Endogenous Retroviruses = Evolution

[Naraoia]

He doesn't need to talk to Jesus, he just has to talk to his handy-dandy KJV. I mean, if Jesus disagrees with the KJV, Jesus is wrong. Aye?

Actually, that doesn't seem to be the case. Have you seen this thread?

 

[Naraoia]

I guess the OP got lost somewhere.

Somewhere in AV's street, as usual

However, getting back to ERV's. We share genetic markers with many species in the plant and animal world, but this doesn't prove we are related; or the common ancestor, because similarity of function from one organism to another is not in itself evidence of common descent.

What is the function of an endogenous retrovirus? Or of a pseudogene, for that matter.

ERV's insert information into the host chromosome, but this insertion is not proof of creating new information.

What does information have to do with common descent?

True, ERV's change the genetic structure, but the problem with this is the definition of the term evolution has been defined to mean 'any' change in a species.

Why is that a problem?

Since ERV's add information, either by insertion or reinfection, this qualifies as change, and thus, I guess, evolution.

When a gene becomes a pseudogene (or a retrovirus an inert ERV) it's as much evolution as the appearance of nylonases. Evolution is not defined with a change of information (and I don't see why it should be)

HIV - 1 is a retrovirus. Does it cause the infected to 'evolve'? Of course not, but which part of the question is the OP after?

Of course yes (if by "the infected" we mean the population of potential hosts). It's a selective pressure like any other pathogen. But that's irrelevant to the point about ERVs.

Is it that the mere existence of ERV's proves evolution, or that when inserted ERV's create new information and are thus proof of evolution?

No, it's the particular distribution of ERVs in various genomes. For an endogenous retrovirus to be found at a certain locus in a whole species or larger group it once had to (1) infect germ cells (2) infect a germ cell that later becomes an organism (3) insert at random in that particular place (and a mammalian genome, as you know, is big) (4) get fixed in the population (either by some weird advantage it provides or by genetic drift).

The chance of two species sharing the same ERV at the same locus independently is rather small. And it's not a single ERV we are talking about, it's hundreds of thousands distributed in a very suggestive pattern.

In addition, how many times has non-coding DNA created a new functional protien? This would be creating new information.

Why does it have to be non-coding DNA? (I still don't understand how "information" comes into this, btw)

 

[Shadrach76]

Says you.

i think so too and this is my second day!

 

[Shadrach76]

I guess the OP got lost somewhere.

not lost, just side tracked. thanks for pushing it back.

However, getting back to ERV's. We share genetic markers with many species in the plant and animal world, but this doesn't prove we are related; or the common ancestor..

it does if the markers are in the exact same place on those animals.

because similarity of function from one organism to another is not in itself evidence of common descent.

how about non-function? if an ERV used to preform a function on an animal and is now no longer useful (or harmful), yet is still apart of our genes and chimp genes...what does that tell you?

True, ERV's change the genetic structure, but the problem with this is the definition of the term evolution has been defined to mean 'any' change in a species.

not true. Evolution "1) The change in life over time by adaptation, variation, over-reproduction, and differential survival/reproduction, a process referred to by Charles Darwin and Alfred Wallace as natural selection. 2) Descent with modification." my hair cut is NOT evolution.

HIV - 1 is a retrovirus. Does it cause the infected to 'evolve'? Of course not, but which part of the question is the OP after?

i never brought up HIV or some crazy idea about ERVs causing evolution. in fact i didnt ask a single question on my first post. just relaying scientific information.

Is it that the mere existence of ERV's proves evolution, or that when inserted ERV's create new information and are thus proof of evolution?

its the locations of ERVs in different animals that show common ancestry.

In addition, how many times has non-coding DNA created a new functional protien?

a 2002 study from the university of michigan showed that segments of junk DNA called LINE-1 elements, once thought to be "leftovers from the distant evolutionary past" now "deserve more respect" because they are capable of repairing broken strands of DNA.
researchers at the university of illinois society for experimental biology found an antifreeze-protein gene in a species of fish which appears to have evolved from junk DNA.

since you demand so much evidence of science to support its claims, do you require religion to do the same thing?

 

[Naraoia]

Double-post.

 

[Naraoia]

a 2002 study from the university of michigan showed that segments of junk DNA called LINE-1 elements, once thought to be "leftovers from the distant evolutionary past" now "deserve more respect" because they are capable of repairing broken strands of DNA.
researchers at the university of illinois society for experimental biology found an antifreeze-protein gene in a species of fish which appears to have evolved from junk DNA.

Canyoupleasegimmealink? Or a citation. Preferably to both studies.

 

[Shadrach76]

Canyoupleasegimmealink? Or a citation. Preferably to both studies.

i cant link anything because i dont have enough posts but if you google "junk DNA" and poke around, you can find them or others just like them.

 

[Tomk80]

i cant link anything because i dont have enough posts but if you google "junk DNA" and poke around, you can find them or others just like them.

You can by posting spaces or &'s instead of dots.

 

[consol]

Has anyone ever noticed? when someone asks a creationist to answer a question they can not answer,
AV steps in and changes the subject and takes it somewhere else, until in the end the original OP
is forgotten, he lines himself up to be made out to be a fool, he says stupid things to get everyone on
his back, that's why all of the other creationists love him.

Read this OP from the start, and you will see what I mean.

 

[AV1611VET]

Has anyone ever noticed? when someone asks a creationist to answer a question they can not answer,
AV steps in and changes the subject and takes it somewhere else, until in the end the original OP
is forgotten, he lines himself up to be made out to be a fool, he says stupid things to get everyone on
his back, that's why all of the other creationists love him.

Read this OP from the start, and you will see what I mean.

You have 1123 posts, and you can say this?

 

[Tomk80]

You have 1123 posts, and you can say this?

Sure he can. Number of posts says very little if the content if vacuous. In that respect, his total content on this site probably is close to yours. Practically non-existent.

 

[Cabal]

Alright guys, let's just focus on separating AV and consol, or they may pair-annihilate and blow up the intertubes.

 

[AV1611VET]

Sure he can. Number of posts says very little if the content if vacuous. In that respect, his total content on this site probably is close to yours. Practically non-existent.

Flattery will get you nowhere ---

 

[Tomk80]

Flattery will get you nowhere ---

Ah, I feel I'm getting better at it.

 

[TeddyKGB]

You have 1123 posts, and you can say this?

He doesn't need any posts to read.

 

[AV1611VET]

LOL --- go back and see why I even posted that. You guys crack me up.

 

[Gawron]

Well, I was partially successful. I will be back later to answer some of the points made, but right now I am in an argument with my wife.

 

[Gracchus]

DNA can take a hike.

I don't care if chimp DNA is exactly the same as mine (thus giving me a simian twin somewhere).

Actually, that would explain a lot.

The Bible says otherwise about evolution.

You know I just scanned my KJV for the word "evolution". It wasn't found. I don't think the Bible mentions evolution.

The laboratory biologists cure the superficial diseases, whilst the Great Physician cures the disease that can't be cured by anything created in a laboratory.

Some "Great Physician"! He created the circumstances in which the disease thrives, made it hereditary, and hasn't cured it!

 

[AV1611VET]

Actually, that would explain a lot.

I'd be impressed if you just knew what my name meant.

You know I just scanned my KJV for the word "evolution". It wasn't found. I don't think the Bible mentions evolution.

I don't either --- try scanning its antonym (creation) and see if that helps. Maybe we can ascertain the truth by seeing if the Bible supports evolution's antithesis.

Some "Great Physician"! He created the circumstances in which the disease thrives, made it hereditary, and hasn't cured it!

Nope --- He sure didn't.

 

[Gracchus]

I'd be impressed if you just knew what my name meant.

I know what it has come to mean on this forum.

You know I just scanned my KJV for the word "evolution". It wasn't found. I don't think the Bible mentions evolution.

I don't either --- try scanning its antonym (creation) and see if that helps.

Actually it doesn’t have any antonyms listed in my thesaurus. If it is taken to mean “development”, its antonym would be “degeneration”. But in biology evolution and development are two different processes. Organisms develop. Species evolve.

And if “creation” is taken to mean that which is created, then its opposite would be that which is not created. If by “creation” you mean the act of bringing something into existence, then the opposite would be the act of not bringing something into existence.

Maybe we can ascertain the truth by seeing if the Bible supports evolution's antithesis.

It asserts it, that is so, but then it also asserts talking snakes. The talking jackass is instantiated.

Some "Great Physician"! He created the circumstances in which the disease thrives, made it hereditary, and hasn't cured it!

Nope --- He sure didn't.

So, he doesn’t cure, he doesn't prevent, but he is a “Great Physician”.

Uh-huh.