ERVs place common descent beyond any reasonable doubt.

[Loudmouth]

Any scientific conclusion based on human reasoning is always doubtful. That's why common descent is called a theory and not a fact. A scientific theory is always held tentatively precisely because there is always reasonable doubt. If there was no reasonable doubt it would be considered a fact and not a mere theory.

We have no doubt that humans and apes share similar DNA, but we will always have doubt that humans evolved from apes. That's why this idea, or theory, is always held tentatively -- it's precisely because there is always reasonable doubt.

We accept the theory as tentatively true because there is no reasonable doubt that it is false.

It would be unreasonable for Scientists to conclude without a shadow of a doubt that humans evolved from apes. Otherwise, it would no longer be a scientific theory because a scientific theory always leaves room for doubt.

It is unreasonable for you to ignore all of the evidence.

 

[Loudmouth]

No, it means we (humans) all share a common ancestor that was infected by a retrovirus that was inserted from a chimp host and vice versa.

That would produce non-orthologous ERV's, or ERV's that are not at the same place in each genome.

 

[Loudmouth]

More than likely they are just remnant microscopic fragments of disintergrated cells of long dead organisms...they enter the cell and the functional transcription translation process duplicates these varied strands of genetic material and they DO NOT change the actual inheritable Genome so that in no way can be used to "prove" a common ancestor (in the Darwinian sense)...

More thank likely? It reads like something you made up.

We can observe retroviruses producing ERVs in the lab. This is a direct observation (or as direct as it gets in molecular biology).

 

[Loudmouth]

I was answering someone elses question. The world does not revolve around you.

The thread does revolve around the opening post. Please don't drag yet another thread off topic.

 

[Loudmouth]

commonly located, as in the same place?
are you saying these ERVs are immune to transposition?.
furthermore, how do you know they are ERVs and not HGT or evolved?

We know that they are inherited vertically because they occur at the same position in each genome. If they were acquired independently then they would be found at different positions in each genome.

"Given the size of vertebrate genomes (>1 × 10^9 bp) and the random nature of retroviral integration (22, 23), multiple integrations (and subsequent fixation) of ERV loci at precisely the same location are highly unlikely (24). Therefore, an ERV locus shared by two or more species is descended from a single integration event and is proof that the species share a common ancestor into whose germ line the original integration took place (14)."
http://www.pnas.org/content/96/18/10254.full

 

[Loudmouth]

i'm aware that it takes start and stop bits to determine the length of a sequence.

It doesn't. First, there is no stop and start codon for DNA polymerase. DNA sequencing uses DNA replication, not RNA transcription.

Second, most sequencing methods shred the DNA into 200 to 300 base pair pieces. If this shredded DNA is directly sequenced without an plasmid host, then the length is determined when the sequencing reaction stops. When the polymerase hits the end of the DNA molecule there is not a complementary base to match up to.

yes, i would very much like to know how science determines how "old" a gene is.

For ERV's, this can be determined by three methods. Coffin and Johnson already did a good job of describing them.

First, the distribution of provirus-containing loci among taxa dates the insertion. Given the size of vertebrate genomes (>1 × 10^9 bp) and the random nature of retroviral integration (22, 23), multiple integrations (and subsequent fixation) of ERV loci at precisely the same location are highly unlikely (24). Therefore, an ERV locus shared by two or more species is descended from a single integration event and is proof that the species share a common ancestor into whose germ line the original integration took place (14). . .

Second, as with other sequence-based phylogenetic analyses, mutations in a provirus that have accumulated since the divergence of the species provide an estimate of the genetic distance between the species. . . .

Third, sequence divergence between the LTRs at the ends of a given provirus provides an important and unique source of phylogenetic information. The LTRs are created during reverse transcription to regenerate cis-acting elements required for integration and transcription. Because of the mechanism of reverse transcription, the two LTRs must be identical at the time of integration, even if they differed in the precursor provirus (Fig. 1A). Over time, they will diverge in sequence because of substitutions, insertions, and deletions acquired during cellular DNA replication.
http://www.pnas.org/content/96/18/10254.full​

with the implementation of HGT, we can most likely expect ANY type of "descent".

With vertical inheritance, we can expect a nested hierarchy which ERV's are observed to fall into. Here are the phylogenies of LTR divergence, and they exactly match the phylogeny based on morphology.

http://www.pnas.org/content/96/18/10254/F2.expansion.html

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Frum...of course the cell is semi-permeable and selective, and these retro viruses are 1000 times smaller (or more) than a single cell (an easy fit), and biochemically they are of the type of materials a cell can use (hence the cell is deceived in a sense)...but it is not as if they are a living thing...they only act as if alive when incorporated and hooked into the system so to speak....they have no power of their own. In effect, it is just a piece of code...so it should not be a surprise we find some sections in animals that are similar.

How does any of that address the point? Of course we should not be surprised when we find the various retrovirus code sequences for group-specific antigens (core and structural proteins), polymerases (reverse transcriptase, protease and integrase), and envelope (for the retroviral coat proteins) in host genomes - that's what ERVs do; and when we find the same ERV sequences in the same place in many different host species genomes, it's statistically obvious that the genomes must share a common ancestor into which those sequences were originally inserted.

 

[The Cadet]

maybe i was expecting too much when i requested something for the common man to understand.

This just in: science is hard. Particularly when you get down to the molecular level and are trying to use things that are very small to examine relationships that are very old. It's not a walk in the park, and really understanding it can take years of study. There's a reason we look to PhD biologists, and not, say, lawyers, to get good information on biology and genetics. If you're expecting something that someone with no understanding of the subject and no interest in getting into the subject can understand... Well, the portion of PhD biologists who reject evolution is close to the portion of Historians who deny the holocaust. You don't have to understand anything about science to realize that that means that the people telling you that evolution can't happen are wrong.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

The point is that evolution is said to go back billions of years. Yet Endogenous retrovirus showed up millions of years ago. Mostly in mammals and other jawed vertebrates. This is evidence that creation is in a fallen condition and in need of redemption and restoration. It was never God's plan for creation to devour itself and once restored the species will not harm and try to devour themselves they way you see now. The study of creation verifies the word of God.

Isa 65 25 New Heavens and Earth
…24"It will also come to pass that before they call, I will answer; and while they are still speaking, I will hear. 25"The wolf and the lamb will graze together, and the lion will eat straw like the ox; and dust will be the serpent's food. They will do no evil or harm in all My holy mountain," says the LORD.

This is not making any sense. Millions of years ago goes back to before mankind, which by definition has to be before the fall of man. So the presence of ERV's at that time cannot be ascribed to the fall of Adam.

Creation has never devoured itself. However, some created things devour some other created things. Is that what you call "creation devouring itself?"

Some of us call that "recycling".

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

you could no doubt "prove" humans were direct descendents of bananas if you looked at it in the right way.

Well no, you couldn't.

You just said that to make an invalid point. We can all see that.

 

[joshua 1 9]

This is not making any sense. Millions of years ago goes back to before mankind, which by definition has to be before the fall of man. So the presence of ERV's at that time cannot be ascribed to the fall of Adam.

Ok, this is the story. Satan's job was to lead the worship of God. Only because of his beauty he fell into rebellion. He wanted to be worshiped as God. The result was that Satan and Michael got into a battle and Satan along with the angels that followed him in his rebellion were thrown down to the Earth. They were upset about this so to even the score with God they began to mess with the dinosaurs to get them to destroy each other. The plan was to get God's creation to destroy itself. God then broke up Pangea in three phases. He split the north from the south. Then He split the East from the west. Phase three took place 65 million years ago and then God breathed upon the world and the Ice Age began.

Around 12,980 years ago another comet hit the earth and there was yet another extinction at the time followed by a population explosion. This begins the world that we currently live in. Adam came along 6,000 years ago. Yet Satan was in the garden in the form of the snake or the serpent. He somehow got Adam and Eve to follow him in his rebellion. Of course there is a lot more to the story then just this, but I like to try to keep it brief.

The retro virus then actually began with the dinosaurs. But the virus were with the mammals from the time of the dinosaurs. While some people feel there is not strong Bible support for this, it is the only way we have to reconcile the evidence we have right now. Sin and rebellion results in death, either the death of man or the death of God. In this case because of God's love for man Jesus went to the cross to die for man. (For the Joy set before Him endured the cross and the shame) This is the only way you can have free will and freedom of choice. Love would not be love and human nature would not be human without the freedom to choose love. Or the freedom to reject God's love.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/09/120918111320.htm

 

[joshua 1 9]

Well, the portion of PhD biologists who reject evolution is close to the portion of Historians who deny the holocaust. You don't have to understand anything about science to realize that that means that the people telling you that evolution can't happen are wrong.

The fact that they accept evolution is about the only agreement they have regarding evolution. Because they have strong difference of opinions of just how evolution came about and just what the actual mechanism is.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

The fact that they accept evolution is about the only agreement they have regarding evolution. Because they have strong difference of opinions of just how evolution came about and just what the actual mechanism is.

Aw c'mon. Its mutation plus natural selection. The rest is observing interesting patterns (neutral drift, sexual selection, punctuated equilibrium . . . )

 

[joshua 1 9]

Aw c'mon. Its mutation plus natural selection. The rest is observing interesting patterns (neutral drift, sexual selection, punctuated equilibrium . . . )

ye old mutation theory is purely an act of desperation. Neutral drift, sexual selection, punctuated equilibrium are all micro fine tuning. There is no macro evolution involved in any of that. I am not against macro evolution. That is fine with me if that is the way God wants to do it. But the evidence simply does not back that up. That is why the leading expert tells us that DNA is the language of God.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

ye old mutation theory is purely an act of desperation. Neutral drift, sexual selection, punctuated equilibrium are all micro fine tuning. There is no macro evolution involved in any of that. I am not against macro evolution. That is fine with me if that is the way God wants to do it. But the evidence simply does not back that up. That is why the leading expert tells us that DNA is the language of God.

So in other words you have mere words to go against the established theories. You call it "an act of desperation". You refer to evolutionary developments as "all micro fine tuning". You say "there is no macro evolution involved".

Your mere proclamations are thought to be all you need to provide. It looks like argument by hypnosis.

"Repeat after me . . . its all micro fine tuning . . . there is no macro evolution . . ."

And the people who swallow the hypnotic suggestion show the same utter refusal to face contrary facts as any hypnotized subject will show.

Evidence such as denying evolution even while having, anatomically, a vestigial tail, the coccyx.

 

[joshua 1 9]

You call it "an act of desperation".

That is what it is because they have nothing else to go with right now. So they are stuck with the mutation theory until someone comes up with something better. The whole random chance concept is pretty much doomed to fail. A lot of what put evolutionary theory on the map was natural selection that did away with random chance as much as they could eliminate it. We understand it because of selective breeding and God giving man the ability in Animal Husbandry. God gave that wisdom, knowledge and understanding to Adam. Abraham and Moses also received Divine revolutionary knowledge from God.

And the people who swallow the hypnotic suggestion show the same utter refusal to face contrary facts as any hypnotized subject will show.

Swing and a miss, nice try though. You can not get anyone to do anything under hypnotism that they would not do otherwise. The power of suggestion is strong but it is still a temporary and not a permanent state or condition. There are no contrary facts between science and the Bible. Science can only contradict itself. So it must remain true to itself.

 

[The Barbarian]

That is what it is because they have nothing else to go with right now.

Reality can be such a bore. There are ways to come up "with something else", but I don't recommend them.

So they are stuck with the mutation theory

Pretty much like we're stuck with gravitation theory.

The whole random chance concept is pretty much doomed to fail.

Darwin's great discovery was that it wasn't by "whole random chance."

A lot of what put evolutionary theory on the map was natural selection that did away with random chance as much as they could eliminate it.

The effect of divine providence is not only that things should happen somehow, but that they should happen either by necessity or by contingency. Therefore, whatsoever divine providence ordains to happen infallibly and of necessity happens infallibly and of necessity; and that happens from contingency, which the divine providence conceives to happen from contingency.
St Thomas Aquinas Summa theologiae, I, 22,4 ad 1)

Nevertheless, many creationists deny that God is great and capable enough to make contingency work to His purposes.

And the people who swallow the hypnotic suggestion show the same utter refusal to face contrary facts as any hypnotized subject will show.

 

[pshun2404]

Reality can be such a bore. There are ways to come up "with something else", but I don't recommend them.



Pretty much like we're stuck with gravitation theory.



Darwin's great discovery was that it wasn't by "whole random chance."



The effect of divine providence is not only that things should happen somehow, but that they should happen either by necessity or by contingency. Therefore, whatsoever divine providence ordains to happen infallibly and of necessity happens infallibly and of necessity; and that happens from contingency, which the divine providence conceives to happen from contingency.
St Thomas Aquinas Summa theologiae, I, 22,4 ad 1)

Nevertheless, many creationists deny that God is great and capable enough to make contingency work to His purposes.

And the people who swallow the hypnotic suggestion show the same utter refusal to face contrary facts as any hypnotized subject will show.

Amen though we might disagree on some of the details. But I also believe this is true and anything less limits the unlimitable...

 

[bhsmte]

Only by people who don't understand medicine and are easily fooled by lousy statistics.

Also, intervention by doctors in those with disease, is the leading cause of controlling one's disease and living a longer life.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

That is what it is because they have nothing else to go with right now. So they are stuck with the mutation theory until someone comes up with something better.

You do realize any genetic change - any at all - can be called a mutation don't you?

The whole random chance concept is pretty much doomed to fail. A lot of what put evolutionary theory on the map was natural selection that did away with random chance as much as they could eliminate it. We understand it because of selective breeding and God giving man the ability in Animal Husbandry.

Well that's kind of hard to use for an explanation for life before humans came along.

Swing and a miss, nice try though. You can not get anyone to do anything under hypnotism that they would not do otherwise.

As they understand it, and under hypnosis you can change the perception.

The power of suggestion is strong but it is still a temporary and not a permanent state or condition. There are no contrary facts between science and the Bible.

You don't get to make up the rules for the power of suggestion. With the cooperation of the subject it can be life long.

Science can only contradict itself. So it must remain true to itself.

Huh?