Viruses that prove common descent

[JDD_III]

2) You confuse creationism with Christianity. Please don't do that. creationism is a sub-sect in Christianity, Islam and Judaism. To try to equate creationism with Christianity is dishonest.

No, I do not. Creationism is inherent to Christianity. Given that Christ is the centre of Christianity and we read:
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made."

Further to this, if you believe Christianity, you have a real problem in not accepting miracles that Jesus performed. These were clearly creative miracles.

Therefore, Jesus Christ created.

"By faith we understand that the universe was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things that are visible."

It is very hard to position yourself as a "Christian" and not accept creation.

What is debated among Christians is the mechanism of creation. Miraculous or naturalistic.

3) You say that the case for common descent from ERVs depends on "assumptions", but you fail to specify what you think they are. What do you think they are?

I did state some of them quite clearly.

4) Do you think you can answer questions a) to i) here? Give them your best shot. Veritas: ERV FAQ: But how can you rule out design as an explanation?

I do not think I can answer anything nor do I need to answer everything. I am comfortable with needing a little faith. If I have time I will take a look at the link.

 

[dad]

Why don't you get a professional lobotomy? (Or have you already had one?)

No thanks. It isn't my problem some folks can't face facts here. The fact is that you may not enforce current nature laws on the far past. Period.

 

[Barry Desborough]

No, I do not. Creationism is inherent to Christianity. Given that Christ is the centre of Christianity and we read:
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made."

Further to this, if you believe Christianity, you have a real problem in not accepting miracles that Jesus performed. These were clearly creative miracles.

Therefore, Jesus Christ created.

"By faith we understand that the universe was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things that are visible."

It is very hard to position yourself as a "Christian" and not accept creation.

What is debated among Christians is the mechanism of creation. Miraculous or naturalistic.


I did state some of them quite clearly.


I do not think I can answer anything nor do I need to answer everything. I am comfortable with needing a little faith. If I have time I will take a look at the link.

Wriggly worm.

"this is a forum debating creation and evolution"

"Creationism is inherent to Christianity"

"What is debated among Christians is the mechanism of creation. Miraculous or naturalistic."

"It is very hard to position yourself as a "Christian" and not accept creation."

So are Anglicans and Catholics and all the other sects that accept evolution, Christian, or not?

"I did state some of them (assumptions regarding ERVs) quite clearly."

Help me out here. I can't find them. Repeat them in your reply to this, if you can be bothered. (See the following.)

"I do not think I can answer anything nor do I need to answer everything. I am comfortable with needing a little faith. If I have time I will take a look at the link."

In this thread, we are discussing ERVs as evidence of common descent. We are not interested in whether you have faith or not, but in whether ERVs are indeed evidence for common descent. If you are not interested in studying this matter, and you are not prepared to put some effort into discussing it, please leave.

 

[JDD_III]

So are Anglicans and Catholics and all the other sects that accept evolution, Christian, or not?

You misunderstand the position that most theistic evolutionists (most, not all) take. They believe in a Creator God (a form of Creation), just not instantaneous creation of all life in 6 days as the mechanism, rather evolution. Some would say that the creation event was simply the Big Bang and setting it into motion to allow for the naturalistic mechanisms and laws to end up to life as we have it today. Others would subscribe to creation acts throughout the ages of long time to bring new forms of life, some would subscribe to positively acting/guiding mutations, etc.

I am not saying this is what I am subscribing to, I am saying that these are considered forms of creation. I.e. they required God to act in some sort of creative way.

The difference is the atheist believes everything right from the first cause to be explainable through naturalistic and material causes.

The challenge for the pure theistic evolutionist is that if nature can do it, there is no need for a God and there is a monumental diminishing in power and ability of said God. There is also a very monumental difference between that type of Creation and what is portrayed of Jesus' creative abilities in the NT.

Help me out here. I can't find them. Repeat them in your reply to this, if you can be bothered. (See the following.)

I stated:

"I'm asking you to consider, what if these sequences were already in existence on day 1 of design. What if viruses did not exist in day 1 of design. What if they arose somehow after? What if it was the result of a type of genetic deterioration? Given they are jumping genes, they possess features that mean they could be "infective" in nature. So what if viruses actually arose from such sequences?"

and

"So again I ask, can you hypothesise a situation where what we see as ERVs now were once functional in a less deteriorated original genomic blueprint in multiple organisms, much like homologous proteins across species?"

Which I believe for an intelligent person like you, the inference is the opposite of the base assumption for your interpretation, in other words assumptions you are making:

- Viral sequences were not originally part of mammalian sequences
- Viruses existed significantly before humans/chimps
- the genome has not deteriorated but is evoloving upwards
- viruses did not evolve out of existing mammalian sequences

In this thread, we are discussing ERVs as evidence of common descent. We are not interested in whether you have faith or not, but in whether ERVs are indeed evidence for common descent.

No, we are not. You are wrong. We are not discussing ERVs as evidence of common descent. Look at the title of this thread that you yourself made:

"Viruses that prove common descent"

You mistake "evidence" for "proof". ERVs in the context of assumptions similar to what I laid out above, (i.e. upwards evolution of genomes, long ages of time, viruses existing far in time before humans and chimps, humans and chimps sharing a common ancestor, etc) offer very good evidence for common ancestry, in a rather circular argument way (in that they are made on those base assumptions).

Remember antecedent fallacy - if x equals y, y does not necessarily mean x.

In otherwords, similarity does not mean (prove) common ancestry.

You offer some evidence that can be interpreted and is good evidence for common ancestry, under a set of assumptions. This is not proof. Proof would be to show there is no other way they can appear like this, and that is the debate. So you can either rename the title of this thread or you can start to show that you understand the difference between evidence and proof.

An alternative explanation is that these sequences are functional sequences that look like viruses and were designed into the genome. Guess what? ERVs are constantly showing function in the genome. The evolutionists most likely claims this is adaptation of these sequences into something useful - evidence of evolution! Yet that is a circular argument and no better than saying some have broken and are not useful and others remain as their intended, designed use. Given that ERVs make up so much of the human genome we could make an argument they provide evidence (not proof) for an intended use through design.

You could hypothesise that these sequences look similar to viral sequences due to their function to integrate throughout the genome as a design mechanism to provide variation. Thus if a designer used similar tools for similar organisms (chimp and humans) you would expect similarity of sequence if these were meant to be functional.

You could hypothesis that viruses evolved from these sequences if in the original design there were no viruses.

I am not saying these are the answers, I am saying they are ways to potentially explain the data under a design paradigm.

If you are not interested in studying this matter, and you are not prepared to put some effort into discussing it, please leave.

No thanks, I'll stay around thank you very much. I am actually not interested in debating with you or anyone who acts like yourself and proclaims that someone will not debate you when this is exactly what you have done. You have failed to understand the difference between proof and evidence but worse than this, I offer you a potential explanation for ERVs in the paradigm of design (i.e. if design were true, ERVs have an explanation therefore ERVs are not PROOF of common descent, just evidence that can be used to argue CD based on other assumptions) as per the link to a paper and you do not debate the matter nor show interest in studying the matter but dismiss it in an ad hominem manner. You call someone crazy and that is your rebuttal to an article someone has written addressing these issues and addressing a number of the issues you linked in your last post that I should explain.

Why should I explain these things when you resort to ad hominem arguments and fail to engage with material offered in the debate? This simply proves you do not wish to engage in a debate but you want to declare your position as true and anyone who disagrees is uninformed. This is not how scientific engagement or proper debate occurs. You can find a crazy man who will state that the Earth is spherical yet you do not dismiss this statement as incorrect just because he is crazy, do you?

I do not actually reply to engage in debate with you specifically because you have proven given the above you do not wish to seriously debate and consider this matter from other perspectives. Feel free to call me crazy too and ignore anything I say. I post because for every 1 poster on these forums, there are 10 others probably reading, several no doubt who are Christians who may struggle with their faith around these matters and need to hear that there are potential ways to explain these observations that are in line with a creative God. Whether you choose to accept that or not is your choice, but you cannot claim that ERVs PROVE common descent (i.e. there are no alternative explanations).

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The difference is you can test whether pigs fly

To be fair, that should be nuanced.
You can establish that pigs CAN fly, yes, by actually observing a pig flying.
But you can not establish that pigs CAN NOT fly - not as an absolute anyway.

but you cannot test what the chimp and human genome was like 7mya.

Obviously, you can't observe something that no longer exists.
The thing is though: you don't need to.

Consider a scenario where the parents of 2 people are dead with no trace of them left. ie, you don't have access to their DNA.

This doesn't stop you from establishing that the 2 people are siblings with common parents. All you need to do that, is the DNA of the two siblings.

As in, it is perfectly possible to determine the level of "relatedness" (read: common ancestry) of 2 random individuals while only having access to those 2 individuals.

Also, once you establish those relations, you can make a pretty educated guess as to what was and wasn't part of that ancestor's genome.

And given this is a forum debating creation and evolution, you have to at least accept that we are debating evidence interpretation thus to start with base assumptions that prove your point is illogical in such a setting and circular.

No. My base assumption is not at all geared towards buying into any specific ideas or any particular "interpretation" of data - unlike the base assumptions of theists, who START with a framework of beliefs that they dogmatically clinge to (...which would be what defines their religious beliefs in the first place).

That's the difference.
My starting point is to follow the evidence.
Your starting point is, in fact, the exact same as your end point: god exists and did it all.

So you have to consider the alternative approach.

There is no alternative approach. The data of reality is the data of reality. It is what it is and not what it isn't.

You are saying ERVs provide evidence for common descent. Yes, they do, based on assuming certain things (which by the nature of this forum are not a given otherwise this forum should just shut down now and lets all leave).

No, not based on any kind of assumption. Based on FACTS. Based on the FACT that when it is inserted into the host DNA, it gets inherited by the off spring.

I mean, the very fact that we can even identify ERV's when sequencing DNA, already says it all... How could we identify it, if we don't know what it is?

I'm asking you to consider, what if these sequences were already in existence on day 1 of design.

You are asking me to ignore the evidence of reality.
You are asking me to make assumptions that are not justified / not in evidence and which, on the contrary, directly contradict the evidence.

Also, to answer your question, if they would have been present from day 1, then they wouldn't reflect the same nested hierarchy as other genetic markers, entire gene sequences, geographical distribution of species, comparative anatomy, etc etc etc

You also need to understand, badly, that this whole ERV thing is just ONE piece of evidence amongs many, many, MANY more.
What you also need to understand is that all these independent lines of evidence all point to the exact same thing: common ancestry.

What if viruses did not exist in day 1 of design.

"of design"?
Assuming the conclusion, are we?
Funny how you (falsely) accused me of doing that, only to engage in it yourself in the very next paragraph.

What if they arose somehow after? What if it was the result of a type of genetic deterioration? Given they are jumping genes, they possess features that mean they could be "infective" in nature. So what if viruses actually arose from such sequences?

What if any of your "what if" ideas, were actually supported by evidence?
Well... in that case, they might actually be relevant in this discussion.

But they aren't. So.... yeah.

After all, we are debating the Christian account of creation versus evolution

Then I suggest you start making a case FOR creation instead of AGAINST evolution.
Because that's another thing you don't seem to get: if for some reason you would actually succeed in disproving evolution... it wouldn't add a shred of credibility to your particular beliefs.

therefore if you are going to assume the former

Again, got it backwards.
Evolution isn't assumed. Evolution is concluded.

It's YOUR side that does the assuming. It's YOUR side that has preconceived beliefs about what the answers are. YOU are the one claiming to have the answers before even asking the question.

, it is only fair to play through the scenario that God created humans and other mammals with good genomes and the Fall caused those genomes to go wrong. And it is fair to assume that viruses did not exist prior to the fall.

It is never fair to assume things that aren't supported by single shred of evidence, only to argue against things that ARE supported by evidence. And not even a bit of evidence. I'm talking overwhelming amounts of evidence. I'm talking multiple independend lines of evdience that all converge on the same answer.

In fact, ERVs are rather strange for evolution - evolution can randomly master the existence of complex organs such as an eye

Evolution isn't random.
It has random components. The process itself is anything but random.

, but cannot get rid of waste sequences such as ERVs which happen to stay in the genome?

Who says it can not?
And who says that it must?

Further, many important functions are being found for ERV sequences and continue to be so.

Wich might explain one reason why the evolutionary process doesn't squeeze all of them out.
As I said previously, there isn't a single reason why an ERV, once a fixed part of the genome, couldn't take up any function within that system. There also is no particular reason why that function couldn't go on to develop into a rather vital function either.

So again I ask, can you hypothesise a situation where what we see as ERVs now were once functional in a less deteriorated original genomic blueprint in multiple organisms, much like homologous proteins across species?

Nope. Not in a way that it justifiable, anyway.
Sure, I can imagine all kinds of things. I can also imagine that humans bodies remain unaffected by gravity. But reality doesn't really justify such an assumption.

It might be fun as a thought exercise after a few beers. But to actually get to usefull answers about the world? Not really.

And, for reference, read this paper if you want an explanation from this end around:
http://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j27_3/j27_3_105-112.pdf

Try a scientific source, instead a known and exposed dishonest & fundamentalist propaganda website.

 

[JDD_III]

The thing is though: you don't need to.

Consider a scenario where the parents of 2 people are dead with no trace of them left. ie, you don't have access to their DNA.

This doesn't stop you from establishing that the 2 people are siblings with common parents. All you need to do that, is the DNA of the two siblings.

As in, it is perfectly possible to determine the level of "relatedness" (read: common ancestry) of 2 random individuals while only having access to those 2 individuals.

Yes, it is. Because you have established that relatedness with modern examples that you can test. So you have a testable reference point to make that conclusion. A “control”.

Consider zooming in on the top end of a sigmoid dose-response curve. If you zoom in and focus purely on the end fraction (highest concentration of an agonist lets say) and you can see 10 graphs all of the same pattern with that compound and a substrate you are measuring, you could predict that repeating that experiment with a similar compound would take the same shape at that point in the graph.

If you concluded that you draw a straight line back from that to a much lower concentration and predict to see the same effect, you would be a fool. Because that is an extrapolation based on unobserved data points. And you would have been wrong, because the curve is sigmoid.

My point? Sure you can make predictions and conclusions about things you can test and observe, but extrapolations are dangerous.

Also, once you establish those relations, you can make a pretty educated guess as to what was and wasn't part of that ancestor's genome.

Of course – their human ancestors, as you have established that humans can procreate to give humans. To say anything but a human was an ancestor, is an assumption.

That's the difference.
My starting point is to follow the evidence.
Your starting point is, in fact, the exact same as your end point: god exists and did it all.

Yes and no. We do have different starting points. I’m not actually arguing creation is scientific, by the way. But back to the point – science starts with assumptions. One of those assumptions is an a priori commitment to naturalistic explanations. That is inherent in modern science, and for good reason.

So if we are going to have any sort of debate in a Christian forum where God for many people are assumed, you have to step a bit away from the limits ofsuch a priori commitments and ask yourself “in X scenario, is the data explainable.” This cannot be a purist scientific discussion as if that is what we are trying to have then there is no debate as God is excluded in any part.

You are foolish if you think that evolutionary thought comes from “facts”. All the data especially modern, is built on the assumption. No new piece of evidence can cause to question the evolution as a base assumption and abiogenesis as another base assumption. These are given assumptions. Take for example, when I was an undergraduate I was taught 98% of the genome was junk, and this is exactly as we would expect from evolution. This was taught, by world leading evolutionary biologists to me as a scientist-in-the-making as factual scientific evidence. Wind the clock forward and those estimates have changed at the most conservative estimate to 90% junk. That’s a big difference. Yet what do we see Dawkins and the like say? “This is exactly what we would expect from evolution – evolution adapting use for relic DNA.” Etc. And when ENCODE finds that 80% of the genome is transcriptionally active – no problem! When the eye is actually used to demonstrate that evolution would predict such bad engineering – evidence against design! As evolution expects! Then it gets found to be near perfectly optimal and the backwards wiring of the eye is in fact a design type advantage for greater efficiency of light tunneling? Surprising, but amazing what evolution can do. When we see complex features independently appear multiple times in distant related species so have had to evolve many times separately – convergent evolution! When we see rapid change – selective pressure! When we see stasis with no change for 500m years – no pressure! When we see giraffes evolving at the same time as animals that do not get longer necks – they evolved to reach higher food! Huh? How is that science? That is pure conjecture, a “just so” story – and yet it is called science.

Evolution is the theory that can and does accommodate every single observation. A scientific theory that explains everything explains nothing. It is non-falsifiable. Heads you win, tails I lose. Grand old theory that – really following the data with no assumptions (not)!

No, not based on any kind of assumption. Based on FACTS. Based on the FACT that when it is inserted into the host DNA, it gets inherited by the off spring.

Here you go again. I ask again – how do you know it was inserted into the host DNA?

I mean, the very fact that we can even identify ERV's when sequencing DNA, already says it all... How could we identify it, if we don't know what it is?

Because they contain features similar to viral sequences that we can separately define. Again, I have offered potential explanations for that. Keep up.

You are asking me to ignore the evidence of reality.
You are asking me to make assumptions that are not justified / not in evidence and which, on the contrary, directly contradict the evidence.

It is a perfectly reasonable question to ask, when considering a genome, how you know that sequence did not originally exist in the host genome. How do you know that? I have not heard an answer yet.

Also, to answer your question, if they would have been present from day 1, then they wouldn't reflect the same nested hierarchy as other genetic markers, entire gene sequences, geographical distribution of species, comparative anatomy, etc etc etc

Actually, they would.

You also need to understand, badly, that this whole ERV thing is just ONE piece of evidence amongs many, many, MANY more.
What you also need to understand is that all these independent lines of evidence all point to the exact same thing: common ancestry.

You need to understand, badly, that we are only talking about ERVs right here. You have suddenly shifted the goal posts. Another common tactic of the one who does not know how to logically debate. Feel free to bring up other issues that apparently cannot be accommodated by the design paradigm.

"of design"?
Assuming the conclusion, are we?
Funny how you (falsely) accused me of doing that, only to engage in it yourself in the very next paragraph.

You misunderstand my accusation – you are assuming base assumptions as I have outlined – and listen carefully – that exclude any design possibility. Continue to listen carefully:

• My approach is not suggesting that ERVs provide evidence for design/creation.
  
  
• I have been suggested that if you assume naturalistic origins, ERVs offer evidence for common descent, but not proof (in contrast to the title of this thread)
  
  
• Thus, my argument is that ERVs do not provide strong evidence and certainly not proof that creation is false.
  

This is in contrast to the arguments made by many here, mostly atheists, that ERVs mean CD must be true because it is the only explanation/design cannot account for them. This notion I reject.

Then I suggest you start making a case FOR creation instead of AGAINST evolution.
Because that's another thing you don't seem to get: if for some reason you would actually succeed in disproving evolution... it wouldn't add a shred of credibility to your particular beliefs.

Wow, we have a psychic! You apparently know what I cannot get! When have I ever said disproving evolution adds credibility to my particular beliefs? Oh yeah, that’s right – not once. I reject much (not all) of popular evolution because it is riddled with bad science and I dislike bad science. It also misleads people and that is the worst type of bad science. People for 1000s years did not believe in evolution yet still rejected my beliefs. There is a whole movement of IDers and other evolution doubter scientists who reject mainstream evolution but remain agnostic and/or do not hold my beliefs. Stop putting words in my mouth. I’m done with this, except…

Try a scientific source, instead a known and exposed dishonest & fundamentalist propaganda website.

Really, brush up on your logic please if you wish to debate in serious debate. Ad hominem once more. I could say the same about the numerous anti-God ranting atheistic evolutionists out there like Dawkins. “I reject his teachings because he is a ranting anti-God lunatic so is full of anti-God propaganda.”

Imagine if I said that and refused to ignore his proposed scientific rationale based on the above. What a field day you and others would have.

 

[pshun2404]

When we consider the newly discovered role played by alleged ERV insertions in placental formation in mammals, doesn’t it make you wonder HOW the hell they produced offspring before having acquired the ERVs so necessary to produce the placenta? Mammalian reproduction without a placenta go figure! Well thad splainz it...ah huh! The Common Ancestor cover...It MUST HAVE happened in some past unknown pre-mammalian...who cares whether or not we can prove it...what to think is way more important than how to think...we will just tell them over and over and they will believe it’s true.


So because this threw such a severe monkey wrench (Oh yeah not monkey, I mean a pre-mammalian wrench) into the mix, the question of how this could happen had to be addressed. In the end they somehow determined to place the first alleged placental insertion/ERVs to have been introduced about 150 million years ago. Finely the truth comes out....


Ah....er...ah...but wait didn’t mammals evolve a little over 200 million years ago? Well yes they did. But if the hypothesis is correct, that would mean mammals existed and replicated for 50 million years without a proper placenta. AHHH Don’t stress it they think we are the experts, they believe us just because that’s who we are...


Hmmm? Curious and curiouser, is it not?

 

[xianghua]

That doesn't sound like an answer to my question.
You are welcome to try again:

How does a robot made from organic components differ from a natural system made from organic components?

from materialistic prespective its not. now...you believe that a robot doesnt need a designer?

 

[xianghua]

Still ignoring the evidence, I see.
I think you have seen this before. It's something else for you to ignore.

lets see. from your own site:

It fails to explain why ERVs with functional genes should be found in common locations in different species. Their location is not critical to their function.

how actually? if an erv get into a functional gene it will be harmful in most cases, if not fatal.

and again you ignore my main claim: how a retrovirus survived in the first place without an host? how an host survived without a retrovirus?

 

[xianghua]

I didn't say that. Obviously, a ROBOT needs a designer by very definition of what a robot is.

so if someone will create a human it can be consider as robot by definition?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

from materialistic prespective its not.

Right. So... if you had 2 biological creatures, one that was designed and one that was of natural origins, then you couldn't tell the difference between both?

now...you believe that a robot doesnt need a designer?

I already agreed that a ROBOT is a designed thing by definition.

It's kind of like "is murder wrong?". Well.... yeah. By defintion. Murder MEANS "the unlawfull killing of someone".

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

so if someone will create a human it can be consider as robot by definition?

Here's the dictionary defintion of that word:
Robot-
a machine that resembles a human and does mechanical, routine tasks on command.

Living things aren't robots and robots aren't living things.
The Terminator looks human, but it's not human - it's a robot.

Here's the kicker: it's rather easy to tell the difference between a human and a terminator.


Stop playing these silly word games.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

It should not be hard to differentiate.

Evolved biologicals would have evidence vestigial structures that would be considered evidence of poor design in a robot.

Similarly evolved biologicals would have evidence of "kluges" that is to say non-optimum solutions to problems that are dictated by the preceding structure and not by optimum design such as the extreme detour of the recurrent laryngeal nerves, evolution could only gradually lengthen the nerve by tiny increments to accommodate the required pathway, resulting in the circuitous route now observed and similarly found in other structures such as the route of the vas deferens. Designed robots would have the opportunity to start from a clean sheet of paper and thus would not exhibit such kluges.

You are correct off course.

The problem is that we are dealing with a person who simply shrugs his shoulders in response to such data and speaks the words "...well, that's how the designer made it..."

 

[Speedwell]

The challenge for the pure theistic evolutionist is that if nature can do it, there is no need for a God and there is a monumental diminishing in power and ability of said God.

If nature can do it, it is only because God wills it to be that way. God's power and ability is in no way diminished. What is diminished is the ability of those sects who wish to use "science" to impose their theology on non-believers.

 

[xianghua]

I already agreed that a ROBOT is a designed thing by definition

a machine that resembles a human and does mechanical, routine tasks on command.
.

so if such a "robot" evolved by a natural process it will not be a robot by definition?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

"The DNA sample was only a partial match, of poor quality, and experts at the time said they could neither say that he was guilty nor rule him out."

The ERV correspondence between you and Charlie the chimp is way more than a "partial match". Truthseekers need to shed their prejudices and presuppositions.

Then why do you refuse to shed them, since we both understand ERV are foreign invaders and they just happen to use those very viruses to target specific cells for genetic alterations, despite all of you wanna be evolutionists claiming those virus don't target specific cells. That once those ERV targeted specific cells and passed on foreign DNA they were passed by vertical descent says nothing of common decent.

Funny how ERV's prove common descent in humans and apes but confuses species definition in bacteria.


Defining bacterial species in the genomic era: insights from the genus Acinetobacter

"In pursuit of this goal, we generated a set of thirteen new draft genome sequences, representing ten species, combined them with other publically available genome sequences and analyzed these 38 strains belonging to the genus. We found that analyses based on 16S rRNA gene sequences were not capable of delineating accepted species...... Among rapid distance-based methods, we found average-nucleotide identity (ANI) analyses delivered results consistent with traditional and phylogenetic classifications, whereas gene content based approaches appear to be too strongly influenced by the effects of horizontal gene transfer to agree with previously accepted species."

So ERV which cause HGT is perfectly able to be sorted through in humans and apes but in bacteria it prevents you from simple species designation. Methinks someone is adding what they wish was true to one and admitting the truth in the other.... where they feel it isn't that important....

 

[pshun2404]

I've searched for a while and I do not find any literature that supports your claim. Would you please supply a reference?

Start with this one (though there are quite a few)

Endogenous retroviruses regulate periimplantation placental growth and differentiation (Kathrin A. Dunlap, Massimo Palmarini, Mariana Varela, Robert C. Burghardt, Kanako Hayashi, Jennifer L. Farmer, and Thomas E. Spencer), Center for Animal Biotechnology and Genomics, Department of Animal Science, at

http://www.somosbacteriasyvirus.com/placental1.pdf

Related to but not specific to the point read this one

Retroviruses facilitate the rapid evolution of the mammalian placenta

Just for starters...

Taken together they begin the case for the role of these alleged ERVs in placental development

 

[pshun2404]

What about the alleged ERV envelope proteins in the normal differentiation of human villous cytotrophoblast into syncytiotrophoblast? Their role in expressing for the production of syncytin 1 for example is well established and this is an essential protein to the placenta in humans. What did the placenta do without out them before the alleged insertion event?

This is where those whose opinions been successfully “shaped” run to the ‘unable to be proved or disproved’ Common Ancestor interpretation, to explain the lack of demonstrable examples for the claim. According to logic of the “shaped”, if it cannot be falsified why accept it dogmatically as “the truth”? Yet they assert it is the truth!

Understand H, I have been of dozens of forums with a variety of AKAs and even with highly qualified (far more scholarly sorts than I) scientists, and not a single one can provide a single demonstrative example where one of these alleged ERVs (not the real ones like say HIV that we have seen happen) was not part of the genome (in chimps, humans, or a common ancestor) and now is. Not one. The same is true with many so-called indels and substitutions (do not even get me started on the insanity f the way substitutions are "interpreted"). Not a single real example just hypothesis based interpretation and consensus among those also previously “convinced”.

And why not? If they proceeded from the sheer logic of the necessity of real evidence (demonstrable examples) they would be ridiculed, discredited, lose funding, and more. Even many Publishing companies would selectively exclude publishing their questioning and results..."confirmation bias" is rampart in this field (unlike the physical sciences).

The premise is not based on actually observed facts...accepted pre-supposition often governs interpretation. We all have these, it is subconscious in most cases (therefore do not claim a conspiratorial notion is being implied) the problem is until one begins exercising separation of real observable facts from the story told to explain them one remains a victim of the indoctrination (brainwashing) and the mind cannot see beyond into alternate possibilities and this slows science down in areas where the story dominates the evidence.

Evolutionist David Pilbeam once said “...in my own subject of Paleo-anthropology the “theory” heavily influenced by implicit ideas, almost always dominates data...ideas that are totally unrelated to actual fossils have dominated theory building, which in turn strongly influences the way fossils are interpreted.” (“Pro-Evolution“, Vol. 14, p.127). This is so true...now your programming (the shaping) automatically wants to ignore all I just said and focus on accusing me of quote mining...and once that kicks in (unless YOU actively stop the foolishness from making your subsequent thoughts) if it does, all else, all the logical reasonableness of what I posted cannot get through the mental block this programming creates so HOPEFULLY you will not fail your critical thinking in this way, but who knows, I guess we will see.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

If you are to engage in this conversation, and keep up, you need to brush up on (at least) three things:

1. current concepts regarding how species exist in time and space.
2. horizontal gene transfer in bacteria.
3. horizontal gene transfer in primates.

Yes, I know, magically it works differently in bacteria than in primates, even if we use ERV for targeting specific cells for gene manipulation, they claim it can't happen that way....

Why would I accept your flawed interpretation of how species exist in time and space? You can't even get your fossil record to match reality. In every species that exists there are several subspecies. Yet in the fossil record only one or two actually match observations, the rest you have incorrectly listed subspecies as separate species.

Asian mates with Asian and produces only Asian. African mates with African and produces only African. Variation in the species only occurs when the Asian mates with the African and produces an Afro-Asian. The Asian remains Asian, the African remains African. Just as we see in the fossil record where every single creature remains the same from the oldest fossil found to the youngest fossil found.

That you want me to believe that the subspecies (Afro-Asian for example) came about without the mating between the Asian and African, is your flawed conception of how variation occurs. That you believe it happened differently in the past then it happens in the here and now is your flawed perception of how species exist in time and space. It's only too bad your version is not supported by observational data....

 

[pshun2404]

Typical!And predicted...