Any number, as long as they do not disrupt vital genes, and are not transcribed successfully to the point of creating new virions. (Like virtually all existing ERVs.)
Upvote
0
-
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.
Viruses that prove common descent
- Thread starter Barry Desborough
- Start date
all righty I will take another look...I know I do not keep repeating myself but have given a number of examples of scientists with alternative viewpoints on some of these, but it appears to be necessary!
Upvote
0
- Jun 4, 2013
- 10,132
- 996
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Widowed
- Politics
- US-Others
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!!!!
Cognitive dissonance or refusal to accept the truth. Agreed.
DNA test jailed innocent man for murder - BBC News
But once people believe a story you can't convince them otherwise.
The Problems With DNA Evidence and Testing - The Atlantic
Last edited:
Upvote
0
"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.
Upvote
0
- Jan 17, 2005
- 44,905
- 1,259
- Country
- Canada
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Private
Well, as desperate as some may be to try and use the present state and the way things now work to explain the ervs, in my opinion it is a weak effort.
Upvote
0
Hey that's not fair...what does ALL the evidence for AND against have to with it...you know they cannot include what causes reasonable questioning...
Upvote
0
Yes they do, and you as well...re-write your blog to include ALL the evidence for and against,and let the readers decide for themselves (you can trust most will agree)...
Also I agree there are many such perfect matches but many of these could simply be natural parts of these independent creatures. Nothing says they are "insertions" from the imagined 14 mya UCA, except those previously convinced (I was one).
Now IF one could produce examples of this Common Ancestor and then we could see that at onetime they were not there and later they were THEN we could KNOW these were indeed insertions, and THEN we could KNOW they came from some common ancestor....
Otherwise its all just conjecture and consensus of the conjecture....
Last edited:
Upvote
0
ERVs are evidence of a "14 mya UCA"? Who is claiming this? I've never heard of such a claim.
Common ancestry between chimps and humans is sufficient to falsify special creation. The rest falls like a house of cards. Once again, here is why these elements are concluded to be the inherited remains of retroviral integrations. Veritas: ERV FAQ: Why do virologists and geneticists think that ERVs come from retroviruses? Isn't that just supposition on their part?
Upvote
0
I'm sorry! I have always heard how these were inserted into the common ancestor and that's why we share them with Chimps. Are you saying that is not the hypothesis? If it is please show us this one so we can compare....
I do not care about supporting what you define as creationism and did not bring that up.
Upvote
0
Barry once again I must apologize! I forgot you guys equivocate the Common ancestor story as well. So tell me which one we are talking about? The one right before the alleged split off for Chimps and Humans? Great...so let's compare and see if they were inserted here? Okay? Fair?
Upvote
0
Very hard to understand what you are trying to get at here. "Equivocate common ancestor story"? What does that mean? And "UCA" means Universal Common Ancestor". We are not talking about any UCA, but shared ERVs in what are evidently closely related species. ERVs will appear in their ancestry at various points in their past. How else to explain them?
Upvote
0
That's funny, I thought the discussion was "Viruses that prove Common Descent", and that you thought most of your references allegedly demonstrated that. Now here is what I find very hard to understand. You refuse to rise to the challenge. You boxed me into this corner so prove your case. Produce or at least give your opinion as to what or who this common descent is. Or just admit you cannot. Since we are to believe here that these shared in the exact same place alleged ERV's show common descent, from what, from who, so we can compare? Simple...no default or attempt to divert, just show me what you have?
Last edited:
Upvote
0
And please Barry no condescending remarks like you do not understand what I saying or asking...you know exactly what I am asking...
Upvote
0
If the common ancestors of the current primates are extinct, then they are extinct. All I can do is direct you once more to my FAQ. Veritas: Endogenous Retroviruses - Frequently Asked Questions
Upvote
0
TagliatelliMonster
Well-Known Member
No, it's not. It's based on knowledge concerning retro viral insertions.
Except that we can.
By being honest about the actual evidence, instead of sticking our head in the sand.
Upvote
0
TagliatelliMonster
Well-Known Member
"god-dun-it"!!!
Or in the words of Ken Miller:
"How they respond to this? Well, they shrug their shoulders and say ...that's just how the designer made it...."
Upvote
0
xianghua
Well-Known Member
so if all genes are vital, then we cant add even a single ervs to the genome. also remember that even an insertion in a gene that it's neutral may make it an harmful gene, because it can change the 3d structure of the protein totally(because the sequence change).
simple answer: its possible that its actually a deletion from the genome and not an insertion. but its also possible that its a real insertion. i never said that *every* ervs cant be the product of insertion.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
