Endogenous retroviruses

[JohnR7]

The nested hierarchies ARE A FACT.

"nested hierarchies" is as close as you will ever get to pure nonsenes.
It is almost a perfect example that shows that evolutions do not have a clue and they do not know what they are talking about.

You do not have to take our word for it either. Because evolutionists contradict themselves. Also evolutionists falsify themselves. When new information becomes available, it falsifies what they use to believe about evolution. So they keep coming up with a new theory of the week, to replace the defunct theorys that did not stand the test of time to prove themselves to be true.

 

[Loudmouth]

"nested hierarchies" is as close as you will ever get to pure nonsenes.

Calling it "pure nonsense" does not make them disappear. You act as if 2nd grade name calling makes for good debate. It doesn't. Please show me how nested hierarchies are nonsense.

It is almost a perfect example that shows that evolutions do not have a clue and they do not know what they are talking about.

Why?

When new information becomes available, it falsifies what they use to believe about evolution. So they keep coming up with a new theory of the week, to replace the defunct theorys that did not stand the test of time to prove themselves to be true.

You act as if having an open mind and theories open to falsification are a bad thing. I would much rather accept tentative theories on the weight of evidence than dogma based on a faith alone, even in the face of contradictory evidence.

Secondly, nested hierarchies have been one of the strongest sources of evidence since the inception of the theory. Unless you can show me evidence that contradicts the twin nested hierarchies of morphology and DNA I will continue to use them as evidence.

 

[dad]

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.

To remain superior, they have to be that way first. We observe leftover viruses, yes, but deciding what that means is not observation, it is interpretation. Man's beliefs and animalistic evolution world views of course have everything to do with it!

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.

Did anyone say some God was running around inserting viruses??? Strange. The thing is, however they are now inserted, we might ask, is this how they were inserted, exactly, in the past we claim!??

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

Well, if we look at past virus predecessors that left traces, we need to ask, how did they then get there, and what were they then like, if the object of the excercise involves the far past. Otherwise, you might as well just notice how things now work, and stick to that. We need the link here, if you say there is one. If the things in the past were part of a life process other than we are familiar with, then straining just at what is now going on really can't help you now, can it??

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.

Which indicates exactly what, as pertains to the past?? That the virus predecessor was intricately involved with the dna? So?? Maybe you could clear that one up a bit.

The cotinuity of the physical laws as seen in physics,

..exist only in the imagination, that is quite clear.

astronomy, geology,

Same story here, for sure for sure.

and chemistry. Viruses are ruled by the laws of physics and chemistry, just like any other organism or molecule.

Well, thank you!!!! That helps, because there was no laws of physics then.

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.

"In biochemistry, a reverse transcriptase, also known as RNA-directed DNA polymerase, is a DNA polymerase enzyme that transcribes single-stranded RNA into double-stranded DNA. Normal transcription involves the synthesis of RNA from DNA, .."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reverse_transcriptase

"All DNA polymerases synthesize DNA in the 5' to 3' direction. No known DNA polymerase is able to begin a new chain (de novo). They can only add a nucleotide onto a preexisting 3'-OH group. For this reason, DNA polymerase needs a primer at which it can add the first nucleotide. Primers consist of RNA and DNA bases with the first two bases always being RNA, ..
"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA_polymerase
No polynerase now can start a new chain, but could it then? In other words, the whole process may have been different. So perhaps some virus predecessor was needed here in there, then, to be inserted into the areas they are now found.

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.

You claim the bible is wrong, claiming we originally were in an eternal state, then, were demoted to live almost a thousand years?? Well, I call you on that one! Prove it, back it up. How in heaven's name would you know?

ERV's don't talk, but they do support the predictions made by the ToE.

How convienient, calling a chief witness that is dumb?!! Think about it.

A theory supported by empirical evidence is quite different than a dogmatic belief in a holy book.

Which is why you would need to evidence the things in the past you claim as part of the theory here. Was the process the same, were viruses the same, did dna work the same, wetc etc . And, how do you KNOW? This is the kind of stuff you need to cough up.

I don't care what your opinions are.

Well, a lot of people share my revulsion with man playing creator, and tinkering. Didn't some claim that's what they were doing in the last days of Atlantis? I can tell you God will not put up with it for long! I kid you not.

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.

Why would He want to further dilute the created kinds, and all the adaptations that have gone on, etc? Why would He get some kick out of mixing say, mouse genes, and human genes?

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

There are no rules of evolution, it is simply a Godless take on explaining the world. The theory had to follow the rules of what we see, and that, my friend, is creation rules. Despite the shortcomings in your ability to comprehend that, using present based science to try to explain a past you assume was the same, meaninglessly, because you cannot prove it.

 

[Loudmouth]

To remain superior, they have to be that way first.

Observations are always superior to fantasies.

We observe leftover viruses, yes, but deciding what that means is not observation, it is interpretation.[/qoute]

Very true. It is also an observation that shared ERV's at the same position in primate genomes fall into a nested hierarchy. This is also a fact that needs to be included in our interpretation. There is also the fact that the mechanisms of natural selection, mutation, and speciation produce nested hierarchies, as does common ancestry. Therefore, shared ERV's are evidence of evolution. Until you offer observations of another mechanism then I will continue to use those mechanisms.

Man's beliefs and animalistic evolution world views of course have everything to do with it!

They have nothing to do with the facts of ERV's and the nested hierarchies they fall into.

Did anyone say some God was running around inserting viruses??? Strange.

This is exactly what creationists imply when they said that a common designer put them there. Haven't you been listening?

The thing is, however they are now inserted, we might ask, is this how they were inserted, exactly, in the past we claim!??

The only way that we know how viruses insert. If you have observed viruses and ERV's inserting into genomes in a different fashion now would be the time to offer these observations to everyone.

Otherwise, you might as well just notice how things now work, and stick to that. We need the link here, if you say there is one. If the things in the past were part of a life process other than we are familiar with, then straining just at what is now going on really can't help you now, can it??

Things that we do not know are thing that we do not know. There is no reason to wait for complete knowledge of everything before tentatively constructing conslusions using what we do know. The FACTS are what they are, and the FACTS include how viruses insert. If you want to offer new facts please do. Otherwise, I really don't see where you are trying to go with this.

The link is the DNA sequence of the ERV's and viruses. They have very similar sequences and functions. In fact, ERV's are able to pop out and produce new viral particles which can then move to other cells and create more ERV's.

That the virus predecessor was intricately involved with the dna? So?? Maybe you could clear that one up a bit.

I have. The retrovirus inserts it's DNA into a gamete. If this insertion is stable and does not kill the gamete then it becomes part of the offspring's genome who was created from that gamete. A very simple and eloquent explanation born from observation.

[Continuity of physical laws]..exist only in the imagination, that is quite clear.

Every observation we have made supports the continuity of the physical laws.

Fantasies do not trump observation.

No polynerase now can start a new chain, but could it then? In other words, the whole process may have been different. So perhaps some virus predecessor was needed here in there, then, to be inserted into the areas they are now found.

The reverse polymerase genes in ERV's are accompanied by other viral genes, so it was never without help. Not sure where you are going with this.

Viruses predate the animal kingdom.

You claim the bible is wrong,

I claim that there is no evidence that it is true. Therefore, it is on the same footing as any other statement without evidence. Beliefs are not observations, nor are they facts. We all have them, but I don't expect you to accept my beliefs as part of a scientific theory, nor do I expect you to ignore observations because I believe in my fantasies. All I have offered are empirical observations and theories testable through empirical observations. You have offered me nothing but theories that can not explain the facts (mating and ERV's) and fantasies (a split world). At this point, I might as well try and convince Don Quixote that he is charging at windmills. I will probably have the same success.

How convienient, calling a chief witness that is dumb?!! Think about it.

If it can't talk it can't lie. That is why forensic evidence overturns eye witness testimony in a court of law. Ever watch the tv show "House"? It might be the education you need. People lie, the evidence doesn't.

Which is why you would need to evidence the things in the past you claim as part of the theory here. Was the process the same, were viruses the same, did dna work the same, wetc etc . And, how do you KNOW?

The continuity of the physical laws, which there is ample observation to support and none to refute, is all I need.

Well, a lot of people share my revulsion with man playing creator, and tinkering. Didn't some claim that's what they were doing in the last days of Atlantis? I can tell you God will not put up with it for long! I kid you not.

Doesn't matter. Violating the nested hierarchies was claimed by schroeder to be impossible. He claimed that physical laws precluded it. This isn't true. Whether or not it revulses you still doesn't mean it is impossible.

Why would He want to further dilute the created kinds, and all the adaptations that have gone on, etc? Why would He get some kick out of mixing say, mouse genes, and human genes?

That's just the thing. Every organism is a mix of DNA passed down by their ancestors. Birds are a mix of fish, amphibian, reptile, and dinosaur DNA. We are a mix of fish, amphibian, reptile, and synapsid DNA. There are chimeras out there, such as the intermediates in the hominid lineage which are a mix between more non-human ape features and human features. For example, Australopithecus afarensis has a skull very much like a chimp but a pelvis and lower torso very much like humans. This type of chimera is expected if humans and chimps share a common ancestor. Birds did not evolve from any mammal, therefore we would not expect chimeras that have derived avian and mammalian features. Why would God create so that life falls into the nested hierarchy predcited by the theory of evolution? That is the question.

There are no rules of evolution,

False. The nested hierarchy is the rule. It is the only pattern that eukaryotes can produce through evolution.

it is simply a Godless take on explaining the world.

It is a natural take on the world. Only creationists take God out of nature as a rule. I simply see no evidence of one.

The theory had to follow the rules of what we see, and that, my friend, is creation rules.

What the heck does that mean? We have not seen all there is. We are still finding new fossils and new species. Why don't any of these violate the predictions of the theory of evolution?

Despite the shortcomings in your ability to comprehend that, using present based science to try to explain a past you assume was the same, meaninglessly, because you cannot prove it.

I can't prove anything, and when you undestand the honesty and humility of this you might take a big step in joining the rest of the rational world.

 

[dad]

Observations are always superior to fantasies.

Too bad all yours are from the present.

Very true. It is also an observation that shared ERV's at the same position in primate genomes fall into a nested hierarchy. This is also a fact that needs to be included in our interpretation.

ERVs were a part of the former life process somehow, yes.

There is also the fact that the mechanisms of natural selection,

Natural selection is merely a creation ability, where God saw to it that species get carried on pretty good. Period.

mutation,

Are you suggesting you know past mutation rates, and everything that was ever mutated?

and speciation produce nested hierarchies, as does common ancestry. Therefore, shared ERV's are evidence of evolution.

Coomon ancestry produces nothing, it is a concept in your head. Grouping creatures and calleing it nests only goes so far as well.

Until you offer observations of another mechanism then I will continue to use those mechanisms.

We observe in the here and now. Who says other things are at work now, or were not in the past?

They have nothing to do with the facts of ERV's and the nested hierarchies they fall into.

True, nothing at all! Keep that in mind.

This is exactly what creationists imply when they said that a common designer put them there. Haven't you been listening?

They say a God tooth fairy flies around from dna strand to dna strand planting ERVs?? Must have missed that.

The only way that we know how viruses insert.

Viruses insert, trees grow, and we have lifespans, etc. How things happen now however, is not the issue, is it?

If you have observed viruses and ERV's inserting into genomes in a different fashion now would be the time to offer these observations to everyone.

If you have been back in time 5000 years and observed them operating the same, now is the time to show us.

Things that we do not know are thing that we do not know.

True, you are on the right track there.

There is no reason to wait for complete knowledge of everything before tentatively constructing conslusions using what we do know.

So, why wait till you might know what it is you are talking about, when you are in a hurry? I have to tell you this?

The FACTS are what they are, and the FACTS include how viruses insert.

If we talk about the past they include what went down there as well, that is a fact.

If you want to offer new facts please do. Otherwise, I really don't see where you are trying to go with this.

I am looking at all the facts you do not have, yet, are in a rush to reach Godless conclusions.

The link is the DNA sequence of the ERV's and viruses. They have very similar sequences and functions. In fact, ERV's are able to pop out and produce new viral particles which can then move to other cells and create more ERV's.

Where they pop out now, and why, and what popping went on in the past are two different things, just because a ERV pops out to say, cuckoo now, doesn't mean it sang the same tune before.
The functions we do not really know, but the present functions, we do know, do not result in 1000 year lifespans.

I have. The retrovirus inserts it's DNA into a gamete. If this insertion is stable and does not kill the gamete then it becomes part of the offspring's genome who was created from that gamete. A very simple and eloquent explanation born from observation.

--Of how it now works. So?

Every observation we have made supports the continuity of the physical laws.

No, the assumption is woven into the fabric of the past you imagine. On it's own no evidence tells us that at all. Not even close.

Fantasies do not trump observation.

Present observation does not trump a real future and past you cannot prove were the same.

The reverse polymerase genes in ERV's are accompanied by other viral genes, so it was never without help. Not sure where you are going with this.

What kind of help it had in the past, and what help it has now, and your ability to demonstrate it was the same.

Viruses predate the animal kingdom.

Prove it.

I claim that there is no evidence that it is true. Therefore, it is on the same footing as any other statement without evidence. Beliefs are not observations, nor are they facts.

Observations of the present are not observations of the past. Your ability to evidence the bible depends on an ability to evidence the past and future, which you lack.

We all have them, but I don't expect you to accept my beliefs as part of a scientific theory, nor do I expect you to ignore observations because I believe in my fantasies.

I ignore no observations, nor do I assume they apply to the far past. Ignoring your past fantasies does not mean we ignore present evidence.

All I have offered are empirical observations and theories testable through empirical observations. You have offered me nothing but theories that can not explain the facts (mating and ERV's) and fantasies (a split world).

Your empire of the present and it's observations are testable only in the present. A different past explains all facts. As for mating explaining ERVs, there is no need, that was something I threw out to test the waters. I deal with real evidence, and facts.

If it can't talk it can't lie. That is why forensic evidence overturns eye witness testimony in a court of law. Ever watch the tv show "House"? It might be the education you need. People lie, the evidence doesn't.

Expert witnesses are paid to lie for each side! Need a doctor to say smoking is healthy? No problem. The evidence is mum on the state of the past, don't put words in it's mouth. Talk about leading the witness!

The continuity of the physical laws, which there is ample observation to support and none to refute, is all I need.

I agree with the observation, it has continued since we observed it. If we go beyond that, you enter fantasyland.

Doesn't matter. Violating the nested hierarchies was claimed by schroeder to be impossible. He claimed that physical laws precluded it. This isn't true. Whether or not it revulses you still doesn't mean it is impossible.

Knowledge has been increased, and man can tinker more and more with creation. Many find that detestable and monsterous.

That's just the thing. Every organism is a mix of DNA passed down by their ancestors. Birds are a mix of fish, amphibian, reptile, and dinosaur DNA. We are a mix of fish, amphibian, reptile, and synapsid DNA.

No, we are not. We are a mix of creation blocks that have some similar blocks as other creations.

There are chimeras out there, such as the intermediates in the hominid lineage which are a mix between more non-human ape features and human features. For example, Australopithecus afarensis has a skull very much like a chimp but a pelvis and lower torso very much like humans.

Too bad the monkey isn't alive to put on the stand, to back up your claims. Looking at physical similarities in dead bones only goes so far. Next witness!

This type of chimera is expected if humans and chimps share a common ancestor. Birds did not evolve from any mammal, therefore we would not expect chimeras that have derived avian and mammalian features. Why would God create so that life falls into the nested hierarchy predcited by the theory of evolution? That is the question.

The theory was inspired, and designed to fit the actual evidence as much as possible.

False. The nested hierarchy is the rule. It is the only pattern that eukaryotes can produce through evolution.

Slow down there. So, adapting, or evolving we see produces things in a nest? Ha. You speak of the pattern 'produced'? I thought that evolution observed was minimal? What, some new mouse on an island means that the mouse was not created? Just because the groups get bigger (nested heirachies if you will) does not mean they had no created beginning! Have you some evidence the nesting didn't start in a nest in Eden here? Or do you just make wild claims based on minimal evolution we observe?

It is a natural take on the world. Only creationists take God out of nature as a rule. I simply see no evidence of one.

A 'natural' take??? A natural only, physical only, present only, temporary state only take. We don't look for natural evidence of the supernatural! We can't say that the natural only has everything in the fishbowl, and beside that there is nothing!!! Ridiculous.

What the heck does that mean? We have not seen all there is. We are still finding new fossils and new species. Why don't any of these violate the predictions of the theory of evolution?

Because there is evolution, why would anything violate it? There is that created ability, and there was the same ability in fantastic levels in the past. No need to violate the abilities of creation. But to attribute creation itself, to a pattern that comes from the adaptive ability of creation is beyond absurd! What proof can you offer that evolution never started at creation??? Pony up.

I can't prove anything, and when you undestand the honesty and humility of this you might take a big step in joining the rest of the rational world.

I think I can join them now, as we speak, and I concur. You can't prove anything.

 

[birdan]

Despite the shortcomings in your ability to comprehend that, using present based science to try to explain a past you assume was the same, meaninglessly, because you cannot prove it.

Quite true, uniformitarianism is based on an assumption. Who knows what things were like pre-split? In fact, not only were all the physical laws of the universe different, but language itself was radically different.

For example, take this fragment of Hebrew:

א בְּרֵאשִׁית, בָּרָא אֱלֹהִים, אֵתהַשָּׁמַיִם, וְאֵת הָאָרֶץ.

Using their baseless assumptions that language was the same in the past, people have translated this to mean:

In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

However, seeing how everything was so different pre-split and freeing oneself from the encumbrances of a uniformitarian mentality, the above now translates as:

Pick up 2 shirts and suit from cleaners; milk and bread from grocery store.

I'm with you on your PO / pre-split shtick, Dad. You're right, nothing can be proven to be true, even ancient Hebrew texts.

 

[dad]

Quite true, uniformitarianism is based on an assumption. Who knows what things were like pre-split? In fact, not only were all the physical laws of the universe different, but language itself was radically different.

Language too? Really, OK, let's see your case there.

For example, take this fragment of Hebrew:

א בְּרֵאשִׁית, בָּרָא אֱלֹהִים, אֵתהַשָּׁמַיִם, וְאֵת הָאָרֶץ.

Using their baseless assumptions that language was the same in the past, people have translated this to mean:

In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

The split was 4400 years ago, when was this fragment written? And how is it dated? I just need to check your work here. I'm sure you will understand.
But, since you did bring up language, the added spiritual is pretty well known in it's effects. All men, apparently can understand language when the spiritual is present. Look in acts, and see for yourself sometime. Or. we can look at babel, for the reverse. The spiritual was taken away, and men could not understand each other. More evidence that the split happened, and, as a matter of fact, right at the time of Babel, no less!
Written language, I think came after this, first the picture words of the Egyptians and others. Only natural to resort to pictures at first, needing to communicate on paprus, no?

 

[Loudmouth]

Too bad all yours are from the present.

As are yours.

Natural selection is merely a creation ability, where God saw to it that species get carried on pretty good. Period.

What god?

Are you suggesting you know past mutation rates, and everything that was ever mutated?

Mutation rates are inferred from large sets of data. I don't "know" what the mutation rates were. No scientist does. However, the data certainly points to mutation being part of life from the very beginning.

Coomon ancestry produces nothing, it is a concept in your head.

Do you have siblings and parents, or are they figments of your imagination?

Grouping creatures and calleing it nests only goes so far as well.

Denying facts only goes so far as well. Thanks for playing.

We observe in the here and now. Who says other things are at work now, or were not in the past?

The data does.

They say a God tooth fairy flies around from dna strand to dna strand planting ERVs?? Must have missed that.

Then reread the thread.

Viruses insert, trees grow, and we have lifespans, etc. How things happen now however, is not the issue, is it?

It's about the facts, which you have willingly ignored.

If you have been back in time 5000 years and observed them operating the same, now is the time to show us.

It is no different than evidence left at a crime scene. I don't need to go back in time to watch a murder in order to use evidence.

So, why wait till you might know what it is you are talking about, when you are in a hurry? I have to tell you this?

That is why all theories in science are tentative. Do I have to tell you this? If evidence surfaces showing that common ancestry is wrong I will dump it immediately. Until then I will go with the data we have right now.

I am looking at all the facts you do not have, yet, are in a rush to reach Godless conclusions.

What god?

Where they pop out now, and why, and what popping went on in the past are two different things, just because a ERV pops out to say, cuckoo now, doesn't mean it sang the same tune before.

ERV's are not birds, but nice try.

No, the assumption is woven into the fabric of the past you imagine. On it's own no evidence tells us that at all. Not even close.

The assumption that we live in a real world also leads us nowhere, but it is a solid epistemology to work from. Believing that we live in a Matrix type world really gets us nowhere. Science works, and that is a good reason to trust it.

Present observation does not trump a real future and past you cannot prove were the same.

No such thing as proof, only internal consistency. The data is consistent with the continuity of the physical laws.

Observations of the present are not observations of the past.

Observations of present DNA is observation of ancestry. Genetics tells us this.

Your ability to evidence the bible depends on an ability to evidence the past and future, which you lack.

The bible needs to evidence itself.

I ignore no observations, nor do I assume they apply to the far past. Ignoring your past fantasies does not mean we ignore present evidence.

You use your fantasy of a different past to ignore data from the present.

How about this. With the caveat that the past was the same as the present, do ERV's support common ancestry? A simple yes or no will clear up this issue, and then we can talk about the assumption of the past being like the present.

Expert

witnesses are paid to lie for each side! Need a doctor to say smoking is healthy? No problem. The evidence is mum on the state of the past, don't put words in it's mouth. Talk about leading the witness!

Correct, people lie. What doesn't lie is the evidence. If you don't believe that the mechanisms of evolution produce nested hierarchies then run the experiments yourself. If you don't believe that viruses act in the way that I claim then run the experiments yourself. If you don't believe that shared ERV's form a nested hierarchy in the primate lineage then sequence the ERV's yourself. Nothing I have said can not be double checked. That is the strength of science, nothing is ever accepted on authority, only through repeatable empirical evidence.

Knowledge has been increased, and man can tinker more and more with creation. Many find that detestable and monsterous.

But it's not impossible, as was suggested earlier.

No, we are not. We are a mix of creation blocks that have some similar blocks as other creations.

Then why don't some of those mixes of creation blocks violate the twin nested hierarchies proposed by evolution, a supposedly inaccurate theory?

Too bad the monkey isn't alive to put on the stand, to back up your claims. Looking at physical similarities in dead bones only goes so far. Next witness!

Now you are ignoring fossil evidence.

The theory was inspired, and designed to fit the actual evidence as much as possible.

And that's a bad thing?

Slow down there. So, adapting, or evolving we see produces things in a nest? Ha. You speak of the pattern 'produced'?

Yes, you can only inherit genetic material from your ancestors, not from other lineages. This produces a nested hierarchy. Therefore, we should not see mammals with genes found in birds without those genes being found in the common ancestor. We should not find homologous features in mammals and birds that are not found in the common ancestor. Therefore, we should never find a fossil bat that has feathers.

Just because the groups get bigger (nested heirachies if you will) does not mean they had no created beginning!

True, but a single nested hierarchy that life fits into means that only one creation (the last universal common ancestor) was necessary.

Have you some evidence the nesting didn't start in a nest in Eden here? Or do you just make wild claims based on minimal evolution we observe?

The nesting would have needed to start at the base of the eukaryote tree, starting with single celled protists. I really don't think that is where you are going with this.

Because there is evolution, why would anything violate it?

That's what I think too, which is why I discount creationism.

I think I can join them now, as we speak, and I concur. You can't prove anything.

I agree too, we can't prove anything. This is why I discount the opinions of those who claim to have ultimate knowledge.

 

[dad]

As are yours.

My science is as yours, based on the present, yes, but I have the honesty not to try and drag it into the future, or past, and pretend for no reason it will apply, and in the so doing, oppose faith in God.

What god?

The Living one that works in the lives and hearts of millions upon tens of millions, upon hundreds of millions of people, and always has been around. The One your little instruments of PO perception cannot see.

Mutation rates are inferred from large sets of data. I don't "know" what the mutation rates were. No scientist does. However, the data certainly points to mutation being part of life from the very beginning.

Bingo!!! Assumed mutation rates in the unknown past, and a bunch of numbers crunched from that, and presented with an evo drum roll!

Do you have siblings and parents, or are they figments of your imagination?

They are ancestors, yes, but they are not monkeys. Or fish. I can do some elementary observations!

Denying facts only goes so far as well. Thanks for playing

. I don't deny you group them a certain way, according to your beliefs of how it ought to be. The ERVs that are on the monkey tree are simply leftover traces of some ancient virus, you don't know exactly how it may have mutated, or evolved from, apparently, even! Do germs and little viruses get around to different creatures? Apparently they did then at least. The whys and wherefores of which, you look at how they now get around, and make assumptions from there.

It's about the facts, which you have willingly ignored.

That there are grouping of animals based on certain characteristics, you like to call nested hierarchies? I don't deny that, I simply note that the assumptions about the similarities do not mean we came from monkeys, just because of ERVs.

It is no different than evidence left at a crime scene. I don't need to go back in time to watch a murder in order to use evidence.

If there were no changes, no. In the crime scene of the past, we did not have the same deal, according to the bible. If you claim we did, then you will have to prove it, or let that remain your belief only.

That is why all theories in science are tentative. Do I have to tell you this? If evidence surfaces showing that common ancestry is wrong I will dump it immediately. Until then I will go with the data we have right now.

Go with the data as far as the data goes, no further.

The assumption that we live in a real world also leads us nowhere, but it is a solid epistemology to work from.

Yes it is great, but doesn't apply to the topic here, because that is that the past saw viruses spread to different species, left a trace, that, by present reckoning, means that there was a common ancestor. All you need to do is get present reckoning into the deep past. Too bad you can't do that.

Believing that we live in a Matrix type world really gets us nowhere. Science works, and that is a good reason to trust it.

Better reason to distrust it beyond it's limits, where people still try to call it science.

No such thing as proof, only internal consistency. The data is consistent with the continuity of the physical laws.

Thank you! Since the continuity of physical laws cannot be shown, your case is lost!

Observations of present DNA is observation of ancestry. Genetics tells us this.

Observations of how dna was affected in the past, by ervs, is not ancestry. It is like a cross species flu that no longer can happen. Each creature that had the virus passed it on down to the similar creatures and so yes, it is ancestor related, but not a common ancestor. At some point the past was different, and the life processes, so that the passing of the virus predesseor was not what it is today!

You use your fantasy of a different past to ignore data from the present.

You use present data to ignore a different past, and future. A belief is it's raw form if ever there was one! Not even so much as a bible to support it.

How about this. With the caveat that the past was the same as the present, do ERV's support common ancestry?

Yes! In my limited understanding, like in a lot of other areas, I see no other way. But, people like Mark seem to hold out hope of meeting you on your own assumtions of a same past, and trying to make a case there. Sounds like he has a lot of work done in the area, and a lot of good points. My opinion is thatwe need to change the batlle rules of engagement, accept that a new heavens is coming, we are in a temporary state, isolate the opposition into it's proper place as just another belief, and take the field!

Correct, people lie. What doesn't lie is the evidence. If you don't believe that the mechanisms of evolution produce nested hierarchies then run the experiments yourself.

It doesn't matter!!! I believe in evolution! I think the animals on the ark evolved rapidly into all the various species we see! Nested, and whatever you like to call the groups. How else could all the animals fit on the ark? There are too many species.
My point is, that that evolving, and the present trickle rate evolving as well goes NO FURTHER BACK than the common ancestor of the KINDS they came from. Created kinds. Created 6000 years ago!

If you don't believe that viruses act in the way that I claim then run the experiments yourself.

I don't doubt it! But who cares how they NOW act????

But it's not impossible, as was suggested earlier.

No, of course not, more and more we will see this. Reminds me of the gods of old, centaurs, etc. But I believe that God will fix'er up real good soon, and restore things to original perfection. Goodbye monsters.

Then why don't some of those mixes of creation blocks violate the twin nested hierarchies proposed by evolution, a supposedly inaccurate theory?

Evolution was involved. YEC evolution from creation.

Now you are ignoring fossil evidence.

No, I am relegating it to insignificant, because that thing was not a man, who cares if it had hips that could do the cha cha?

Yes, you can only inherit genetic material from your ancestors, not from other lineages. This produces a nested hierarchy.

I suggest that in the past, there were viral predesseors, able to affect different kinds, which saw the traces passed down along with the genetic material.

Therefore, we should not see mammals with genes found in birds

Creation does not expect this either, don't make it sound like some trump card here?

without those genes being found in the common ancestor. We should not find homologous features in mammals and birds that are not found in the common ancestor. Therefore, we should never find a fossil bat that has feathers.

Why not? Bats were referred to as birds someplace in the bible. I would not be surprised if the original bat was a bird that adapted into a mammal at all! Whatever creations were here, or how strange they may have looked, can never be admitted as evidence for no creation!

The nesting would have needed to start at the base of the eukaryote tree, starting with single celled protists. I really don't think that is where you are going with this.

Oh, no, things came from the nests they were created in. Most of those nests were right in Eden.

I agree too, we can't prove anything. This is why I discount the opinions of those who claim to have ultimate knowledge.

We can prove plenty to an acceptable level of reason. What you mean is where the future and past are concerned, we can't prove it was the same or different.

 

[Loudmouth]

My science is as yours, based on the present, yes, but I have the honesty not to try and drag it into the future, or past, and pretend for no reason it will apply, and in the so doing, oppose faith in God.

You use the books of today to tell me that a split happened in the past. Guilty as charged.

The Living one that works in the lives and hearts of millions upon tens of millions, upon hundreds of millions of people, and always has been around. The One your little instruments of PO perception cannot see.

What living one? Evidence please.

Bingo!!! Assumed mutation rates in the unknown past, and a bunch of numbers crunched from that, and presented with an evo drum roll!

Not assumed. They are inferred from data.

They are ancestors, yes, but they are not monkeys. Or fish. I can do some elementary observations!

So you accept the mechanism of common ancestry. That's a step forward.

Now, as I said before, you and your siblings share hundreds of ERV's that are found at the same spots in your genome. What are the chances that randomly inserting retroviruses infected you and your siblings during your life time and inserted into the same spots in your genome? Extremely, extremely small. I say the shared ERV's are due to common ancestry. I would then sequence your parents' genomes and guess what I would find? Those same exact ERV's. All I am doing is applying the same logic to different species. Please show me why this should not be done.

I don't deny you group them a certain way, according to your beliefs of how it ought to be.

Again, you are telling a lie. The nested hierarchies have nothing to do with beliefs. They are facts. Nested hierarchies, in and of themselves, do not require common ancestry. In fact, nested hierarchies can exist in non-living things as well. For example, matter falls into a nested hierarchy. All molecules are made up of atoms. All atoms are made up of quarks, but not all atoms are molecules. All molecules are made up of quarks. This type of hierarchy is nested where molecules are made up of atoms which are made up of quarks. In the same way, life falls into a nested hierarchy. All primates are mammals, all mammals are vertebrates, and all vertebrates are eukaryotes. Shared ERV's fall into the same pattern. Even Linnaeus, a creationist, noticed that life falls into a nested hierarchy and he did not believe in evolution.

This insistence that nested hierarchies only exist in the minds of evolutionists is perhaps the biggest lie in this thread.

The ERVs that are on the monkey tree are simply leftover traces of some ancient virus, you don't know exactly how it may have mutated, or evolved from, apparently, even!

Again, "knowing" is something that requires ultimate knowledge, something that scientists never claim to have. However, there is very strong evidence that these viruses act just as they do today, and that they evidence common ancestry.

Do germs and little viruses get around to different creatures? Apparently they did then at least. The whys and wherefores of which, you look at how they now get around, and make assumptions from there.

It makes testable assumptions, otherwise known as inferrences. If you can find a virus that inserts at the same spot in the genome time after time then you can cast strong doubt on this evidence. Until you do, then we are stuck with the observation that retroviruses insert randomly into a genome among thousands of insertion sites. Even genetically identical cells infected by the exact same virus will carry ERV's at different spots in their genome. I can link to that study if you want, but I think it will probably be ignored with the rest of the evidence.

That there are grouping of animals based on certain characteristics, you like to call nested hierarchies? I don't deny that, I simply note that the assumptions about the similarities do not mean we came from monkeys, just because of ERVs.

The only assumptions are that those animals have those features. Let's take a look at vertebrates and some gross anatomical structures.

Mammals, reptiles, birds, and amphibians are all vertebrates. They fit into the vertebrate hierarchy. Mammals have fur, reptiles have scales, amphibians have permeable skin, and birds have feathers. These features are confined to those groups and are not found in any other group. Therefore, each belongs to a separate hierarchy but ALL OF THESE SEPARATE HIERARCHIES ARE NESTED WITHIN THE VERTEBRATE HIERARCHY. All mammals are vertebrates, but not all vertebrates are mammals. Staying with the mammallian group, all primates are mammals, but not all mammals are primates. All apes are primates, but not all primates are apes. All humans are apes, but not all apes are humans. Up and down the animal kingdom all species fit into a nested hierarchy because of the features they have, not because of the imagination of humans.

If there were no changes, no. In the crime scene of the past, we did not have the same deal, according to the bible.

I don't care what the Bible says. I care what the evidence says. Again, observation trumps fantasies.

Go with the data as far as the data goes, no further.

That's what I have done. The distribution of shared ERV's in primates is consistent with common ancestry. If it is not, please show me where the inconsistencies are.

Yes it is great, but doesn't apply to the topic here, because that is that the past saw viruses spread to different species, left a trace, that, by present reckoning, means that there was a common ancestor.

Being infected by the same virus is not the evidence I am presenting. Having the same insertion AT THE SAME SPOT IN THE GENOME is what I am using as evidence. This seems to be ignored by every creationist that is involved in this discussion.

All you need to do is get present reckoning into the deep past. Too bad you can't do that.

I have evidence that the past was the same as today. You have zero evidence that the past was different. I win.

Thank you! Since the continuity of physical laws cannot be shown, your case is lost!

Continuity is evidenced. Discontinuity is not. My case is solid.

Observations of how dna was affected in the past, by ervs, is not ancestry.

Having the same insertion at the same spot in two genomes is for the same reasons that you, your siblings, and your parents share ERV's at the same position in your genomes. It's simple Mendellian genetics.

At some point the past was different, and the life processes, so that the passing of the virus predesseor was not what it is today!

Not according to the evidence.

You use present data to ignore a different past, and future.

I don't need data to ignore something that is unevidenced. Repeat after me. I don't need data to ignore something that is unevidenced. You DO ignore data for the continuity of the physical laws.

A belief is it's raw form if ever there was one! Not even so much as a bible to support it.

Oh the irony.

My opinion is thatwe need to change the batlle rules of engagement, accept that a new heavens is coming, we are in a temporary state, isolate the opposition into it's proper place as just another belief, and take the field!

Then you are doing something other than science. If you want to claim that science is wrong then that is fine. Just don't claim that evolution is wrong in a scientific sense. That is exactly what creationists have been trying to do, force their way into science. This only shows how afraid of science they are.

It doesn't matter!!! I believe in evolution! I think the animals on the ark evolved rapidly into all the various species we see! Nested, and whatever you like to call the groups. How else could all the animals fit on the ark? There are too many species.

The problem for you is that there is no barrier between the nested hierarchies at what are supposed to be the created kinds. All mammals fit into a nested hierarchy. All eukaryotes fit into a single nested hierarchy. What you are telling me is that Noah only needed a single prokaryote and a single eukaryote, which is a little different than what I was taught in Sunday School.

My point is, that that evolving, and the present trickle rate evolving as well goes NO FURTHER BACK than the common ancestor of the KINDS they came from. Created kinds. Created 6000 years ago!

More unevidenced blather. I offer evidence and I recieve rants in return.

I don't doubt it! But who cares how they NOW act????

I do, as does the rest of science which are using these phylogenies in comparative genomics to search for the cause of disease and potential medications.

No, of course not, more and more we will see this. Reminds me of the gods of old, centaurs, etc. But I believe that God will fix'er up real good soon, and restore things to original perfection. Goodbye monsters.

But there are chimeras in the fossil record. Archaeopteryx is both reptile and bird, for example. It has features of both. The whole thing is that we only see the chimeras that are predicted by the ToE. There is no reason that an omnipotent Creator would create in a way that mirrors a theory constructed by a 19th century naturalist. That is, unless that creator used evolution from the very start and a universal common ancestor.

No, I am relegating it to insignificant, because that thing was not a man, who cares if it had hips that could do the cha cha?

I find it strange that the vocal diatribe of "there are no intermediate fossils" has been replaced by "who cares" in the creationist argument.

I suggest that in the past, there were viral predesseors, able to affect different kinds, which saw the traces passed down along with the genetic material.

This doesn't explain the primate nested hierarchy of shared ERV's at identical genomic positions.

Creation does not expect this either, don't make it sound like some trump card here?

Why does creationism not predict a mammal/bird chimera? Please enlighten me.

Why [shouldn't we find bats with feathers]? Bats were referred to as birds someplace in the bible. I would not be surprised if the original bat was a bird that adapted into a mammal at all! Whatever creations were here, or how strange they may have looked, can never be admitted as evidence for no creation!

Perfect, you agree that evolution is falsifiable. If evolution is false then these intermediates should exist.

Oh, no, things came from the nests they were created in. Most of those nests were right in Eden.

What Eden? Evidence please.

We can prove plenty to an acceptable level of reason. What you mean is where the future and past are concerned, we can't prove it was the same or different.

We can't prove anything beyond any doubt. It is possible, no matter how proposterous, that everything we are and everything we see was created last Thursday complete with false memories and false histories. This is no different than your pre/post split fantasies.

 

[dad]

You use the books of today to tell me that a split happened in the past. Guilty as charged.

You can use no books, past or present to support your same past. I am redeemed.

What living one? Evidence please.

The One that gives evidences to those that seek Him only. The One that has revealed Himself to the world, and rose from the dead.

Not assumed. They are inferred from data.

Same thing. Because the data is interpreted only using an unsupportable same past!

So you accept the mechanism of common ancestry. That's a step forward.

The mechanism is fine, as a created trait. Nowhere will you find evidence to keep going clear past creation with that puppy, though.

Now, as I said before, you and your siblings share hundreds of ERV's that are found at the same spots in your genome. What are the chances that randomly inserting retroviruses infected you and your siblings during your life time and inserted into the same spots in your genome? Extremely, extremely small. I say the shared ERV's are due to common ancestry.

Since the present life processes started our ancestors from the present passed down the ervs. Before that, they came to be apparently quite differently. So, yes, they started to get passed down as the present came to be. The ones that were there already were passed down, and the new ones picked up in the present process also passed down!

I would then sequence your parents' genomes and guess what I would find? Those same exact ERV's. All I am doing is applying the same logic to different species. Please show me why this should not be done.

And I apply the logic in the above post, both which give us exactly what we see today! So, then, to make yours more valid, you need a same past, and past life processes. Too bad you don't have that, eh?

Again, you are telling a lie. The nested hierarchies have nothing to do with beliefs. They are facts. Nested hierarchies, in and of themselves, do not require common ancestry.

Great. Tell you the truth the idea confuses me, and the words just don't mean much to me, nested heirachy. So, where this grouping varies from a garden of Eden start, in a different past, it is a lie! The groupings themselves, however you BELIEVE they should be arranged, don't matter. It is the beliefs and assumptions behind the idea that is a lie. No one argues some grouping may not have ERVs or whatnots.

In fact, nested hierarchies can exist in non-living things as well. For example, matter falls into a nested hierarchy. All molecules are made up of atoms. All atoms are made up of quarks, but not all atoms are molecules. All molecules are made up of quarks. This type of hierarchy is nested where molecules are made up of atoms which are made up of quarks. In the same way, life falls into a nested hierarchy.

Why do you insist on that phrase? I could say that all things in the PO universe fall into a N.H. Even the order in the spirit world, as in the military falls into a N.H. But that really does not crystalize any clear point, or claim, or concept. I sometimes wonder if you are talking about primates, and that grouping, or,...etc? Why not just say what you mean? -Rather than promote a catch phrase?

All primates are mammals, all mammals are vertebrates, and all vertebrates are eukaryotes. Shared ERV's fall into the same pattern. Even Linnaeus, a creationist, noticed that life falls into a nested hierarchy and he did not believe in evolution.

That pattern, precisely is what? That they get carried down now, in this present world? So?

This insistence that nested hierarchies only exist in the minds of evolutionists is perhaps the biggest lie in this thread.

Well, if you talk english, and put your cookies on a lower shelf, people just might take a few.

Again, "knowing" is something that requires ultimate knowledge, something that scientists never claim to have. However, there is very strong evidence that these viruses act just as they do today, and that they evidence common ancestry.

Well, knowing is easy as pie. I know that if I jump off a tall tower, I will fall down. I know if I turn on the lights, the room will get light. No shadow of doubt in my mind at all. I know the sun will rise. I don't know that I'll be here in a physical body to see it, mind you. I do not question laws of physics as applied to where they apply, right in the present. I do not question that viruses are passed down, or dna, or etc etc etc. Nothing at all do I question much, I simply accept what we know.
But that has nothing to do with also accepting that we are, as the bible says, and science is mum about, in a temporary universe! Like a fishbowl, and all we know of this physical only fishbowl applies just here, not outside to the past and future. That has just been assumed. Including how genetics work now. Including how evolution works now. Etc.

It makes testable assumptions, otherwise known as inferrences.

You cannot test the state of the universe in the past, and the life process and atomic and molecular stuctures there! Therefore you can't infer. You can assume it is inferrable!!!

If you can find a virus that inserts at the same spot in the genome time after time then you can cast strong doubt on this evidence.

It doesn't exist any more, if it ever did! Maybe when it did, it was something else than a virus as we know it? Maybe it was useful in the life processes of the day? Any evidence on that, one way or the other? You can't just come up with a missing, what we think was a virus case, and expect that to fly beyond the present, now can you??

Until you do, then we are stuck with the observation that retroviruses insert randomly into a genome among thousands of insertion sites.

They do! But did they, that is the question. Why precisely is it random? Do you even know that much? If not, how would we know why it wasn't random, if it wasn't??

Even genetically identical cells infected by the exact same virus will carry ERV's at different spots in their genome. I can link to that study if you want, but I think it will probably be ignored with the rest of the evidence.

No, I accept that, but it is inadmissable for the past, unless you give us a same past. You can't so you, and your observations, I am afraid, are stuck right here in the present where they apply!!! Get it?

The only assumptions are that those animals have those features. Let's take a look at vertebrates and some gross anatomical structures.

Not too gross, I hope.

Mammals, reptiles, birds, and amphibians are all vertebrates. They fit into the vertebrate hierarchy.

Then that word is too broad! That's like saying God made everything in a week, period. But we know He made birds, and fish the same day. So in that hierarchy, the created one, your order doesn't jive.

Mammals have fur, reptiles have scales, amphibians have permeable skin, and birds have feathers.

Traits of different creature, yes, although the created order doesn't consider that in the way God made it. So it is pretty meaningless, really.

These features are confined to those groups and are not found in any other group. Therefore, each belongs to a separate hierarchy but ALL OF THESE SEPARATE HIERARCHIES ARE NESTED WITHIN THE VERTEBRATE HIERARCHY.

SO WHAT? We could also say, that God created the fish and birds one day, and man and beasts another. But all these seperate HIERARCHIES ARE NESTED WITHIN THE CREATION HIERARCHY. So??? All we do is group things according to our beliefs there, either way!!

All mammals are vertebrates, but not all vertebrates are mammals.

Hey, all men are in the created hierarchy, but not all men are fish. That's fun, guess anyone can play!

Staying with the mammallian group, all primates are mammals, but not all mammals are primates. All apes are primates, but not all primates are apes. All humans are apes, but not all apes are humans. Up and down the animal kingdom all species fit into a nested hierarchy because of the features they have, not because of the imagination of humans.

But all fit into the creation hierarchy! Regardless of how else you desperately try to shuffle the deck here, and get that little phrase in!

I don't care what the Bible says. I care what the evidence says. Again, observation trumps fantasies.

The evidence say things about the observed present, and I don't care what you think the past was like if you can't prove it!

That's what I have done. The distribution of shared ERV's in primates is consistent with common ancestry. If it is not, please show me where the inconsistencies are.

Well, it is now passed down by ancestors, and you simply assume it always and only was in a past that was the same!!!! No can do.

Being infected by the same virus is not the evidence I am presenting. Having the same insertion AT THE SAME SPOT IN THE GENOME is what I am using as evidence. This seems to be ignored by every creationist that is involved in this discussion.

Why is that significant?

I have evidence that the past was the same as today. You have zero evidence that the past was different. I win.

No, you do not have any such thing.

Continuity is evidenced. Discontinuity is not. My case is solid.

No, it is not, not in the state of the universe. We could say that the continuity is a nested heirarchy. It's nest is the present!

I don't need data to ignore something that is unevidenced. Repeat after me. I don't need data to ignore something that is unevidenced. You DO ignore data for the continuity of the physical laws.

Such as??

Then you are doing something other than science. If you want to claim that science is wrong then that is fine. Just don't claim that evolution is wrong in a scientific sense. That is exactly what creationists have been trying to do, force their way into science. This only shows how afraid of science they are.

Evolution in the sense that things evolved, and do evolve is not an issue at all. The 'evolution' that is not science is taking that present observation, and trying to run into the different past they can't prove was a same past with it. Ridiculous.

The problem for you is that there is no barrier between the nested hierarchies at what are supposed to be the created kinds.

All depends on how we group them, and organize them into hierarchies! Boy you sure like that phrase, nested hierarchies!

All mammals fit into a nested hierarchy. All eukaryotes fit into a single nested hierarchy. What you are telling me is that Noah only needed a single prokaryote and a single eukaryote, which is a little different than what I was taught in Sunday School.

He needed just the one kind, yes. They then engaged in a little prokaryote! But, true, I never learned that either, it took some creative deduction, and matching of facts and evidence with the bible record.

I do, as does the rest of science which are using these phylogenies in comparative genomics to search for the cause of disease and potential medications.

So what? I go beyond just looking at the present genome, and look at the eternal sequence coming, and that Adam originally had. I look at the new universe genome that has no disease, or death or sickess, or pain!!!!! Do not presume you can one up me. Science is like a tot playing with little blocks, compared to the knowledge of God.

But there are chimeras in the fossil record. Archaeopteryx is both reptile and bird, for example. It has features of both.

So what? Maybe a repltile or a bird evolved to adapt to the changing planet here, maybe God made a few strange creatures!! I really don't get why that turns your crank.

The whole thing is that we only see the chimeras that are predicted by the ToE. There is no reason that an omnipotent Creator would create in a way that mirrors a theory constructed by a 19th century naturalist. That is, unless that creator used evolution from the very start and a universal common ancestor.

Now don't make too much of a little bird that looked like a reptile, or whatever it was. After all, there is adapting that went on, so it is possible the original kinds are quite hard to distinguish now.

I find it strange that the vocal diatribe of "there are no intermediate fossils" has been replaced by "who cares" in the creationist argument.

Well, not all creationists have evolved as I have in their positions. But from my perspective, there had to be hyper evolution in the past, to explain the species that could not fit on the ark. Still, that does not mean your little bird reptile thingie was not from either a created bird, or a created reptile. Birds did not evolve, they were created. Finding a few strange ones does not mean that the creation nested heirarchy is affected.

Why does creationism not predict a mammal/bird chimera? Please enlighten me.

Birds were created, and beasts were created. They are seperate. If some things were created that look a bit like both, or did some evolving, it does not change a thing as to what was created. Our nested creation heirarchy stands!

Perfect, you agree that evolution is falsifiable. If evolution is false then these intermediates should exist.

I simply said I wouldn't be surprised that bats may have adapted from what they once may have been.

What Eden? Evidence please.

The Eden that created things were made in, and which you have no evidence against, no matter how many times you say your little buzz phrase.

 

[mark kennedy]

Woah! Miss a couple of days on here and you miss a lot. It was a little supprising to see how much attention this thread got but no matter, let's see if we can get back on subject.

I would like to take another look at these ERVs and so much is buried in the thread I really don't want to have to go back through them. First of all, are you guys seriously on board with the prevailing view that all the ERVs are really the result of germline invasions?

I don't know why the ERVs seem so convincing but it's not the simularities that are so stricking, it's the differences. I posted some things to the formal debate I am having with EA. If you guys want to take a look and bring some of the details up here I would be interested in what you have to say.

 

[dad]

I would like to take another look at these ERVs and so much is buried in the thread I really don't want to have to go back through them. First of all, are you guys seriously on board with the prevailing view that all the ERVs are really the result of germline invasions?

Are you?

I don't know why the ERVs seem so convincing but it's not the simularities that are so stricking, it's the differences.

Bottom line there, what's the point, precisely either way?

 

[Chalnoth]

I would like to take another look at these ERVs and so much is buried in the thread I really don't want to have to go back through them. First of all, are you guys seriously on board with the prevailing view that all the ERVs are really the result of germline invasions?

All ERV families are originally from germline invasions. But germline retranspositions are certainly going to be a mechanism for many ERV's to copy themselves to different places in the genome.

I really don't see where they came from as that important, though. The original source of the ERV's is interesting, to be sure, and provides an explanation for their usefulness in using them to examine the phylogenic tree. But it's not important to the argument of ERV's for common descent. It's sort of like how the theory of gravity explains how gravity works, but the theory is not necessary to know that things fall when you drop them. Similarly, it's not necessary to know where ERV's came from to know that they are tracers of common descent.

The important aspect of ERV's as evidence for common descent is the strict hierarchy that they form. Here we have a heritable genetic marker that exists in a strict hierarchy, with very few exceptions to that hierarchy that are easily explained through known genetic mechanisms. The most obvious way to explain a strict hierarchy of heritable markers is common descent. That's all there is to it.

I don't know why the ERVs seem so convincing but it's not the simularities that are so stricking, it's the differences. I posted some things to the formal debate I am having with EA. If you guys want to take a look and bring some of the details up here I would be interested in what you have to say.

I know. I think it's because you don't want to accept that humans evolved. But in order to push ERV's away as support for common descent, you need to explain the strict hierarchy that ERV's form in some other manner. Pointing out methods by which ERV's might be in common between organisms without common descent doesn't help, because any such methods aren't going to result in a strict hierarchy of commonality, and could thus be easily accounted for by just observing where ERV's are found in various species.

 

[Tomk80]

I know. I think it's because you don't want to accept that humans evolved. But in order to push ERV's away as support for common descent, you need to explain the strict hierarchy that ERV's form in some other manner. Pointing out methods by which ERV's might be in common between organisms without common descent doesn't help, because any such methods aren't going to result in a strict hierarchy of commonality, and could thus be easily accounted for by just observing where ERV's are found in various species.

The differences would be interesting though. Because these should follow the exact same pattern as the ERV's themselves do.

If an ERV was inserted and fully fixed in the genome of the common ancestor of chmips, gorillas and humans, the mutations in the ERV should more or less follow the pattern of common ancestry. For example, a mutation occurring in the gorilla lineage after gorillas split of from humans and chimps, would not be found in the chimp/human lineage. So the differences would this way provide additional evidence for lineages. (this is a bit simplistic of course, there is still the problem of crossing over and not fully fixed mutations, but that would also show in the analysis).

 

[Ondoher]

Woah! Miss a couple of days on here and you miss a lot. It was a little supprising to see how much attention this thread got but no matter, let's see if we can get back on subject.

I would like to take another look at these ERVs and so much is buried in the thread I really don't want to have to go back through them. First of all, are you guys seriously on board with the prevailing view that all the ERVs are really the result of germline invasions?

This is pretty well established, given that we can determine the retroviral families many ERV's belong to, and because they contain what looks like a retroviral genome, or at least parts of one.

I don't know why the ERVs seem so convincing but it's not the simularities that are so stricking, it's the differences.

This is actually, true. But probably not in the way you mean. What is striking about the differences in ERV orthologues is how they can be used to infer a phylogeny.

Now, if each identified ERV orthologue present in multiple species implied a different phylogeny, then we'd have to seriously reconsider common ancestry. This is because common ancestry demands that there is a single, true phylogeny of species. This is the phylogeny that results from descent with modification: the true family tree of life. That cladistic analysis of ERV's produce consistent phylogenies is the expected outcome of common ancestry. As far as I can tell, no form of creationism can naturally deduce this pattern.

I posted some things to the formal debate I am having with EA. If you guys want to take a look and bring some of the details up here I would be interested in what you have to say.

One thing I noticed about that debate is that when discussing shared pseudogenes, you neglected to address the fact that pseudogenes, like ERV's, can be used to infer phylogenies.

The ascorbic acid pseudogene in question is similarly damaged in primates, and differently damaged in guinea pigs. And in the primate version, the accumulated differences in this pseudogene can be used to infer a phylogeny that matches understood primate relationships. Again, this is the expected, and necessary outcome of common ancestry. I have seen no other explanation put forward to explain the nested hierachy of life as a necessary consequence of that explanation

 

[Chalnoth]

The differences would be interesting though. Because these should follow the exact same pattern as the ERV's themselves do.

If an ERV was inserted and fully fixed in the genome of the common ancestor of chmips, gorillas and humans, the mutations in the ERV should more or less follow the pattern of common ancestry. For example, a mutation occurring in the gorilla lineage after gorillas split of from humans and chimps, would not be found in the chimp/human lineage. So the differences would this way provide additional evidence for lineages. (this is a bit simplistic of course, there is still the problem of crossing over and not fully fixed mutations, but that would also show in the analysis).

Well, sure, and that adds even more weight to the idea that ERV's are evidence of ancient germline infections. However, genetic dating is quite inaccurate, due to a large number of factors that can influence mutation rates, so it's not terribly strong evidence, in my opinion. I like ERV homology because it's totally binary evidence: either it's there, or it's not. The uncertainty is almost zero.

 

[Tomk80]

Well, sure, and that adds even more weight to the idea that ERV's are evidence of ancient germline infections. However, genetic dating is quite inaccurate, due to a large number of factors that can influence mutation rates, so it's not terribly strong evidence, in my opinion. I like ERV homology because it's totally binary evidence: either it's there, or it's not. The uncertainty is almost zero.

I wasn't talking about genetic dating specifically, although the mutations might also give rough estimates in that direction. My main point is that, if common ancestry is correct, not only will the ERV's show a nested hierarchy, but the mutations of ERV's should also show their own, independent nested hierarchy.

 

[dad]

Now, if each identified ERV orthologue present in multiple species implied a different phylogeny, then we'd have to seriously reconsider common ancestry. This is because common ancestry demands that there is a single, true phylogeny of species. This is the phylogeny that results from descent with modification: the true family tree of life. That cladistic analysis of ERV's produce consistent phylogenies is the expected outcome of common ancestry. As far as I can tell, no form of creationism can naturally deduce this pattern.

Well, I think I may do just that. I think what is being said here, is that the ERV orthologue ("orthologs are genes in different species which evolved from a common ancestral gene. " Wikopedia) are similar in different creatures. The interpretation being that it was passed down from a common ancestor?
If so, what is it we actually see here? That an ancient virus, or retrovirus, or something similar that evolved down to it's present form, and was in amny species, and kinds of animals.
Because of the way viruses are now transferred, or come to be in an animal, it is assumed it was also this same way in the past. Then, as an explanation, a common ancestor is needed to pass it on down?

If so, then, the underlying assumption is that the past was pretty well the same as now.
If it was drastically different, and the viruses were able to get around in ways they cannot now do, doing whatever different thing they used to do then, they would end up residing in a wide swath of creatures. Therefore, as the processes changed, and the present came to be, we simply see how it is now passed down. All assumptions of common ancestry become nothing more than assumptions that the past was the same. How we doing here so far?
I'll just float that, before driving home the conclusion.

 

[Chalnoth]

I wasn't talking about genetic dating specifically, although the mutations might also give rough estimates in that direction. My main point is that, if common ancestry is correct, not only will the ERV's show a nested hierarchy, but the mutations of ERV's should also show their own, independent nested hierarchy.

Well, that's what I meant. The frequency of mutations in the ERV's themselves will be dependent upon the individual biology of the different species, which includes the amount of time between generations. It will also depend upon whether or not specific ERV's become active and selected (which could both increase and decrease the observed mutation rate). There may also be environmental changes that affect mutation rates.

Anyway, I think it's an interesting thing to look at, for sure, but will be much more prone to uncertainties.