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.
Yes, I know. See Veritas: ERV FAQ: ERVs are essential in reproduction (syncytin and the formation of the placenta). How can this be? and Veritas: ERV FAQ: ERVs promote the transcription of host DNA. Doesn't this prove they are designed?
It's possible that the 200,000 or so ERVs and elements include some that have been misidentified as being of viral origin, but it's equally possible that other viral elements have not been identified as such due to mutational degradation.
ok. so lets take your position that those are a true viral insertions (just for the sake of the argument). again: this claim dont hold water because ervs have a small space in the genome that they can actually insert themself. if those scientists from the encode projects right and about up to 100% of the genome can be functional: we can explain those shared ervs without a common descent.
The fact that chimps and humans share common ancestry falsifies evolution-denying creationism. That is sufficient to destroy all of it, like a tumbling house of cards.Read post 158 carefully. You can see Barry allows for SOME wiggle room. The OP however implies these genetic areas (some of which are insertions) demonstrate Common Descent and I believe in one sense they do but the conclusion of it meaning a Universal Common Descent (which Barry probably accepts) is another matter entirely.
The question of Common Descent is predicated on what one means. These ERVs do not prove anything, because perfectly reasonable alternative explanations exist. In other words, all cats today (Felidae; Felines) had common ancestors (maybe a few basic types) and all are but variations of those earlier cats that had the propensity for what happens by natural selection and speciation (the production of variety) and the other view would say at some point the felines branched off from earlier mammalian forms that branched off from reptiles and so on all the way back to single celled organisms.
I do not believe what are now being called ERVs demonstrate, with any assurance, that the latter is the case. I think many people (like Barry) in their best objectivity, already being convinced the latter is true, interpret the evidence through that lense.
The fact that chimps and humans share common ancestry falsifies evolution-denying creationism. That is sufficient to destroy all of it, like a tumbling house of cards.
Source?ok. so lets take your position that those are a true viral insertions (just for the sake of the argument). again: this claim dont hold water because ervs have a small space in the genome that they can actually insert themself. if those scientists from the encode projects right and about up to 100% of the genome can be functional: we can explain those shared ervs without a common descent.
ENCODE ProjectSource?
ENCODE Project
They discovered that large parts of the genome, previously unexplored, contained elements that were transcripted. Creationists and ID nuts span that into "there is no junk DNA".
Thank you. I'm aware of these papers.Khodosevich, Konstantin; Lebedev, L; Sverdolv, E. (October 2002). "Endogenous retroviruses and human evolution". Comparative and Functional Genomics. 3 (6) AND Kim FJ, Battini JL, Manel N, Sitbon M (2004)."Emergence of vertebrate retroviruses and envelope capture". Virology. 318 (1): 183–91 both show how transposons (movable ERVs) play a vital role in gene expression and regulation.
These are essential genomic functions, therefore in my opinion, we should see these small sequences not as insertions, but as a necessary (not acquired) part of our actual genome.
Cotton, J. (2001). "Retroviruses from retrotransposons". Genome Biology. 2 (2): 6. Tell us, “It appears that the transition from nonviral retrotransposon to retrovirus has occurred independently at least eight times, and the source of the envelope gene responsible for infectious ability can now be traced to a virus in at least four of these instances. This suggests that potentially, any LTR retrotransposon can become a virus through the acquisition of existing viral genes.”
Many believe this means that not all ERVs may have originated as an insertion by a retrovirus but that some may have been the source for the genetic information in the retroviruses they resemble.
No. He thinks that retroviruses can only integrate in a very limited number of DNA loci. But he has nothing to support this idea.So that is the small place he was talking about?
Source?
"Could be"'s don't count in science. You need evidence. And anyway, the DNA in all (non-mosaic) individual organisms is the same, going from one cell to another.An integrated encyclopedia of DNA elements in the human genome : Nature : Nature Research
and they checked a part of all cell types. not all of them. its could be that about 100% of the genome is functional.
"Could be"'s don't count in science. You need evidence.
Also, knock-out mouse experiments show that you can inactivate large swathes of their DNA without any deleterious effects.
That ncDNA is largely transcribed does not mean that it is all related to essential functions.here is a good one:
A meta-analysis of the genomic and transcriptomic composition of complex life. - PubMed - NCBI
take a look at figure one.
true. you can also knock-out many car components without geting any harm to the car. but it doesnt mean that those components are non functional.
Thank you. I'm aware of these papers.
Retroviruses exist in two forms: exogenous retroviruses in the environment and proviruses in the DNA of hosts. ERVs are proviruses that just happen to have gotten into the DNA of host germline cells, and thence, by cell division, into all nuclear cells. Retrovirus' replication cycle involves transitions between these two basic forms - free virions with RNA genomes, and integrated proviral forms with DNA genomes. It is not a huge surprise that even mutated proviruses can, by recombination, assemble what it takes to regenerate the transcripts required to produce an exogenous virus.
The fact that some ERVs include elements that perform essential functions for the host is not evidence that they are not of retroviral origin. See Veritas: ERV FAQ: ERVs do stuff. Doesn't that prove that they didn't originate from retroviruses, but were designed?
See Veritas: ERV FAQ: Why do virologists and geneticists think that ERVs come from retroviruses? Isn't that just supposition on their part?Again as alleged proof of your point you reference your self...hmmm? And I did not say these segments were designed. What I referred to was that some (SOME) may not be viral insertions at all (opinions can and do vary), but actual parts of the genome that were always present, hence not "insertions"...so because some look as if this fact might be true, it is easy for the die-hards trying to "shape public opinion" (a polite was of saying to engineer or even manipulate) to just explain this potential problem away by applying the presupposed hypothesis, i.e., they were inserted into a shared common ancestor (which may or may not be true and has not been demonstrated or observed).
To show a true "insertion" into the human genome (at least in my opinion..yes I refer to myself but I call this "opinion" or point of view) one first has to demonstrate they were not there, and now they are, which has not been demonstrated save only in a very few.
That ncDNA is largely transcribed does not mean that it is all related to essential functions.
The mouse-car analogy is a poor one. We would all agree that a car is a designed object, and even decoration serves a function - to make the car attractive. Comparing it to a mouse is begging the question that the mouse is designed.
Sequences that differentiate cell types would necessarily need to be transcribed. It's very difficult to see what you think your point is here.the ar ticle isnt about transcription but about a correlation between complexity (in terms of cell types number) and the amount of suppose junk.
so all i need to do is to prove that nature was designed. correct? and in this case do you agree also that the entire argument about ervs will falsified too?.
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?