Top 2 reasons why man evolved from prior life.

[Job 33:6]

This one if you don't mind. I was hoping it would show up because I have wanted to look into it since it's strong counter evidence like Chromosome 2, but I couldn't remember what to search.

It's really, the compilation of it all that is important.

There is a unique case to be made regarding ERVs on its own. But what I am trying to point out is this...

See figure #1 in the below link.
https://www.researchgate.net/figure...-5Fzcc-GSfFeYhCD0mFhxgatetpe0a3VKX2LQUkcHGirQ

See figure #2 in the below link.
http://www.mdpi.com/1999-4915/7/3/1238/htm

Above are two trees, constructed based on ERVs, and what species possesses them.

And sometimes you might hear anti-evolution people saying "oh well, the DNA is similar, then maybe there was just some selective insertion", regardless of if this is or is not true, what I am pointing out, is that there is a tree here. Notice at the bottom of the first graph, a timeline has been made, from 70 million years, to the present time.

What I am pointing out as the strongest evidence for evolution, is that you can take this tree, and you can use it to predict where fossils are in the earth. For example, the branch for gorillas, is found a bit to the right of the 10 million years point. While new world monkeys, are between 50-40 million years ago.

Simultaneously, in the fossil succession, you wont find gorillas beyond 10 million years past in the fossil record, and you wont find new world monkeys beyond say 45 or so million years past. And you can actually use this very tree above, based on ERVs, to actually find the earliest gorilla fossils and the earliest new world monkey fossils.

But the tree has nothing to do with fossils, it is a tree made from something completely independent of fossils. It has been constructed based on what viruses have infected certain modern day species.

And this same tree is observed elsewhere. In cladistics, geobiography, comparative anatomy, paleontology, ERVs, through genetics, protein similarities, cytochrome C analysis and many more.

This same tree is found in, several independent lines of study that have nothing to do with one another.

And the only way this can be explained, is through common descent via evolution. Because it depicts a temporal succession. It shows us that biology of the earth, and life, has changed with time. And that passage of time and change in biology, has left a trail of fossils and ERVs and geobiographical distribution, and traits in proteins and mutations and all sorts of things that allow us to reconstruct this same tree, over and over again.

Another example, biogeographic distributions. You can take this same tree, constructed by ERVs and you can predict the spatial locality of fossils as well. Not only can you predict depth of the fossils, but also what country they are in. All based on qualities found in DNA.

How could it be that someone could predict what country and what depth a fossil could be found, simply based on what an animals DNA looked like? It only makes sense if a product of evolution. ie that DNA changes, then bones change due to the changes in DNA (mutations), time passes and the fossil record is formed in space and time by animals that pass away.

 

[Chinchilla]

Physics, chemistry, the way atoms work (atomic decay),...

Perhaps you did not understand my question. How can you prove that these fossils are 150 000 years old and not 149 000 for example ? How can you prove then they aren't being produced today ? Is this pure speculation?

 

[Juvenal]

Thank you, that is the kind of stuff I was looking for.

Let me pick your brain on number 2 with two questions if you don't mind.

Is it possible that man, still distinct from apes in the ways we now see, once had 24 pairs of Chromosomes but lost a pair, through a fusion into Chromosome 2, or is this fusion thought to be the main source of distinction between ape and man? Still under the same hypothetical, do you know if man and ape would be capable of fertile offspring with an ape when they had 24 pairs. Thats a tough question so let me put it another way, if we had 10 children, is it likely that at least 1 would function normally and be fertile? I tried searching but it seems to be a tricky thing to predict.

A small section of DNA was indeed eliminated in the process of fusion, but that deletion represents only a small fraction of the genetic disparity between the species. So no, it's not the main source of distinction between humans and the rest of the great apes, but it is the most evident structural distinction.

Structure doesn't mean much though. Donkeys have 62 chromosomes and horses have 64.

I could add that a fusion of our chromosomes, rather than a splitting in the chromosomes of other species, was suspected well prior to Yunis due to the mismatch in chromosome counts between our human 23 and the 24 of all of our closest relatives, because our 23 made us the odd man out.

Donkeys and horses shared a common ancestor no more than four or four-and-a-half million years ago, and they are just barely interfertile, and only rarely produce fertile offspring. Our divergence from the chimpanzees, our closest cousins, dates to seven million years ago. It's conceivable we could still interbreed, but the likelihood is decreased, and similarly the likelihood of fertile offspring. To go further and assign odds would be baseless speculation.

More, our history of interbreeding with the Neanderthals and the Denisovans suggests that if it were possible, it would have happened, and no such evidence has been presented to date.

You also asked us to interact with Gen. 2:7. I think the greatest distinction between this passage and the scientific story is that the scientific story continues to build over time, edited and revised as questions are suggested, research is undertaken, and further evidence comes to light.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Perhaps you did not understand my question. How can you prove that these fossils are 150 000 years old and not 149 000 for example ? How can you prove then they aren't being produced today ? Is this pure speculation?

When I say "older then 150.000 year", I'm not talking about "152.000 years".

I'm rather talking about millions of years. Like dino's for example: 65 million years old and older.

Yes, fossils are still being produced today. They don't date that old. They date young.

And no, it's not speculation.
If it were then 5 independend labs around the world, wouldn't come up with the same age for the same sample, independently from one another - even using different dating techniques.

 

[Chinchilla]

When I say "older then 150.000 year", I'm not talking about "152.000 years".

I'm rather talking about millions of years. Like dino's for example: 65 million years old and older.

Yes, fossils are still being produced today. They don't date that old. They date young.

And no, it's not speculation.
If it were then 5 independend labs around the world, wouldn't come up with the same age for the same sample, independently from one another - even using different dating techniques.

So you are not using observable , repeataple experiments to date these rocks / fossils but rather guessing according to previous guessed knowledge ? When they use carbon dating they usually get different results , how can you tell which one is true and which one is false ? It should give always the same answer but it does not so these results have to be averaged or rejected if not showing the results according to all of the others previous ones?

How would you explain perpendicular tree fossils ? I thought that there is layer few cm big for each year that passed how can you have a tree slowly becomming fossil which is perpendicular ? It would root

 

[Sanoy]

A small section of DNA was indeed eliminated in the process of fusion, but that deletion represents only a small fraction of the genetic disparity between the species. So no, it's not the main source of distinction between humans and the rest of the great apes, but it is the most evident structural distinction.

Structure doesn't mean much though. Donkeys have 62 chromosomes and horses have 64.

I could add that a fusion of our chromosomes, rather than a splitting in the chromosomes of other species, was suspected well prior to Yunis due to the mismatch in chromosome counts between our human 23 and the 24 of all of our closest relatives, because our 23 made us the odd man out.

Donkeys and horses shared a common ancestor no more than four or four-and-a-half million years ago, and they are just barely interfertile, and only rarely produce fertile offspring. Our divergence from the chimpanzees, our closest cousins, dates to seven million years ago. It's conceivable we could still interbreed, but the likelihood is decreased, and similarly the likelihood of fertile offspring. To go further and assign odds would be baseless speculation.

More, our history of interbreeding with the Neanderthals and the Denisovans suggests that if it were possible, it would have happened, and no such evidence has been presented to date.

You also asked us to interact with Gen. 2:7. I think the greatest distinction between this passage and the scientific story is that the scientific story continues to build over time, edited and revised as questions are suggested, research is undertaken, and further evidence comes to light.

Thanks, that's very helpful. This is a subject I don't know a lot about beforehand but I plan to read up on it. As I do could I PM you if I can't find an answer online?

 

[Sanoy]

It's really, the compilation of it all that is important.

There is a unique case to be made regarding ERVs on its own. But what I am trying to point out is this...

See figure #1 in the below link.
https://www.researchgate.net/figure...-5Fzcc-GSfFeYhCD0mFhxgatetpe0a3VKX2LQUkcHGirQ

See figure #2 in the below link.
http://www.mdpi.com/1999-4915/7/3/1238/htm

Above are two trees, constructed based on ERVs, and what species possesses them.

And sometimes you might hear anti-evolution people saying "oh well, the DNA is similar, then maybe there was just some selective insertion", regardless of if this is or is not true, what I am pointing out, is that there is a tree here. Notice at the bottom of the first graph, a timeline has been made, from 70 million years, to the present time.

What I am pointing out as the strongest evidence for evolution, is that you can take this tree, and you can use it to predict where fossils are in the earth. For example, the branch for gorillas, is found a bit to the right of the 10 million years point. While new world monkeys, are between 50-40 million years ago.

Simultaneously, in the fossil succession, you wont find gorillas beyond 10 million years past in the fossil record, and you wont find new world monkeys beyond say 45 or so million years past. And you can actually use this very tree above, based on ERVs, to actually find the earliest gorilla fossils and the earliest new world monkey fossils.

But the tree has nothing to do with fossils, it is a tree made from something completely independent of fossils. It has been constructed based on what viruses have infected certain modern day species.

And this same tree is observed elsewhere. In cladistics, geobiography, comparative anatomy, paleontology, ERVs, through genetics, protein similarities, cytochrome C analysis and many more.

This same tree is found in, several independent lines of study that have nothing to do with one another.

And the only way this can be explained, is through common descent via evolution. Because it depicts a temporal succession. It shows us that biology of the earth, and life, has changed with time. And that passage of time and change in biology, has left a trail of fossils and ERVs and geobiographical distribution, and traits in proteins and mutations and all sorts of things that allow us to reconstruct this same tree, over and over again.

Another example, biogeographic distributions. You can take this same tree, constructed by ERVs and you can predict the spatial locality of fossils as well. Not only can you predict depth of the fossils, but also what country they are in. All based on qualities found in DNA.

How could it be that someone could predict what country and what depth a fossil could be found, simply based on what an animals DNA looked like? It only makes sense if a product of evolution. ie that DNA changes, then bones change due to the changes in DNA (mutations), time passes and the fossil record is formed in space and time by animals that pass away.

Weird, I can see the graphs when I quote you, but not in the real post.

Do you know if anyone has explained why Gorrillas lost the EnvR gene? Do you know if this group of retroviruses is still in existence today, or when Homosapiens emerged? I suspect a retrovirus might change overtime and possibly produce slight variances in gene insertions. If that is the case, is there any variance in say EnvV at 60 million years and EnvV in a Chimpanzee (or any of the four gene insertians). I'm hoping that is something you might know off the top of your head or know where to look. So don't spend hours on it, I'll spend the hours looking if you don't already know.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

The fossil record (seems to) show a succession of perfectly formed creatures. No creatures with three arms, seven fingers, two heads, etc. Everything seems strangely orderly. Why no evidence of trial and error?

 

[DogmaHunter]

So you are not using observable , repeataple experiments to date these rocks / fossils but rather guessing according to previous guessed knowledge ?

"I" don't do any dating, because I'm an independend software engineer.

And again: these are not "guesses". If they were, then several independent labs around the world, wouldn't "guess" the same age for the same sample, even using different techniques.

Nore is this knowledge based on "guesses"...
The knowledge was obtained through science (ie: experiments, observation, testing,...)

The practice of dating things, is a practical application.

When they use carbon dating they usually get different results , how can you tell which one is true and which one is false ?

First, this isn't actually accurate. It is true that creationists get vastly different results, but those who actually know what they are doing... not really.

In any case, carbon dating isn't actually relevant here, because things older then 150.000 years aren't dating with carbon. Carbon only goes back a couple 10s of thousands of years (don't remember exactly how many and too lazy to look it up).

It should give always the same answer

If done correctly(*), it does.

(*) that means: keeping in mind in what circumstances the artefact was found (and even stored), eliminating/recognizing potential contamination, etc.

Radio-metric dating using things like Uranium etc also work quite differently.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiometric_dating#Modern_dating_methods

but it does not so these results have to be averaged or rejected if not showing the results according to all of the others previous ones?

Well, you're wrong.
But again, there's no need to even go there, because the ages we are talking about here, are too old for carbon dating.

How would you explain perpendicular tree fossils ? I thought that there is layer few cm big for each year that passed how can you have a tree slowly becomming fossil which is perpendicular ? It would root

It really isn't a mystery how these things come about, it's been known and explained for quite some time now...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polystrate_fossil

 

[Speedwell]

The fossil record (seems to) show a succession of perfectly formed creatures. No creatures with three arms, seven fingers, two heads, etc. Everything seems strangely orderly. Why no evidence of trial and error?

Because that's not how evolution works. You see plenty of the kind of variation evolution requires just looking around you at the various creatures alive today, including humans. Are you identical to your parents, your siblings? But each one of you is "perfectly formed." If you're concerned that modern humans don't have variable numbers of limbs, it is because the basic body plans were established millions of years ago when the creatures were soft and squishy and did produce offspring with various numbers of limbs. That variation has long since ceased and body plans have ceased to evolve.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

This one if you don't mind. I was hoping it would show up because I have wanted to look into it since it's strong counter evidence like Chromosome 2, but I couldn't remember what to search.

Here's a link I saved for just such occasions . . .

http://www.evolutionarymodel.com/ervs.htm

 

[Job 33:6]

Weird, I can see the graphs when I quote you, but not in the real post.

Do you know if anyone has explained why Gorrillas lost the EnvR gene? Do you know if this group of retroviruses is still in existence today, or when Homosapiens emerged? I suspect a retrovirus might change overtime and possibly produce slight variances in gene insertions. If that is the case, is there any variance in say EnvV at 60 million years and EnvV in a Chimpanzee (or any of the four gene insertians). I'm hoping that is something you might know off the top of your head or know where to look. So don't spend hours on it, I'll spend the hours looking if you don't already know.

This is all irrelevant. It doesn't matter if a species lost an erv. Honestly, all of the above is irrelevant. Because it doesn't matter if a gorilla lost an erv or not, the fact is that the tree is the tree, and it can be used across many fields of science to make accurate predictions.

And yes many ervs are present in our DNA to this day and that Is what those diagrams are depicting. They are depicting modern day present retroviral DNA .

Which is why this is significant because we can look at our DNA today, right now at this very moment, and we can use it to predict where fossils are in another part of the world and even underground in places where they've never been seen before. And really only evolution can explain this.

And as far as I am aware, viral DNA doesn't change place in our genome.

Feel free to link research though and I would be happy to look into it.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Because that's not how evolution works. You see plenty of the kind of variation evolution requires just looking around you at the various creatures alive today, including humans. Are you identical to your parents, your siblings? But each one of you is "perfectly formed." If you're concerned that modern humans don't have variable numbers of limbs, it is because the basic body plans were established millions of years ago when the creatures were soft and squishy and did produce offspring with various numbers of limbs. That variation has long since ceased and body plans have ceased to evolve.

But you have 65 million year old fossils. Why not the goofy ones? Why wouldn't those creatures with two heads grow to maturity and leave fossil evidence, or did evolution decide they were unfit when they were 'soft and squishy'? And if so why do malformed and unfit animals grow to maturity today?

 

[Sanoy]

This is all irrelevant. It doesn't matter if a species lost an erv. Honestly, all of the above is irrelevant. Because it doesn't matter if a gorilla lost an erv or not, the fact is that the tree is the tree, and it can be used across many fields of science to make accurate predictions.

And yes many ervs are present in our DNA to this day and that Is what those diagrams are depicting. They are depicting modern day present retroviral DNA .

Which is why this is significant because we can look at our DNA today, right now at this very moment, and we can use it to predict where fossils are in another part of the world and even underground in places where they've never been seen before. And really only evolution can explain this.

And as far as I am aware, viral DNA doesn't change place in our genome.

Feel free to link research though and I would be happy to look into it.

I think it could be relevant because it should be there in the Gorilla since it's in the line between orangutans and chimps/human. Because it's not when it should be it makes me wonder if there might be an alternate explanation. Like for example maybe these retrovirus's were around for each ape and for man but somehow the gorrilla adapted against envR and so never got it. The reason I asked about a retrovirus mutating it's gene insertion is that such a mutation might serve to time stamp the gene insertion. So for example if the insertions are not identical (within a reasonable realm) then it might indicate seperate incursions. I have to ask because I haven't studied the material enough to know.

 

[Job 33:6]

I think it could be relevant because it should be there in the Gorilla since it's in the line between orangutans and chimps/human. Because it's not when it should be it makes me wonder if there might be an alternate explanation. Like for example maybe these retrovirus's were around for each ape and for man but somehow the gorrilla adapted against envR and so never got it. The reason I asked about a retrovirus mutating it's gene insertion is that such a mutation might serve to time stamp the gene insertion. I have to ask because I haven't studied the material enough to know.

But how would losing an erv alter the case of synchornization between various fields of independent research?

Whether or not the erv is present, or whether or not an erv is lost, is of secondary significance to the fact that the erv tree matches other trees.

Because even if you added or took away an erv, the pattern is still present and matches the temporal and spacial qualities identified in other phylogenetic trees.

To clarify, let's say hypothetically an erv was lost. The phylogenetic tree is made of present ervs, so it wouldn't change the tree.

Let's say an erv is added. Well, that's what is recorded in the tree.

How the ervs got there or how retroviral DNA might be lost, doesn't change the overriding point that retroviral dna can be used to accurately predict where fossils are located on earth, both spatially, vertically and temporally.

And that is what is most important, and you can't let people change the topic in an effort to discredit this reality.

The same goes with the fossil record. It doesn't matter if the fossil formed in a landslide or if a fossil degraded away during orogenic processes. Regardless of how fossils form or how they are removed and destroyed, the key point of significance is that you can even use the fossil record to predict the presence of ervs in modern day living primates.

For example, I could use the fossil record to even predict what types of retroviral DNA exist in your own body. Based on boned in the earth, I could tell you what is in your body. Today. And I could tell you what retroviral DNA is in every other primate as well. With 99 percent accuracy.

And this only makes sense if things like the fossil record and retroviral DNA and mutations and biogeographic distributions etc., are all intimately interwoven with one another through common descent.

 

[Sanoy]

But how would losing an erv alter the case of synchornization between various fields of independent research?

Whether or not the erv is present, or whether or not an erv is lost, is of secondary significance to the fact that the erv tree matches other trees.

Because even if you added or took away an erv, the pattern is still present and matches the temporal and spacial qualities identified in other phylogenetic trees.

To clarify, let's say hypothetically an erv was lost. The phylogenetic tree is made of present ervs, so it wouldn't change the tree.

Let's say an erv is added. Well, that's what is recorded in the tree.

How the ervs got there or how retroviral DNA might be lost, doesn't change the overriding point that retroviral dna can be used to accurately predict where fossils are located on earth, both spatially, vertically and temporally.

And that is what is most important, and you can't let people change the topic in an effort to discredit this reality.

The same goes with the fossil record. It doesn't matter if the fossil formed in a landslide or if a fossil degraded away during orogenic processes. Regardless of how fossils form or how they are removed and destroyed, the key point of significance is that you can even use the fossil record to predict the presence of ervs in modern day living primates.

For example, I could use the fossil record to even predict what types of retroviral DNA exist in your own body. Based on boned in the earth, I could tell you what is in your body. Today. And I could tell you what retroviral DNA is in every other primate as well. With 99 percent accuracy.

Well that's the big question, did the Gorilla lose it, or did it never get it.

I'm not challenging your point of it predicting the fossil record. I'm trying to get an idea for how conclusive this point is in regards to man decending from primates.

According to Pauls link, which I have not finished. There are two conclusions.

"1) that a retrovirus inserted in a common ancestor, and was passed on to the individuals via sexual reproduction; or 2) that separate retroviruses inserted in the same loci in separate ancestors, and were passed on to the individuals from each respective ancestor. "

The author challenges 2 by saying "What rules out the latter of these explanations for the majority of shared ERVs is the highly random nature of integration discussed earlier, and shared mutation among ERVs in identical loci, to be discussed shortly."

I haven't got to the "shortly" and I'll have to back track to the technical sectio get a sense of this randomness, but there seems like a lot time for randomness to work. Maybe there is something to the location which I'll discover further on.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Have you considered that apes may be devolved humans?

There was a mark put upon the forehead of Cain....

 

[Job 33:6]

Well that's the big question, did the Gorilla lose it, or did it never get it.

I'm not challenging your point of it predicting the fossil record. I'm trying to get an idea for how conclusive this point is in regards to man decending from primates.

According to Pauls link, which I have not finished. There are two conclusions.

"1) that a retrovirus inserted in a common ancestor, and was passed on to the individuals via sexual reproduction; or 2) that separate retroviruses inserted in the same loci in separate ancestors, and were passed on to the individuals from each respective ancestor. "

The author challenges 2 by saying "What rules out the latter of these explanations for the majority of shared ERVs is the highly random nature of integration discussed earlier, and shared mutation among ERVs in identical loci, to be discussed shortly."

I haven't got to the "shortly" and I'll have to back track to the technical sectio get a sense of this randomness, but there seems like a lot time for randomness to work. Maybe there is something to the location which I'll discover further on.

If the gorillas lost it, it would not change the phylogenetic tree, because the tree is based on ERVs that they have. The same goes with if the gorillas never had it.

At the end of the day, the phylogentic order of life, is what it is. And people are a part of this phylogeny. We, people, mankind, have retroviral dna that we share with other primates, including gorillas. We, people, mankind are also present in the fossil succession. We have anatomical, temporal and spacial localities of our fossils that match the DNA within our bodies.

Mankind is not independent from the order of phylogeny no more than any other living thing on earth, nor are gorillas.

 

[Sanoy]

If the gorillas lost it, it would not change the phylogenetic tree, because the tree is based on ERVs that they have. The same goes with if the gorillas lost it.

At the end of the day, the phylogentic order of life, is what it is. And people are a part of this phylogeny. We, people, mankind, have retroviral dna that we share with other primates, including gorillas. We, people, mankind are also present in the fossil succession. We have anatomical, temporal and spacial localities of our fossils that match the DNA within our bodies.

Mankind is not independent from the order of phylogeny no more than any other living thing on earth, nor are gorillas.

Yeah, if they lost it, it would be irrelevant. But if they never acquired it, and they are in the line, it makes me wonder if it could not be due to parralel insertio .

I asked earlier about the mutation over time of these retroviruses being used as a time stamp. Apparently it does act as a time stamp, just not the way I imagined. According to Pauls link the insertion of a retrovirus is identical upon insertion, so we can get a timeline based on mutation after that initial insertion. And if we look it matches your chart. From Pauls link "Since LTRs are identical upon reverse transcription and subsequent insertion, greater divergence correlates to an older insertion. Thus the patterns of discontinuity indicate sequences of divergences consistent with those indicated by distribution." But I wonder if retroviruses can go through mutations that alter their gene insertion, because if that's possible it could alternatively explain the divergences. There is a lot here for me to think about, and a lot more to read about. Thank you for your help.

 

[Juvenal]

Thanks, that's very helpful. This is a subject I don't know a lot about beforehand but I plan to read up on it. As I do could I PM you if I can't find an answer online?

I'm not sure how helpful I'm likely to be. I'm not a biologist, but having been around these discussions for a couple decades, I've gathered a few things, and my memory works pretty good still.

The so-called "Chromosome 2 challenge" popped up on the since-defunct IIDB (Infidels) board, which was pretty much chock-a-block with PhDs in one discipline or another. I learned about mitochondrial Eve from one of the principal researcher's graduate students there. I've still got some pre-prints on early tetrapod evolution from the "famous" Per Ahlberg, who posted there regularly as well.

Now, if you ever have questions on math ... I do some professorin' in that on a regular basis.