Watch and consider IV

[pshun2404]

Though I've already answered you, I'm perfectly willing, as devil's advocate, to go with your selection "a." Since, as the paper I cited states, there are tens of thousands of unambiguously matching, indel free, no manipulation necessary, ERVs.

Great then at least we agree on that....the reality is what is...(including real ERVs)

Therefore when we begin counting base pairs and we come upon a place where the two sequences do not match, then it is equally plausible that an excuse or explanation is not required. We simply can let the differences be seen as just what they are...differences in each respective organism's genome, thereby not having any need to label them them additions or subtractions to support some presupposed notion or paradigm.

 

[pshun2404]

I thought there would be more conversation of the GULO gene so I would like to add one more example. In Mullin and Pollock’s, (May 1987). "Vitamin C biosynthesis in prosimians: evidence for the anthropoid affinity of Tarsius". Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 73 (1): 65–70, it is said that “Loss of GULO activity in the primate order occurred about 63 million years ago, at about the time it split into the suborders...” ! And this is the standard line we hear over and over again. We also hear as TG note that all other mammals produce their own vitamin C but neither of these is correct. Some other mammals (like some types of bats and guinea pigs) do not. Likewise IF the gulo in primates is "broken", how is it broken and where in th 28,000 base pairs? And why since humans, chimps, and gorillas differ so drastically in this gene do we team them all up as an US versus THEM?

Now finally, please consider the totally made up 63,000,000 years ago myth? Here we have a typical propaganda based assumption being presented as if it is an established fact that we should all believe. After all it fits the story! Yet what is THE truth?

The truth is that we have absolutely NO IDEA whatsoever what happened 63,000,000 years ago and we have zero evidence that any such thing ever happened, just a way to explain away something different between unrelated species and a way to allegedly confirm the 'ancestor of the gaps' hypothesis. Nothing of the GULO gene has any merit as evidence FOR a UCA between and/or leading to their alleged Common ancestor.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I thought there would be more conversation of the GULO gene so I would like to add one more example. In Mullin and Pollock’s, (May 1987). "Vitamin C biosynthesis in prosimians: evidence for the anthropoid affinity of Tarsius". Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 73 (1): 65–70, it is said that “Loss of GULO activity in the primate order occurred about 63 million years ago, at about the time it split into the suborders...” ! And this is the standard line we hear over and over again. We also hear as TG note that all other mammals produce their own vitamin C but neither of these is correct. Some other mammals (like some types of bats and guinea pigs) do not. Likewise IF the gulo in primates is "broken", how is it broken and where in th 28,000 base pairs? And why since humans, chimps, and gorillas differ so drastically in this gene do we team them all up as an US versus THEM?

Now finally, please consider the totally made up 63,000,000 years ago myth? Here we have a typical propaganda based assumption being presented as if it is an established fact that we should all believe. After all it fits the story! Yet what is THE truth?

The truth is that we have absolutely NO IDEA whatsoever what happened 63,000,000 years ago and we have zero evidence that any such thing ever happened, just a way to explain away something different between unrelated species and a way to allegedly confirm the 'ancestor of the gaps' hypothesis. Nothing of the GULO gene has any merit as evidence FOR a UCA between and/or leading to their alleged Common ancestor.

You really need to drop the attitude. When one is wrong, as you obviously are, you should be asking questions politely and properly. Do not use loaded terms.

And yes, the claim that other mammals make their own vitamin C is correct. You had a major logic fail. The claim that other mammals make their own vitamin C does not mean that all mammals make their own vitamin C.

Next, the fact that bats do not make vitamin C supports the theory of evolution. And a question that you asked and could have Googled for yourself. If all apes (including us) lost vitamin C production by one set of mutations and bats and guinea pigs lost vitamin C production by other mutations that would support the theory of evolution.

Guess what? That is what we find. You can read more about it here where they explain which parts of the gene were mutated:
The Genetics of Vitamin C Loss in Vertebrates

And I see that you are still not posting links. Is that because you get your bogus claims form a creationist source and are rightfully ashamed of that source?

When you make a claim in an internet debate there is no excuse not to provide links that support your claims.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Well IF (and that is a huge word) it is actually an ERV

Are you saying that geneticists aren't able to identify ERV's?
Then how come we even know about them?

then it could mean (but may not) that they were infected at the same time period with the same virus

In exactly the same place?

Do you know what the probability is of a single retrovirus being inserted in the exact same spot of a DNA molecules twice, let alone hundred or even thousands of times? I'll help you out a bit. There are some 3000 known retroviruses. There are some 3 billion potential insertion spots in primate dna. Where it inserts is pretty much random.

I'll tell you the probability of two organisms sharing the same ERV which inserted in a common ancestor: it's 1 in 1.

, OR that they were infected at different times (because a genome is not constructed via superposition) and retrotransposons brought them to this place because that is where the already extant unique (one human and the other chimp) but both PRIMATE genomes could use them efficiently.

/facepalm

Also always funny to see people try to invoke mechanisms of evolution to argue against evolution. The irony....

 

[pshun2404]

You really need to drop the attitude. When one is wrong, as you obviously are, you should be asking questions politely and properly. Do not use loaded terms.

And yes, the claim that other mammals make their own vitamin C is correct. You had a major logic fail. The claim that other mammals make their own vitamin C does not mean that all mammals make their own vitamin C.

Next, the fact that bats do not make vitamin C supports the theory of evolution. And a question that you asked and could have Googled for yourself. If all apes (including us) lost vitamin C production by one set of mutations and bats and guinea pigs lost vitamin C production by other mutations that would support the theory of evolution.

Guess what? That is what we find. You can read more about it here where they explain which parts of the gene were mutated:
The Genetics of Vitamin C Loss in Vertebrates

And I see that you are still not posting links. Is that because you get your bogus claims form a creationist source and are rightfully ashamed of that source?

When you make a claim in an internet debate there is no excuse not to provide links that support your claims.

My point Sub was that not ALL other mammals lack this ability and yes this supports evolution but not common ancestry of chimps and humans (it does not deny it just does not demonstrate it). I did however re-read your article unless I messed something when I had read it before (I did not). No one knows about what happened 63 mya its a story used to imprint the hypothesis (theory based assumption).

I do not see proof here that the gene mutated in these creatures just that they have a different form of that gene (which each of them always have had).

 

[pshun2404]

Are you saying that geneticists aren't able to identify ERV's?
Then how come we even know about them?

In exactly the same place?

Do you know what the probability is of a single retrovirus being inserted in the exact same spot of a DNA molecules twice, let alone hundred or even thousands of times? I'll help you out a bit. There are some 3000 known retroviruses. There are some 3 billion potential insertion spots in primate dna. Where it inserts is pretty much random.

I'll tell you the probability of two organisms sharing the same ERV which inserted in a common ancestor: it's 1 in 1.

/facepalm

Also always funny to see people try to invoke mechanisms of evolution to argue against evolution. The irony....

You are equivocating the term evolution here...and I am NOT using mechanisms of genetic function (which bare not "evolution" but part of it), to argue against evolution but to show this does not mean a 63 myo common ancestor (If there is one I would be glad to look at it and compare the genomic information so please show me or is it that I must assume such a creature)

 

[Subduction Zone]

My point Sub was that not ALL other mammals lack this ability and yes this supports evolution but not common ancestry of chimps and humans (it does not deny it just does not demonstrate it). I did however re-read your article unless I messed something when I had read it before (I did not). No one knows about what happened 63 mya its a story used to imprint the hypothesis (theory based assumption).

I do not see proof here that the gene mutated in these creatures just that they have a different form of that gene (which each of them always have had).

Please, don't give me this "no one knows" nonsense when you ignored the fact that it answered the question that you asked.

You asked where the vitamin C gene was broken. And yes, it is broken in different places for guinea pigs than it is for us and other apes. The fact that were it is broken is different for different families, but in those families it is all broken in the same place, supports the theory of evolution.

If you can't own up to the facts that you were asked for what is the use of other people trying to help you?

 

[pshun2404]

Please, don't give me this "no one knows" nonsense when you ignored the fact that it answered the question that you asked.

You asked where the vitamin C gene was broken. And yes, it is broken in different places for guinea pigs than it is for us and other apes. The fact that were it is broken is different for different families, but in those families it is all broken in the same place, supports the theory of evolution.

If you can't own up to the facts that you were asked for what is the use of other people trying to help you?

It can only be considered "broken" if one assumes an unbroken version in the ancestral example. Broken assumes the preclusion, whereas it may simply demonstrate a mere difference in function or purpose in this order. Time will tell...

All we can actually observe is that the difference exists, not the change! There is no witness of the change, and no example, and you know this. I do not see making up “Once upon a time there was a creature from which both these creatures came that had a version of the gene similar to other creatures wherein this gene had this specific function” as being required. Just accept the data and separate this from the story told. By all means tell the story as one possibility but being objective requires separating what we KNOW from what we presume to be true before analyzing the facts.

We do not need to explain the reality through the filter of the presumption. Now I know that as long as we keep repeating it the masses will believe it (the Geobbels principle), but there are no examples of the change, so AT BEST the premise is one viable possibility and that’s all (not an established reality).

 

[Subduction Zone]

It can only be considered "broken" if one assumes an unbroken version in the ancestral example. Broken assumes the preclusion, whereas it may simply demonstrate a mere difference in function or purpose in this order. Time will tell...

All we can actually observe is that the difference exists, not the change! There is no witness of the change, and no example, and you know this. I do not see making up “Once upon a time there was a creature from which both these creatures came that had a version of the gene similar to other creatures wherein this gene had this specific function” as being required. Just accept the data and separate this from the story told. By all means tell the story as one possibility but being objective requires separating what we KNOW from what we presume to be true before analyzing the facts.

We do not need to explain the reality through the filter of the presumption. Now I know that as long as we keep repeating it the masses will believe it (the Geobbels principle), but there are no examples of the change, so AT BEST the premise is one viable possibility and that’s all (not an established reality).

Wrong again, we don't need to see the ancestral gene. We can observe the exact same gene in other species where it does work. The changes are minor. And we do not need to observe the change.

If you see a car on the side of the road, with steam rising from the hood and upon inspection you find that the fan belt is now one long strip do you need to see the break occur to conclude that the fan belt is broken? You can see countless other cars running without overheating. When you open their hoods none of them have fan belt that is just one long strip.

Face it, you lost this one You will lose all these arguments. Like it or not you are the product of evolution

 

[46AND2]

It can only be considered "broken" if one assumes an unbroken version in the ancestral example. Broken assumes the preclusion, whereas it may simply demonstrate a mere difference in function or purpose in this order. Time will tell...

All we can actually observe is that the difference exists, not the change! There is no witness of the change, and no example, and you know this. I do not see making up “Once upon a time there was a creature from which both these creatures came that had a version of the gene similar to other creatures wherein this gene had this specific function” as being required. Just accept the data and separate this from the story told. By all means tell the story as one possibility but being objective requires separating what we KNOW from what we presume to be true before analyzing the facts.

We do not need to explain the reality through the filter of the presumption. Now I know that as long as we keep repeating it the masses will believe it (the Geobbels principle), but there are no examples of the change, so AT BEST the premise is one viable possibility and that’s all (not an established reality).

So...you are saying that the differences in the Gulo gene could be a designed for some unknown purpose, rather than evidence of a broken gene. Why would god create a gene which:

1. Looks like the functional Gulo gene in other mammals, except for
2. apparent disabling mutations (when compared with observed disabling mutations) that also
3. is consistent with divergence time estimates based on phylogenetic relationships derived from multiple other scientific disciplines, when calculating the rate of subsequent apparent mutations, which
4. can also be compared among the established family tree, causing
5. the gene to look exactly like a gene that is highly mutated (because there is no selection pressure against it, due to high Vitamin C diets) and incapable of function at all?

 

[pshun2404]

Wrong again, we don't need to see the ancestral gene. We can observe the exact same gene in other species where it does work. The changes are minor. And we do not need to observe the change.

If you see a car on the side of the road, with steam rising from the hood and upon inspection you find that the fan belt is now one long strip do you need to see the break occur to conclude that the fan belt is broken? You can see countless other cars running without overheating. When you open their hoods none of them have fan belt that is just one long strip.

Face it, you lost this one You will lose all these arguments. Like it or not you are the product of evolution

Terrible analogy my friend. If one has no evidence of an unbroken fan belt one could not know it was broken. And if three different belts were different in various ways (some loose, another split sideways, another melted) without actual knowledge of a healthy rightly situated belt (which could be observed), one would be guessing at best (like you).

 

[Subduction Zone]

Terrible analogy my friend. If one has no evidence of an unbroken fan belt one could not know it was broken. And if three different belts were different in various ways (some loose, another split sideways, another melted) without actual knowledge of a healthy rightly situated belt (which could be observed), one would be guessing at best (like you).

But we have evidence of that "broken fan belt". Try avoiding vitamin C for a year and you will understand.

By the way, no analogy is perfect. You are trying to push it too far.

The analogy was there to help you understand your error. If you did not understand your error then it might have been a bad analogy, but I think that the problem is that you can't bring yourself to accept reality.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You are equivocating the term evolution here...and I am NOT using mechanisms of genetic function (which bare not "evolution" but part of it), to argue against evolution but to show this does not mean a 63 myo common ancestor (If there is one I would be glad to look at it and compare the genomic information so please show me or is it that I must assume such a creature)

So in other words, in your opinion, having shared genetic markers is only evidence of common ancestry, when you can fit it in your preconceived theistic beliefs.

If you cannot, then a genetic marker isn't evidence of common ancestry.

That's pretty muh the only conclusion I can draw here from what you're saying.

 

[pshun2404]

But we have evidence of that "broken fan belt". Try avoiding vitamin C for a year and you will understand.

By the way, no analogy is perfect. You are trying to push it too far.

The analogy was there to help you understand your error. If you did not understand your error then it might have been a bad analogy, but I think that the problem is that you can't bring yourself to accept reality.

No way...we need an array of vitamins and trace minerals...each organism has its own specific needs usually accessible in the environment but not always.

And yes we have evidence that there is a broken fan belt because we have evidence of an unbroken fan belt. Without the direct evidence for a fan belt (which in intelligently designed) we cannot KNOW the item is broken (come on Sub this is common sense...you can do better). I made no "error", I applied logic and the story we are TAUGHT is true is a best guess...AND NO, I rely on REALITY (that which we actually can observe...good science allegedly being based on observable facts and experimentation)...reality is we do not have a demonstrable example to compare it to so we can say "Ooopps! It's broken" in a human. We do however (in reality) see different versions i different creatures...

 

[46AND2]

No way...we need an array of vitamins and trace minerals...each organism has its own specific needs usually accessible in the environment but not always.

And yes we have evidence that there is a broken fan belt because we have evidence of an unbroken fan belt. Without the direct evidence for a fan belt (which in intelligently designed) we cannot KNOW the item is broken (come on Sub this is common sense...you can do better). I made no "error", I applied logic and the story we are TAUGHT is true is a best guess...AND NO, I rely on REALITY (that which we actually can observe...good science allegedly being based on observable facts and experimentation)...reality is we do not have a demonstrable example to compare it to so we can say "Ooopps! It's broken" in a human. We do however (in reality) see different versions i different creatures...

And we see a gene which looks exactly as it would if it was broken. And the manner in which it looks broken forms a nested hierarchy which is exactly what we would expect to see if evolution is true; indeed, evolution requires said nested hierarchy to be observed.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No way...we need an array of vitamins and trace minerals...each organism has its own specific needs usually accessible in the environment but not always.

And yes we have evidence that there is a broken fan belt because we have evidence of an unbroken fan belt. Without the direct evidence for a fan belt (which in intelligently designed) we cannot KNOW the item is broken (come on Sub this is common sense...you can do better). I made no "error", I applied logic and the story we are TAUGHT is true is a best guess...AND NO, I rely on REALITY (that which we actually can observe...good science allegedly being based on observable facts and experimentation)...reality is we do not have a demonstrable example to compare it to so we can say "Ooopps! It's broken" in a human. We do however (in reality) see different versions i different creatures...

If you can't be reasonable sooner or later people will no longer try to help you.

 

[pshun2404]

So in other words, in your opinion, having shared genetic markers is only evidence of common ancestry, when you can fit it in your preconceived theistic beliefs.

If you cannot, then a genetic marker isn't evidence of common ancestry.

That's pretty muh the only conclusion I can draw here from what you're saying.

Problem here is YOUR training to default to assumption based conclusions...shared familial genetic markers demonstrate descent that is scientifically verifiable our difference of opinion as to whether or not there is a God has nothing to do with it...all organisms demonstrate similar sequences. We can call these "markers" and interpret them according to the historical narrative believed (because it is what they were taught) OR we can look at them as similarities because we are LIVING or because we have faces, or legs, or similar for many other reasons.

 

[pshun2404]

If you can't be reasonable sooner or later people will no longer try to help you.

That's the problem here I am being totally reasonable. What I said makes sense. We look at what we have for what it is (void of speculative possibilities). It is fine to pose these speculative possibilities as what THEY are but no one should simply accept them as established truth (THAT is what is unreasonable).

It is the same basis of corpus delicti...show me the body...otherwise it is speculation...and THIS is reasonable.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That's the problem here I am being totally reasonable. What I said makes sense. We look at what we have for what it is (void of speculative possibilities). It is fine to pose these speculative possibilities as what THEY are but no one should simply accept them as established truth (THAT is what is unreasonable).

It is the same basis of corpus delicti...show me the body...otherwise it is speculation...and THIS is reasonable.

Nope, you aren't. You are repeatably shown to be wrong and can't seem to learn from your errors.

 

[46AND2]

Problem here is YOUR training to default to assumption based conclusions...shared familial genetic markers demonstrate descent that is scientifically verifiable our difference of opinion as to whether or not there is a God has nothing to do with it...all organisms demonstrate similar sequences. We can call these "markers" and interpret them according to the historical narrative believed (because it is what they were taught) OR we can look at them as similarities because we are LIVING or because we have faces, or legs, or similar for many other reasons.

No, it is not according to an historical narrative, it is according to the fact that the patterns of similarities form nested hierarchies.