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

[dad]

Just out of curiosity, can you think of a reason why a sensible designer would put human gene processing machinery in moss?

Hmm....well maybe we just are not advanced enough to know yet. If, for example, there was a possible use for moss as part of some sort of medicine, or process that involved genes, that could be beneficial to man, when used correctly, why not have some ability to mingle with man's genes?

The article mentions some 'second evolution'
" the scientists either have to believe that this ability inexplicably lay dormant and unchanged in moss for 450 million years, or that the same coordinated suite of cellular machinery evolved twice."

Trying to concoct unintelligent design origins seems to have led them to insane conclusions...as usual

 

[dad]

Maybe a better question is, Why would an 'evolved' human gene still work in Moss after 450 million years of evolution?

So moss retained the ability to read foreign genes such as those from mammals and thus also from humans, and to translate them into proteins, probably without ever having made any use of this capability during these 450 million years.

Whatever happened to the 'evolution' of genes?

The activation of "Life", as opposed to 'non life' requires a genetic instruction that will be present in all of the creators creations as a signature of the designer and His creation.

Moss was made with the ability makes more sense. Trying to randomize everything into a freak show of flukes leads nowhere, and is not real science. It is more like impish speculation based on tidbits of knowledge.

 

[Loudmouth]

Ah. I thought when you said Nested Heiarchy you were talking about all life. Either you werent, or you were but you're a jumper.

I freely admit that HGT occurs amongst bacteria. What we are focusing on in this thread is shared ancestry between humans and other primates, not humans and bacteria. In the case of primates, vertical genetic transfer is by far the greatest driving force. The only HGT amongst primates that I am aware of is hybridism, or rather during the process of speciation when genetic isolation is not complete.

What you seem to be ignoring is that the nested hierarchy is a fact. It is the observation. Evolution explains it. For lineages that do not participate in HGT this is exactly the pattern you should see if evolution is true, and it is the pattern that is observed. No designer is limited to a nested hierarchy, which is evidenced by the fact that cars do not fall into a single nested hierarchy based on shared characteristics.

Actually the only thing that's important is whether or not Darwinian alterations are viable as a cause of all life on the planet. If it isn't viable, the data gathered goes towards understanding Creationism. Additionally, there is a wide distribution. Testing the Orchard Model and the NCSE's Claims of "Nested Patterns" Supporting a "Tree of Life" - Evolution News & Views
Why Can Moss Process Human Genes?

What does this have to do with ERV's and common ancestry between primates? You know, the topic we are discussing?

There is no reason why it could not create aquatic, viviparous organisms seeing that all sea dwelling creatures lay eggs. OR...or..there is no reason why it could not create aquatic creatures with lungs scales and fins seeing that gills are a defining feature of fish. But then you just call them Lungfish.

ERV's are functional.

And? No part of our arguments requires all ERV's to be functionless.

Also, do you have a list of functions for all 200,000 ERV's in the human genome?

Their placement is dictated by functional constraints.

How does that functional constraint require higher divergence between LTR's for an orthologous ERV shared by all apes (including humans) than the LTR's of an ERV shared by just humans and chimps? Please explain.

Also, why is it necessary to find an ERV in the same genomic position in chimps if it is also found in orangutans and humans at that same spot? What is the functional constraint that requires this? Why is an all powerful and all knowing supernatural deity who has unlimited time and resources required to create life in a hierarchial pattern? Why, for that matter, is God required to use the same relationships between DNA codons and tRNA? Wouldn't it be trivially easy for God to create a new species from scratch without reusing anything from any other species? Starting from scratch should require the same effort on God's part as reusing previous designs, should it not?

Reproduction alone cannot cause an organism to adapt. It's stochastic and programmed variations which act on organisms, cars, germ line cells, somatic cells, airplanes etc.

How is the process of mutagenesis programmed into the genome? Are you arguing for Larmarckism?

 

[Nostromo]

Maybe a better question is, Why would an 'evolved' human gene still work in Moss after 450 million years of evolution?

I still like my question, why don't you have a go at answering it?

Whatever happened to the 'evolution' of genes?

There's no rule that says just because something can change, it will change or must change.

You read the source article, it gives you a fair enough reason there. The moss never specialised in its ability to translate the genes. It's not so much that the moss has an ability to translate modern genes, but modern organisms have lost the ability to translate a wide range of genes, because they specialised.

 

[Greg1234]

Also, do you have a list of functions for all 200,000 ERV's in the human genome?

It's still in its infancy. We are finding functions but we don't have all just yet.

How does that functional constraint require higher divergence between LTR's for an orthologous ERV shared by all apes (including humans) than the LTR's of an ERV shared by just humans and chimps? Please explain.

Function in ERVs relate to physiological requirements in different organisms. Similar physiology and/or physiological requirements will mean that some organisms will share highly specified sequences due to physiological similarity and/or requirements. The more universal sequences will be able to be used in more diverse organisms.

No designer would be limited to a nested hierarchy.

Wouldn't it be trivially easy for God to create a new species from scratch without reusing anything from any other species?

How is the process of mutagenesis programmed into the genome? Are you arguing for Larmarckism?

01/07/30 - ICBP 2000
Darwin's God: Flax: More Falsifications of Evolution and the Real Warfare Thesis

 

[Greg1234]

There's no rule that says just because something can change, it will change or must change.

In other words, similar features in different, unrelated organisms don't actually mean anything (big surprise). There's already an app for that. That's why we stick to the mechanism, chief.

 

[Nostromo]

In other words, similar features in different, unrelated organisms don't actually mean anything (big surprise).

Mmm, no. You just keep on guessing.

 

[Doveaman]

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

Is a response all you need?

Okay then, here's a response that works for me:

Modern man did not evolve, he was recreated (resurrected) from a prehistoric hominid.

Man, then, did not evolve from prehistoric hominid, he was recreated from prehistoric hominid with a few genetic modifications which gives us our modern look.

This also accounts for the ERV.

 

[Awesome_Frog]

Is a response all you need?

Okay then, here's a response that works for me:

Modern man did not evolve, he was recreated (resurrected) from a prehistoric hominid.

Man, then, did not evolve from prehistoric hominid, he was recreated from prehistoric hominid with a few genetic modifications which gives us our modern look.

This also accounts for the ERV.

*looks at Genesis* Nope, it still says dust. Your answer dosen't fit the book.

 

[Psudopod]

Is a response all you need?

Okay then, here's a response that works for me:

Modern man did not evolve, he was recreated (resurrected) from a prehistoric hominid.

Man, then, did not evolve from prehistoric hominid, he was recreated from prehistoric hominid with a few genetic modifications which gives us our modern look.

Okay, so what evidence would distinguish your theory from our current understanding of human origins?

 

[Loudmouth]

It's still in its infancy. We are finding functions but we don't have all just yet.

How does our argument require that all ERV's be functionless? Why must ERV's be functionless in order to evidence common ancestry?

Also, there are human ERV's that have not become fixed in the human population. IOW, some people have a specific HERV and others don't. Are you saying that the people who do not have this HERV are missing a functional gene?

"We find that there are 113 human-specific HERV-K(HML2) elements in the human genome sequence, 8 of which are insertionally polymorphic (11 if we extrapolate to those within regions of the genome that were not suitable for amplification)."
Insertional polymorphisms of endogenous HERV-K113 ... [AIDS Res Hum Retroviruses. 2004] - PubMed result

So there are at least 8 HERV-K elements that some people have and some don't. How does this figure into your argument?

Function in ERVs relate to physiological requirements in different organisms.

How does this explain the LTR divergence data? Why is it that LTR divergence is higher in orthologous ERV's shared by all apes than in LTR's shared by one or two species of ape? You still haven't answered this question.

Also, you have yet to show why God would need to reuse a single design, much less reuse designs so that they fall into a nested hierarchy. Care to enlighten us?

01/07/30 - ICBP 2000
Darwin's God: Flax: More Falsifications of Evolution and the Real Warfare Thesis

Peer reviewed reference? Discussion in your own words?

 

[Greg1234]

How does our argument require that all ERV's be functionless? Why must ERV's be functionless in order to evidence common ancestry?

ERV elements are said to be inserted randomly. In organisms with similar physiologies it is said that the high improbability of ERV insertions in the same spots has to be explained through inheritance. However, ERV elements are functional, and different independently created lines with similar physiologies and/or physiological requirements will most likely share similar functions. This similarity of function corresponds with similar functional elements in similar spots in organisms with a similar genetic makeup.

So there are at least 8 HERV-K elements that some people have and some don't. How does this figure into your argument?

Not everyone's the same. We've known that for some time now.

How does this explain the LTR divergence data? Why is it that LTR divergence is higher in orthologous ERV's shared by all apes than in LTR's shared by one or two species of ape? You still haven't answered this question.

Actually I did. Organisms created with similar functions will be able to share more functional elements. Those who are physiologically diverse share less functions and as a result, less related functional elements.

Also, you have yet to show why God would need to reuse a single design,

This isn't relevant. One does as they please with their design. We reuse parts all the time. Reusing lungs in aquatic creatures is simply one of them.

much less reuse designs so that they fall into a nested hierarchy. Care to enlighten us?

Nested heiarchy was already addressed.

Peer reviewed reference? Discussion in your own words?

Cells induce their own adaptation.

 

[Loudmouth]

ERV elements are said to be inserted randomly. In organisms with similar physiologies it is said that the high improbability of ERV insertions in the same spots has to be explained through inheritance. However, ERV elements are functional, and different independently created lines with similar physiologies and/or physiological requirements will most likely share similar functions. This similarity of function corresponds with similar functional elements in similar spots in organisms with a similar genetic makeup.

You have the cart before the horse. If what you say is true, then physiology is defined by the ERV's, not the other way around. What you are arguing for is diversification of species through ERV insertion which fits just fine in our argument. It may conflict with the observed mutation rate of most LTR's, but it fits fine with common ancestry and subsequent evolution from that common ancestor.

Not everyone's the same. We've known that for some time now.

So what functions are people missing if they don't have those 8 HERV's?

Actually I did. Organisms created with similar functions will be able to share more functional elements. Those who are physiologically diverse share less functions and as a result, less related functional elements.

This doesn't explain it at all. The divergence of LTR's is within a single ERV and a single species. When retroviruses insert the LTR's (the bookends of the viral genome) are identical. If common ancestry is true, then the longer an ERV is in a lineage the more differences we should see between those two bookends within the same ERV. Look for an orthologous ERV shared by all apes, including humans, that still has both LTR's (the 5' and 3' LTR's). Next, find the sequence for the human version of this gene. Compare the differences between the 5' and 3' LTR's. Do the same for a human ERV that is only seen in humans and chimps. This comparison is only for human ERV's. What you will find is that there is more divergence in the LTR's of human ERV's that are shared by all apes than in the human LTR's of human ERV's shared by just humans and chimps.

How do you explain this?

This isn't relevant. One does as they please with their design. We reuse parts all the time. Reusing lungs in aquatic creatures is simply one of them.

We reuse parts and designs because we have limited time and resources. God has neither limitation. Therefore, there is no expectation of a nested hierarchy where creationism is concerned, correct?

Nested heiarchy was already addressed.

No, it was swept under the rug, as usual.

Cells induce their own adaptation.

Does this adaptation require mutations? Or are you talking about phenotype plasticity? Peer review references?

 

[dad]

Originally Posted by Nostromo

Just out of curiosity, can you think of a reason why a sensible designer would put human gene processing machinery in moss?
​

Hmm....well maybe we just are not advanced enough to know yet. If, for example, there was a possible use for moss as part of some sort of medicine, or process that involved genes, that could be beneficial to man, when used correctly, why not have some ability to mingle with man's genes?


Furthermore, moss is associated with trees. In the garden was the tree of life. That is a healing tree, and gives life. Naturally, it would likely have worked with the genes of men! So, if we see some moss with some connection there, one need not assume we evolved from moss!!!

Lichen is a combo of moss and fungi if I recall. If there was some on the trees in Eden, we might expect this sort of remnant

 

[Doveaman]

*looks at Genesis* Nope, it still says dust. Your answer dosen't fit the book.

After the hominid died he decomposed into dust. God later took that same dust and recomposed it into Adam.

"The LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground". (Gen 2:7).

Adam was created (reconstituted) from hominid dust.

 

[Doveaman]

Okay, so what evidence would distinguish your theory from our current understanding of human origins?

The resurrection of Jesus from mortal man to immortal man.

Jesus' bodily composition was modified to immortality during His resurrection. The same will be true of all saints.

This proves that a dead hominid can be resurrected from a prehistoric hominid to a modern hominid with additional genetic modifications.

 

[Awesome_Frog]

After the hominid died he decomposed into dust. God later took that same dust and recomposed it into Adam.

"The LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground". (Gen 2:7).

Adam was created (reconstituted) from hominid dust.

Nope, not in the Bible. No mention of hominids at all.

 

[Astridhere]

I still like my question, why don't you have a go at answering it?

There's no rule that says just because something can change, it will change or must change.
Apparently there is and you call it evolution and changes in alleles when it fits, stasis if that fits, genetic or morphological homoplasy and homology amongst distantly related species if data doesn't fit the evolutionary paradigm...hence unfalsifiable with an egg in every basket.

You read the source article, it gives you a fair enough reason there. The moss never specialised in its ability to translate the genes. It's not so much that the moss has an ability to translate modern genes, but modern organisms have lost the ability to translate a wide range of genes, because they specialised.'Fair enough and perhaps' means these researchers do not know and had to come up with some theory that explains an anomoly, yet again

You said

"Just out of curiosity, can you think of a reason why a sensible designer would put human gene processing machinery in moss"

Therapeutic value!

Your question is based on the assumption that mankind can know the mind of a God and what he may or may not do. I'd say...A sensible designer would know that if He created the perfect design in the first place there is no need to reinvent the wheel. Recycling of blueprints is common place. I say this shows an intelligent designer. You say evolution stumbled on these same designs by chance.

If ERVs have function they are a part of the creation and mankind is not a walking virus.

Also "not that long ago, junk DNA was being defended as an important element of the Darwinian evolution paradigm. Researchers from an international collaborative project called the Encyclopedia of DNA Elements (ENCODE) showed that in a selected portion of the genome containing just a few per cent of protein-coding sequence, between 74% and 93% of DNA was transcribed into RNA2. Much non-coding DNA has a regulatory role; small RNAs of different varieties seem to control gene expression at the level of both DNA and RNA transcripts in ways that are still only beginning to become clear. "Just the sheer existence of these exotic regulators suggests that our understanding about the most basic things -- such as how a cell turns on and off -- is incredibly naive," says Joshua Plotkin, a mathematical biologist at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia.The question now seems to be whether Ayala, Dawkins, Collins, Falk and other junk DNA proponents will continue to defend junk DNA, whatever they call it? "(Exploding the Darwin-Friendly Myth of Junk DNA Robert Crowther April 7, 2010)



So basically another evolutionary paradigm bites the dust and requires rescussitation with more theories.

 

[Astridhere]

ERV elements are said to be inserted randomly. In organisms with similar physiologies it is said that the high improbability of ERV insertions in the same spots has to be explained through inheritance. However, ERV elements are functional, and different independently created lines with similar physiologies and/or physiological requirements will most likely share similar functions. This similarity of function corresponds with similar functional elements in similar spots in organisms with a similar genetic makeup.

Retroviral DNA Integration: ASLV, HIV, and MLV Show Distinct Target Site Preferences (PLOS Biology)


I thought there is more and more research that suggests ERV elements are not inserted randomly.
How do you tell a LTR has a viral base as opposed to being a functional element that only appears similar to a viral element? Maybe what these researchers are seeing are not viral anythings. Is that at all possible?

 

[Loudmouth]

Your question is based on the assumption that mankind can know the mind of a God and what he may or may not do. I'd say...A sensible designer would know that if He created the perfect design in the first place there is no need to reinvent the wheel.

The most fundamental aspects of biochemistry are not perfect, or rather they are completely arbitrary. The relationship between DNA codon and amino acid is entirely arbitrary. A genetic code that uses CCC instead of ATG for methionine would work just the same. For an all powerful and all knowing deity who has unlimited time and resources it would be triflingly easy to use a different codon table for each kind.

We can also look at sequence redundancy. For example, mammalian cytochromes differ greatly from yeast cytochromes at the sequence level, and yet we can replace yeast cytochromes with mammalian cytochromes and it works great. So why did the designer need to completely rewrite the sequence to perform the same exact job? Furthermore, why do these sequences fall into a nested hierarchy?

Recycling of blueprints is common place.

Yes, for humans who are not all knowing and all powerful and have limited time and resources. That is why designs are reused.

If ERVs have function they are a part of the creation and mankind is not a walking virus.

We already know the function of these sequences in ERV's. Their function is to replicate and infect other cells as part of a viral genome. That's the whole point. The ability of LTR's to regulate surrounding genes is the EXACT function that they carry as part of a viral genome.

What makes ERV's such powerful evidence for common ancestry is their known function. We know how retroviruses operate, so we know that if species do NOT share a common ancestor then the vast, vast majority of ERV's should be non-orthologous. Instead, we see the exact opposite situation. The vast, vast majority are orthologous between closely related species such as humans and chimps.

So basically another evolutionary paradigm bites the dust and requires rescussitation with more theories.

Perhaps you should gain some knowledge of how biology works before advertising the death of evolution.