Evolution & Viruses

[Caffeine Socialism]

Oh, right, no one was there to see it, so it mustn't be true! I forgot about that.

Say, let's see what else we can apply that to... hmm... I'm thinking real hard...

Oh! I've got it! The Genesis story!

 

[ardipithecus]

Originally posted by LouisBooth
So anyone who gets a viral infection is a different species? Hmm..So in other words you're saying members of "trees" all get the same DNA, therefore if they get the same virus DNA then that helps evolution? So we get the same diseases and that proves it? Are certain speices more likely to have the same deficiencies when it comes to fighting viruses? I don't see this proving it at all... If I have 4 bikes ... 1 uni 1 bi and 3 tri..they will all have simlar ways they get "broke". Simliar ways they defend against infection, ie viruses..some will be immune to certain things, others will not.

This is a classic example of replying to something besides what the poster actually wrote though you don't realize it. 

Lets make the line of reasoning much clearer:

1) Many viruses will insert themselves within random locations within DNA.  That this is random is an observed fact.  That means there are a few billion places where the viruses can find themselves.

2) Different viruses have different nucleotide sequences.  The number of such sequences is for all practical purposes endless.

3) That the viruses can get themselves into DNA means that if by luck they are in cells that are or will become egg or sperm that come part of a new organism they can be inherited.

4) These viruses can be destroyed by mutation.  Oh, by the way, there are many ways that viruses can be destroyed by a mutations.  And multiplied by factors in point 1 and 2....

5) Humans have such dead viruses in their DNA.  We are descended from individuals who had a virus get into their DNA and they passed it on to us.

6) Chimps also have such viruses in their DNA.  Funny thing they are the same virus, that got incorporated in the exact same spot in their DNA and got "killed" by the same mutation.

7) The presence and absence of these viruses forms hierarchical patterns in the tree of life just as one would expect if evolution is true.  Indeed these paterns provide a powerful way to trace the path of evolution.  And indeed they provide a powerful way to disprove evolution if it were false. 

Plagiarized Errors and Molecular Genetics provides a great deal of information on this sort of thing.

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution also deals with this.

 

 

 

[Morat]

   Let's haul the thread back to the topic.

   Exactly how does "common design" explain viral insertions that yield the same pattern as common descent?

   These are bits of dead viruses (of which the types are endless) stuck in random spots of the genome. And you can find them replicated in the tree-like pattern (a pattern that confirms and supports the patterns created by the fossil record, by protein analysis, etc) of common descent.

 

 

[LouisBooth]

"Matter of fact, it would be absurd to think they evolved all at once."

exactly, but for evolution to work, they would have had to, thus another one of my reasons for not believing in macro.

 

[Jerry Smith]

Originally posted by LouisBooth
"Matter of fact, it would be absurd to think they evolved all at once."

exactly, but for evolution to work, they would have had to, thus another one of my reasons for not believing in macro.

One is left asking why they would have had to evolve all at once. Is this just an intuitive idea, or do you have some evidence that a complex system that requires the presence of many interdependent parts could not evolve step-wise from a smaller and less complex system?

 

[choccy]

It might be interesting to ask LouisBooth if he agrees with Michael Behe (of irreducible complexity fame, the same argument as it seems Louis is making) with regards to the evidence for common descent.

Choccy

 

[LiveFreeOrDie]

Well, we've have some interesting tangential conversations here, but so far it's been total silence from the creationist crowd with an explanation for endogenous retroviruses.

 

[Morat]

Louis, I have a question for you.

&nbsp;&nbsp; Exactly <I>how</I> does "common design" explain viral insertions that yield the same pattern as common descent?

&nbsp;&nbsp; These are bits of dead viruses (of which the types are endless) stuck in random spots of the genome. And you can find them replicated in&nbsp;the tree-like pattern (a pattern that confirms and supports the patterns created by the fossil record, by protein analysis, etc) of common descent.

 

[chickenman]

its the same silence that greets homologous pseudogenes. There isn't any explanation, so it's mostly ignored in favour of arguments about fossils.

 

[RufusAtticus]

Originally posted by choccy
It might be interesting to ask LouisBooth if he agrees with Michael Behe (of irreducible complexity fame, the same argument as it seems Louis is making) with regards to the evidence for common descent.

I doubt it. He, like most YECs/OECs, probably hasn't even looked hard enough at the IDists to realize that they consider him a "guitar strumming hillbilly."

 

[LouisBooth]

*sigh* thanks ruf, exactly why I don't post in here. Preconcived thoughts that don't change no matter what anyone says.

 

[RufusAtticus]

So Louis, you did know that the ID movement considers YECs (OECs less so) to be as bad as holocaust deniers, one going so far as calling them "guitar stumming hillbillies," and yet you continue to support such a movement? What gives?

 

[Morat]

&nbsp; I want him to answer my question. I want Nick to answer my question on another thread.

&nbsp; This is irritating. "Common design explains things even bettern than common descent", yet when I ask a simple question, all I get is silence!

&nbsp; Why won't you explain how Common design explains the patterns of retroviral insertions? Why won't Nick explain what Common design predicts about the genetic similiarities among turtles, alligators, and birds?

&nbsp;

 

[LouisBooth]

Mor, you want a boxed answer for an rather large question. Question to you, do they always insert in totally random places?

 

[Morat]

&nbsp; Retroviral insertions? Yeah. They can insert wherever they want to. As far as I know (and I'll see if I can get Rufus or seebs to verify it) retroviruses insert anywhere.

&nbsp; Some places might kill your offspring, but that takes care of itself.

&nbsp;

 

[RufusAtticus]

Morat,

I think it depends on the retrovirus. There might be some that will insert just about anywhere, but most of the enzymes that do the insertion have specific target sequences. Of course there can be hundreds of these target sequences in the genome, and which one gets used is random.

~~RvFvS~~

 

[Morat]

&nbsp; How wide is the insertion area? (I mean,&nbsp;for an&nbsp;average retrovirus, how many places on a genome (or percent of a genome)) would be workable?

&nbsp;

 

[RufusAtticus]

I don't know a percentage. (I don't work with retroviruses.) If I am remembering rightly, site recognition is similar to how restriction enzymes do it. That is that the protein recognizes some mirrored streach of DNA: like AATCGATT (TTAGCTAA template strand) and cleaves it in the middle and inserts DNA using the two sticky ends. The sites are not that big, <10 bases in most cases, so there are going to be considerable number of them in most plant or animal genomes.

 

[LouisBooth]

So in other words the sites the are inserted into are non-specific? If so then I'd say that this doesn't prepose a problem at all

 

[Morat]

&nbsp; First, the sites are non-specific. That means a retrovirus can insert in many places. Second, the retrovirus itself is going to insert different material than another type of retrovirus.

&nbsp; What do you think the odds are that the pattern of insertions are the result of chance? That is, that&nbsp;the same type of virus inserted at the same place in the genomes of species (multiple viruses, multiple spots)?

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Heck, what are the odds that a single type of virus inserted in the same place in humans and all species of primates?

&nbsp;