Endogenous retroviruses

[Loudmouth]

This shows that common ancestry is not required to explain similar
retroviral insertions between species.

You are making the study say things it is not. The preference is towards sequences upstream of active genes. These viruses have preference for certain areas, not specific sites (ie same nucleotide) on the genome. Referencing the very paper you mention, this table shows the insertions of the three viruses. You will notice that they are spread throughout the genome. In fact, the paper never says anywhere that the viruses were specific to a certain nucleotide, as would be necessary to explain the exact same insertion in two different species without them having a common ancestor. Therefore, common ancestory is still needed to explain why two different species share several viral insertions at the SAME NUCLEOTIDE instead of upstream of an actively transcribed gene.

 

[JohnR7]

Its just difficult to grasp that an entire species would originate from one pair of creatures.

Do a google search on "common ancestor" and that will explain it to you. It has more to do with the more recent common ancestor, as compared to the oldest common ancestor. In theory, some people believe our most recent common ancestor could be as recent as 700 years ago.

My son was talking about the movie "Braveheart". Sense we are of scottish decent on one side of our family, there is a good chance that one way or the other, he is related to the hero of the movie.

It is only a matter of time, before they use DNA to map out the entire human genologys, so we will know exactly who we are related to all the way back to the beginning. The mormons for one have done a lot of research on this.

 

[JohnR7]

What do you want to know about retroviruses? I would be glad to help you.

Actually, what I am wondering about is common ancestor. It has been established that there is a most distant common ancestor, but is there also a most recent common ancestor?

Is it possible that this retroviruses could have come to us all in a way so that it did not go though our most distant common ancestor?

 

[pureone]

Actually, what I am wondering about is common ancestor. It has been established that there is a most distant common ancestor, but is there also a most recent common ancestor?

I don't quite follow this, but I think I understand.
You can put a recent common ancestor depending on who you are looking for the ancestor to. What i mean, is that at every branch on the evolutionary bush, there is a common ancestor before the branching begins. Say you wanted to know who was the most common ancestor of elephants and mammoths, then you would go to the bush and find that fork. the "handle of that specific fork would be the most recent ancestor.

Is it possible that this retroviruses could have come to us all in a way so that it did not go though our most distant common ancestor?

not really. Go back to the beginning of the ERV thread and read the possible YEC rebuttals for their take on other methods of infection or reasons for the existence of these things.

 

[JohnR7]

Go back to the beginning of the ERV thread and read the possible YEC rebuttals for their take on other methods of infection or reasons for the existence of these things.

The arguement "against" Endogenous retroviruses does not come from YEC's, it comes from science. The very foundation that this theory is built on has already been falsified. So it is just a matter of time before the whole theory is going to come down like a stack of cards. Two key points are "vestages" & "junk DNA". These both have been and continue to be falsifed theorys.

Even though these so called "junk DNA" makes up 8% of the human genes it is thought to have no function. Yet experments in mice show that if you remove the so called "vestage" or "junk DNA" the mice do not survive. Leaving us with the obvious conclusion that their function is not yet known. Yet they are still essential for the mice to live.

The bottom line is, no insult intended, the fifty year old theory of DNA is destine for the junk pile. As more information becomes available, then a new theory is going to need to be developed.

So, science still has the burdon of proof that this so called "junk DNA" was not there from the beginning and that it got picked up somewhere along the way. Even if it were to get picked up somewhere along the way, that still leaves the question of where did it come from in the first place

http://www.cgen.com/news/articles/article110003.html

http://acs.ucsd.edu/~idea/uncausedcause.htm

 

[pureone]

ERV's are not "Junk" DNA. We know what they are. Has someone removed these sequences from humans to see if they are necessary? Other viruses are inserted in our genes as well. they actually cause cancer when "activated". So God deliberatly inserted disease causing viruses in our genome?
The papers are in NCBI, not talkorigins

 

[JohnR7]

ERV's are not "Junk" DNA. We know what they are. Has someone removed these sequences from humans to see if they are necessary?

What they removed was pseudogenes. This falsifies the "junk" DNA theory as well as the vestages theory.

"This pseudogene (named makorin1-p1) is a greatly shortened copy of makorin1, an ancient gene that mice share with fruit flies, worms and many other species. Although researchers don't know what makorin1 does, they do know that mice have lots of makorin1 pseudogenes and that none of them can make proteins. But if pseudogenes do nothing, why were these mice dying when they lost one?" http://www.mindfully.org/GE/2003/Junk-GenomeNov03.htm

Unless you want to volunteer to allow them to remove some of the Endogenous Retorviruses from your DNA, then it maybe a good idea to allow them to carry on their experments using the mice.

 

[JohnR7]

So God deliberatly inserted disease causing viruses in our genome?

From a Christian perspective Adam was created 6000 years ago, and he was never to get sick, and he was never to die. Then sin entered into the world. The question them becomes, what did God intend the so called "virus" to do, what was their origional function or intention, back when everything was "good", and back before creation fell from God's purpose and intention.

http://www.worldtalkradio.com/archive.asp?aid=871

 

[Jet Black]

From a Christian perspective Adam was created 6000 years ago

from a literalist perspective, please don't accuse all those who do not accept your statement there of not being christian, it's against the rules.

 

[Jet Black]

What they removed was pseudogenes. This falsifies the "junk" DNA theory as well as the vestages theory.

"This pseudogene (named makorin1-p1) is a greatly shortened copy of makorin1, an ancient gene that mice share with fruit flies, worms and many other species. Although researchers don't know what makorin1 does, they do know that mice have lots of makorin1 pseudogenes and that none of them can make proteins. But if pseudogenes do nothing, why were these mice dying when they lost one?" http://www.mindfully.org/GE/2003/Junk-GenomeNov03.htm

Unless you want to volunteer to allow them to remove some of the Endogenous Retorviruses from your DNA, then it maybe a good idea to allow them to carry on their experments using the mice.

just because some pseudogenes have a function does not mean all pseudogenes have a function. we know for a fact that removal of certain massive stretches of DNA has no effect. nevertheless, this is besides the point, we are not discussing pseudogenes, we are discussing ERVs. totally different topic.

 

[JohnR7]

we know for a fact that removal of certain massive stretches of DNA has no effect.

Except for the limp and the noticable twitch, it has no effect. Right?

 

[Jet Black]

Except for the limp and the noticable twitch, it has no effect. Right?

nope, really no effect john. see notice how almost all the mice had no problem apart from one in which a particular pseudogene was affected, right? you might have missed that bit.

 

[Loudmouth]

The arguement "against" Endogenous retroviruses does not come from YEC's, it comes from science. The very foundation that this theory is built on has already been falsified. So it is just a matter of time before the whole theory is going to come down like a stack of cards. Two key points are "vestages" & "junk DNA". These both have been and continue to be falsifed theorys.

No one is saying that ERV's are not used for other functions. In fact, all mammals have a common ERV that is thought to be involved in placental development and may have been the main thrust behind the evolution of the placenta:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=9619102

Secondly, ERV's can do three things, help the body, hurt the body, or do nothing. They are no different than a simple mutation in this respect. However, the point that you and many other creationist miss is that these genes code for viral proteins. These genes are what the virus uses to insert it's DNA/RNA into the host chromosome, build protien coats, and help the virus replicate. For instance, the ERV responsible for placental development originally made viruses.

Thirdly, the human ERV's differ from individual to individual. That is, there are ERV's that are not common to all humans. Therefore, according to your brand of creationism, that means some humans are designed differently than other humans and that there may be two "kinds" of humans. If you subscribe to the notion that ERV's are used as either punishment for sinning or for design, then perhaps you could tell me what the ERV's do in the following two studies:


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=14757818

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=11591322

If every ERV's has such an impact on how a body functions then you should be able to tell which individuals have which ERV without searching their DNA. Could you please tell me how to do that?

Quite simply, ERV's do support common ancestory, they do cause disease and changes in morphology, and they also are neutral reminants of failed infections. The evidence is in total support of this.

 

[JohnR7]

If you subscribe to the notion that ERV's are used as either punishment for sinning or for design, then perhaps you could tell me what the ERV's do in the following two studies:

That would tend to create more questions, then it would provide answers. The Bible clearly says that everything God created was "good". We usually do not consider a virus to be a good thing.

Also, the Bible is mostly concerned with the last 6000 years. From what I have read about these ERV's they are suppose to go back a lot further than that.

The real question is why did not natural selection eliminate them? If they do not provide some sort of advanatage, then they should have gotten selected out.

 

[Data]

The real question is why did not natural selection eliminate them? If they do not provide some sort of advanatage, then they should have gotten selected out.

They would only be actively selected out if they had a disadvantage. If I have a ERV in a non-coding segment, but you don't - then do you have an advantage? Do I? We both don't, therefore natural selection does not occur.

The majority (anyone know the exact percentage?) of our DNA just does nothing. It sits there, getting copied, but does nothing. Never gets read out into proteins, like the DNA that matters.

 

[Loudmouth]

That would tend to create more questions, then it would provide answers. The Bible clearly says that everything God created was "good". We usually do not consider a virus to be a good thing.

So who created the viruses that cause cancer, MS, and a slew of other diseases? And again, there are ERV insertions that are not common to all humans, some have it some don't. Therefore, it begs the question: Are some people designed differently or are some people cursed by more sin than others? Or, as evolution contends, are these ERV's neutral and passed along randomly like other neutral mutations?

Also, the Bible is mostly concerned with the last 6000 years. From what I have read about these ERV's they are suppose to go back a lot further than that.

So you are contending that humans have been around for millions of years? Are you saying that God gave us ERV's with the appearance of age in order to deceive us?

The real question is why did not natural selection eliminate them? If they do not provide some sort of advanatage, then they should have gotten selected out.

As I stated before, ERV's can be beneficial, netural, or a detriment. The beneficial ERV's are kept, such as the ERV involved in placental development. The detrimental ones are removed through natural selection. The neutral ERV's are passed randomly which is why it is rare for an entire population to have a neutral ERV in common. That is why having 7 neutral ERV's in common with another species is such strong support for common ancestory.

Also, I might also add that the mutations occuring WITHIN the ERV's also follows evolutionary phylogenies and morphology.

 

[JohnR7]

So who created the viruses that cause cancer, MS, and a slew of other diseases?

God created everything, and He created it to be good. But then man and the devil made a mess out of things. If you built a brand new beautiful house and then your teenage son had a wild party and trashed the house, are you going to blame the builder, because the house is trashed?

And again, there are ERV insertions that are not common to all humans, some have it some don't. Therefore, it begs the question: Are some people designed differently or are some people cursed by more sin than others? Or, as evolution contends, are these ERV's neutral and passed along randomly like other neutral mutations?

Some people are more cursed by sin than others. God offers us a choice, blessing or curse, health or sickness, poverty or prosperity. Each and every individual at some point in their life, gets to make that choice.

So you are contending that humans have been around for millions of years?

Man as we now know him has been around for about 6000 years. Before that there could have been what has been refered to as human like or humanoids. But not humans as we now know them.

Are you saying that God gave us ERV's with the appearance of age in order to deceive us?

God does not deceive people, but at times He will allow them to be deceived. People do a pretty good job of deceiving themselves and others.

The neutral ERV's are passed randomly which is why it is rare for an entire population to have a neutral ERV in common. That is why having 7 neutral ERV's in common with another species is such strong support for common ancestory.

Only if you can show they were added and not there all along. Otherwise, species may have a lot in common without having evolved from a common ancestor. There are other explainations for why they would have so much common DNA.

 

[Jimmy The Hand]

Some people are more cursed by sin than others. God offers us a choice, blessing or curse, health or sickness, poverty or prosperity. Each and every individual at some point in their life, gets to make that choice.

So you are saying those stricken by sickness are unrepentant?

Good grief.

Even Jesus walked among the lepers.

 

[JohnR7]

The majority (anyone know the exact percentage?) of our DNA just does nothing. It sits there, getting copied, but does nothing. Never gets read out into proteins, like the DNA that matters.

This is getting falsified more and more very day. You need to keep up more with the latest research.

 

[JohnR7]

So you are saying those stricken by sickness are unrepentant?

Good grief.

Even Jesus walked among the lepers.

Yes, Jesus walked amoung the lepers, because He was sent to rescue and save those who needed rescued and saved. God is no respector of persons, if one person can be healthy, then everyone can be healthy. Jesus went about healing and doing good. That is the work that God desires to do in our lives. He represents life, health and healing. It is his desire to heal everyone that comes to Him. He is not always able to, but He would like to heal them all. In fact salvation, or to save someone, means to heal them and make them whole.