• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.
  3. Please note there is a new rule regarding the posting of videos. It reads, "Post a summary of the videos you post . An exception can be made for music videos.". Unless you are simply sharing music, please post a summary, or the gist, of the video you wish to share.
  4. There have been some changes in the Life Stages section involving the following forums: Roaring 20s, Terrific Thirties, Fabulous Forties, and Golden Eagles. They are changed to Gen Z, Millennials, Gen X, and Golden Eagles will have a slight change.
  5. CF Staff, Angels and Ambassadors; ask that you join us in praying for the world in this difficult time, asking our Holy Father to stop the spread of the virus, and for healing of all affected.
  6. We are no longer allowing posts or threads that deny the existence of Covid-19. Members have lost loved ones to this virus and are grieving. As a Christian site, we do not need to add to the pain of the loss by allowing posts that deny the existence of the virus that killed their loved one. Future post denying the Covid-19 existence, calling it a hoax, will be addressed via the warning system.

Is it a hoax?

Discussion in 'Creation & Evolution' started by tevans9129, Aug 26, 2017.

  1. mark kennedy

    mark kennedy Natura non facit saltum Supporter

    +7,262
    Calvinist
    Single
    US-Democrat
    Brain related genes aren't highly conserved; I feel like we have had this discussion before. HOX genes, genes that signal structures to develop in certain spots, are highly conserved and thus present in very similar forms even in organisms not closely related, such as between fruit flies and humans. But, as for brain genes in general, in humans, they are some of the most frequently mutating genes. The overall super high mutation rate in our species could be to blame for our high rate of miscarriage.[/quote]

    I see nothing good coming from mutations in the HOX genes and a Pandora's box of deleterious effects:

    • HOXA1 Bosley–Salih–Alorainy syndrome (BSAS) Athabascan brainstem dysgenesis syndrome (ABDS)
    • HOXA2-associated autosomal recessive microtia
    • ARX (the aristaless-related homeobox gene) is a transcription factor that participates in the development of GABAergic and cholinergic neurons in the forebrain. Many ARX mutations have been identified in X-linked lissencephaly and mental retardation with epilepsy (Hum Mol Genet. 2009 Oct 1)

    So it makes little sense that the chimpanzee at one time was bipedal but it makes perfect sense that highly conserved brain related genes can undergo massive overhauls and de novo creation?
     
  2. tas8831

    tas8831 Well-Known Member

    +3,590
    United States
    Atheist
    Married
    Already told you that CRISPR is not a gene.
    So what?

    Do you think that there is a 1-to-1 relationship between mutations and phenotype (or even genes to phenotype, for that matter)?

    You keep refusing to answer this.
     
  3. mark kennedy

    mark kennedy Natura non facit saltum Supporter

    +7,262
    Calvinist
    Single
    US-Democrat
    I must of missed that or is this just a pedantic distraction because you seem to like those. Irrelavant corrections seem to be your forte.

    It depends on the mutation
     
  4. tas8831

    tas8831 Well-Known Member

    +3,590
    United States
    Atheist
    Married
    It is irrelevant that you are calling something that is not a gene a gene? OK.

    Indeed. So why do you think mutations could not have increased human brain volume? Functionally, the human and chimp brains, and thus a hypothetical ancestor's, are quite similar.
     
  5. Loudmouth

    Loudmouth Contributor

    +5,953
    Agnostic
    We conclude that those insertions are the product of viral insertions because we can directly observe retroviruses producing ERVs in the lab. It isn't a belief.

    False. We can directly observe that retroviral insertions are sufficiently random so that they will only rarely (1 in every 50,000 or so insertions) produce the same insertion in two independent events. This is not a belief. This is a conclusion drawn from observations.

    The letter g is in an orthologous position. Again, these are ORTHOLOGOUS insertions.
     
  6. mark kennedy

    mark kennedy Natura non facit saltum Supporter

    +7,262
    Calvinist
    Single
    US-Democrat
    It is irrelevant to pick nits over semantics. It appears to be all you do, you certainly have no interest in research or resource material.

    Deleterious effects.
    Oh but they are not, that's the whole point. And when it comes to mutations in highly conserved brain related genes especially with regards to mutations, it a dead end.
     
  7. Loudmouth

    Loudmouth Contributor

    +5,953
    Agnostic
    There are sequence differences between some brain related genes shared by chimps and humans. You claim that these differences will always produce deleterious effects, yet these differences are not causing deleterious effects. You are simply wrong when you say that any change to these genes will be deleterious.
     
  8. Loudmouth

    Loudmouth Contributor

    +5,953
    Agnostic
    There is no interest in CRISPR as it relates to eukaryotic evolution because eukaryotes do not have CRISPR systems.
     
  9. PsychoSarah

    PsychoSarah Chaotic Neutral

    +2,555
    Atheist
    In Relationship
    Indeed, I looked up how CRISPR is identifiable in bacteria, and, if I am recalling this correctly, the sequence is a palindrome. It would be very easy to spot if present in eukaryotes.
     
  10. xianghua

    xianghua Well-Known Member

    +551
    Judaism
    Single
    and what about a robot that is very similar to human? is this kind of robot will consider by you as evidence for design?
     
  11. xianghua

    xianghua Well-Known Member

    +551
    Judaism
    Single
    true. but we also know that a retrovirus can be "infected" by the host too. so you cant know if those ervs in the genome are the product of viral insertions, or that retroviruses are the product of host genes.


    not realy. we also need to include fixation and not just insertions. since all ervs in the genomes need to be fixed in the population. so it's not a random event as you may think.


    but it isnt in the same place. by this criteria even if it will be milion base away you can still claim for orthologous position.
     
  12. PsychoSarah

    PsychoSarah Chaotic Neutral

    +2,555
    Atheist
    In Relationship
    Similar =/= Same
     
  13. tas8831

    tas8831 Well-Known Member

    +3,590
    United States
    Atheist
    Married
    Nothing.

    No. Molecules are not robots.
     
  14. tas8831

    tas8831 Well-Known Member

    +3,590
    United States
    Atheist
    Married
    It makes a difference when a reporter (you, in this case) makes such errors. It matters because if you repeatedly make errors on the trivial, simple stuff, why should we have confidence that your reporting on highly technical material is any better?
    Deleterious effects of increased brain volume? Obviously, the mutations we have that are associated with increased brain volume were not deleterious, so your answer makes 0 sense.
    Then your point is simply wrong.

    Anatomically, very similar - see these images.

    Functionally, chimps have a Broca's area, a Wernicke's area, etc.

    Obviously, there are differences (if there were not, they would be identical), but your blanket, unsupported assertion has no merit.

    Mutations in regards to mutations.... Half the time I have no idea what you are trying to claim.
     
  15. Loudmouth

    Loudmouth Contributor

    +5,953
    Agnostic
    The creation of new viral particles from inserted retroviral genomes is part of the viral life cycle, so I don't see what this has to do with anything.

    Why does fixation make the insertions themselves non-random? Also, there are human ERVs that haven't reached fixation, so fixation isn't a requirement.

    Yes, it is. The insertion occurs at the same orthologous base. An indel upstream of the insertion site does not change this fact.
     
  16. xianghua

    xianghua Well-Known Member

    +551
    Judaism
    Single
    if it's possible that a retrovirus parts can evolve from the host parts- then you cnat know if ervs evolved from retroviruses or the opposite.

    because fixation event can be very non-random. if for instance the retrovirus will insert his parts in a middle of a functional gene- there is a big chance that it will be harmful.


    so i can say the same for the shared ervs between chimp and gorila but not in orangutan and human. can you prove that they are indeed non- orthologous? also: what is the chance that we will find about 6 ervs that are in a similar spots in the genome (about 150000 bases upstream)?
     
  17. Loudmouth

    Loudmouth Contributor

    +5,953
    Agnostic
    We know that ERVs are created by retroviruses inserting themselves into the host genome because we can watch that very thing happen in the wild and in the lab.

    The ERV evidence is based on their location in the genome, not the rate at which they are fixed.

    Functional DNA makes up around 10% of the human genome. Plenty of regions for retroviruses to insert into.

    You already cited a paper where they stated quite clearly that they couldn't find a single example of an orthologous PtERV shared by gorillas and chimps. What more do you need?

    Again, an indel upstream or downstream of an ERV does not change the base that it is actually at. It isn't that hard of a concept to understand. Let's say you have this arrangement:

    ---GeneA-----GeneB----GeneC
    ---GeneA--indel---GeneB---GeneC

    All of those genes are still orthologous, even though there is an indel. Over 200,000 ERVs are found at the same orthologous base in the chimp and human genomes, and that is smoking gun evidence for common ancestry.

    Orthologous does not mean "within 150,000 bases".
     
  18. xianghua

    xianghua Well-Known Member

    +551
    Judaism
    Single
    again: we know that the opposite is possible too.


    only a belief.


    if the number of indels doesnt matter then they can be 150,000 away and still be consider as orhtologous.
     
Loading...