Viruses that prove common descent

[xianghua]

Except that we can.

so you can prove that chimp and human infacted by a retrovirus? you are welcome to prove it. and by the way; how you will explain that some creatures cant survive without an erv? how they survived before they get their insertion?

 

[pshun2404]

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

Oh! You mean you cannot...that's fine. I already knew your alleged "theory" (oops...hypothesis) was not based on anything more than creative conjecture and opinion. I just wanted to see your level of intellectual integrity which apparently you lack! And I did not say you are not intelligent.

You proving you means nothing, and your biased blog ALSO offers no proof for your claim that viruses prove common descent. I gave reasonable logical explanations that counter many of your cnclusions (I also agreed with many others) but bottom line is when it came to the only actual meaningful evidence you failed. You have NONE!

 

[Barry Desborough]

Oh! You mean you cannot...that's fine. I already knew your alleged "theory" (oops...hypothesis) was not based on anything more than creative conjecture and opinion. I just wanted to see your level of intellectual integrity which apparently you lack!

You proving you means nothing, and your biased blog ALSO offers no proof for your claim that viruses prove common descent. I gave reasonable logical explanations that counter many of your cnclusions (I also agreed with many others) but bottom line is when it came to the only actual meaningful evidence you failed. You have NONE!

Only 200,000. 200,000 ERV elements in precisely corresponding loci in your DNA and Charlie the chimp's DNA. Elements whose ONLY explanation is that they are retroviral integrations inherited from common ancestors.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

so you can prove that chimp and human infacted by a retrovirus?

The fact that we can identify ERV's (shared with other species or otherwise), is already a demonstration of our understanding of what ERV's are.

Your ignorance on the matter is not an argument against it.

you are welcome to prove it.

Retrovirus - Wikipedia

Perhaps you should read through that article.
We know what retrovirusses are and we know what happens when they insert into germline DNA cells.

Again, your ignorance on the matter is not an argument against it.

and by the way; how you will explain that some creatures cant survive without an erv?

Which species would that be?

how they survived before they get their insertion?

More then likely in the same kind of way as the ancestors of land creatures survived without lungs.

The thing is that when an ERV inserts into germline DNA and if that host reproduces, those ERV's become an inherent part of the DNA of that off spring.

Of those genes spread throughout the population, then those genes are an inherent part of the entire genome of that population.

Just as much a part of it as any other part of that genome.
There is no reason why it should not or could not take up some function further down the line. There also is no reason why it shouldn't or couldn't take up some critical function either.

It's right there in the DNA. There is no rule that says it can't take up any function.

Once more, your ignorance on the matter is not an argument against it.

 

[Barry Desborough]

so you can prove that chimp and human infacted by a retrovirus? you are welcome to prove it. and by the way; how you will explain that some creatures cant survive without an erv? how they survived before they get their insertion?

All we have left is denial, it seems. But it doesn't make the truth go away.
Veritas: ERV FAQ: Why do virologists and geneticists think that ERVs come from retroviruses? Isn't that just supposition on their part?
Veritas: ERV FAQ: ERVs are essential in reproduction (syncytin and the formation of the placenta). How can this be?

 

[pshun2404]

"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...."

I gave you an equally plausible scientifically sound explanation for common loci that gives rise for one (one who is not "convinced") to question the "Common Ancestor" assumption. No "God did it" or "that's how He designed us" was included. But it cannot enter in...consideration MUST NOT be allowed. In your mind the subject is CLOSED for discussion.

 

[Barry Desborough]

I gave you an equally plausible scientifically sound explanation for common loci that gives rise for one (one who is not "convinced") to question the "Common Ancestor" assumption. No "God did it" or "that's how He designed us" was included. But it cannot enter in...consideration MUST NOT be allowed. In your mind the subject is CLOSED for discussion.

I must have missed this! It's hard to keep track of all posts in a busy thread. Do you have a post number? This is a must-see! Nobody has succeeded before.

 

[xianghua]

you said that we can prove that ervs are the product of viral insertion. to show that you need to prove the human chimp shared ervs was made by a retrovirus in a real time. can you show it in real time or not? very simple.

of course that you cant prove that. the fact that a retrovirus can be infacted by the host showing us that both options are possible.

More then likely in the same kind of way as the ancestors of land creatures survived without lungs.

but you cant prove that too (to prove that we will need to show how a fish evolvling into a creature with lungs). so again: another belief. dont call it science because its not a scientific claim. are you sure that the ignorance isnt from your side?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I gave you an equally plausible scientifically sound explanation for common loci

You did not.
All actual science concerning this topic points in exactly the opposite direction.

that gives rise for one (one who is not "convinced") to question the "Common Ancestor" assumption.

Common ancestry isn't an assumption. It's a genetic fact.

No "God did it" or "that's how He designed us" was included.

Just false science then...

But it cannot enter in...consideration MUST NOT be allowed. In your mind the subject is CLOSED for discussion.

No. The problem doesn't exist in my mind (or in yours for that matter).
The problem (for your side of the table), is that all the evidence points to our side of the table while none points to yours.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I must have missed this! It's hard to keep track of all posts in a busy thread. Do you have a post number? This is a must-see! Nobody has succeeded before.

I haven't seen it either.
I admit I'm making assumptions in my previous post in which I replied to that claim.

I think those are very reasonable assumptions and I predict that they will spot on, if pshun comes through with that post number (not counting on that one though).

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

you said that we can prove that ervs are the product of viral insertion.

It's literally what an ERV is. It's what the word means.
Science discovered that phenomena and then gave it a name.
Or did you think it was just dreamed up out of thin air?

to show that you need to prove the human chimp shared ervs was made by a retrovirus in a real time. can you show it in real time or not? very simple.

I don't need to.
Can you show "in real time" that you are the product of your parents?
Or would you say that a simple DNA test is enough to demonstrate this?

of course that you cant prove that.

Right, right... I can't "show you" an event that happened more then 7 million years ago.
Just like I can't show you the steak I had for dinner yesterday... because it was like...you know... yesterday.

Derp.

You know what we CAN show though? The effects of that event.
Events of the past leave evidence behind that can be investigated in the present.

the fact that a retrovirus can be infacted by the host showing us that both options are possible.

No. You miss the part where that inserted DNA is then inherited by off spring. And their off spring. And their off spring. And so on and so forth.

but you cant prove that too (to prove that we will need to show how a fish evolvling into a creature with lungs).

Except that we can. Just like we can prove that you and your your cousin share an ancestor.

so again: another belief.

No. A genetic fact.

dont call it science because its not a scientific claim

Idd, it's not a scientific claim. Instead, it's a scientific fact.

are you sure that the ignorance isnt from your side?

Yes, very.

 

[xianghua]

You know what we CAN show though? The effects of that event.
Events of the past leave evidence behind that can be investigated in the present.

and the same evidence can also be explain by a retrovirus that get its genes from the host. so how do you know what is the correct option if both are possible? the answer of course is that you need to believe in one of those options.

No. You miss the part where that inserted DNA is then inherited by off spring.

what no? host genes can be add to the retrovirus genome. if so: its also possible that the retrovirus was created from the host genes and not the opposite.

Instead, it's a scientific fact.

so you can prove that a fish can evolve into a cat for instance? if not- then you are wrong and its only a belief. as the rest of your claims.

 

[Barry Desborough]

what no? host genes can be add to the retrovirus genome. if so: its also possible that the retrovirus was created from the host genes and not the opposite.

There is no evidence for this nonsense, and it doesn't explain common loci.

 

[Barry Desborough]

you said that we can prove that ervs are the product of viral insertion. to show that you need to prove the human chimp shared ervs was made by a retrovirus in a real time. can you show it in real time or not? very simple.

But we can use the facts and basic reasoning. Or most of us can. This is the case in much of science, not just the science of endogenous retroviruses. It is the case in atomic physics, astronomy, and much of geology. If we had to rely on direct obsercation to count what we see as knowledge, our knowledge would be extremely limited.

Tell me, would you let someone off a murder charge, however strong the evidence against them, just because you didn't eyeball the murder yourself?​

 

[Jimmy D]

ust like I can't show you the steak I had for dinner yesterday... because it was like...you know... yesterday.

Derp.

You know what we CAN show though? The effects of that event.

It'd probably be for the best if you kept those "effects" to yourself.

 

[pshun2404]

Only 200,000. 200,000 ERV elements in precisely corresponding loci in your DNA and Charlie the chimp's DNA. Elements whose ONLY explanation is that they are retroviral integrations inherited from common ancestors.

Right, just as I thought...your house has an imaginary foundation. The basic reality that must exist (a Common Ancestor) for these two creatures to have diverged from it...does not exist and your avoidance demonstrates you know this but cannot admit it. You MUST suppose or speculate one (stuff of the imagination) or else the rest of the story does not fit.

No Barry, that is NOT the only possibility. I already showed you that (but it MUST be dismissed or explained away because it may not fit the hypothesis and in fact i does not).

The "belief" (Common Ancestry) preceded the interpretation. The explanation seeks support for the already assumed sci fi...

 

[pshun2404]

It'd probably be for the best if you kept those "effects" to yourself.

Right on!

 

[Barry Desborough]

No Barry, that is NOT the only possibility. I already showed you that (but it MUST be dismissed or explained away because it may not fit the hypothesis and in fact i does not).

I must have missed this! It's hard to keep track of all posts in a busy thread. Do you have a post number? This is a must-see! Nobody has succeeded before.

 

[xianghua]

There is no evidence for this nonsense, and it doesn't explain common loci.

so host genes cant be add to the retrovirus genome?

 

[Barry Desborough]

so host genes cant be add to the retrovirus genome?

Yes, we know they can. (That's science, not "creation" science for you). But so what?