Viruses that prove common descent

[Barry Desborough]

Wikispaces [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] on all users who trusted them to honour their promise of providing free space. The page you are looking for has been moved to Blogger. "The ERV FAQ" link links to all the FAQ pages. Here is the page showing why everyone but raving fundies conclude that ERVs are of retroviral origin. Veritas: ERV FAQ: Why do virologists and geneticists think that ERVs come from retroviruses? Isn't that just supposition on their part?

Is "bless and do not curse" the fundie euphemism for cursing?

 

[mark kennedy]

Wikispaces [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] on all users who trusted them to honour their promise of providing free space. The page you are looking for has been moved to Blogger. "The ERV FAQ" link links to all the FAQ pages. Here is the page showing why everyone but raving fundies conclude that ERVs are of retroviral origin. Veritas: ERV FAQ: Why do virologists and geneticists think that ERVs come from retroviruses? Isn't that just supposition on their part?

Your psuedo scientific blog is your response. Try actual scientific literature sometime, it could clear up the fundamental mistakes your making

 

[pitabread]

On the contrary, I have done extensive reading on the subject and I know the difference between a dangerous germline viral infection and an adaptive molecular mechanism. There are a lot of good arguments out there, this is the bitter dregs of desperation.

Not quite what I was referring to, but do carry on...

 

[dad]

But true. Veritas: ERV FAQ: How many ERVs are shared, in common locations, in the genomes of humans and chimps?

I see they used the word transposable. How do you look at a gene and know it was transposed and when and how?

 

[dad]

Confirmed.

Confirmed by faith doesn't count. Show a confirmation by fact.

 

[mark kennedy]

I see they used the word transposable. How do you look at a gene and know it was transposed and when and how?

It's usually transposable because it's prone to change, sometimes by means of mutation but there is something called epigentic changes. Roughly half the human genome is transposable, even some genes are subject to changes. It's usually limited to things like the immune system but it does happen, the real question is how.

 

[Barry Desborough]

Your psuedo scientific blog is your response. Try actual scientific literature sometime, it could clear up the fundamental mistakes your making

You missed where I link to this, and several other links to the literature. Knock yourself out and go read this stuff. ERVs

 

[dad]

It's usually transposable because it's prone to change, sometimes by means of mutation but there is something called epigentic changes. Roughly half the human genome is transposable, even some genes are subject to changes. It's usually limited to things like the immune system but it does happen, the real question is how.

Right, they are transposable. What makes something transpose now and what made something transpose in Adam's day may not be the same. Since the chimps got their viri or pre viri that we now see in the genome a loooong time ago, the issue is how they moved around from one creature to another then. It may have been transferred by air, or other means in that day for all we know.

 

[dad]

You missed where I link to this, and several other links to the literature. Knock yourself out and go read this stuff. ERVs

You wouldn't be here to push some blog?

 

[mark kennedy]

You missed where I link to this, and several other links to the literature. Knock yourself out and go read this stuff. ERVs

I've read plenty thanks, your chasing your tail with this nonsense.

 

[Barry Desborough]

I've read plenty thanks, your chasing your tail with this nonsense.

One of the most pathetic remarks I've seen in a long time.

 

[mark kennedy]

One of the most pathetic remarks I've seen in a long time.

The incredible and inevitable shrinking argument, reduced to exclusively ad hominem taunts, nothing more. And that is how it always ends.

 

[Barry Desborough]

The incredible and inevitable shrinking argument, reduced to exclusively ad hominem taunts, nothing more. And that is how it always ends.

Then leave it off.

 

[mark kennedy]

Then leave it off.

Just down to four words now, the inevitable death spiral. They sold you a lemon, you bought it, it broke down. I'm not about the get out and help you push. So yea, got no problem leaving off.

Have a nice day
Mark

 

[mark kennedy]

You wouldn't be here to push some blog?

Oh he has done more then blogs, he had some crazy facebook think on ERVs I participated in for a while. The hard part was turning their spam off, why he persists is something only he understands.

 

[Barry Desborough]

Oh he has done more then blogs, he had some crazy facebook think on ERVs I participated in for a while. The hard part was turning their spam off, why he persists is something only he understands.

Now, now, just because your bleat about PtERVs doesn't get you anywhere.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

they explain it by a design. they was in the genome since the beginning.

No, that's just another claim.

again: just a belief. you cant change this fact.

It's not a belief. It's a fact. An observable, repeatable, verifiable fact.

again: if they are the product of design ,we can explain it by a common similarity becuase of a common designer.

And if they are magical, we can explain it by a common enchantment.

Such "what if" statements are rather meaningless.
Now... if we simply don't assume the answers and rather just go by the evidence and the observable processes, then explaining shared ERV's is as trivial as explaining why siblings are genetically more alike then non-siblings.

since you cant prove they arent the product of design

You can't prove they aren't the product of enchantments either.

Classic shift of the burden of proof.
If you wish to claim design, then upto you to support it. And your supportive argument can't start with the hidden assumption that they are in fact designed, like you did in the previous paragraphe with your rather silly "what if" statement.

, you can only believe they arent

False.
I just don't accept the claim of design, because there is not evidence for it.
Rejecting a claim is not the same as accepting the opposite claim.

I accept evolution theory, based on the evidence.
I have no reasons to assume that there was some kind of "guider" or "designer" necessary for this process. No, I can't exclude it. Just like I can't exclude pink graviton fairies.

But, off course, what one can't exclude isn't interesting or meaningfull. What matter is what you can include. Emphasis on the word "can". "can" meaning: with evidence - not just through belief claims.

you also forgot that even if they are indeed a product of viral insertion- we can explain it by the claim that most of the genome is functional.

There is absolutely no reason why things that are inserted in the genome, can't take up any function within the system.

Another display of your ignorance on this matter.

 

[xianghua]

again: the ignorance is only from your side.

I just don't accept the claim of design, because there is not evidence for it.

do you think that a self replicating robot that made from organic componenets isnt evidence for design? and what about a spinning motor like the flagellum?

There is absolutely no reason why things that are inserted in the genome, can't take up any function within the system.

i actually claimed that if most of the genome is functional- then there are only few places in the genome that a retrovirus can insert the genome and be fixed.

 

[Barry Desborough]

again: the ignorance is only from your side.



do you think that a self replicating robot that made from organic componenets isnt evidence for design? and what about a spinning motor like the flagellum?




i actually claimed that if most of the genome is functional- then there are only few places in the genome that a retrovirus can insert the genome and be fixed.

This is about common ERVs. Which are there. We are not interested in claims that have no evidence in their favour. Here, again, is my page outlining why virologists and geneticists conclude that ERVs are of retroviral origin. This is how you back up a claim. Veritas: ERV FAQ: Why do virologists and geneticists think that ERVs come from retroviruses? Isn't that just supposition on their part?
Kindly address this evidence.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

do you think that a self replicating robot that made from organic componenets isnt evidence for design?

I can't answer that without additional intel.
How does a robot made from organic components differ from a natural system made from organic components?

and what about a spinning motor like the flagellum?

What about it?

i actually claimed that if most of the genome is functional- then there are only few places in the genome that a retrovirus can insert the genome and be fixed.

You can make any claim you like. Claims are a dime a dozen.
If you can't support them properly, why would anyone care about your claims?