Another poor response to ERV evidence for common ancestry by a creationist.

Astridhere · Oct 21, 2011

Incariol said:
Just because molecular genetics is over your head doesn't make it untrue.

I believe that molecular genetics is over your evolutionary researchers heads as proven by the unstable state of your ever changing thinking and the huge garbage bin of evolutionary delusions past that were once passed off as irrefutable evidence for evolution. Junk DNA is just one example and it is about to be joined by its' close cohort ERV's.

Introns -- Nonsense DNA -- May Be More Important to Evolution of Genomes Than Thought

"Remarkably, we have found many cases of parallel intron gains at essentially the same sites in independent genotypes," Lynch said. "This strongly argues against the common assumption that when two species share introns at the same site, it is always due to inheritance from a common ancestor."

That many introns are not acquired from a common ancestor but are the result of separate insertion events, the scientists say, means that the rates of intron gain in any species' lineage could be considerably higher than currently estimated.
Introns -- nonsense DNA -- may be more important to evolution of genomes than thought

So here you have it......evolutions flavour of the month about to be tossed into that huge bin of undeniable evidence for evolution turned to mythical delusion...AGAIN! Don't you lot ever get sick and tired of the rug being pulled from under your feet all the time.

This ERV nonsense is unfalsifiable. If an erv does not support current thinking you just make up some unfalsifiable scenario to excuse it, then call that proof.
http://swordandshield.biz/endogenous_retroviruses.pdf

Shared ERVs were not predicted but are used as support in hindsight. You have no way of knowing what was horizontally transfered, nor that cross infection of virus will result in loci similarities. You do not even know if these are viral remnants to begin with or simply a functional part of a creative design. All you have is an assumption, birthed in desperation, that is likely to bite the dust in the near future.

Darls we could play this game of debate for years and still you will have nothing more than speculation to support evolution. That goes for ERV's, fossils, comparative genomics, and any other evolutionary misrepresentation you care to speak to.

Incariol · Oct 21, 2011

Astridhere said:
I believe that molecular genetics is over your evolutionary researchers heads as proven by the unstable state of your ever changing thinking and the huge garbage bin of evolutionary delusions past that were once passed off as irrefutable evidence for evolution. Junk DNA is just one example and it is about to be joined by its' close cohort ERV's.

Ok, I'll revise that. I'm sorry you don't understand the scientific method. Science advances, theories are revised, and changed as years go by. If you really can't understand why this is so, well, I don't really care.

Astridhere said:
Introns -- Nonsense DNA -- May Be More Important to Evolution of Genomes Than Thought

"Remarkably, we have found many cases of parallel intron gains at essentially the same sites in independent genotypes," Lynch said. "This strongly argues against the common assumption that when two species share introns at the same site, it is always due to inheritance from a common ancestor."

That many introns are not acquired from a common ancestor but are the result of separate insertion events, the scientists say, means that the rates of intron gain in any species' lineage could be considerably higher than currently estimated.
Introns -- nonsense DNA -- may be more important to evolution of genomes than thought

So here you have it......evolutions flavour of the month about to be tossed into that huge bin of undeniable evidence for evolution turned to mythical delusion...AGAIN! Don't you lot ever get sick and tired of the rug being pulled from under your feet all the time.

You do understand that popular science articles aren't acceptable research sources, right?

Astridhere said:
This ERV nonsense is unfalsifiable. If an erv does not support current thinking you just make up some unfalsifiable scenario to excuse it, then call that proof.
http://swordandshield.biz/endogenous_retroviruses.pdf

I'm not even going to click on that link. "Swordandshield.biz"? I can practically smell the malware.

Astridhere said:
Shared ERVs were not predicted but are used as support in hindsight. You have no way of knowing what was horizontally transfered, nor that cross infection of virus will result in loci similarities. You do not even know if these are viral remnants to begin with or simply a functional part of a creative design. All you have is an assumption, birthed in desperation, that is likely to bite the dust in the near future.

Darls we could play this game of debate for years and still you will have nothing more than speculation to support evolution. That goes for ERV's, fossils, comparative genomics, and any other evolutionary misrepresentation you care to speak to.

Were you going to actually bother backing up your assertion with science anytime soon?

Loudmouth · Oct 21, 2011

Astridhere said:
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.

"Some ERV's"? Try 4 out of 200,000. I have cited a well known and well documented mechanism capable of producing what we see. It is not speculation.

It takes just one example to refute any theory and at least one exception has been provided.

Let's say you have a theory that airplanes fly. You point to thousands and thousands of airplanes that are observed to take off and fly through the sky. You are even able to evidence the mechanism that causes airplanes to fly. I then point the rare occasion where an airplane falls apart in mid air and comes crashing to the Earth. Have I disprove that airplanes can fly?

You haven't explained anything to me. What you have done is provided maybes posssibly, likely and speculation as evidence.

It is a fact that no CERV 1 or 2 insertions are unambiguously shared by gorillas and chimps. There is no speculation here.

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.

Evidence please.

I can read it as many times as you like and it still will be meaningless swathe of supposition.

It is a meaningful discussion of the facts, one of which is that there are only a few hundred ERV's not found at the same location in chimps and humans while over 200,000 are found at the same location between chimps and humans. This is not supposition. This is fact. Here is the quote from the paper linked in the OP:

Total indel variation provides a minimum number of transposable elements that can be shared in orthologous loci between chimpanzees and humans; but further examination is necessary to determine the actual number. One way this can be done is by isolating only the indels that are the right size to potentially be non-orthologous ERVs. Once this is done, the sequences corresponding to those gaps can be individually examined.
The results of such analysis are that less than 100 ERVs are human-specific (Polavarapu, Bowen, & McDonald, 2006). As previously stated, if a sequence is not only at a given locus in one lineage, nor only at a given locus in the other, then the only remaining possible state in which it can exist is at the same locus in both lineages. So the number of orthologous ERVs is the total number minus the number that form gaps. With less than 100 of the ~200 thousand ERVs in the human genome yielding no gaps, the percentage of ERVs in orthologous loci is grater than 99.9%. . .

In 2005, the available sequence of the Chimpanzee genome was aligned with that of the human genome, and an extensive comparison analysis was performed. As part of this analysis, the researchers looked at every available solo LTR and full-length ERV in the chimpanzee genome, and checked to see if there was also one at each corresponding locus. Just as with the examination of indels, the results were that less than 100 ERVs are human-specific and less than 300 ERVs are chimpanzee-specific (Chimpanzee Sequencing and Analysis Consortium, 2005; R. Waterston, personal communication, April 22, 2010).
In summary, indel variation shows that most transposable elements, such as ERVs, cannot be lineage-specific; they must be orthologous. When the indels are examined, this is corroborated, and less than 0.1% of ERVs are found to be lineage-specific. Finally, definitive confirmation is obtained by genome-wide comparison, where virtually all ERVs are directly observed to be in orthologous loci.
ERVs - Evidence for the Evolutionary Model

Your extensive explanation of homologous recombination of duplicate genomic segments and allelic segregation is offering speculation in place of evidence.

It is offering an observed mechanism that is capable of producing the evidence we see.

By Chance, What Made the Same ERV Transcribe Differently Between Supposedly 'Closely Related' Species?

Click to expand...

[info deleted to shorten length]

You have yet to explain how any of this contradicts the evidence. Let's break these down and see how well it stacks up with your claims.

1. PtERV1 function: As your quote shows, only 6 out of 10 PtERV insertions were responsible for a difference in gene expression. By your standards, the other 4 that did not change gene expression are junk DNA.

2. p53 transcription sites: As it turns out, only a tiny fraction of the ERV's they looked at had these sites. "A total of 1,509 of ≈319,000 human ERV LTR regions have a near-perfect p53 DNA binding site." Therefore, the other ~318,000 are junk DNA, right?

3. pol expression: Nowhere have you shown that HERV expression has any function, nor that every ERV has function.

Also, HERV's evolving function after insertion in no way refutes common ancestory or evolution. In fact, pointing to ERV's that have function is great evidence of how sequences can evolve new functions.

" 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.

Show me a single lie that I have told. Just one. The human genome paper, the ultimate authority on the features found in the human genome, found just over 200,000 ERV's in the human genome. The chimp genome paper found the ERV's in the chimp genome and compared them to the human genome. Only ~300 ERV's in chimps could not be found at an orthologous position in humans, and only ~100 ERV's in humans could not be found at an orthologous position in chimps. THOSE ARE THE FACTS. You have been shown the values before, and more than once. I showed you these values over at EvC several months ago. You know that the 7 out of 30,000 is false, and yet you continue to put it forward. Why is that? You know that not a single PtERV insertion is shared between any primate species, and yet you continue to insist that they "break the pattern" when they do no such thing.

I would like you to read the convolutions and algorithms required to guess at reinfections, deletions etc. The truth is they have no idea.

You don't have to guess at orthology which is what is being used as evidence.

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.

Your author isn't even the original author of any research. Please cite any peer reviewed primary paper that compared 30,000 chimp and human ERV's and only found 7 out of the 30,000 were orthologous between humans and chimps. I dare you. If you can not find this paper then retract the claim. The chimp genome paper clearly states that there are only 100 human specific and only 300 chimp specific ERV's out of the hundreds of thousands of ERV's found in each genome.

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!

What are you talking about?

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.

So now they are not ERV's? Please try to be consistent. Either they are ERV's or they are not. Either orthologous ERV's are due to the same retrovirus inserting in the same spot in several species independently as you have suggested, or they are not retroviral insertions. Please pick one.

You have found no orthologous anything.

Yeah we have, by your own admission. You are the one claiming that orthologous ERV's are due to a retrovirus inserting into the same position in different species.

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.

It is not speculation, by your own admission. They are retroviral in origin as the reconstructed HERV-K (Phoenix) demonstrates.

"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.

Perhaps you should read that quote again and think really hard on it. It reads, "Comparative analyses of orthologous regions . . .". How do they determine if two regions are orthologous? How do they determine that there are indels? How did they determine the pre-integration sites for PtERV insertion sites in the human genome as described in the paper? Are you saying that it is impossible for geneticists to detect insertions and deletions that have occured during evolution of humans and chimps? If so, then you are going to have 10's of thousands of geneticists who disagree with you.

You didn't speak to your frankenstein virus. Do you really thing these guys brought some old dead relic back to life.

That is exactly what they did. You have not shown a single piece of evidence to the contrary.

ERVs are composed of nonsense mutations.

The entire thing? How do they determine which mutations are nonsense and which are ancestral?

I think these convolutions called algorithms evolutionists like to play with could likely be used to prove the teletubbies are human ancestors if required.

The algorithms are based on the assumption that there is an ancestral sequence that will be produced by comparing multiple copies of HERV-K insertions. IF THAT ASSUMPTION IS WRONG, THEN THE PROCESS WILL NOT PRODUCE A VIABLE VIRUS. However, it did. A consensus sequence is a very simple thing. I will show you how it is done below with 4 hypothetical sequences:

pos : 123456789
erv1: AAAAAAATA
erv2: AAACAAAAA
erv3: TAAAAAAAA
erv4: ACAAAAAAA

In position 1 there is a mutation in erv3. We know this because the other three sequences have an A instead of a T. Likewise, there is a mutation in position 2 in erv4, position 4 in erv2, and in position 8 in erv1. In each of these positions the other three sequences, THE CONSENSUS, agrees. The consensus sequence is all A's. See how that is done? It isn't that difficult to understand. Can you please show why this is not a valid reconstruction?

Doveaman · Oct 21, 2011

Loudmouth said:
Then common design is not a valid concept.

Not according to you myopic scientific method, but according to the theoscientific method.

If God created everything (and He did) then there is nothing that wouldn’t be evidence of design, even if they appear not to be.

That is not data. Try again.

Your myopic scientific method does not allow for such data, that’s the problem.

What data does common ancestry not explain as it relates to ERV's?

“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).

Then the observation of two siblings sharing ERV's through common ancestry is enough to evidence that common ancestry produces orthologous ERV's.

Only if one of the siblings was observed to be a human the other a chimpanzee. They are not.

What happened to "I just need to watch one"? Why the double standard?

What double standard? “I just need to watch one” ape ancestor produce a human and a chimpanzee. I have never seen this.

Redefining scripture as observation is a huge failure. Sorry, but faith does not replace observations. Never has.

What we observe in Scripture are observations.

They are not observations.

Yes they are.

Loudmouth · Oct 21, 2011

Doveaman said:
Not according to you myopic scientific method, but according to the theoscientific method.

Yes, the theoscientific method where beliefs are treated as facts. Your method is also not a valid concept.

If God created everything (and He did) then there is nothing that wouldnt be evidence of design, even if they appear not to be.

And that is why common design is a meaningless concept. It is no different than Last Thursdayism.

What double standard? I just need to watch one ape ancestor produce a human and a chimpanzee. I have never seen this.

You have seen common ancestry produce two organisms with orthologous ERV's. You have not seen a single instance of a supernatural deity producing two organisms with orthologous ERV's. Yes, it is a double standard.

What we observe in Scripture are observations.

So when you read Harry Potter is that an observation of wizards? When you read the Iliad is that an observation of the Greek gods?

Loudmouth · Oct 21, 2011

Naraoia said:
I can haz paper, please?

I can never resist the kitten eyes.

Nature. 2004 Oct 21;431(7011):988-93.
Megabase deletions of gene deserts result in viable mice.

Nóbrega MA, Zhu Y, Plajzer-Frick I, Afzal V, Rubin EM.
Source

DOE Joint Genome Institute Walnut Creek, California 94598, USA.

Abstract

The functional importance of the roughly 98% of mammalian genomes not corresponding to protein coding sequences remains largely undetermined. Here we show that some large-scale deletions of the non-coding DNA referred to as gene deserts can be well tolerated by an organism. We deleted two large non-coding intervals, 1,511 kilobases and 845 kilobases in length, from the mouse genome. Viable mice homozygous for the deletions were generated and were indistinguishable from wild-type littermates with regard to morphology, reproductive fitness, growth, longevity and a variety of parameters assaying general homeostasis. Further detailed analysis of the expression of multiple genes bracketing the deletions revealed only minor expression differences in homozygous deletion and wild-type mice. Together, the two deleted segments harbour 1,243 non-coding sequences conserved between humans and rodents (more than 100 base pairs, 70% identity). Some of the deleted sequences might encode for functions unidentified in our screen; nonetheless, these studies further support the existence of potentially 'disposable DNA' in the genomes of mammals.

Megabase deletions of gene deserts result in viable m... [Nature. 2004] - PubMed - NCBI

Loudmouth · Oct 21, 2011

Astridhere said:
Junk DNA is just one example and it is about to be joined by its' close cohort ERV's.

Then why were mice unaffected when 2 MILLION base pairs of DNA were removed from their genome?

This ERV nonsense is unfalsifiable.

Do 4 plane crashes disprove the fact that planes can fly?

Naraoia · Oct 21, 2011

Loudmouth said:
I can never resist the kitten eyes.

Thankyuuuuu!

Astridhere · Oct 21, 2011

Incariol said:
Ok, I'll revise that. I'm sorry you don't understand the scientific method. Science advances, theories are revised, and changed as years go by. If you really can't understand why this is so, well, I don't really care.

You need to understand that it is only evolutionists that have theories that totally falsify current thinking and then call this advancement. I call it a mess.

You do understand that popular science articles aren't acceptable research sources, right?

This is the paper the 'pop' article spoke to. You may as well know what the published and peer reviewed research paper looks like that you choose to ignore as pop science.

Journal Reference:

Li et al. Extensive, Recent Intron Gains in Daphnia Populations. Science, 2009; 326 (5957): 1260 DOI: 10.1126/science.1179302

That Science Daily popular science article was a reflection of research, Pal...and you know it. Science Daily has put alot of gobble into laymans terms. Ignoring what does not suit you is a typical response. You likely had the same attitude of ignorance with the first sign of junk dna being functional.

I'm not even going to click on that link. "Swordandshield.biz"? I can practically smell the malware.
Get some decent protection. But you cannot protect yourself from this...

In summary, indel variation shows that most transposable elements, such as ERVs, cannot be lineage-specific; they must be orthologous. When the indels are examined, this is corroborated, and less than 0.1% of ERVs are found to be lineage-specific (Polavarapu, Bowen, & McDonald, 2006). Finally, definitive confirmation is obtained by genome-wide comparison, where virtually all ERVs are directly observed to be in orthologous loci (Chimpanzee Sequencing and Analysis Consortium, 2005).

See this rubbish above. Remember the research re introns. The bottom line is that once upon a time you only had 7 shared ervs between human and chimp. This obviously disproves evolution. So off these researchers went and made up an algorithm that would magically demonstrate more ervs are shared. Indel variation, what is added or deleted, is a hilarious way to sort your conundrum given the research the article I posted speaks to.

Were you going to actually bother backing up your assertion with science anytime soon?

I have backed my assertions but with research you are choosing to ignore...This is not surprising. I have demonstrated that the basis of the algorithms used to make the ERV comparisons may be erraneous and likely is. Soon ERVs as evidence for common ancestry will be out the window like all of your other irrefuteable evidences of the day, which are falsified in time.

The essay and opening post is a sham.

What I, and many other creationists, are great at doing is showing evolution is based on nothing more than straw men, while offering debated speculation and non plausible scenarios as evidence. This often being based on non plausible algorithms that, as I said, could support human ancestry with Teletubbies if required.

Astridhere · Oct 21, 2011

Loudmouth said:
Then why were mice unaffected when 2 MILLION base pairs of DNA were removed from their genome?

These researchers do not know the long term affects of the deletions. The mice did not die. That is all they had time to find out They do not know what affect the deletion may have had on ability to adapt or anything more than the fact that they did not die. This is what is called pop science.

Do 4 plane crashes disprove the fact that planes can fly?

No..but the discovery of vital function for non coding DNA does prove your science is more like flavour of the month

Do you really think that such a deletion will have absolutely no affect on an organism, whatsoever? Answer please. I would like to quote you down the track.

Of course if these deletions were truly unnecessary junk evolution should have disposed of it. It didn't. Rather they have been selected for according to these crazy algorithms. Why? Happy guessing as your well credentialed researchers have no clue. Either way you have a mess.

As my previous post demonstrates your ERV algorithms are erraneous, based on probabilities as suits, erraneous insertion values, and do not provide credible evidence for common ancestry.

Introns -- nonsense DNA -- may be more important to evolution of genomes than thought

Lion Hearted Man · Oct 21, 2011

Astridhere said:
Of course if these deletions were truly unnecessary junk evolution should have disposed of it. It didn't.

Bzzzzzzzt. Incorrect.

If something is neutral (or unnecessary), there is very little selective pressure acting upon it. That's why junk DNA is successful -- because it doesn't do anything, it is able to be along for the ride in the organism.

What we actually find in molecular biology is that things do not become more efficient as pathways evolve. "Unnecessary elements" are not removed unless they are detrimental.

I think you are missing the forest for the trees. Even if you somehow shoot tons of holes in the ERV argument (which you are failing at by the way), it doesn't change the fact that evolution is correct.

RickG · Oct 21, 2011

Astridhere said:
Darls we could play this game of debate for years and still you will have nothing more than speculation to support evolution. That goes for ERV's, fossils, comparative genomics, and any other evolutionary misrepresentation you care to speak to.

Before you toss evolution under the bus you might just look over your shoulder at 18 wheeler coming straight at you.

Please explain how the earliest and simplest life forms appear around 4 billion years ago and progressively become more and more complex and diversified with passing time in a manner which describes evolution without any compromise.

Loudmouth · Oct 21, 2011

Astridhere said:
These researchers do not know the long term affects of the deletions.

Yeah, they do.

"We deleted two large non-coding intervals, 1,511 kilobases and 845 kilobases in length, from the mouse genome. Viable mice homozygous for the deletions were generated and were indistinguishable from wild-type littermates with regard to morphology, reproductive fitness, growth, longevity and a variety of parameters assaying general homeostasis."

That is from the bolded section in the abstract above. Notice that they measured longevity.

Do you really think that such a deletion will have absolutely no affect on an organism, whatsoever?

Yes, since that is EXACTLY WHAT THE DATA SAYS. Why are you having such a hard time accepting the facts? When scientists removed those specific regions of DNA it had no affect on "morphology, reproductive fitness, growth, longevity and a variety of parameters assaying general homeostasis".

Of course if these deletions were truly unnecessary junk evolution should have disposed of it.

Completely false. Neutral mutations are deleted randomly. There is no evolutionary pressure that is pushing for the removal of this DNA. The increased amount of ATP needed to keep this DNA is such a tiny, tiny percentage of the body's overall ATP usage that it makes no difference. This is just a wild guess, but you probably go through more ATP to run a mile than you do to make all of the DNA you will ever make in your entire life.

Rather they have been selected for according to these crazy algorithms.

Do you even understand what neutral drift is? Apparently not. I guess we can add population genetics to the long list of things you don't understand.

As my previous post demonstrates your ERV algorithms are erraneous, based on probabilities as suits, erraneous insertion values, and do not provide credible evidence for common ancestry.

You demonstrated no such thing.

Introns -- nonsense DNA -- may be more important to evolution of genomes than thought

Introns are not ERV's.

Loudmouth · Oct 21, 2011

Astridhere said:
I have backed my assertions but with research you are choosing to ignore...

Then show us one peer reviewed paper where they compare 30,000 ERV's between humans and chimps and only find 7 out of those 30,000 that are orthologous. This is what you claim, so show us. Where can we find this data? Or are you lying about it once again?

I have demonstrated that the basis of the algorithms used to make the ERV comparisons may be erraneous and likely is.

Where?

Soon ERVs as evidence for common ancestry will be out the window like all of your other irrefuteable evidences of the day, which are falsified in time.

Fantasies do not refute the evidence.

The essay and opening post is a sham.

Evidence please.

What I, and many other creationists, are great at doing is showing evolution is based on nothing more than straw men, while offering debated speculation and non plausible scenarios as evidence. This often being based on non plausible algorithms that, as I said, could support human ancestry with Teletubbies if required.

What is non-plausible about common ancestry producing orthologous ERV's? Please explain.

Astridhere · Oct 21, 2011

Loudmouth you forgot to paste up the most important bit of the abstract

Some of the deleted sequences might encode for functions unidentified in our screen; nonetheless, these studies further support the existence of potentially 'disposable DNA' in the genomes of mammals.

Notice the word 'nonetheless'. This means that although your researcher have not provided comprehensive results they'll straw grab, limit the experiment before anything that refutes it shows up then use the hand wave of assumption as evidence.

Now let's look at something about the comment that introns have nothing to do with ERV's...

In the analysis reported here, we found significant differences between individual human ERV families in their prevalence within genes and degree of antisense bias and show that, regardless of orientation, ERVs of most families are less likely to be found in introns than in intergenic regions.
Multiple effects govern endogenous retrovirus survival patterns in human gene introns

Less likely, does not mean..not at all. If I weren't such a nice person, I may call you a liar that does not know what they are talking about or are trying to be deceptive.

Seriously you are providing nonsense based on ridiculous algorithms invented in desperation. You evolutionists really have no clue about anything above being able to manipulate algorithms to demonstrate what you presume and explain that which is inconsistent. The problem being, of course, it is all based on nonsense and assumption and is further supported by other algorithms based on the same assumptions.

Astridhere · Oct 21, 2011

Loudmouth said:
Then show us one peer reviewed paper where they compare 30,000 ERV's between humans and chimps and only find 7 out of those 30,000 that are orthologous. This is what you claim, so show us. Where can we find this data? Or are you lying about it once again?

Where?

Fantasies do not refute the evidence.

Evidence please.

What is non-plausible about common ancestry producing orthologous ERV's? Please explain.

The 200,000 remnants and ghosts that reflect in some bizarre way through the use of algorithms, nonsense mutations, insertions and deletions, look something like a remnant of a an ancient virus, that hangs off the genome you eventually will find has nothing to do with virus at all. This is why you find them being related to positive things like the maintenance of pregnancy a well as deleterious things like cancer. They are functional and required but not remnants of ancient past viral infections at all. The reason so many of these so called remnants are found in similar loci would be because that is where they need to be to provide the function they were created for. When the process goes wrong it causes deleterious effects.

As for comments on neutral selection. You and your researchers would not know what a benificial allele was, outside of immunity. In drosophila the allele for accelerated development did not fix in the population and the flys that expressed it as an advantage had deleterious effects such as smaller size and less resistence to starvation.

How for example, would natural selection determine that ERV-3 is going to be used in the future, after infection, in maintaining mammalian pregnancy. ..given egg laying reproduction was just doing fine at the time. So it was selected for and maintained and not mutated out of the genome because of what? I know evolution has intelligence and a plan, or was it 'luck' yet again. Nonsense. It is not a neutral mutation if it bestows a positive advantage.

Viral legacy may make pregnancy possible. - Free Online Library

I wonder if the first placental mammalian creature to have navel had this ERV? I wonder how gorillas do without it?

The sum total of the whole essay and opening post is based on a priori that is nonsense. These so called erv's have nothing to do with virus at all. You and your researchers have turned at least 8% of the genome and over 50% of genome mass into some viral remnant. Then you expect all to swallow this nonsense. All you have demonstrated is that all this talk of ERV's as evidence for common ancestry is convoluted story telling and researchers like to play with algorithms like leggo blocks in building worlds of fantasy.

dad · Oct 22, 2011

Loudmouth said:
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.

"Evolution is regarded as a branching process, whereby populations are altered over time and may speciate into separate branches, hybridize together, or terminate by extinction. This may be visualized in a phylogenetic tree." wiki

Your trees are evo dream trees. Diverging from that is meaningless. Speciating from that is meaningless. Hybridizing from that is meaningless. What, does it feel good to say such foolishness?

The same state tree is all belief based nonsense. Try to debate honestly.

I know that they ARE inherited. WE OBSERVE THAT THEY ARE INHERITED.

Absurd, and irrelevant. No one asked you how it now works, and has worked for a few decades, or whatever.

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?

Baloney. Is that hard to grasp? TOTAL BS. Lie. Fantasy...need more?

Here is a little lesson for you.

The Cubs play their home games in Chicago.
The Sun is really hot.
Leprechauns are real.

Fail. What else is new, fantasy man?

Can I cite the first two statements to prove the accuracy of the last statement? Yes or no?

Can I answer after the third kind, or would you prefer a primary response?

Evidence that it was observed please, and how it ties into the ERV evidence.

get serious with your evidence claims, o man. Ignorance can demand little. Handicapped science can demand less. You can demand nothing. Getting the pattern?

Evidence that the bible is the word of God please.

If you have to ask, you are in no position to receive an answer.

They deal in the only laws that have ever existed in this universe. Your made up fantasies are just that, fantasies.

Absurd prophesy. Ignorance based claim. You have no idea what 'has ever existed' ...I have to tell you this???

The present state is the only state that has ever existed.

Absurd lie. Unfounded. You have no evidence. Be honest.

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.

False. You were able to assume present state earth SPACE extends all the way to the star. You were able to assume present state earth forces and laws and TIME extends all the way to the star. Meaningless in the extreme.

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.

Says who? The light curve....did it get affected by star dust in your model? How far was the star in your model? Try to accept the facts here, that your assumption and belief in a time and space that continues is baseless.

The laws of physics do not require a neutron star as the result of a supernova explosion. They never did.

It was predicted and expected. It never appeared. Even their scrambling to re model the whole thing, so a black hole would be expected is baloney and exposed as just hot air. Be honest.

There is no such thing as "our space". This is another fantasy that you have invented.

Stick to what you know. Big claims from little men are not becoming of a science forum.

You take the amount we see now and calculate back using the half life. Why is this so hard to figure out?

Not if you believe and have blind faith in a same state past that has NO basis in fact, evidence or reality.

Tritium rich water to be exact.

Point??

You are so defeated it is a bit sad.

mzungu · Oct 22, 2011

dad said:
"Evolution is regarded as a branching process, whereby populations are altered over time and may speciate into separate branches, hybridize together, or terminate by extinction. This may be visualized in a phylogenetic tree." wiki

Your trees are evo dream trees. Diverging from that is meaningless. Speciating from that is meaningless. Hybridizing from that is meaningless. What, does it feel good to say such foolishness?

The same state tree is all belief based nonsense. Try to debate honestly.

Absurd, and irrelevant. No one asked you how it now works, and has worked for a few decades, or whatever.

Baloney. Is that hard to grasp? TOTAL BS. Lie. Fantasy...need more?
Fail. What else is new, fantasy man?
Can I answer after the third kind, or would you prefer a primary response?

get serious with your evidence claims, o man. Ignorance can demand little. Handicapped science can demand less. You can demand nothing. Getting the pattern?

If you have to ask, you are in no position to receive an answer.

Absurd prophesy. Ignorance based claim. You have no idea what 'has ever existed' ...I have to tell you this???

Absurd lie. Unfounded. You have no evidence. Be honest.

False. You were able to assume present state earth SPACE extends all the way to the star. You were able to assume present state earth forces and laws and TIME extends all the way to the star. Meaningless in the extreme.
Says who? The light curve....did it get affected by star dust in your model? How far was the star in your model? Try to accept the facts here, that your assumption and belief in a time and space that continues is baseless.

It was predicted and expected. It never appeared. Even their scrambling to re model the whole thing, so a black hole would be expected is baloney and exposed as just hot air. Be honest.

Stick to what you know. Big claims from little men are not becoming of a science forum.
Not if you believe and have blind faith in a same state past that has NO basis in fact, evidence or reality.

Point??

You are so defeated it is a bit sad.

Your posts remind me of Ghosts who do not know they have died! You have been refuted so many times that it is no longer funny. You have lost every single debate and yet you still continue!

You insist that the world is flat.
You insist on Geocentrism.
You insist that the laws of physics have changed.
You have claimed so many things that make no sense that it will be easier for one to prove Bugs bunny is a living entity than to address your claims.

First of all you have no right to judge the laws of PHYSICS since you do not accept science. If they were the laws of the Bible then ok! But you cannot dismiss science and pass judgement on physics.

Your knowledge in matters of science is at best that of primary school.

Why don't you just follow the light!

dad · Oct 22, 2011

mzungu said:
Your posts remind me of Ghosts who do not know they have died! You have been refuted so many times that it is no longer funny. You have lost every single debate and yet you still continue!

You insist that the world is flat.
You insist on Geocentrism.
You insist that the laws of physics have changed.
You have claimed so many things that make no sense that it will be easier for one to prove Bugs bunny is a living entity than to address your claims.

Lies.

First of all you have no right to judge the laws of PHYSICS since you do not accept science.

Present knowledge of present laws does not give us any right to speak of laws in the unknown past. Therefore the bible speaks way way way over you.

If they were the laws of the Bible then ok! But you cannot dismiss science and pass judgement on physics.

Yes I can. The judgment is that we only know that our laws exist, and have for so many centuries. Period. Not ti infinity and beyond, Buzz, sorry!

Why don't you just follow the light!

This from a shroom?

mzungu · Oct 22, 2011

dad said:
Lies.

Lies Creationism is in direct conflict with all the sciences! You need only to observe the stars to ascertain that the laws of physics remain constant! As a creationist you must believe in a flat earth, geocentrism, young earth, etc. So where are the lies

Present knowledge of present laws does not give us any right to speak of laws in the unknown past. Therefore the bible speaks way way way over you. Yes I can. The judgment is that we only know that our laws exist, and have for so many centuries. Period. Not ti infinity and beyond, Buzz, sorry!
This from a shroom?

The past is known! If you had any knowledge of science, you would know that! The Bible is not an authority on the physical world and is certainly not a science text book. You are in err when you dismiss science and still use the fruits of science (internet, pc, etc.). This is defined in any dictionary as hypocrisy!

Have the grace to admit defeat when you have been refuted!

Another poor response to ERV evidence for common ancestry by a creationist.

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Contributor

Re-Created, Not Evolved.

Contributor

Contributor

Contributor

Apprentice Biologist

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Eternal Newbie

Senior Veteran

Contributor

Contributor

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Undefeated!

INVICTUS

Undefeated!

INVICTUS

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency