Top 2 reasons why man evolved from prior life.

[Justatruthseeker]

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

I don't believe anyone has tested a sample for 1/2 million years and actually verified any half-life.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

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.

What they are not bothering to mention is that we use virus to target specific cells for gene therapy. That virus commonly bring DNA from foreign hosts across species all the time. That an ERV is a foreign invader to begin with, that all the shared markers are from ERV sites.

No one is certainly denying that after infection, the body incorporates the foreign DNA to use in protein manufacture, and is THEN passed to future generations vertically.

There would be divergences whether they shared ancestry or whether it came from foreign infection. All the divergence can do is tell you when the foreign infection occurred, not if they share a common ancestor. And this is based solely upon mutation rates, while ignoring the more fundamental truth.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28568290

"Hybridization increased additive genetic and environmental variances, increased heritabilities to a moderate extent, and generally strengthened phenotypic and genetic correlations. New additive genetic variance introduced by hybridization is estimated to be two to three orders of magnitude greater than that introduced by mutation."

So simple mating between different humans would have affected the appearance of time by two to three orders of magnitude greater than mutation alone. The same with apes. Therefore the actual infection time would be much, much closer in the past than they account for, being they neglect the changes due to mating which has a 2 to 3 times greater magnitude of producing changes.

I understand how they come to their incorrect conclusions of time, they ignore what is two to three times greater in magnitude.

 

[Sanoy]

What they are not bothering to mention is that we use virus to target specific cells for gene therapy. That virus commonly bring DNA from foreign hosts across species all the time. That an ERV is a foreign invader to begin with, that all the shared markers are from ERV sites.

No one is certainly denying that after infection, the body incorporates the foreign DNA to use in protein manufacture, and is THEN passed to future generations vertically.

There would be divergences whether they shared ancestry or whether it came from foreign infection. All the divergence can do is tell you when the foreign infection occurred, not if they share a common ancestor. And this is based solely upon mutation rates, while ignoring the more fundamental truth.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28568290

"Hybridization increased additive genetic and environmental variances, increased heritabilities to a moderate extent, and generally strengthened phenotypic and genetic correlations. New additive genetic variance introduced by hybridization is estimated to be two to three orders of magnitude greater than that introduced by mutation."

So simple mating between different humans would have affected the appearance of time by two to three orders of magnitude greater than mutation alone. The same with apes. Therefore the actual infection time would be much, much closer in the past than they account for, being they neglect the changes due to mating which has a 2 to 3 times greater magnitude of producing changes.

I understand how they come to their incorrect conclusions of time, they ignore what is two to three times greater in magnitude.

Thank you. So if we take the chart mentioned earlier. And we say that we are ancestors because gene insertion is identical at the start, and the standard mutation rate lineates a time line in perfect accordance with our expectations of common ancestry then we must be ancestors. Then it seems to me like we are locked into that rate. If there are unforseen accelerants, as you suggest, then it becomes very problematic toward this line of evidence. If the standard mutation rate is in perfect accordance with the common ancestry tree, then it's no longer flexible to withstand the discovery of additional variables which might act as an accelerant. If this is true, and I need to study it some more because I can't quite tell from the abstract, it seems like it could take this evidential line and reverse it against common ancestry because it put all it's chips on the standard mutation rate to get a time line that matches the hypothesis.

 

[Job 33:6]

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.

@sfs might be able to help. I believe he is a biologist. Me, I study rocks and bones, so i dont think i could help much there.

It sounds like you're pondering alternatives besides contraction of viral DNA from viruses themselves, or perhaps you're suggesting that maybe the locations of insertion have changed from their original positions in varying species in some sort of synchronizing way.

When i look at these phylogenetic trees, i consider the significance in the structure of the tree, moreso than in the "timestamp" portion of what was depicted.

To better explain, what is important, i think isnt so much that the new world monkeys were dated to 40-50 million years ago, while gorillas were less than 10 million.

But rather, the fact that the new world monkeys were at one stage, then your old world monkeys, then you get your classic gorilla, orangutan, chimpanzee etc., in a succession. And I typically just leave the dating to the chemists. But the fact that the structure of the tree is what we would find in the fossil succession, i would say is most significant. Whether new world monkeys appeared at 50 million years ago, or 40 million, i think is of less significance, than the question of whether new world monkeys pre or post date old world monkeys.

Because if hypothetically new world monkeys post dated old world monkeys in the fossil record, then the theory of evolution would not make sense. But of course that isn't the case.

Either way, thanks for the discussion. I'll continue reading out of interest.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Thank you. So if we take the chart mentioned earlier. And we say that we are ancestors because gene insertion is identical at the start, and the standard mutation rate lineates a time line in perfect accordance with our expectations of common ancestry then we must be ancestors. Then it seems to me like we are locked into that rate. If there are unforseen accelerants, as you suggest, then it becomes very problematic toward this line of evidence. If the standard mutation rate is in perfect accordance with the common ancestry tree, then it's no longer flexible to withstand the discovery of additional variables which might act as an accelerant. If this is true, and I need to study it some more because I can't quite tell from the abstract, it seems like it could take this evidential line and reverse it against common ancestry because it put all it's chips on the standard mutation rate to get a time line that matches the hypothesis.

Exactly, they use a timeline that matches their beliefs. But if the age they believe is wrong, based upon their timeline for mutational change, because they didnt factor in changes from mating........

Then those changes could have occurred much sooner than they believe. Mutation is a random process, there is no such thing as a precise way to measure the amount of time it takes for any mutational change to occur. I mean it is random. It's simply a case of making a belief, fit a set of data they want to say one thing, when if factors they havent accounted for are in effect, then their belief fails to match the real data. If mating caused a change in 9 months, that they mistrue to mutation which they believe took thousands........

 

[Job 33:6]

Oops

 

[Justatruthseeker]

The tree is collapsing and dying....

Darwin’s tree scheme has now been replaced by many with a radiation scheme. This revised scheme (pictured) was published in the journal Nature by Nipam H. Patel entitled “Evolutionary biology: How to build a longer beak.” However, the revision has the same problems as Darwin’s tree – no original ancestor and no transitional links.

“The genomic revolution [has]… effectively overturned the central metaphor of evolutionary biology, the Tree of Life,“ argues Eugene V. Koonin of the National Center for Biotechnology Information in his book The Logic of Chance.

John Archibald of Dalhousie University in his book One Plus One Equals One (2014) finding common ground with Koonin notes, “the tree of life has come upon hard times… [with] the “overall picture emerging is one of mosaicism” – not one of evolutionary changes of “one species… taken and modified” into a new species.

Amazingly, David Baum and Stacey Smith in the book Tree Thinking, an Introduction to Phylogenetic Biology (2013) pushes the envelope further arguing that “Our knowledge of molecular process is not good enough to definitively rule out independent origins.”

 

[Job 33:6]

Exactly, they use a timeline that matches their beliefs. But if the age they believe is wrong, based upon their timeline for mutational change, because they didnt factor in changes from mating........

Then those changes could have occurred much sooner than they believe. Mutation is a random process, there is no such thing as a precise way to measure the amount of time it takes for any mutational change to occur. I mean it is random. It's simply a case of making a belief, fit a set of data they want to say one thing, when if factors they havent accounted for are in effect, then their belief fails to match the real data. If mating caused a change in 9 months, that they mistrue to mutation which they believe took thousands........

@Sanoy
Notice, this doesnt actually address why phylogenetic trees of comparative anatomy, ERVs, cytochrome C, paleontology, biogeography, genetics and more...all match.

 

[sfs]

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.

I don't understand the possibility you're raising here. Could you expand on your suggestion?

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

It seems to me that the coccyx might cause some discomfort if sitting too long, especially for women. If so then God didn't intend for us to sit on our butts for long periods, and so provided a warning system.

Oh that reminds me of the reason suggested for mosquitoes. It seems they are particularly virulent against loggers of the rain forests and so they are a tool for slowing the destruction of that habitat.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Oh that reminds me of the reason suggested for mosquitoes. It seems they are particularly virulent against loggers of the rain forests and so they are a tool for slowing the destruction of that habitat.

I like it.

Also, the thumb was designed to locate a fish hook in the bottom of a tackle box.

 

[Speedwell]

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?

Because that phase of evolution happened before and during the Cambrian era, 600 million years and more ago--not 65 million--and there was very little hard stuff in those creatures to fossilize.

 

[Sanoy]

I don't understand the possibility you're raising here. Could you expand on your suggestion?

Yeah.

So we are looking at the retrovirus lineation chart here, and Paul's link here. Both are about the gene insertion of retrovirus found in primates and humans. Pauls article, which is for common ancestry says there are two possibilities, common ancestry, or parallel insertion which would be that the retroviruses are readily available and simply insert their genes into whatever comes next. The article concludes for common ancestry and one of the reasons is this...

"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"

So the retroviruses insert the same gene every time, then over time that gene mutates and diverges and that gives us a time stamp that lineates a progression of ancestry. What I am wondering is, does the retrovirus mutate as well, so that the gene it inserts is different from the gene it inserted 2 million years ago. Because if that's the case, then the two possibilities, post mutation, and inserted mutation are empirically equivalent.

I'm also wondering about the Gorilla in that chart, despite being in the line of ancestry it doesn't have the EnvR gene. Is it possible to lose a retrovirus gene entirely? Or is it more likely the Gorilla never acquired it. So great grandfather has it, grandfather doesn't, and son has it. That makes me think the son got the gene through parallel insertion while the Gorilla had some adaptation to the virus. And if the son can get it from a parallel insertion it makes me wonder if that could also be the case for the other gene insertions.

Thanks for your help.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Because that phase of evolution happened before and during the Cambrian era, 600 million years and more ago--not 65 million--and there was very little hard stuff in those creatures to fossilize.

So intelligent design took over after 600 million years ago? No more trial and error?

 

[Speedwell]

So intelligent design took over after 600 million years ago? No more trial and error?

No, just no more trial and error with respect to how many limbs creatures have.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

No, just no more trial and error with respect to how many limbs creatures have.

The question remains. Where are the fossils of 'unsuccessful' designs?

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

The question remains. Where are the fossils of 'unsuccessful' designs?

Unsuccessful creatures failed to have oodles and oodles of descendants. They had few or none. So since only about one in a million creatures ever leave a fossil, that's why you don't see such fossils.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Unsuccessful creatures failed to have oodles and oodles of descendants. They had few or none. So since only about one in a million creatures ever leave a fossil, that's why you don't see such fossils.

Not even one?

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Not even one?

And if you saw one, would you recognize it for what it was?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

And if you saw one, would you recognize it for what it was?

If it had two heads I would.