Zaius137
Real science and faith are compatible.
Reply for Blayz
Sorry I am back so late with this, please excuse me, Blayz needs a reality check.
They are absolutely in disagreement with the facts. LTRs are entirely derived from virus sequence, and both termini are the same upon insertion. We can therefore use the independent evolution of the LTRs as a measure. Examining these regions for mutational changes to support common ancestry is entirely valid.
OK Then leave the LTRs attached instead of having to remove them when building the phony HERV-K con. OOPs they must be removed because they are in the wrong configuration Why is that? Maybe because the lead LTR is turned around when constructed by reverse transcriptase. What do you think?
In both cases, LTR sequences evolved in sequence independently from, and obviously more rapidly than, the proviral bodies. Reasons for apparently different evolutionary rates of LTRs and proviral bodies are currently not clear.
This is the only valid observation you have made so far.
So your explanation is?
In the case of HERV-k it is claimed that the infection happened just after the chimp human divergence and continued up until 100,000 years ago. That is on the order of about 5 million years according to the tale. You literally have an ape like hominid turn into a human but the HERV-k stays literally intact, enough so as to be put back together???
What's the problem? The difference between chimp and human is ~5%. Since the virus is sitting in the genome, why wouldn't it be intact if it has only diverged 5% ?
Does the core virus really show ~5% variance? For argument sake lets say they do even though you can reconstruct a supposed virus from a consensus.
Now your ~5% would be expected since your figure of ~5% chimp human variance (another argument altogether because I think it is higher) but where is all the other variances from the active retrovirus infection times.
How can you trivialize the lack of mutations in the retrovirus over long periods of time with a mutation rate hundreds of times if not thousands of times that of supposed evolution? What about the outrageous time frames between those supposed infection times (Orders of millions of years) but only 10 families of HERV-Ks were identified. I really like your argument against evolution in the following..
Because there is a limit to the amount of mutation that can be borne before the element loses functionality,
But the HIV seems to get along fine with its high mutation rate.
Then you say
the same reason we can identify similar genes between humans and bacteria. You don't need to tell me the virus mutates rapidly. Unlike you I have actually sequenced HIV samples. You know, done actual work rather than whinging about other people's on a public forum.
Yes but as you can see humans and bacteria are defiantly different species.
The GaG, PoL, and EnG still look like the HERV-K. So your telling me that a ape like hominid changed into a modern human
As the result of a 5% change, give or take
Is it 5%? It should be much, much higher. A different genus of virus, maybe even a speciation event wait a minute according to creationism a virus must stay a virus (observed).
What do you want it to turn into, an elephant? The virus mutates around a mean. I daresay you are forgetting the selection part of the equation again.
Maybe a human mutates around a mean? No I am not forgetting selection it is real but does not cause a speciation event.
If you can still say that ERVs support evolution I can still say you are nuts.
ERVs support evolution. Your incredibly low incredulity threshold is not a yardstick by which we measure reality.
Neither is the fairytale of evolution
Sorry I am back so late with this, please excuse me, Blayz needs a reality check.
They are absolutely in disagreement with the facts. LTRs are entirely derived from virus sequence, and both termini are the same upon insertion. We can therefore use the independent evolution of the LTRs as a measure. Examining these regions for mutational changes to support common ancestry is entirely valid.
OK Then leave the LTRs attached instead of having to remove them when building the phony HERV-K con. OOPs they must be removed because they are in the wrong configuration Why is that? Maybe because the lead LTR is turned around when constructed by reverse transcriptase. What do you think?
In both cases, LTR sequences evolved in sequence independently from, and obviously more rapidly than, the proviral bodies. Reasons for apparently different evolutionary rates of LTRs and proviral bodies are currently not clear.
This is the only valid observation you have made so far.
So your explanation is?
In the case of HERV-k it is claimed that the infection happened just after the chimp human divergence and continued up until 100,000 years ago. That is on the order of about 5 million years according to the tale. You literally have an ape like hominid turn into a human but the HERV-k stays literally intact, enough so as to be put back together???
What's the problem? The difference between chimp and human is ~5%. Since the virus is sitting in the genome, why wouldn't it be intact if it has only diverged 5% ?
Does the core virus really show ~5% variance? For argument sake lets say they do even though you can reconstruct a supposed virus from a consensus.
Now your ~5% would be expected since your figure of ~5% chimp human variance (another argument altogether because I think it is higher) but where is all the other variances from the active retrovirus infection times.
How can you trivialize the lack of mutations in the retrovirus over long periods of time with a mutation rate hundreds of times if not thousands of times that of supposed evolution? What about the outrageous time frames between those supposed infection times (Orders of millions of years) but only 10 families of HERV-Ks were identified. I really like your argument against evolution in the following..
Because there is a limit to the amount of mutation that can be borne before the element loses functionality,
But the HIV seems to get along fine with its high mutation rate.
Then you say
the same reason we can identify similar genes between humans and bacteria. You don't need to tell me the virus mutates rapidly. Unlike you I have actually sequenced HIV samples. You know, done actual work rather than whinging about other people's on a public forum.
Yes but as you can see humans and bacteria are defiantly different species.
The GaG, PoL, and EnG still look like the HERV-K. So your telling me that a ape like hominid changed into a modern human
As the result of a 5% change, give or take
Is it 5%? It should be much, much higher. A different genus of virus, maybe even a speciation event wait a minute according to creationism a virus must stay a virus (observed).
What do you want it to turn into, an elephant? The virus mutates around a mean. I daresay you are forgetting the selection part of the equation again.
Maybe a human mutates around a mean? No I am not forgetting selection it is real but does not cause a speciation event.
If you can still say that ERVs support evolution I can still say you are nuts.
ERVs support evolution. Your incredibly low incredulity threshold is not a yardstick by which we measure reality.
Neither is the fairytale of evolution
Upvote
0
