Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Um - this is a study of modern genetics.Don't mix apples with oranges. Modern genetics...we know about. Very ancient genetics we do not know about.
You miss the point, it doesn't matter one little bit how they now transfer! Not in the least.We certainly do know. This isn't hard. Retroviruses integrate DNA copies of their genomes in the genomes of host somatic cells. That's one way in which they "get around". The other way is when they integrate with germline cells and get reproduced along with the host DNA. The former process does not result in integrations to specific DNA loci. The latter one does, because this is how inheritance works. Read through the FAQ first, then let me know if there is anything you still don't understand.
No. You talked about evolution. That covers a lot more than things evolving in 200 years! Correct?Um - this is a study of modern genetics.
No. You talked about evolution. That covers a lot more than things evolving in 200 years! Correct?
No. It's the fact that all the individual independent items of evidence back each other up and point to the one inevitable conclusion. Consilience.again: do you have a specific point in this article that according to your opinion is the best evidence?
It's not an assumption, but the most reasonable position. You would need a reason why things were different then, and evidence that they were. Any other 'assumption' without such reasoning and evidence would be crazy.You miss the point, it doesn't matter one little bit how they now transfer! Not in the least.
The only question is how they used to get around. That you do not know. You see you have merely looked at how it works now and assumed it always was so. That is religion. Not fact, not knowledge, and not any real science.
Genetics and DNA science is just fine with people when the science is used to track down a murderer. But when that same science shows common decent, well, then that whole field of study is evil.
Cognitive dissonance for the win!!!!
Read the FAQ. This is not about general similarity/differences, but about very specific markers, in very specific loci, in different species, that can only be explained by common ancestry.not realy. in this case above we are talking about almost identical\identical DNA match. but chimp and human for instance are very different from each other (yep: 2% difference in a gene its a lot, a tipical gene is about more then 1000 bp long).
No. It's the fact that all the individual independent items of evidence back each other up and point to the one inevitable conclusion. Consilience.
I don't know what you mean by "infacted". Retroviruses replicate by getting host organisms to create new virions. Sometimes, these new virions will acquire fragments of "native" DNA. ERVs don't generally get transcribed to produce exogenous virions, but it has been known to happen, rarely.ok. so according to your prediction its impossible that a retrovirus will "infacted" by the host? (the opposite direction)
Barry, if I have evolution pegged correctly, I take it we Christians should believe [at least] three things:Any other 'assumption' without such reasoning and evidence would be crazy.
Can we stick to ERVs please? You have plenty of scope to post on other topics elsewhere.Barry, if I have evolution pegged correctly, I take it we Christians should believe [at least] three things:
You may not believe those yourself, but for you ... or anyone ... to act incredulous if anyone refuses to believe it on theological and Biblical grounds is showing a lack of understanding of how faith operates.
- There was death before the Fall.
- We are mutant copy-errors, made in the image & likeness of God.
- A glorified ape died on the Cross to redeem mankind.
If I was sitting on top of a crate of dynamite lighting matches ... but I didn't believe there was dynamite in the crate ... would you think I was crazy?
If so, I submit the problem is on your end.
ok. so if we should go by evolutionery prediction, we should not find a retrovirus with a host genes for instance?I don't know what you mean by "infacted". Retroviruses replicate by getting host organisms to create new virions. Sometimes, these new virions will acquire fragments of "native" DNA. ERVs don't generally get transcribed to produce exogenous virions, but it has been known to happen, rarely.
Sure. In your opinion, did God create them, or are they the result of the Fall?Can we stick to ERVs please?
Humor me.Barry Desborough said:You have plenty of scope to post on other topics elsewhere.
I just told you that retroviruses can transfer native genetic information between host organisms. It's not a prediction of evolutionary science, but a finding in the fields of virology and genetics. It may well feed into evolution, as an example of a source of variation in an organism's genome.ok. so if we should go by evolutionery prediction, we should not find a retrovirus with a host genes for instance?
I'd rather stick to the topic of the thread. If you want to create a new one, and invite me to participate, I'd consider it.Sure. In your opinion, did God create them, or are they the result of the Fall?Humor me.
Fair enough.I'd rather stick to the topic of the thread.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?