The New Retrovirus Thread

[joshua 1 9]

Now, look at the evidence and ask yourself if the evidence says "exact and precise " or does the evidence say "scattered all over the place"? So your "scattered all over the place" is simply not what the studies show.

Insertion is in fact very precise and very accurate. They may appear to be "all over the place" but the insertion sites are very accurate and precise to get the job done which is usually to regulate the DNA.

Again because we have already been through this. Science is doing a study on ERV insertion because they need a precise delivery system to work with the DNA in their quest to heal the diseases.

Adenosine deaminase (ADA) deficiency is another inherited immune disorder that has been successfully treated with gene therapy. In multiple small trials, patients' blood stem cells were removed, treated with a retroviral vector to deliver a functional copy of the ADA gene, and then returned to the patients. For the majority of patients in these trials, immune function improved to the point that they no longer needed injections of ADA enzyme. Importantly, none of them developed leukemia.

http://learn.genetics.utah.edu/content/genetherapy/gtsuccess/

 

[joshua 1 9]

What is a function with ERVs evidence for? Is it evidence that ERVs have a function or is it evidence which refute common common ancestor with chimpanzee?

How many dozens of times do I have to say this before it finally sinks in. I do not refute common ancestor. Adam and Eve in the Bible were common ancestors. What I refute is the mechanism of common descent. If you do not have the mechanism right then you do not have anything right. The retrovirus evidence for evolutionists is a mixed up mess of a conglomerated theories. Right down to the backward eyeballs and their failed attempt from the beginning to deal with irreducible complexity.

 

[joshua 1 9]

Case closed. YEC wins! (again)

If we win then we win by default because the evolutionists simply fail to present their case. They should get credit in that at least they are trying to produce a mechanism for their spontaneous theories. So that in and of itself is progress. We now know that Spontaneous generation is an incorrect hypothesis and nonliving things are not capable of producing life.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Francis Collins is the former director of the human genomes project. Let's look at what he has to say about it. I can pretty much retire because he says everything that I have been trying to explain to people. For example I have tried to tell people: "there are limits to the kinds of questions that science can answer." According to Collins: "that's where I have to turn to God and seek his answers."

"Well, as a scientist who's also a believer, the chance to uncover the incredible intricacies of God's creation is an occasion of worship. To be able to look, for the first time in human history, at all three billion letters of the human DNA--which I think of as God's language--it gives us just a tiny glimpse into the amazing creative power of his mind. Every discovery that we now make in science [is], for me, a chance to worship him in a broader sense, to appreciate just in a small bit the amazing grandeur of his creation. It also helps me appreciate though that as a scientist, there are limits to the kinds of questions that science can answer. And that's where I have to turn to God and seek his answers."

Read more at http://www.beliefnet.com/News/Scien...tific-Adventures.aspx?p=2#WO2rVcCe8O3MyzJW.99

Let's look at what else Collins has to say on the topic of biology and evolution in particular:

“Darwin’s framework of variation and natural selection,” but especially Darwin’s picture of a Tree of Life—the common ancestry of all organisms on Earth—“is unquestionably correct” (141). Universal common descent by natural processes is scientifically non‐negotiable. The theory of neo‐Darwinian evolution cannot rationally be doubted by any educated person.

Young Earth Creationism has reached a point of intellectual bankruptcy, both in its science and in its theology. Its persistence is thus one of the great puzzles and great tragedies of our time. By attacking the fundamentals of virtually every branch of science, it widens the chasm between the scientific and spiritual worldviews, just at a time where a pathway toward harmony is desperately needed

Genesis 1 and 2 “can best be understood as poetry and allegory rather than a literal scientific description of origins” (Collins 2007, p. 206).

 

[DogmaHunter]

If we win then we win by default because the evolutionists simply fail to present their case.

Classic, most blatant argument of ignorance I saw in a while.
Not to mention the obvious falsehood of the statement... one only needs to look at the OP of this very thread to see how false the bolded part really is...

They should get credit in that at least they are trying to produce a mechanism for their spontaneous theories. So that in and of itself is progress.

Are you aware that the "they" in this sentence also includes your beloved hero, Francis Collins?

We now know that Spontaneous generation is an incorrect hypothesis and nonliving things are not capable of producing life.

This thread is about evolution, not the origins of life.

 

[Loudmouth]

Insertion is in fact very precise and very accurate. They may appear to be "all over the place" but the insertion sites are very accurate and precise to get the job done which is usually to regulate the DNA.

No, they aren't. The only evidence you have presented is this:


"Recent studies have shown that human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) and murine leukemia virus (MLV) favor integration near different chromosomal features."

http://journals.plos.org/plospathogens/article?id=10.1371/journal.ppat.0020060

What are those chromosomal features? From the same paper:

" Human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) integrates preferentially within active transcription units, whereas murine leukemia virus (MLV) integrates preferentially near transcription start sites and CpG islands."


So, how many transcription units are there, and what percentage of the genome do they take up?

"For HIV the frequency of integration in transcription units ranged from 75% to 80%, while the frequency for MLV was 61% and for ASLV was 57%. For comparison, about 45% of the human genome is composed of transcription units (using the Acembly gene definition)."
http://www.nature.com/gt/journal/v10/n19/full/3302059a.html

That is nearly 1.5 BILLION bases. That is not precise nor accurate. It's like you saying that you have the precise address for someone lives, but when asked you say that their address ends in an even number. That's not precise.

Again because we have already been through this. Science is doing a study on ERV insertion because they need a precise delivery system to work with the DNA in their quest to heal the diseases.

If they were precise and accurate, they wouldn't have to be studying them in order to change their random insertion patterns. Perhaps you didn't read this article:

"Attenuated retroviruses are currently the most widely used vectors in clinical gene therapy because of their potential to effect stable and permanent gene transfer. Since gene delivery is accompanied by random insertion of foreign genetic material into the recipient chromosomal DNA, the potential for insertional mutagenesis exists."
http://www.nature.com/gt/journal/v10/n19/full/3302059a.html

They don't know where the virus is going to insert because it does so randomly. Therefore, they have to study how many possible deleterious mutations there would be from this random insertion.

 

[Loudmouth]

How many dozens of times do I have to say this before it finally sinks in. I do not refute common ancestor. Adam and Eve in the Bible were common ancestors. What I refute is the mechanism of common descent.

The mechanism is biological reproduction. You reject the idea that organisms have offspring?

And just in case you didn't read the previous post:

"Attenuated retroviruses are currently the most widely used vectors in clinical gene therapy because of their potential to effect stable and permanent gene transfer. Since gene delivery is accompanied by random insertion of foreign genetic material into the recipient chromosomal DNA, the potential for insertional mutagenesis exists."
http://www.nature.com/gt/journal/v10/n19/full/3302059a.html

 

[Loudmouth]

If we win then we win by default because the evolutionists simply fail to present their case.

Since you haven't presented positive evidence for creationism, doesn't evolution win by default?

And just to make triply sure that you have read this, and to keep it on topic:

"Attenuated retroviruses are currently the most widely used vectors in clinical gene therapy because of their potential to effect stable and permanent gene transfer. Since gene delivery is accompanied by random insertion of foreign genetic material into the recipient chromosomal DNA, the potential for insertional mutagenesis exists."
http://www.nature.com/gt/journal/v10/n19/full/3302059a.html

 

[Loudmouth]

Yet another quote from the gene therapy article:

"The frequency of provirus-mediated mutagenesis of the mammalian genome at a single-copy locus (in this case the X-linked hprt gene) by a single provirus insertion has previously been estimated by Goff to occur at a frequency of about one inactivating mutation in 10^6 virally exposed cells.18"

http://www.nature.com/gt/journal/v10/n19/full/3302059a.html

It takes 1 million insertions for a virus to insert into a specific locus. The other 999,999 insert at different loci in the genome. Also, the locus they are talking about spans thousands of bases, not a single base. The chances of two insertions occurring at the same base are much less than 1 in 1 million.

Again, this is from a study on gene therapy. The argument was made that they are using retroviruses because their insertion is both precise and accurate. As we can see, the actual studies in gene therapy show the exact opposite of this claim.

 

[lasthero]

If we win then we win by default because the evolutionists simply fail to present their case.

Sorry, that's not the way it works.

If the police have two suspects for a crime, and one of them presents conclusive evidence that they're not guilty, the police do not immediately throw the other one in jail.

It's the same way with science. if there are two competing ideas, and one of them is shown to be false, the other idea is not immediately assumed to be true. You still have to show evidnece for it.

 

[joshua 1 9]

Sorry, that's not the way it works.

If the police have two suspects for a crime, and one of them presents conclusive evidence that they're not guilty, the police do not immediately throw the other one in jail.

It's the same way with science. if there are two competing ideas, and one of them is shown to be false, the other idea is not immediately assumed to be true. You still have to show evidnece for it.

We need to get you some easy to move goal posts.

 

[Loudmouth]

We need to get you some easy to move goal posts.

What goal posts have been moved?

You were the one who used an argument from ignorance.

"If we win then we win by default because the evolutionists simply fail to present their case."

 

[joshua 1 9]

You were the one who used an argument from ignorance.

Are you calling me ignorant?

 

[Loudmouth]

Pointing out that you are using an argument from ignorance is not an attack on you.

 

[bhsmte]

That is exactly what he did, he addressed the content of your post.

 

[joshua 1 9]

Pointing out that you are using an argument from ignorance is not an attack on you.

Calling me ignorant is not an attack on me?

 

[florida2]

Calling me ignorant is not an attack on me?

It was an observation about your posts. Saying someone is wrong or ignorant of something is not a personal attack.

 

[joshua 1 9]

It was an observation about your posts. Saying someone is wrong or ignorant of something is not a personal attack.

So your trying to claim that you are not in violation of the rules when you call me ignorant?

 

[florida2]

So your trying to claim that you are not in violation of the rules when you call me ignorant?

Yep.

Ignorant just means you lack knowledge about something. It's a simple observation, not an insult.

 

[joshua 1 9]

Yep.

Ignorant just means you lack knowledge about something. It's a simple observation, not an insult.

So ignorant does not mean: "lacking knowledge or awareness in general; uneducated or unsophisticated". This is a personal attack against me and it is a violation of the rules.