Viruses that prove common descent

[Jimmy D]

because under the design model

Don't try and slip in the "design model" as if it's a competing theory, it isn't. The "design model" consists of making unfalsifiable assertions and taking failed potshots at the theory of evolution.

 

[Barry Desborough]

Don't try and slip in the "design model" as if it's a competing theory, it isn't. The "design model" consists of making unfalsifiable assertions and taking failed potshots at the theory of evolution.

Especially when the design hypothesis makes no sense of the facts.

 

[Jimmy D]

Especially when the design hypothesis makes no sense of the facts.

There's no hypothesis Barry - ask them to explain this "model", what it predicts, how it can be falsified, what mechanisms it proposes, how it can be tested. If you're lucky you might get a response alluding to irreducible complexity (i.e. a failed potshot at the TOE) or an analogy of some sort.

 

[dad]

Dad, do you get the same creepy feeling as I get when he posts?

Like ... you know ... we're actually conversing with someone "under the hood," and not he, himself? if you know what I'm asking?

I am not too in tune with sockpuppets or poes, so I couldn't really say. I have noticed a few poster getting somewhat irritating in their godless = christian stick though. That is usually when I get banned....

 

[dad]

If your God disagrees, Mr God Ventriloquist, get Him to address the evidence and post here.

That's nice. He posted already. Google bible.

 

[AV1611VET]

I am not too in tune with sockpuppets or poes, so I couldn't really say.

That's not what I had in mind, but you answered my question anyway.

 

[Barry Desborough]

That's nice. He posted already. Google bible.

What makes you think that when someone writes, "This is God speaking", it's God speaking?

 

[Barry Desborough]

I am not too in tune with sockpuppets or poes, so I couldn't really say. I have noticed a few poster getting somewhat irritating in their godless = christian stick though. That is usually when I get banned....

What's your explanation for commonly located ERVs?

 

[xianghua]

1) Nope. ERVs can, rarely, generate exogenous retroviruses. But the question is, what for? What would be the design purpose?

actually a lots of ervs parts are found to be functional:

Retroviral promoters in the human genome. - PubMed - NCBI

"These data illustrate the potential of retroviral sequences to regulate human transcription on a large scale consistent with a substantial effect of ERVs on the function and evolution of the human genome."

so its easy to see why they are an integral part of the original genome. also remember that you cant explain how retroviruses survived at the first place without an host (they need the host to survive). so the best explanation for ervs is that they was created from the genome.

 

[Barry Desborough]

actually a lots of ervs parts are found to be functional:

Retroviral promoters in the human genome. - PubMed - NCBI

"These data illustrate the potential of retroviral sequences to regulate human transcription on a large scale consistent with a substantial effect of ERVs on the function and evolution of the human genome."

so its easy to see why they are an integral part of the original genome. also remember that you cant explain how retroviruses survived at the first place without an host (they need the host to survive). so the best explanation for ervs is that they was created from the genome.

These are the things you need to explain:-

a) What is reverse transcriptase designed to do?
b) What is integrase designed to do?
c) Why were ERVs designed with a viral codon bias?
d) What is the design purpose of re-transcribable promoters?
e) What were the HERVs that generated the consensus sequence that generated Phoenix designed for?
f) What is the design purpose of both exogenous and endogenous KoRV?
g) If chimps and humans have commonly located ERVs, what is the design purpose of giving these common ERVs common disabling mutations?
h) What is the design purpose of giving some people HERVs and not others?
i) What is the design purpose of creating different syncytins in different placental lineages?
Veritas: ERV FAQ: But how can you rule out design as an explanation?

 

[bhsmte]

These are the things you need to explain:-

a) What is reverse transcriptase designed to do?
b) What is integrase designed to do?
c) Why were ERVs designed with a viral codon bias?
d) What is the design purpose of re-transcribable promoters?
e) What were the HERVs that generated the consensus sequence that generated Phoenix designed for?
f) What is the design purpose of both exogenous and endogenous KoRV?
g) If chimps and humans have commonly located ERVs, what is the design purpose of giving these common ERVs common disabling mutations?
h) What is the design purpose of giving some people HERVs and not others?
i) What is the design purpose of creating different syncytins in different placental lineages?
Veritas: ERV FAQ: But how can you rule out design as an explanation?

Good luck with that.

 

[xianghua]

These are the things you need to explain:-

a) What is reverse transcriptase designed to do?
b) What is integrase designed to do?
c) Why were ERVs designed with a viral codon bias?
d) What is the design purpose of re-transcribable promoters?
e) What were the HERVs that generated the consensus sequence that generated Phoenix designed for?
f) What is the design purpose of both exogenous and endogenous KoRV?
g) If chimps and humans have commonly located ERVs, what is the design purpose of giving these common ERVs common disabling mutations?
h) What is the design purpose of giving some people HERVs and not others?
i) What is the design purpose of creating different syncytins in different placental lineages?
Veritas: ERV FAQ: But how can you rule out design as an explanation?

lets take 2 points each time. first for a) the reverse transcriptase is needed to moving the erv in the genome. very similar to a retrotransposon.

b)the same.

c)what do you mean by that?

 

[ViaCrucis]

What the screaming heck does all this drivel have to do with ERVs?

It's probably for the best to just not bother responding to ysj.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[dad]

What makes you think that when someone writes, "This is God speaking", it's God speaking?

Jesus.

 

[Barry Desborough]

lets take 2 points each time. first for a) the reverse transcriptase is needed to moving the erv in the genome. very similar to a retrotransposon.

b)the same.

c)what do you mean by that?

a) & b) If you can place an ERV in a genome in the first place, why would you need to move it about? And why move it in such a hit-and-miss (and dangerous) fashion as is produced by using integrase?

c) Google DNA codons, codon bias. Basically a codon is a three-base-pair unit that specifies an amino acid. Several different codons can specify the same amino acid. Viral codons tend to be different to, say, mammalian ones. If ERVs are not of viral origins, why to they exhibit this viral codon bias. What is it for?

 

[Barry Desborough]

lets take 2 points each time. first for a) the reverse transcriptase is needed to moving the erv in the genome. very similar to a retrotransposon.

b)the same.

Of course, if reverse transcriptase and integrase were designed to retrotranspose ERVs back into the genome, they would still not explain the vast majority of retransposed ERVs in common loci in two species like chimps and humans, as integrase cannot target specific loci. Thus that particular straw you tried to clutch at is waterlogged and has sunk to the bottom.

 

[dad]

What's your explanation for commonly located ERVs?

I suspect that the (pre?) viri got transferred across species in ways they do not now. The former nature was not this nature.

 

[dad]

These are the things you need to explain:-

a) What is reverse transcriptase designed to do?

That's like putting a donkey on the autobahn and asking why the donkey was not designed to go 100 mph.

You see the highway and speed limits came long after the donkey was created. So a donkey was not designed to go on the freeway. Likewise, in a changed world with different forces and laws and nature, the way some life process works is not the way it necessarily was originally designed, or originally worked.

 

[Barry Desborough]

I suspect that the (pre?) viri got transferred across species in ways they do not now. The former nature was not this nature.

Ha ha ha. You've had the same old schtick for years and years, dad. Where has it gotten you? Have you ever convinced anyone with your totally evidence-free wild speculations?

 

[xianghua]

If you can place an ERV in a genome in the first place, why would you need to move it about?

it can be for several reasons. maybe it for making more variations(like transposons)in the population. myabe its just a genetic mystake that this gene was taken from the host by the virus. maybe this gene even for fighting against other viruses like in this case:

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/03/viral-fossils-our-dna-may-help-us-fight-infection

And why move it in such a hit-and-miss (and dangerous) fashion as is produced by using integrase?

its coming back to you: if its so dangerous how it becomed fixed so many times? (about 100,000). if a functional ervs is so dangerous how any insertion can become fixed and be a part of the genome?

c) Google DNA codons, codon bias. Basically a codon is a three-base-pair unit that specifies an amino acid. Several different codons can specify the same amino acid. Viral codons tend to be different to, say, mammalian ones. If ERVs are not of viral origins, why to they exhibit this viral codon bias. What is it for?

first: can you give a reference? second: are you aware about the fact that even a
synonymous codon can result in a different function in the cell?

Of course, if reverse transcriptase and integrase were designed to retrotranspose ERVs back into the genome, they would still not explain the vast majority of retransposed ERVs in common loci in two species like chimps and humans, as integrase cannot target specific loci. Thus that particular straw you tried to clutch at is waterlogged and has sunk to the bottom.

true. this is my other point: even if all those ervs are indeed a product of viral insertions, they cant prove a commondescent. the main reason is because the whole genome may be functional. and if it functional there are very few places (if any) in the genome that a virus can insert itself.