Naraoia
Apprentice Biologist
Ah, that looks to be one of the less disputed ones!Allwood, Abigail C.; Malcolm R. Walter, Balz S. Kamber, Craig P. Marshall, Ian W. Burch (2006). "Stromatolite reef from the Early Archaean era of Australia". Nature 441: 7148.
And here I slowly lift my eyebrows. Right into orbit.You have responded with so much nonsense and half truths that it is hardly worth replying at all to the rest of your post. You have totally gone off into orbit by yourself.
And please, for the love of everything you hold dear, stop typing inside quote tags. It makes quoting you a whole lot more bother.
Fine, now would you please quote where I talked about that? You quoted me pointing out that two statements about ERVs were not equivalent... and then started going off about porkies. Let's at least try to maintain an appearance of coherence, shall we?That's correct... I have produced research that strongly suggests introns located in similar loci does not necessarily suggest common descent....and this is just one more example of how your algorithms are erraneous.
You are barking up the wrong person here. I don't remember putting forward any "evidence for ERVs" in this discussion. I do remember dissecting your logic, though.ALL THE EVIDENCE YOU PUT FORWARD FOR ERVS IS PRESUMPTIVE FLAWED ALGORITHMIC NONSENSE BACKED BY OTHER RESEARCH, BASED ON THE SAME ASSUMPTIONS AND OFFERED AS EVIDENCE. IT ISN'T.
Now that is a lie. Neither of us said such a thing. In fact, it was my trying to explain that to you that got labelled as a lie.You and Loudmouth said ERV's have nothing to do with introns...A LIE.
And why should your thinking so make me comment on stuff I didn't intend to comment on?He wasn't!
I did. I posted research that suggests LTR/ervs are found in introns and research that suggests ervs are less likely to be found in introns. Are you silly enough to place your credibility on one of them beoing correct. It is more likely that both are nonsense and neither are correct...as erv's are functional, where they are meant to be to provide gthe function they were designed for,

When you respond to something I wrote, try to actually respond to it. To recap, here is the conversation from posts 408 and 411.
you said:It is easy for you to put forward claims of evidence that are not evidence at all.
me said:Care to quote the particular claim of evidence you are referring to?
You may have noticed I wasn't asking about your claims of evidence. You seemed to be under the impression that I made one, but you didn't indicate which claim you meant. You just went off about something completely unrelated.
Quote where I did so or retract.You said erv's have nothing to do with introns...a lie.
The stuff you quoted in the post I was responding to were a shot to your foot. Neither of them said that ERVs are useful, and in fact they presented evidence to the contrary.I'd say it was a head shot to your head, but you still can't see it!
Hard not to get confused when you jump all over the place like you do, and your replies are not actually replies to anything you quote...Neither did I. You are so confused I do not think you have any idea where you are going.
But speaking of introns, I didn't say you did... in fact, if memory serves, you were trying to shoot down the claim that ERVs are mostly junk with evidence that introns have a function. But nobody was saying that introns didn't have functions, and ERVs and introns are not the same thing. Ergo, the function of introns is irrelevant to the discussion you were having about ERVs.
"We lot" suggest homologous viruses in identical loci are evidence of common descent. Do these parallel intron insertions share recognisable sequence homology? Not from what I saw in the Daphnia study.The point is the research demonstrates that the very reason you lot suggest identical loci is suggestive of common descent is now challenged.
Neither of us made that assertion. How hard it is to understand that "is not the same as" is a different assertion from "has nothing to do with"?Loudmouths assertion and yours that ervs have nothing to do with introns is funnier coming from folk that pretend to know what they are talking about.
I summarised the research you quoted.This is pointless. You'll go on for years about nothing thaat has has anything to do with the point I am making. See below..now woffling on about the reasearch which was quoted to demonstrate the erraneous nature of your algorithms. You appear to be confusing yourself!
(Claims of irrelevance and waffling are funny as heck coming from you...)
Honey, I was working on your evidence. You posted ERV location preferences as if they were evidence for the functionality of ERVs.Oh wow.....you have less idea than I thought really! Read above, erv's can be both advantageous and deleterious. Really, the truth be known, your researchers have no clue....You have made a false assumption then...Why am I not surprised. As I said, with what is observed rather than speculated, your researchers have no idea what is advantageous or not....
I came up with an alternative explanation to demonstrate that this is not the case. Is there anything wrong with my alternative hypothesis, based on the evidence I was discussing and not something you posted later in response to it?
Is that a "no", then?Oh boy!!!!
I've done a bit more than BIO101, and did rather well at it. In any case, if you feel I'm wasting your time, you are perfectly within your rights to put me on ignore. No one forces you to talk to me.How about you go do BIO101, again and stop wasting my time.
Now that we have this nice summary, can you deconstruct a particular example of this mysterios "algorithm"?I am giving one demonstration of how erraneous your algorithms can be. They are based on probabilities, population sizes you have no clue about, require mythical bottlenecks to get them to add up, give conflicting and contradictory results that change like the wind, provide data that is no more than flavour of the month, basically will reflect the assumptions they are based on, and most importantly are basically useless.
Would you mind posting a creationist reference from the time when "junk" DNA was discovered that makes that prediction?Creationists have always maintained there is no junk dna.
If. How many genes is that actually true for?"If a protein in an ape or a human has to be an almost exact sequence for it to function at all (and there are a number like this), then the similarity in DNA sequence that codes for that protein cannot be held up as evidence for evolution as opposed to creation.
O RLY? Then what are those handful of human lineage-specific (i.e. NOT SHARED WITH OTHER APES) ERVs Loudmouth keeps talking about? What are the millions of indels that might represent gains of DNA in the human lineage?Your evolutionists are assuming a priori what they are claiming to prove: that all DNA sequences in humans came from common ancestry with apes, so any similarity must be due to common ancestry (aka evolution).
The usefulness of ERVs as evidence for common descent doesn't depend on their lacking a function. It depends on the fact that they are sequences of foreign origin that insert randomly.This is circular reasoning, which is not logical reasoning at all. Evolutionists held up the ERV argument as proof of evolution precisely because they considered the ERV inserts to be random insertions of junk (useless DNA sequences).
(And it's not like they are the only evidence we have of common ancestry... it's just that creationists keep trotting out the common design, common designer argument. Which makes no sense, but after enough futile attempts at explaining that you just go "well, damn, then here's something with no purpose at all".)
Fine, let's go with that. How do their known or suspected functions necessitate that ERVs should be where we find them? We more or less know why Hox genes are found in clusters, why bacteria have functionally related genes in operons, and why the ends of eukaryotic chromosomes have telomeres. So why are ERVs where they are, aside from "they'd be harmful anywhere else"?Because such junk DNA would have no function to constrain the sequence and location, the occurrence of the same sequences in the same locations in humans and chimps would indeed be strong evidence for evolution, as against creation. Why would an intelligent creator place useless bits of DNA with the same sequence at the same location in both humans and chimps? This would not seem to make sense.
However, the whole argument depends on the correctness of the assumption that the sequences have no function. If they have a function, then their sequence and location have to be what they are for them to have the function and they would now be evidence for design. Well, the evidence is mounting that these ERVs are not junk but are in fact functional. The sequences and their locations are not accidental. So the ERV argument evaporates."
Upvote
0