Endogenous retroviruses

[Schroeder]

Who are you to say what God would or wouldn't do? How do you know? What properties does this God have that get him to make these decisions?

is this supposed to be a come back. sounds like a lot of come backs of evolutionist. ask a guestion that cant be logically answered therefor you win.

 

[Chalnoth]

I found an interesting quote:

...in 1966. And guess what? The probability of something forming is going to be highly dependent upon the process assumed to be used in the formation. Find a different formation mechanism, and the probability becomes much larger.

Since we don't have the the computer power today to estimate the probability of a cell forming based upon current theories of abiogenesis, the computer power certainly didn't exist in 1966 to do the same. It was the estimated process of cell formation that was wrong, not the fact that it happened.

 

[Schroeder]

I found an interesting quote:

dont you know the theory starts AFTER life began not before SOO this doesnt matter or count against them.

 

[Chalnoth]

is this supposed to be a come back. sounds like a lot of come backs of evolutionist. ask a guestion that cant be logically answered therefor you win.

That's the point. I'm trying to show you that you haven't explained why there is this nested hierarchy by saying that God did it. Since you haven't explained the nested hierarchy by saying that God did it until you've explained why God did it, and since that can't be explained, your explanation is not an explanation.

 

[JohnR7]

I'm trying to show you that you haven't explained why there is this nested hierarchy by saying that God did it.

"Nested hierachy" is just another one of man's lame theorys that attempt to describe something in a totally non related way. It is another failure on the part of science to explain the evidence. There is no "hierachy" in evolution.

 

[caravelair]

creation but creation doesnt claim a nested hierarchy from ome ansector. SO you will not except it. which is my point.

no, creationism does not predict a nested hierarchy. if there was no nested hierarchy, that would be perfectly consistent with creationism. there is no reason we would have a nested hierarchy of all species other than common ancestry. that is why i accept this as evidence for evolution, and not for creationism. your point is thus refuted.

why would we find a speciea that doesnt fit in it.

why wouldn't we is a better question. and the answer is: no reason, unless evolution is true.

all it is is showing how all the animals share similiar things or traits or whatever.

most importantly it shows a pattern in the way similarities appear. but even beyond that, the hierarchy we get from morphological similarities perfectly matches the one we get from ERV insersions. there is no reason this would happen unless evolution is true.

GOd would not make a world that DIDNT do this.

why not? he could easily have created a horse with bird wings, or a centaur, or a bat with feathers on its wings, or ANY mix of features. if god designed creatures the way they are today, then he could have reused any design anywhere he wants. he could mix and match. any mish mash of traits would be perfectly consistent with creationism. evolution, on the other hand, would be falsified by ANY violation of the nested hierarchy, and no species has ever been found that violates it. then of course we have the ERV hierarchy which confirms this as well.

we all live on the same planet with the same laws to govern us. none of you seem to be content with that though.

i have no idea what you are trying to say here.

like God would have created a fantisy world or something. good science is not coming up with something so simple it cant be falsifiable. the hierarchy just arranges them in a way to help us THINK the theory was plausible.

the hierarchy is falsifiable, and there are many other ways to falsify it too. evolution is good science, and that is why it is accepted as such by the vast majority of biologists worldwide. you really don't know what you're talking about here. i suggest you do some reading.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

"Nested hierachy" is just another one of man's lame theorys that attempt to describe something in a totally non related way. It is another failure on the part of science to explain the evidence. There is no "hierachy" in evolution.

please define what a nested hierarchy is.

please feel free to use general systems theory and mathematical trees so that the discussion is not biased by reference to biology. it is specific structure that is not at all confined to biology but is an important part of other sciences.

http://www.isss.org/hierarchy.htm

 

[JohnR7]

ask a guestion that cant be logically answered therefor you win.

Evos think they win when they chase people off. They think that if people leave and to do not want to talk to them anymore, somehow that makes them a winner.

 

[JohnR7]

please define what a nested hierarchy is.

A hierarchy is a man made attempt to try and organize something.
It is man's attempt to understand the natural world.
It is an attempt that is doomed for failure because of their disregard for the God that created them.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

please define what a nested hierarchy is.
A hierarchy is a man made attempt to try and organize something.
It is man's attempt to understand the natural world.
It is an attempt that is doomed for failure because of their disregard for the God that created them.

oops.
God aligned the Israelites into a nested hierarchy.

Exd 18:21 Moreover thou shalt provide out of all the people able men, such as fear God, men of truth, hating covetousness; and place [such] over them, [to be] rulers of thousands, [and] rulers of hundreds, rulers of fifties, and rulers of tens:


btw:
isn't it more honest to answer a question with "i don't know" then it is to slander it without actually understanding it?

 

[Loudmouth]

creation but creation doesnt claim a nested hierarchy from ome ansector. SO you will not except it. which is my point.

What hypocracy!!!! The ERV data evidences a single common ancestor for all primates. It is you who is not accepting the evidence. If creationism predicts a non-nested hierarchy for all primates, then the single nested hierarchy seen in the ERV data falsifies creationism plain and simple.

why would we find a speciea that doesnt fit in it. all it is is showing how all the animals share similiar things or traits or whatever.

And this is where you demonstrate your ignorance of nested hierarchies and the organization of life. According to creationists, the same Creator made both mammals and birds. Therefore, we should expect a Creator to design animals that have both derived mammalian and derived avian features, RIGHT? But we don't see those animals. Evolution explains why, but creationism is still scratching it's head trying to figure out where these chimeras are. Where are the birds with teats and bats with feathers? WHERE ARE THEY!!??

Even worse for your argument is that ORGANISMS DESIGNED BY HUMANS VIOLATE THE NESTED HIERARCHIES!!! Humans can do exactly what I am talking about. In fact, I have personally done it. I have inserted jelly fish genes into bacteria (GFP to be exact). This is a blatant violation of the nested hierarchies and it was rather easy to do. It would seem that I am more capable than your supposed creator.

GOd would not make a world that DIDNT do this. we all live on the same planet with the same laws to govern us. none of you seem to be content with that though.

There is no law preventing a creator or even natural designer like humans from violating the nested hierarchies. In fact, I have personally violated the nested hierarchies. Please explain how God could not have done it if it so easy for humans to do.

the hierarchy just arranges them in a way to help us THINK the theory was plausible.

FALSE. The nested hierarchies exist OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION. The nested hierarchies ARE A FACT.

 

[Loudmouth]

A hierarchy is a man made attempt to try and organize something.

FALSE. The nested hierarchies ARE FACTS. They are as much a fact as the earth circling the sun or gravity existing. They are not a man made construct.

It is an attempt that is doomed for failure because of their disregard for the God that created them.

Is creationism doomed to failure because of its disregard of the Flying Spaghetti Monster? It seems that you are dreaming up excuses to avoid THE FACTS.

 

[Knowledge3]

I invite all evolutionists to argue against this verse:

[BIBLE]Genesis 1:1[/BIBLE]

 

[Schroeder]

no, creationism does not predict a nested hierarchy. if there was no nested hierarchy, that would be perfectly consistent with creationism. there is no reason we would have a nested hierarchy of all species other than common ancestry. that is why i accept this as evidence for evolution, and not for creationism. your point is thus refuted.

again saying nothing to refute me. we dont have a hiearchy, we have similiarities you have arranged them to make your theory plausible.

most importantly it shows a pattern in the way similarities appear. but even beyond that, the hierarchy we get from morphological similarities perfectly matches the one we get from ERV insersions. there is no reason this would happen unless evolution is true.

no it is just the way you arrange it so you wont see the other possibility. and there could be and we may yet find it thats the great thing about science it always adjust itself later. it is funny how you cling to it as solid proof untill it changes then you recling to the adjusted work and then readjust to the next readjusted work.

why not? he could easily have created a horse with bird wings, or a centaur, or a bat with feathers on its wings, or ANY mix of features. if god designed creatures the way they are today, then he could have reused any design anywhere he wants. he could mix and match. any mish mash of traits would be perfectly consistent with creationism. evolution, on the other hand, would be falsified by ANY violation of the nested hierarchy, and no species has ever been found that violates it. then of course we have the ERV hierarchy which confirms this as well.

not when he created the earth and its laws FIRST. seeing how your theory relies on random mutation and nature it is actually the other way around. as long as it works it sticcks around. so any mish mash should work if nature lets it. So it has NOTHING to do with your nested hierarchy

i have no idea what you are trying to say here

. ever thing will be similiar in structure and chemicals and everything else because we all live on the same planet with the same laws applying to everything. so you insistance on God beoing able to make things that would not fit our earth and laws is stupid. and which is why we can create such a hierarchy list becasue things will be so similiar it would be easy to mix and match it to fit what you want.

the hierarchy is falsifiable, and there are many other ways to falsify it too. evolution is good science, and that is why it is accepted as such by the vast majority of biologists worldwide. you really don't know what you're talking about here. i suggest you do some reading.

no it is not thats the beautyty of it for you. the ones you keep listing you know cant happen we know cant happen. because they break the laws of nature. evolution is good science the theory is not.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

Even worse for your argument is that ORGANISMS DESIGNED BY HUMANS VIOLATE THE NESTED HIERARCHIES!!! Humans can do exactly what I am talking about. In fact, I have personally done it. I have inserted jelly fish genes into bacteria (GFP to be exact). This is a blatant violation of the nested hierarchies and it was rather easy to do. It would seem that I am more capable than your supposed creator.


Even from ancient literature the idea of chimeras like satyrs, griffins, unicorns, sphinx etc are a common idea. It is a natural thing to do.

Computer science has learned that swapping modules is a good idea and a good way to build and design software. Swapping modules is the opposite of nested hierarchies and is first cousin to chimeras.

Two very distinct ways of looking at organizations. Armies are traditionally nested hierarchies, everyone has a-just one- superior, this naturally creates a command and control structure that is nested. if you must use only what is available in your own ancestry tree then that will naturally form a nested hierarchy. An animal can not look at the eyeball of it's food, even though it might be superior to it's own eyeball, and incorporate that DNA into it's own. Life doesn't swap modules (virus's and now human beings being the notable exceptions)

 

[caravelair]

again saying nothing to refute me. we dont have a hiearchy, we have similiarities you have arranged them to make your theory plausible.

if we don't have a hierarchy, then please show me even one single species that violates the hierarchy. any chimera will do. go ahead, we're waiting.

no it is just the way you arrange it so you wont see the other possibility.

wrong. the ERV hierarchy and the morphological one are arrived at by 2 different, independant methods, and yet they match each other exactly. there is no reason this would be the case other than common ancestry.

not when he created the earth and its laws FIRST.

irrelevant. that does not require a nested hierarchy. only evolution does.

seeing how your theory relies on random mutation and nature it is actually the other way around. as long as it works it sticcks around. so any mish mash should work if nature lets it. So it has NOTHING to do with your nested hierarchy

more proof that you do not know what you are talking about. please read some science that does not come from a creationist website.

ever thing will be similiar in structure and chemicals and everything else because we all live on the same planet with the same laws applying to everything.

but that does not mean those similarities will form a nested hierarchy. there is no reason they would, other than common ancestry.

so you insistance on God beoing able to make things that would not fit our earth and laws is stupid.

i said nothing about making things that would not fit our earth and our laws. i was talking about creating things that do not fit in the nested hierarchy, and there is no reason god would not create such a creature.

and which is why we can create such a hierarchy list becasue things will be so similiar it would be easy to mix and match it to fit what you want.

no. you appear to not even understand what a nested hierarchy is, or how it is derived. please do some reading. why are you arguing against something you clearly know nothing about?

no it is not thats the beautyty of it for you. the ones you keep listing you know cant happen we know cant happen. because they break the laws of nature. evolution is good science the theory is not.

no, it really is. it is the epitome of good science, and that is why 99.85 of american life scientists accept it as such, according to gallup polls. the only people who reject it do so for religious reasons, not scientific ones.

 

[Loudmouth]

again saying nothing to refute me. we dont have a hiearchy, we have similiarities you have arranged them to make your theory plausible.

The similarities fall into nested hierarchies without humans doing anything. Nested hierarchies are facts that lie outside of human experience. For example, the sun and earth interact gravitationally through physical laws even if humans are not there to observe it. In the same way, all eukaryotes fall into a nested hierarchy independent of humans ever seeing them. The theory of evolution puts forth the proposition that the nested hierarchies are due to common ancestry, but even if the theory never existed the nested hierarchies would still be real and factual.

Let's take a look at the ERV tree once again, (from talkorigins)

The downward arrows indicate an ERV. Every species to the right of each arrow has that ERV in an orthologous position in their genome. These are facts, and these facts fall into a nested hierarchy without any theory attached, plain and simple. There is no other way to organize the commonality of ERV's without producing this tree. No theory is producing this tree, the facts are.

no it is just the way you arrange it so you wont see the other possibility.

What other possible possible way can you organize shared ERV's so that they do not fall into a nested hierarchy? Please show us how this is done. You can erase the lines that propose common ancestry, but you will still have a nested hierarchy. What I think you do not understand is that nested hierarchies and common ancestry are two different things. As was mentioned earlier, the military is organized into a nested hierarchy but no common ancestry is involved. A nested hierarchy is EVIDENCE for evolution because evolution predicts such a pattern. It is entirely possible for newly discovered fossils or even newly discovered species to violate this nested hierarchy (eg bird with teats or bat with feathers).

it is funny how you cling to it as solid proof untill it changes then you recling to the adjusted work and then readjust to the next readjusted work.

The ERV's listed in the diagram above will never change. They are facts. However, if new shared ERV's are discovered that do not fall into a nested hierarchy then the THEORY must be readjusted. Science doesn't change the facts, it changes the theories that explain the facts. This is the opposite of creationism which can not change it's explanation no matter what the facts are.

not when he created the earth and its laws FIRST.

There is no law that requires life to fall into a nested hierarchy OTHER THAN EVOLUTION. When humans design organisms they violate the nested hierarchies with ease.

seeing how your theory relies on random mutation and nature it is actually the other way around. as long as it works it sticcks around. so any mish mash should work if nature lets it. So it has NOTHING to do with your nested hierarchy

Random mutation, natural selection, and speciation HAVE BEEN OBSERVED to create nested hierarchies. Are we supposed to ignore these observations?

ever thing will be similiar in structure and chemicals and everything else because we all live on the same planet with the same laws applying to everything.

What physical law prevents birds from having teats? What physical law prevents bats from having feathers?

 

[rmwilliamsll]

nested hierarchies are formed by rather simple rules:

living things-
all current DNA in creature X must be explained as a vertical transfer from only this creature's ancestors. no horizontal transfer allowed (for eukaryotes, viruses are an exception).

organizations-
like the military, only 1 superior allowed. everyone but the very top must have a superior.

non-nested hierarchies violate these rules:

swapped modules like in software design
organizations which allow multiple bosses, or multiple chains of command-for instance, a financial chain and a technical chain.


we can simply visualize a non-nested hierarchy for living things. if you could eat an animal and incorporate their dna and genes into your own. you would naturally form chimeras. you'd eat an owl to get night vision, a cheetah to rearrange your muscles etc etc. if we where made like slime mold and eat via phagocytosis such things would be possible.

 

[dad]

. The theory of evolution puts forth the proposition that the nested hierarchies are due to common ancestry, but even if the theory never existed the nested hierarchies would still be real and factual.

They have tried to explain it, yes, according to their beliefs, and world views, and how things work now. Basically, a package deal that icludes the pill of no God under the sugar coating of present based assumptions. It is just as valid to consider the ervs as leftovers of what became viruses, that may have been otherwise employed, it seems. Could they have been benefitial? Could they have been quite different than the present variety?

The downward arrows indicate an ERV. Every species to the right of each arrow has that ERV in an orthologous position in their genome.

If we assume the viruses are what they now are, and were transferred as they now are, one would arrive at conclusions different from what would be the reality if things were different then. What evidence do you have that things then were the same?

What I think you do not understand is that nested hierarchies and common ancestry are two different things.

Amen!

The ERV's listed in the diagram above will never change. They are facts. However, if new shared ERV's are discovered that do not fall into a nested hierarchy then the THEORY must be readjusted. Science doesn't change the facts, it changes the theories that explain the facts. This is the opposite of creationism which can not change it's explanation no matter what the facts are.

I disagree. The facts have a role to play. The fact is that we really don't have any facts as to what the past was like in a lot of ways. We can see that there was something infecting, or existing in many creatures, that left traces. ERVs. It seems that what form these existed in exactly thenm before adaping, and evolving, is unclear?
The bible says we lived almost a thousand years, so it is obvious that viruses didn't just come in and sicken and kill us like they now do, to the same degree, at least. Those are the facts.
Looking at 'traces' of ancient viruses therefore does not tell us what you claim!

Random mutation, natural selection, and speciation HAVE BEEN OBSERVED to create nested hierarchies. Are we supposed to ignore these observations?

No. Just don't read the evo jeebies into it!

What physical law prevents birds from having teats? What physical law prevents bats from having feathers?

The law of the created order of God, however that may have had to adapt to this sinful world in the last 6000 years.
Those Dr Frankensteins that would tinker with the creation of God, playing little gods themselves in my opinion, are monsterous. We look at some horrible creatures in Revelation, apparently that will be on earth, and attack men. Some may be figurative, but some seem quite real as well. That is where, I suggest the tinkering is leading. Goats and spiders, and all kinds of nightmarish man made mix and matching God's creations! Horrible.

 

[Loudmouth]

They have tried to explain it, yes, according to their beliefs, and world views, and how things work now.

Beliefs and world views have nothing to do with it. It is based on observation, plain and simple. Until you provide me observations of your claims my claims will remain superior.

Basically, a package deal that icludes the pill of no God under the sugar coating of present based assumptions.

What God? Please provide observations of this god as it inserts ERV's into genomes. Until then, science is left with the observation of actual retroviruses inserting ERV's.

It is just as valid to consider the ervs as leftovers of what became viruses, that may have been otherwise employed, it seems.

What makes this valid? How does this explain the nested hierarchy of shared ERV's located at the same site in primate genomes?

Could they have been benefitial? Could they have been quite different than the present variety?

They could be beneficial, neutral, or detrimental just like any other mutation. What is cogent to the conversation is that the ERV's are almost identical to the DNA found in viruses.

If we assume the viruses are what they now are, and were transferred as they now are, one would arrive at conclusions different from what would be the reality if things were different then. What evidence do you have that things then were the same?

The cotinuity of the physical laws as seen in physics, astronomy, geology, and chemistry. Viruses are ruled by the laws of physics and chemistry, just like any other organism or molecule.

The fact is that we really don't have any facts as to what the past was like in a lot of ways. We can see that there was something infecting, or existing in many creatures, that left traces. ERVs. It seems that what form these existed in exactly thenm before adaping, and evolving, is unclear?

It's quite clear. The ERV's contain genes that produce reverse transcriptase (RNA=>DNA), genes for viral capsids, LTR's for inserting into the host genome, etc. The genes in ERV's are genes that help viruses insert into host genomes and produce more viruses.

The bible says we lived almost a thousand years, so it is obvious that viruses didn't just come in and sicken and kill us like they now do, to the same degree, at least. Those are the facts.

Those are not facts, they are written passages in a holy book. If you can't tell the difference between the two then you will have a tough time making it in today's world.

Looking at 'traces' of ancient viruses therefore does not tell us what you claim!

ERV's don't talk, but they do support the predictions made by the ToE. A theory supported by empirical evidence is quite different than a dogmatic belief in a holy book.

Those Dr Frankensteins that would tinker with the creation of God, playing little gods themselves in my opinion, are monsterous.

I don't care what your opinions are. Violating the nested hierarchies is child's play in today's molecular biology labs. It would be well within the capacity of an omnipotent god. Given the disdain that most creationists look at evolution with, it is surprising that their god would create following the rules of such a disgusting theory.