Endogenous retroviruses confirm common descent

[Cheeky Monkey]

I cannot confirm your same state past bias.

Seems you can't confirm anything much.

The creation evolution debate is about more than the moment actually.

Duh, but I don't have a time machine, all evidence exists in the present. Do I have to tell you this?

 

[dad]

Seems you can't confirm anything much.

It may seem a certain way to you. But the village idiot could confirm the benefits of science discussed here! besides the carnage and choking horrible death they provide for mankind, science also assaults kid's faith. They try to make man a useless, worthless also ran species, on a meaningless little speck of an insignificant planet, in an accidental self created universe, in which the creator is a liar, and monster.

Duh, but I don't have a time machine,

Then stick to something other than the creation debate.

all evidence exists in the present.

False. Do we see Jesus walking on water in the sea of Galilee in the present?? Do we see the far edges of the universe here in present earth? Do we see Oklo fired up and being a working reactor? No. Not all the evidence exists under your nose. Some, yes.

 

[Cheeky Monkey]

It may seem a certain way to you. But the village idiot could confirm the benefits of science discussed here! besides the carnage and choking horrible death they provide for mankind, science also assaults kid's faith. They try to make man a useless, worthless also ran species, on a meaningless little speck of an insignificant planet, in an accidental self created universe, in which the creator is a liar, and monster.

I like it when to come clean about your agenda. It's annoying when you pretend that it's about science and evidence. It's really about your personal disappointments and existential fears.

Then stick to something other than the creation debate.

Are you claiming to have a time machine?

False. Do we see Jesus walking on water in the sea of Galilee in the present??

Nope, in fact there's no physical evidence that this ever happened although there is a story.

Do we see the far edges of the universe here in present earth?

The light that hits the telescope does so in the present and it is evidence about events in the past.

Do we see Oklo fired up and being a working reactor?

Nope, we have the rocks in the present with feature which can only be explained by past events.

No. Not all the evidence exists under your nose. Some, yes.

It's all still in the present or we wouldn't have it.

 

[dad]

I like it when to come clean about your agenda. It's annoying when you pretend that it's about science and evidence.

Your posts on how ervs got there long ago are not about science and evidence. Why is that?

It's really about your personal disappointments and existential fears.

Don't project your id on others.

Are you claiming to have a time machine?

Better. I have a Friend that made time.

Nope, in fact there's no physical evidence that this ever happened although there is a story.

What you fancy as a story is not really of paramount importance actually. Obviously you have issues.

The light that hits the telescope does so in the present and it is evidence about events in the past.

It does come to earth now yes. How long that took is what is up for debate. The belief based conceptualizations of so called science all depend on time being woven into the fabric of deep space just the way it is in the fishbowl! Good luck with that.

Nope, we have the rocks in the present with feature which can only be explained by past events.

False. That is just the preferred method of the godless, and the deceived.

It's all still in the present or we wouldn't have it.

Yes, all that you can see is IN the present. Got that right.

 

[Coelo]

Surveys of integration sites show statistical tendencies, but not specific targetting.

Studies show specific targetting. For example: "[FONT=arial,sans-serif] Recent studies have shown that human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) and murine leukemia virus (MLV) favor integration near different chromosomal features. HIV preferentially targets active genes, while MLV prefers integration near start sites of gene transcription." [/FONT]PLOS Pathogens: Retroviral DNA Integration: Viral and Cellular Determinants of Target-Site Selection

In fact it does not take much to stop a virus though blocking the receptors for that virus: "

[FONT=arial,helvetica,clean,sans-serif]Small molecular changes at the binding site of the receptor can render a cell virtually uninfectable by the cognate retrovirus, in that the infection efficiency can drop by six orders of magnitude or more." [/FONT]​

Receptors - Retroviruses - NCBI Bookshelf

So for every study you present trying to show that a Retrovirus is NOT Target Specific, I have a study that shows a Retrovirus is VERY Target Specific. In fact it is the target specific nature of a Retrovirus that has caused people to suggest that they can be a very accurate delivery system for treatments that we need to target a specific site in the DNA.

 

[Cheeky Monkey]

Surveys of integration sites show statistical tendencies, but not specific targetting.

/quote]Studies show specific targetting. For example: "[FONT=arial,sans-serif] Recent studies have shown that human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) and murine leukemia virus (MLV) favor integration near different chromosomal features. HIV preferentially targets active genes, while MLV prefers integration near start sites of gene transcription." [/FONT]PLOS Pathogens: Retroviral DNA Integration: Viral and Cellular Determinants of Target-Site Selection

In fact it does not take much to stop a virus though blocking the receptors for that virus: "

[FONT=arial,helvetica,clean,sans-serif]Small molecular changes at the binding site of the receptor can render a cell virtually uninfectable by the cognate retrovirus, in that the infection efficiency can drop by six orders of magnitude or more." [/FONT]​

Receptors - Retroviruses - NCBI Bookshelf

Figure two in that paper demonstrates that there's no targeting with respect to loci. This is only to be expected since there's no known mechanism by which retroviral insertions are targeted to loci. The difference between statistically favouring particular chromosomes and exactly matching loci within those chromsomes is like the difference between often going to a few of the same beaches compared with finding the same sand grain on the same beach again and again.

 

[Cheeky Monkey]

Yes, all that you can see is IN the present. Got that right.

Well I'm glad you worked out that much at least.

 

[Coelo]

compared with finding the same sand grain on the same beach again and again.

We are not talking about grains of sand. We are talking about Chemicals that have to form bonds. That is why a Retrovirus is target specific. They can not be inserted at random anyplace you want to insert them. For example: "[FONT=arial,sans-serif] MLV prefers integration near start sites of gene transcription." So they are very target specific to those start sites. [/FONT]Retrovirus also target receptors. If they do not fit in your receptor then the Retrovirus can not bind themselves to any part of the Cell. That is why a Retrovirus will invade similar organisms or species. If the species do not have as much in common then there is much less of a chance that the Retrovirus will be able to invade uncommon species or two uncommon organisms. So this is not evidence for common descent, only evidence that Retrovirus tend to be target specific. This is why they are being investigated as a target specific deliver system for modern drugs and other treatments.

Again for every study you can produce to show that a Retrovirus is NOT target specific, I can produce a study to show they ARE target specific. Not only are but HAVE to be target specific in order to insert themselves into the DNA. We are not talking about scrambled eggs, we are talking about an organized chemical structure. So you may not find those exact two grains of sand. But there are many many grains of sand on that beach made from the same rock & material that those two grains came from.

 

[Cheeky Monkey]

We are not talking about grains of sand. We are talking about Chemicals that have to form bonds. That is why a Retrovirus is target specific. They can not be inserted at random anyplace you want to insert them. For example: "[FONT=arial,sans-serif] MLV prefers integration near start sites of gene transcription." So they are very target specific to those start sites. [/FONT]Retrovirus also target receptors. If they do not fit in your receptor then the Retrovirus can not bind themselves to any part of the Cell. That is why a Retrovirus will invade similar organisms or species. If the species do not have as much in common then there is much less of a chance that the Retrovirus will be able to invade uncommon species or two uncommon organisms. So this is not evidence for common descent, only evidence that Retrovirus tend to be target specific. This is why they are being investigated as a target specific deliver system for modern drugs and other treatments.

Again for every study you can produce to show that a Retrovirus is NOT target specific, I can produce a study to show they ARE target specific. Not only are but HAVE to be target specific in order to insert themselves into the DNA. We are not talking about scrambled eggs, we are talking about an organized chemical structure.

The very papers you cite demonstrate beyond a shadow of a doubt that retroviruses have no mechanism for targeting specific loci, oy that they usually insert near actively expressing genes more commonly on some chromosomes. If your argument is meant to show that the even rarer event of endogenization and subsequent fixation will happen at the same loci in two different infections I'm afraid your own sources clearly refute your hypothesis.

 

[Coelo]

The very papers you cite demonstrate beyond a shadow of a doubt that retroviruses have no mechanism for targeting specific loci

Au contraire monsieur, my artical shows that "[FONT=arial,sans-serif]MLV prefers integration near start sites of gene transcription".[/FONT] So it would appear that what you mean by target specific and what I mean by target specific are two different things. Your argument is designed to confuse the masses, so I am just showing you how absurd it all is.

 

[Cheeky Monkey]

Au contraire monsieur, my artical shows that "[FONT=arial,sans-serif]MLV prefers integration near start sites of gene transcription".[/FONT]

Which is not a specific loci. /thread.

So it would appear that what you mean by target specific and what I mean by target specific are two different things. Your argument is designed to confuse the masses, so I am just showing you how absurd it all is.

So far you're just doing a good job of refuting yourself.

 

[dad]

Well I'm glad you worked out that much at least.

Right like the ERVs. That means common descent is not a factor once we leave this present state. Your whole mistake was using only the present to explain all things. Ho hum.

 

[Cheeky Monkey]

Right like the ERVs. That means common descent is not a factor once we leave this present state. Your whole mistake was using only the present to explain all things. Ho hum.

It's what we have. Your despair is unwarranted. We can actually know things and make successful predictions using theory based on what happened either 5 minutes ago or 5 million years ago.

 

[BarryDesborough]

Au contraire monsieur, my artical shows that "[FONT=arial,sans-serif]MLV prefers integration near start sites of gene transcription".[/FONT] So it would appear that what you mean by target specific and what I mean by target specific are two different things. Your argument is designed to confuse the masses, so I am just showing you how absurd it all is.

The target preferences found still mean that a vast number of integration sites are possible. Let's say there are 500 integration sites available for an integration. (Surveys typically find no repetition in 500 samples.) Why do the majority of the 200,000 odd integrations occur in precisely corresponding loci when there is only a 1/500 chance of each one corresponding? Coincidental integrations should only occur 1/500th of the time, based on these figures. Thats 200,000 / 500 = 400. I.e. your hypothesis expects 400 orthologous loci, not the 200,000 we actually do have. Hypothesis falsified. Special creation falsified.

 

[Coelo]

Special creation falsified.

Creation is NOT falsified because a Virus or your Endo Retro's are a part of the FALLEN condition of mankind. They are NOT a part of the Creation of mankind. This can be verified by the fact that your Endo Retro's follow the Carnivorous. God did not create carnivores and retro virus are not a part of His plan of Creation. The whole story of salvation is a story of redemption and restoration. Evolutionary theory simply does not take into consideration the fallen conditon of Creation.

 

[Coelo]

We can actually know things and make successful predictions using theory based on what happened either 5 minutes ago or 5 million years ago.

I can make a prediction also. I predict that evolutionists are going to claim they know what they are talking about when in fact they are for the most part clueless. Even at the most basic 101 level of evolutionary theory. For example how many people here think that drug resistant antibiotics are due to mutations and changes in the bacteria. I am not trying to create thread drift. I am simply backing up my claim with an example of what I am talking about on a very basic entry level point.

 

[CabVet]

God did not create carnivores and retro virus are not a part of His plan of Creation.

Yet another version of creation. How many more are we going to see today?

Question: If God didn't create carnivores why did he allow them in the Ark?

 

[sfs]

I can make a prediction also. I predict that evolutionists are going to claim they know what they are talking about when in fact they are for the most part clueless. Even at the most basic 101 level of evolutionary theory. For example how many people here think that drug resistant antibiotics are due to mutations and changes in the bacteria. I am not trying to create thread drift. I am simply backing up my claim with an example of what I am talking about on a very basic entry level point.

(Presumably you mean antibiotic-resistant bacteria, not drug resistant antibiotics.) I have no idea what fraction of drug resistance in bacteria results from mutations to bacteria, but it is certainly the case that antibiotic resistance can be generated by new mutations, and it is certainly the case that resistance in other organisms (e.g. drug resistance in malaria) is the result of new mutations. So what exactly are you trying to argue here?

 

[dad]

It's what we have. Your despair is unwarranted. We can actually know things and make successful predictions using theory based on what happened either 5 minutes ago or 5 million years ago.

Yet you are clueless as to what state the ERVs got where they did in.

 

[BarryDesborough]

Creation is NOT falsified because a Virus or your Endo Retro's are a part of the FALLEN condition of mankind. They are NOT a part of the Creation of mankind. This can be verified by the fact that your Endo Retro's follow the Carnivorous. God did not create carnivores and retro virus are not a part of His plan of Creation. The whole story of salvation is a story of redemption and restoration. Evolutionary theory simply does not take into consideration the fallen conditon of Creation.

Sorry, Coleo, there is only one word for describing this - jibberish.

It does not explain the mass of orthologous ERVs in species that creationism says are unrelated. Even if Satan, or God, or Loki created retroviruses, they still integrate in a large range of loci. The only explanation for so many orthologous loci is endogenization in common ancestors. Retroviruses are not magic. They are active today. We understand what they do and how they do it. You making up nonsensical stories makes no difference.