Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
No need for that at all. Orthologous endogenous retroviruses, when they only exist within a subset of the species surveyed, always exist in a subset consistent with the phylogenic tree. You can't just wave that away by saying the past was different. If you want to say it's not evidence for common ancestry, then you need to suggest an alternative mechanism. You have failed to do this.If so, then, the underlying assumption is that the past was pretty well the same as now.
But isn't that circular reasoning? Here is how phylogenic is defined.No need for that at all. Orthologous endogenous retroviruses, when they only exist within a subset of the species surveyed, always exist in a subset consistent with the phylogenic tree.
Nope. The chance for all ERV's to form into one single hierarchical structure with no mechanism to form such a structure is essentially zero.But isn't that circular reasoning?
Are you?
Bottom line there, what's the point, precisely either way?
I didn't say they formed or any chance at all is required! They were passed down, and the process of evolution was at play in the various species at least. The only difference in the ideas we have, is that the passing down of the ERVs began in a different past, from created creatures. That is where the real trees start and end.Nope. The chance for all ERV's to form into one single hierarchical structure with no mechanism to form such a structure is essentially zero.
I don't need another explanation. I have evolution from creation. Can't beat that.And even if you did find another mechanism for producing a hierarchical structure (any hierarchical structure),
Starting with created creatures, and then evolving from there gives us all the trees you can ask for.then you'd also have to show that other methods of forming the phylogenic tree would naturally give the same result.
Ah, readying the retreat already. OK.ERV's are not, after all, the only evidence of common ancestry.
What you basically see here is that the method is it's own check.Nope. The chance for all ERV's to form into one single hierarchical structure with no mechanism to form such a structure is essentially zero.
And even if you did find another mechanism for producing a hierarchical structure (any hierarchical structure), then you'd also have to show that other methods of forming the phylogenic tree would naturally give the same result. ERV's are not, after all, the only evidence of common ancestry.
So, you are saying what? That the viruses originally got into the creatures how? Or is it that you feel they are not passed down?No, of course not. This kind of speculation about how the ERVs came to be in the human genome subsided after the completion of the Human Genome Project. They found that Retroelements in general made up 47% of the human genome and 8%, for the most part, were these ERVs. This kind of a germline invasion is rare and there are immune systems that fight it. They also are connected to certain diseases so the idea that 8% of the genome is framents of viruses is absurd in the extreme.
I think you feel somehow, then, as a believer, that the more differences the better? I take it, that is because you don't like the idea that species evolved, and passed the things down?First of all the ERVs are a large part of the differences between chimpanzees and humans. This whole line of arguement is a way of turning the whole concept of comparing DNA sequences on it's head. They don't want to explain the differences so they emphasis the things that are the same.
My idea, of course is that the actual differences were in the past, like when we lived a thousand years, etc. Sure seems like a lot of things with the plant and animal life processes and rates etc were different.I've been tracking down the actual ERVs and it's breathtaking how these are being argued as proof of common ancestry. All I can figure is that they are betting the farm that creationists will go endlessly in circles and never really explore the actual differences.
It would be, if we didn't have billions of years for the ERV's to get inserted into the genome. Since we have observed ERV's inserting themselves into DNA, ERV's are another piece of independent evidence of deep time.They also are connected to certain diseases so the idea that 8% of the genome is framents of viruses is absurd in the extreme.
When measured by number of base pairs, sure. Since each (rare) ERV insertion provides pehraps thousands of base pairs to the genome, and because they have a tendency to make copies of themselves, you don't need many ERV's to make for a lot of difference in the number of base pairs. 5-8 million years is quite enough to explain the differences we do see.First of all the ERVs are a large part of the differences between chimpanzees and humans.
I'm sure there are many evolutionary biologists that are very interested in the mechanisms that drive mutations, as well as any natural selection mechanisms that may affect changes between species. You yourself have posted many papers that are investigating these things as they relate to ERV's.This whole line of arguement is a way of turning the whole concept of comparing DNA sequences on it's head. They don't want to explain the differences so they emphasis the things that are different.
If you could find orthologous ERV's that violate the currently-accepted phylogenic tree to the tune of 32 for every 6 that exist within the accepted phylogenic tree. You would need this many violations for ERV's to be consistent with no phylogenic tree (from my previous calculations here).I've been tracking down the actual ERVs and it's breathtaking how these are being argued as proof of common ancestry. All I can figure is that they are betting the farm that creationists will go endlessly in circles and never really explore the actual differences.
But if common ancestry was only started from created kinds, and the species and whatnots evolved FROM there, then the method does still work, but the concept of common ancestry cannot go back any further than the created ancestors. Therefore the cladistics dreaming goes way way too far, riding the coat tails of a principle that is good, but limited!What you basically see here is that the method is it's own check.
If the theory of evolution is correct, we should be able to draw up a (twin-)nested hierarchy. To check this, we build a method (cladisitics) that tries to find this hierarchy. If we find such a hierarchy, the theory is correct.
The method is it's own check, because if common ancestry would not be correct, there would be no reason for the method to work. Indeed, if common ancestry was incorrect, the method should not work. Hence, the fact that the method works shows that common ancestry is correct.
Well, if common ancestry was started from created kinds, cladisitics should be able to derive these kinds. The fact that, with cladistics, we can go all the way up to a complete tree of life which includes all life on earth, shows that common ancestry was in fact started from a single organism. Whether that organism was created or not is more for the chemists amongst us to find out.But if common ancestry was only started from created kinds, and the species and whatnots evolved FROM there, then the method does still work, but the concept of common ancestry cannot go back any further than the created ancestors. Therefore the cladistics dreaming goes way way too far, riding the coat tails of a principle that is good, but limited!
Then the method would only work up to a point. But we see nested hierarchies all the way back to the simplest animal forms, strongly indicating one single common ancestor, not multiple instances of special creation. For example, all life shares nearly identical genes for performing basic cellular functions such as making proteins from DNA and copying DNA.But if common ancestry was only started from created kinds, and the species and whatnots evolved FROM there, then the method does still work,
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 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.
Then the method would only work up to a point. But we see nested hierarchies all the way back to the simplest animal forms, strongly indicating one single common ancestor, not multiple instances of special creation. For example, all life shares nearly identical genes for performing basic cellular functions such as making proteins from DNA and copying DNA.
So what?? How much life was created with no genes?? What do you think, cells ought to be different in each kind of creature?? Many students use pencils and pens, does this mean they all came from the same parents? Cars use bolts, and wires, do they all come from the same plant? Many creatures have eyes, does that mean they should all be the same creature? How would similar creted building blocks of life not exist from creation, any more or less than evolution from a virus, or lifeform??..For example, all life shares nearly identical genes for performing basic cellular functions such as making proteins from DNA and copying DNA.
No it doesn't, because my probability estimate, as I've explained to you a number of times, assumes nothing about the probability of separate invasions at different locations. My probability estimate assumes that parallel transmission of ERV's at orthologous positions is highly probable (never mind that there is no known process for such transmission). And that estimate comes up with an absurdly miniscule probability for ERV's being consistent with no phylogenic tree existing.It's simple really, if they were not from a germline invasion then the whole probablity of seperate invasions at the exact same location goes up in smoke.
You're welcome to try to find one, but the evidence all points towards a common ancestor. I think your search is just wishful thinking.You don't know how bad I want to know exactly how evolution works, that's your problem. I believe in a very radical version of evolution that does not include apes and humans having a common ancestor.
Let's just take the ERV's found in the Lebedev et. al. 2000 paper. Those alone are more than enough to show that the phylogenic tree exists.That is enough, which ERVs are you talking about? I would like to know their location, class and how they have been characterized. I would just love to refute this ridiculas line of argumentation but you are simply arguing in circles.
How?Well, if common ancestry was started from created kinds, cladisitics should be able to derive these kinds.
Try not to forget you are only going there in your mind. Cladistics assumes evolution, and doesn't know where to stop.The fact that, with cladistics, we can go all the way up to a complete tree of life which includes all life on earth,
False, in no way does it even begin to show that. How do you claim it does that?shows that common ancestry was in fact started from a single organism.
Yes. Because life exhibits a hierarchy of form at every level. The strict hierarchy was obvious to those studying life before the existence of any theory that would explain this hierarchy. As we obtain more and more data about life, particularly genetic data, we modify the tree to keep it consistent with all collected data.The tree was made up before there was such a thing as evolututionary biology, did you know that?
Now why would that be?The tree was made up before there was such a thing as evolututionary biology, did you know that?
No Mark, it is not an a priori assumption. It is a conclusion from the evidence, both on a morphological and genetic level. It holds for apes (including us) too. It will be interesting to see what happens when other genomes are fully analyzed though.It's an a priori assumption that cannot predict the level of diversity between closely related taxa. They said for decades that we were 99% ape in our DNA and now they don't want to admit they were wrong.
Yes we do. That you do not want to accept it does not mean it we don't know it.Evolution is not about things that are the same, it's about the change of alleles in populations over time. The burden of proof is on getting a demonstrated mechanism for those changes and you don't have one.
If there was no adapting and evolving, how do you explain the animals on the ark? They woudn't all fit, if we too, say the thirty some odd species of tigers, etc. So, the mechanism then would be the created mechanism. Obviously something changed, and evolution is slowed to a crawl....Evolution is not about things that are the same, it's about the change of alleles in populations over time. The burden of proof is on getting a demonstrated mechanism for those changes and you don't have one.
Because cladistics would then not arrive at a single tree, but at multiple different trees.How?
Because common ancestry is true. I've already explained this.Try not to forget you are only going there in your mind. Cladistics assumes evolution, and doesn't know where to stop.
Because we can draw up a single tree. If a universal common ancestor would be correct, there would be no reason why we would be able to arrive at such a tree.False, in no way does it even begin to show that. How do you claim it does that?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?