. The prophesies like Daniel's are unmistakably and remarkably fulfilled for the most part. The life of Jesus that was observed and recorded is undeniable fulfillment of the ancient scriptures. The power of the words of God is demonstrated and repeated and tested by untold hundreds of millions over all time. If you mean that we should be able somehow to shoehorn all of this into some little room where the made up minded men of modern science can confirm or deny it, get serious. They only deal in modern laws and the physical 'universe'.
OK. Let's look at how they think they get that match! They wouldn't just assume that the ervs got where they did in some present state way now would they? If there is more, please inform us. Inquiring minds want to know.
Ah...well tell us about the light curve then!? Was it a perfect match? Or was there some differences that had to be explained, maybe with something like 'dust'?
But even simpler, we can run a test on the standard model drivel right here and now. It was PREDICTED that, according to their theories, a neutron star should have came to exist. It never showed up, they were WRONG! Kids, don't believe them.
But even at a fundamental level, looking at the distance claims, they assume that our space extends all the way to the little light! They don't know that. Therefore our TIME and space cannot be assumed to apply, which means that the distance is NOT really known.
Oklo is in my back pocket, and is grist for my mill. Glad you brought it up.
hehe
Below is a pretty good point by point look at the fable. It has some questions edited in each point.
"
Today even the most massive and concentrated uranium deposit cannot become a nuclear reactor, because the
uranium 235 concentration, at less than
1 percent, is just too low.
1[so they assume that differences existed..proof?]
But this isotope
is radioactive and decays about six times
faster than does uranium 238, which indicates
that the fissile fraction was much
higher in the distant past. For example,
two billion years ago (about when the
Oklo deposit formed) uranium 235 must
have constituted approximately 3 percent,
2
["Must have"??? Prove it]
The third important ingredient is a
neutron moderator, a substance that
can slow the neutrons given off when a
uranium nucleus splits so that they are
more apt to induce other uranium nuclei
to break apart
3[so we need water every few hours for millions of years?]
Cowan described, for example, how
some of the neutrons released during the
fission of uranium 235 were captured by
the more abundant uranium 238, which
became uranium 239 and, after emitting
two electrons, turned into plutonium
239.
4[after being kissed by the tooth fairy?]
Although almost all this
material, which has a 24,000-year halflife,
has since disappeared (primarily
through natural radioactive decay),
5[ah, the case of the missing stuff-prove it was here]
The
abundance of those lighter elements allowed
scientists to deduce that fission
reactions must have gone on for hundreds
of thousands of years.
6
[missing stuff forces same state past conclusion!]
From the
amount of uranium 235 'consumed', they
calculated the total energy released,
15,000 megawatt-years, and from this
and other evidence were able to work out
the average power output,
7
[present state calculations]
It is truly amazing that more than a
dozen natural reactors spontaneously
sprang into existence and that they managed
to maintain a modest power output
for perhaps a few hundred millennia.
8
[truly amazing indeed]
Xenon
is extremely rare, which allows scientists
to use it to detect and trace nuclear
reactions, even those that occurred in
primitive meteorites before the solar system
came into existence.
To analyze the isotopic composition
9
[attribute all this gas to same state causes...absurd]
We applied this technique to many
tiny spots on our lone available fragment
of Oklo rock, only one millimeter thick
and four millimeters across.
10
[all this fable based on a teensy fragment. wow]
The second epiphany was that the extracted
gas had a significantly different
isotopic makeup from what is usually
produced in nuclear reactors.
11
[so there was a difference...from what we now see]
'seemingly' lost a large portion of the xenon
136 and 134 that would certainly
have been created from fission, whereas
the lighter varieties of the element were
modified to a lesser extent.
12
[large amount of missing stuff]
For example,
measured with respect to the
amount of xenon 132 present, the depletion
of xenon 136 (being four atomicmass
units heavier) would have been
twice that of xenon 134 (two atomic mass
units heavier) if physical sorting had operated.
We did not see that pattern.
13
[IF physical sorting of the present kind existed...who says it did? so now we need to look at sorting in the former state as a possible cause rather than reaction]
None of the xenon isotopes
we measured were the direct result
of uranium fission. Rather they were the
products of the decay of radioactive isotopes
of iodine, which in turn were
formed from radioactive tellurium and
so forth, according to a well-known sequence
of nuclear reactions that gives
rise to stable xenon.
14 [this became that and that became this and on and on in a same state dream fest]
xenon
136 began at Oklo only about a
minute after the onset of self-sustained
fi ssion. An hour later the next lighter
stable isotope, xenon 134, appeared.
Then, some days after the start of fission,
xenon 132 and 131 came on the
scene. Finally, after millions of years,
and well after the nuclear chain reactions
terminated, xenon 129 formed.
15 [woulda coulda]
The
most likely mechanism involves the action
of groundwater, which presumably
boiled away after the temperature
reached some critical level.
16[same state speculation]
very likely they pulsed
on and off in some fashion, and large
quantities of water 'must have' been moving
through these rocksenough to
wash away some of the xenon precursors,
tellurium and iodine, which are
water-soluble.
17[large quantities of water must have...must have ..must have...same state religion]
anotherit is
unlikely that aluminum phosphate minerals
were present before the Oklo reactors
began operating.
18[says who?]
Instead those
grains of aluminum phosphate 'probably'
formed in place through the action of the
nuclear-heated water, once it had cooled
to about 300 degrees Celsius.
19[speculation in the extreme]
During each active period of operation
of an Oklo reactor and for some
time afterward, while the temperature
remained high, much of the xenon gas
(including xenon 136 and 134, which
were generated relatively quickly) was
'driven off'.
20
[missing stuff again with same state beliefs]
incorporated into growing grains of aluminum
phosphate.
21
[remember they said it was unlikely that aluminum was there before the 'reactions' they don't really know]
Then, as more water
returned to the reaction zone, neutrons
became properly moderated and fission
once again resumed, allowing the cycle
of heating and cooling to repeat. The result
was the peculiar segregation of xenon
isotopes we uncovered.
22
[The result of what? The result of the water they imagine 'HAD to' be there for millenia and in the right time and amount]
It is not entirely obvious what forces
kept this xenon inside the aluminum
phosphate minerals for almost half the
planets lifetime. In particular, why was
the xenon generated during a given operational
pulse not driven off during the
next one?
23
[GIANT leap of faith]
Presumably it became imprisoned
in the cagelike structure of the aluminum
phosphate minerals, which were
able to hold on to the xenon gas created
within them, even at high temperatures.
The details remain fuzzy, but whatever
the fi nal answers are, one thing is clear:
the capacity of aluminum phosphate
24[[bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]?]
The Oklo reactor
we studied had switched on for 30 minutes
and off for at least 2.5 hours.
. The more
important lessons may be about how to
handle nuclear waste. Oklo, after all,
serves as a good analogue for a long-term
geologic repository,
25 [dangerous false prophesy]
The Oklo reactors may also teach scientists
about possible shifts in what was
formerly thought to be a fundamental
physical constant, one called (alpha),
which controls such universal quantities
as the speed of light [see Inconstant
Constants, by John D. Barrow and John
K. Webb; Scientifi c American, June].
26
[fables like Oklo form basis of alpha now?]
For three decades, the two-billion-year old
Oklo phenomenon has been used to
argue against alpha having changed. But last
year Steven K. Lamoreaux and Justin R.
Torgerson of Los Alamos National Laboratory
drew on Oklo to posit that this
constant has, in fact, varied signifi -
cantly (and, strangely enough, in the opposite
sense from what others have recently
proposed).
27 [so - opposite now of what they said then]
-------------------------------------------------
"He explained that, after the fission process had finished, a geological shift caused the Oklo reactor to sink a few miles below the surface - where it was 'preserved from erosion'.
28
[proof?]
A few million years ago, 'another shift' brought the uranium deposits back to the surface. "
29
[proof?]
Natural Nuclear Reaction Powered Ancient Geyser | LiveScience
[Manhattan project head oversees ocklo for US.]
....physicists from around the world studied the evidence for these natural nuclear reactors and came together to share their work on the Oklo phenomenon ...
"
The next year George A. Cowan, who represented the U.S. at that meeting (and who, incidentally, is one of the founders of the renowned Santa Fe Institute, where he is still affiliated), wrote an article for Scientific American [see A Natural Fission Reactor, by George A. Cowan, July 1976] in which he explained what scientists had surmised about the operation of these ancient reactors."
The Workings of An Ancient Nuclear Reactor - A Two Billion Years African Uranium Deposit
"Uranium is soluble in water only in the presence of oxygen. Therefore, the rising oxygen levels during the aging of earth may have allowed uranium to be dissolved and transported with groundwater to places where a high enough concentration could accumulate to form rich uranium ore bodies. Without the new aerobic environment available on earth at the time, these concentrations probably could not have taken place."
Natural nuclear fission reactor - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Imaginary ages needed to deposit stuff..
"
However, Dr. Glenn T. Seaborg, former head of the United States Atomic Energy Commission and Nobel Prize winner for his work in the synthesis of heavy elements, pointed out that for uranium to burn in a reaction, conditions must be exactly right. For example, the water involved in the nuclear reaction must be extremely pure. Even a few parts per million of contaminant will poison the reaction, bringing it to a halt. The problem is that no water that pure exists naturally anywhere in the world.
Besides, several specialists in reactor engineering remarked that at no time in the geologically estimated history of the Oklo deposits was the uranium ore rich enough in U-235 for a natural reaction to have taken place.
Even when the deposits were first formed, because of the slow rate of radioactive disintegration of U-235, the fissionable material would have constituted only 3 percent of the depositsfar too low a level for a nuclear reaction. Yet a reaction did take place, suggesting that the original uranium was far richer in U-235 than a natural formation could have been."
Cassiopaea
Proof?
This, and the entire field of astronomy. All of them show the constancy of physical laws. I have the proof. You do not.
Then those records are wrong as the evidence demonstrates.[/quote]
Upvote
0
I have made my points throughout this thread. You ignore them. It is not my fault that you refuse to deal with the evidence. That is your problem.
There are three phylogenetic signals: orthology, LTR divergence, and overall ERV divergence. All three produce the phylogeny predicted by the theory of evolution. That is the evidence. The author of the OP went on to show why none of the criticisms from creationists even touched on the evidence.
I know that they ARE inherited. WE OBSERVE THAT THEY ARE INHERITED. Do you know why you and your siblings share over 200,000 ERV's at the same locations in each of your genomes? BECAUSE YOU SHARE A COMMON ANCESTOR. Why is this so hard to understand?
Here is a little lesson for you.
The Cubs play their home games in Chicago.
The Sun is really hot.
Leprechauns are real.
Can I cite the first two statements to prove the accuracy of the last statement? Yes or no?
Evidence that it was observed please, and how it ties into the ERV evidence.
Evidence that the bible is the word of God please.
Evidence please.
They deal in the only laws that have ever existed in this universe. Your made up fantasies are just that, fantasies.
The present state is the only state that has ever existed. I have given you evidence of this fact. Why do you continue to ignore it? I have even shown that ERV's produce active and infectious retroviruses. You continue to ignore that as well. Until you can stop this dishonesty this discussion will go nowhere.
They were able to directly measure the ratio of cobalt isotopes in the supernova, and they were able to directly observe the decay of one of those isotopes. The results were in strong agreement with measurements of the same isotopes here on Earth. This is the evidence. Please deal with it an honest manner or admit that you can't.
The laws of physics do not require a neutron star as the result of a supernova explosion. They never did.
There is no such thing as "our space". This is another fantasy that you have invented.
No, it isn't. It is full of lies and misconceptions, as usual.
It has some questions edited in each point.
That is what they are testing, not assuming.
You take the amount we see now and calculate back using the half life. Why is this so hard to figure out?
Tritium rich water to be exact.
And we are done. When you show that you can act like a grown up we can continue.
Upvote
0
Doveaman
Re-Created, Not Evolved.
- Mar 4, 2009
- 8,464
- 597
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Private
I suppose nothing.
"All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made." (John 1:3).
“The LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground...From one man He made every nation of men, that they should inhabit the whole earth.” (Gen 2:7, Acts 17:26).
Nope. I just need to watch one.
I have no reason to doubt this if it is observed. How it was first inserted into humans is another matter.
I may know that fruit trees produce seeds that produce more fruit trees, but I may not know how the first fruit tree got its seed.
There is no need for me to subject myself to your myopic method when I have a much better method.
My experiments are done using the theoscientific method (a method that relies on the observations made in Scripture and in nature, with Scripture taking precedence.)
This means that theoscientific evidence are those observations made in Scripture and in nature, and therefore any new idea must be consistent with all those observations.
Not scientifically, but theoscientifically.
If your experiment is done using the theoscientific method you will find that the human and ape DNA is so similar that it suggests that humans and apes share a common ancestor. But you will also find through the use of this theoscientific method that humans are a very recent creation and that all humans descended from a common human ancestor named Adam.
“The LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground...From one man He made every nation of men, that they should inhabit the whole earth.” (Gen 2:7, Acts 17:26).
Based on all these observations it is logical to infer that Adam was recreated from the DNA of a pre-existing hominid design that has been tweaked to give us our modern look.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Then common design is not a valid concept.
That is not data. Try again. What data does common ancestry not explain as it relates to ERV's?
Then the observation of two siblings sharing ERV's through common ancestry is enough to evidence that common ancestry produces orthologous ERV's.
What happened to "I just need to watch one"? Why the double standard?
Redefining scripture as observation is a huge failure. Sorry, but faith does not replace observations. Never has.
They are not observations.
Upvote
0
Astridhere
Well-Known Member
- Jul 30, 2011
- 1,240
- 43
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
[/color]
It is expected that a handful out of the 200,000 orthologous ERV's will suffer from problems with fixation. There are known and obvious natural mechanisms that will cause a heterozygous ERV allele to disappear in one lineage and become fixed in another. These occurences are expected to be very rare, and they are.
Actually, I think this is all convenient heresay.
Another interesting aspect of ERVs is that they do not always show the expected evolutionary pattern of "inheritance". According to the proposed phylogenetic tree (shown to the right) chimps are closer to humans than to gorillas. Given this scenario, gorillas and chimps would only be expected to share an ERV if this same ERV were also present in humans. However there are some ERVs that don't seem to fit this pattern. For example, the K family of ERVs (HERV-K provirus) is present in chimps and gorillas, but not in humans.40 Also, portions of ERVs known as CERV 2 and CERV 1 elements are present in chimpanzee, bonobo and gorilla (non-orthologous) but are absent in human, orangutan, old world monkeys, new world monkeys.39
Pseudogenes
..and what explains this...unexplained deletions and wishfull severe population bottlenecks. Indeed most of the huge catastrophes that have gone down are now proven not to be so catastrophic eg KT.
"Isn't it interesting that out of 30,000 ERVs only 7 of them are known to have inserted at the same site in humans and chimps? - What are the odds given the known preference of many ERVs for fairly specific hot spot insertions?"
So out of 30,000 ERV's the fact that you have found some remnants, 7 or so, that can be used to support common ancestry means you have to ignore the other 29,993.
Seriously, scientists have built straw men as proof of evolution.
Greater than 99.99% of the ERV's fit the predicted pattern. This is what we would expect to see if humans share a common ancestor with other apes.
As above....no they do not!
This has been explained to you both here and at the other forum where we had this discussion already. I pointed to your errors there, and you are repeating them here. That makes you a liar, a person who knowingly keeps pushing known falsehoods. Are those HERV-K insertions at orthologous positions in humans and rhesus monkeys? Nope. Therefore, they do not refute the argument. You lose, again. Please quit lying about this paper. Non-orthologous ERV's inserted after common ancestry does not refute the orthologous ERV's that evidence common ancestry. This has been explained to you over and over, and yet you still lie about it. Why do you do this?
I am not lying. The provision of multiple possibilities is not evidence of anything more than you and your researchers have no idea.
I have not forgotten the irrefuteable junk DNA line that evos used to flogg creationists with, now again irrefuteable evidence tossed into the evolutionary garbage bin of delusions past.
Yeah, they do. When a consensus sequence for HERV-K insertions is produced it is a viable retrovirus that is identical to modern retroviruses:
Phoenix Rising: Scientists Resuscitate A 5 Million-year-old Retrovirus
Oh you mean by the use of algorithms like this...
Zn+1=Zn2+3..that are full of more probabilities than Alice in Wonderland.
"Heidmann and his colleagues set out to re-activate one family of HERVs, called the HERV-K(HML2) family, an evolutionarily "young" family of retroviral elements. They aligned HERV-K(HML2) elements, determined their consensus sequence, and then constructed a retrovirus--Phoenix--from the consensus sequence by mutating existing HERV-K(HML2) copies"
Look ..by your own knowledge what these guys and gals see as erv's are dead remnants of debris that resemble some parts of a virus and MAY be related. So you reckon these researchers have gotten hold of a dead bit of material and brought it back to life..Do you? Rubbish
Once again nonsense is upheld as irrefuteable evidence for evolution.
ERV's are from retroviral insertion. I have shown you this multiple times both here and at another forum. Why do you continue to ignore this?
You ignore the fact that only around 7 out of 30,000 align with your theory while 29,993 do not. I'd say this is a straw man if ever I have seen one.
Just because some ERV's have function does not indicate that they all have function, nor does it put their origin in doubt. This has also been explained to you multiple times, both here and at another forum. Why do you continue to ignore it and repeat the same misconceptions over and over?
Oh you mean like how you guys were also sure that junk DNA had absolutely no function at all. Nothing you put up as evidence should be believed. Rather it is flavour of the month. Indeed what your researchers are continually reaffirming is quite the opposite. In all the research relating to non coding DNA ALL the research so far has actually demonstrated function.
Would you like to bet your credibility on this right here and now? I say there is NO junk DNA at all and when any bit is closely researched it will be shown to have function. Now are you prepared to back your claim with your credibility and state that there will be junk DNA that is shown to have absolutely no function?
Of course you think it is nonsense. It disagrees with your religiously dogmatic beliefs so you ignore it. Such is the blindness caused by creationism. You still have not refuted a single thing related to ERV's.
I most certaily have refuted you sucessfully. Do you think pages of woffle and possibilities used to refute a counter argument means you win the point. That is an incredibly delusional way to manage your belief system.
I'd say that of 30,000 ervs it is very likely that a few of them would end up in the same spot, particularly in larger animals that have less turnover, and given recent evidence of hot spots. You lot woffle on about 1 and its' liklihood of ending up in the exact same place in related species. What you do not woffle on about is the fact that you are actually talking about 30,000 ervs where only 7 have done so.
Rather the fact that so few have ended up where they ought to be with many deleted or found in the wrong spot according to phylogeny demonstrates without doubt that erv's prove mankind is not related to chimpanzee, and this is obvious to anyone not grasping at straws.
The 30% Y chromosome difference also supports the non relatedness of mankind and chimp as does the very different hot spots in both species and the fact that what you lot call the same genes are actually not the same at all but often have very different functions.
You mock creationists while indeed you can produce no more than nonsense as an evolutionary support.
.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
You think? Perhaps you can do a little better than that?
Already covered in the OP. There are only 4 or so HERV-K insertions that do not fit the pattern out of the 200,000 that do. Again, it is expected that on very rare occasions that a heterozygous ERV will become fixed in one lineage and disappear in the other after the two lineages split.
There are no CERV 1 or 2 elements shared between chimps and gorillas. This has been explained to you numerous times. This is also covered in the OP. Perhaps you should actually read it.
This is a flat out lie. Did you read the OP? Please read it now. Please. You are making the exact same errors that the author of the opening post tore apart one at a time. There are over 200,000 ERV's at the same exact position between humans and chimps with only a tiny percentage at non-orthologous sites. Those are the facts. Quit lying about them.
We have 4 HERV-K insertions that do not fit the pattern and over 200,000 that do. You do the math.
Yes, you are. The same virus inserting into the human and rhesus lineages at non-orthologous positions does not refute the evidence of common ancestry. It never did.
That is exactly what they did. Do you know what a consensus sequence is? Did you read the results described in the abstract where the result of the consensus sequence was a real and viable retrovirus that acts just like modern retroviruses? Can you please tell us why their methodology and results should be ignored? If all you can say is "Rubbish" then you have not refuted the evidence.
You are telling another lie. Why do you do this?
That is a lie as well. Over 2 million base pairs of DNA were removed from the mouse genome and the mice were unaffected. They were identical to mice with the 2 million base pairs of junk DNA. Junk DNA is a fact.
Then what is the sequence specific function of the human GULOP gene?
Sandwalk: Human GULOP Pseudogene
You made every one of the mistakes that were discussed in the opening post. Why don't you read it?
Do you think that lying about the facts refutes the facts? How many times I have shown you that your 7 out of 30,000 number is wrong? Why do you keep using it? Why do you keep insisting that chimps and gorillas share CERV 1 and 2 insertions when they don't (hint: they are non-orthologous)? Let's clear these two lies up and see where it goes.
Read the opening post. Only a few hundred out of 200,000 are non-orthologous between humans and chimps. Those are the facts. Quit lying about it.
How does any of this refute common ancestry? Why does the loss of 30% of the Y-chromosome in our lineage refute common ancestry? Please explain.
It is easy to mock someone who makes the exact same mistakes that were put on display in the opening post of this thread.
Upvote
0
Astridhere
Well-Known Member
- Jul 30, 2011
- 1,240
- 43
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
Loudmouth says
Already covered in the OP. There are only 4 or so HERV-K insertions that do not fit the pattern out of the 200,000 that do. Again, it is expected that on very rare occasions that a heterozygous ERV will become fixed in one lineage and disappear in the other after the two lineages split.
You have covered nothing more than offer speculation as evidence to refute the fact that some ervs shared by other primates are not found in humans and the other contradictions. This is based on a whole lot of gobble and algorithms that are no more than predetermined wish lists.
It takes just one example to refute any theory and at least one exception has been provided. To explain inconsistencies away with a list of possibilities and biased algorithms based on insertion values you have no clue about is not real science, it just looks that way to those that know no better.
There are no CERV 1 or 2 elements shared between chimps and gorillas. This has been explained to you numerous times. This is also covered in the OP. Perhaps you should actually read it.
You haven't explained anything to me. What you have done is provided maybes posssibly, likely and speculation as evidence.
Any erv that is shared between a chimp and human is there due to horizontal gene transfer and resulting endogenization and hot spots that send any horizontally transfered gene to a similar loci, after the creation of various kinds.
This is a flat out lie. Did you read the OP? Please read it now. Please. You are making the exact same errors that the author of the opening post tore apart one at a time. There are over 200,000 ERV's at the same exact position between humans and chimps with only a tiny percentage at non-orthologous sites. Those are the facts. Quit lying about them.
I can read it as many times as you like and it still will be meaningless swathe of supposition.
Your extensive explanation of homologous recombination of duplicate genomic segments and allelic segregation is offering speculation in place of evidence.
By Chance, What Made the Same ERV Transcribe Differently Between Supposedly 'Closely Related' Species?
So again contradictions to the theme of common ancestry explained away by nothing more than hand waving.
" Human ERVs (HERVs) comprise ≈58% of the human genome (2), with 98,000 elements and fragments (3), but phylogenetic analysis of conserved regions within their pol and env genes indicates that they form only a small number of clades among nonhuman exogenous and endogenous retroviruses"
Long-term reinfection of the human genome by endogenous retroviruses
Why do you lie and explain away inconsistencies with speculation.
and then call that evidence. Speculation and multiple possibilities is not evidence today, yesterday or tomorrow.
I would like you to read the convolutions and algorithms required to guess at reinfections, deletions etc. The truth is they have no idea.
Do you think that lying about the facts refutes the facts? How many times I have shown you that your 7 out of 30,000 number is wrong? Why do you keep using it? Why do you keep insisting that chimps and gorillas share CERV 1 and 2 insertions when they don't (hint: they are non-orthologous)? Let's clear these two lies up and see where it goes.
If the numbers are wrong in the article I quoted then I'll say that your researchers have no idea what they are looking at in the first place. How does aquiring a cancer or disease virus turn into a functional part of the genome? Your researchers have no idea apart form saying it just did and putting up speculation!
Show me again how the heck these researchers see anything past nonsense mutations and single stand copies of some ghost that has been screwed into non activation and mutated for millions of years. Oh yeah..with complicated, predetermined algorithms.
You have found no orthologous anything. What you have found are remnants that may be single stands of something that may have been a viral infection that may or may not have happened by vertical or horizontal gene transfer because of maybe possibly and your researchers have no idea. This speculation is passed off as evidence.
"Comparative analyses of orthologous regions of the human and chimpanzee genomes has revealed a number of instances where relatively large spans of sequence present in one species are not present in the other"
Genome Biology | Full text | Identification, characterization and comparative genomics of chimpanzee endogenous retroviruses
So here we see what you call the same is as usual not the same at all with large spans of sequence missing from the other so called 'same' erv in the same site.
You didn't speak to your frankenstein virus. Do you really thing these guys brought some old dead relic back to life.
ERV: Frankenstein Viruses
ERVs are composed of nonsense mutations. Proviral activity may occur over long periods of time until they become inactivated by loss of promoter functionality due to host chromosome rearrangements, insertions, deletions or point mutations. Recognizing these remnants as distant virus infections is the straw man.
I think these convolutions called algorithms evolutionists like to play with could likely be used to prove the teletubbies are human ancestors if required.
Already covered in the OP. There are only 4 or so HERV-K insertions that do not fit the pattern out of the 200,000 that do. Again, it is expected that on very rare occasions that a heterozygous ERV will become fixed in one lineage and disappear in the other after the two lineages split.
You have covered nothing more than offer speculation as evidence to refute the fact that some ervs shared by other primates are not found in humans and the other contradictions. This is based on a whole lot of gobble and algorithms that are no more than predetermined wish lists.
It takes just one example to refute any theory and at least one exception has been provided. To explain inconsistencies away with a list of possibilities and biased algorithms based on insertion values you have no clue about is not real science, it just looks that way to those that know no better.
There are no CERV 1 or 2 elements shared between chimps and gorillas. This has been explained to you numerous times. This is also covered in the OP. Perhaps you should actually read it.
You haven't explained anything to me. What you have done is provided maybes posssibly, likely and speculation as evidence.
Any erv that is shared between a chimp and human is there due to horizontal gene transfer and resulting endogenization and hot spots that send any horizontally transfered gene to a similar loci, after the creation of various kinds.
This is a flat out lie. Did you read the OP? Please read it now. Please. You are making the exact same errors that the author of the opening post tore apart one at a time. There are over 200,000 ERV's at the same exact position between humans and chimps with only a tiny percentage at non-orthologous sites. Those are the facts. Quit lying about them.
I can read it as many times as you like and it still will be meaningless swathe of supposition.
Your extensive explanation of homologous recombination of duplicate genomic segments and allelic segregation is offering speculation in place of evidence.
By Chance, What Made the Same ERV Transcribe Differently Between Supposedly 'Closely Related' Species?
- Based on analysis of finished BAC chimpanzee genome sequence, we characterize a retroviral element (Pan troglodytes endogenous retrovirus 1 [PTERV1]) that has become integrated in the germline of African great ape and Old World monkey species but is absent from humans and Asian ape genomes
Six out of ten of these genes, for which there are expression data, show significant differences in transcript expression between human and chimpanzee.
http://biology.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=
10.1371/journal.pbio.0030110&ct=1
- We report that human ERVs actively shape the p53 transcriptional network in a species-specific manner.
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/104/47/18613
- Most HERVs are active in at least some tissues, though tissue specificity is common for most elements. We analyzed multiple tissues from several Old World monkeys using retroviral pol-based DNA microarrays and quantitative PCR methods to determine their ERV expression profiles. The results demonstrate that while many ERVs are active in nonhuman primates, overall the tissue expression specificity is unique to each species. Most striking is that while the majority of HERVs analyzed in this study are expressed in human brain, almost none are expressed in Old World monkey brains or are only weakly expressed.
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1472034
So again contradictions to the theme of common ancestry explained away by nothing more than hand waving.
" Human ERVs (HERVs) comprise ≈58% of the human genome (2), with 98,000 elements and fragments (3), but phylogenetic analysis of conserved regions within their pol and env genes indicates that they form only a small number of clades among nonhuman exogenous and endogenous retroviruses"
Long-term reinfection of the human genome by endogenous retroviruses
Why do you lie and explain away inconsistencies with speculation.
and then call that evidence. Speculation and multiple possibilities is not evidence today, yesterday or tomorrow.
I would like you to read the convolutions and algorithms required to guess at reinfections, deletions etc. The truth is they have no idea.
Do you think that lying about the facts refutes the facts? How many times I have shown you that your 7 out of 30,000 number is wrong? Why do you keep using it? Why do you keep insisting that chimps and gorillas share CERV 1 and 2 insertions when they don't (hint: they are non-orthologous)? Let's clear these two lies up and see where it goes.
If the numbers are wrong in the article I quoted then I'll say that your researchers have no idea what they are looking at in the first place. How does aquiring a cancer or disease virus turn into a functional part of the genome? Your researchers have no idea apart form saying it just did and putting up speculation!
Show me again how the heck these researchers see anything past nonsense mutations and single stand copies of some ghost that has been screwed into non activation and mutated for millions of years. Oh yeah..with complicated, predetermined algorithms.
You have found no orthologous anything. What you have found are remnants that may be single stands of something that may have been a viral infection that may or may not have happened by vertical or horizontal gene transfer because of maybe possibly and your researchers have no idea. This speculation is passed off as evidence.
"Comparative analyses of orthologous regions of the human and chimpanzee genomes has revealed a number of instances where relatively large spans of sequence present in one species are not present in the other"
Genome Biology | Full text | Identification, characterization and comparative genomics of chimpanzee endogenous retroviruses
So here we see what you call the same is as usual not the same at all with large spans of sequence missing from the other so called 'same' erv in the same site.
You didn't speak to your frankenstein virus. Do you really thing these guys brought some old dead relic back to life.
ERV: Frankenstein Viruses
ERVs are composed of nonsense mutations. Proviral activity may occur over long periods of time until they become inactivated by loss of promoter functionality due to host chromosome rearrangements, insertions, deletions or point mutations. Recognizing these remnants as distant virus infections is the straw man.
I think these convolutions called algorithms evolutionists like to play with could likely be used to prove the teletubbies are human ancestors if required.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
