What is the greatest evidence against the theory of evolution...?

[Loudmouth]

Okay, but do they find these ERVs in other species? I can understand why evolutionists would hold to this as a piece of evidence, as it may be quite the correlation. But, aren't you ruling out the possibility that there is some other cause for the presence of these ERVs in apelike creatures? Why must evolution be the case? Why do humans have more ERVs than other primates, or 99.9% the same amount as chimps? Evolution is always assumed by these scientists, as there is no room for further questioning or even the possibility that evolution is false. Many say it is a scientific fact, so it need not be interpreted any other way.

We don't assume that common ancestry would produce ERV's at the same location in multiple organisms. We OBSERVE that this is the case. You share the same ERV's as your siblings and cousins because you share a common ancestor. Again, this is the OBSERVED mechanism for shared ERV's.

On top of that, the shared ERV's produce the expected nested hierarchy, also known as a phylogeny. This is true both for placement of the ERV in the genomes and the sequence of the ERV's themselves. If you had actually read the post I wrote, you would see that the ERV genome is flanked by two LTRs, which stands for long terminal repeats. These act as promoters for the viral genes in between them, allowing the virus to produce more copies of itself. Part of the copying and insertion process causes the two LTRs on either side of the viral genome to be the exact same sequence when they are inserted. If evolution is true, then the longer an ERV has been in a lineage the more differences we should see between LTRs of the same ERV as mutations accumulate in each of them. This can be tested, and has been tested. When we look at LTR divergence, we again get the expected phylogeny, yet more proof of evolution.

http://www.pnas.org/content/96/18/10254.full

 

[Loudmouth]

Thank you, I now understand the argument. Has the scientific community proved that the reason these 'ancestors' have less ERV is because of evolution and not simply decay?

We can observe ERV's being produced by retroviruses. What more proof do you need?

 

[ClothedInGrace]

No we aren't ruling out another possibility. Do you have one? Why do we share 99.9% of ERVs with chimps, a little fewer with gorillas, a little fewer still with orangutans, a little fewer still with...

No, I don't have one, but why must evolution be the case? Correlation is not causation.

I never said humans have more ERVs than other primates. And we don't have just 99.9% the same AMOUNT as chimps. We have 99.9% OF THE SAME EXACT VIRUSES

Sorry, less. Wow, the exact same virus, does that mean we evolved from them? No, not really.

Evolution is not assumed, it is concluded. Why do you have the same ERVs your parents do?

Maybe because the ERV is inherited? Why must evolution be the case?

 

[46AND2]

Maybe because the ERV is inherited?

Ding. Ding. Ding.

 

[ClothedInGrace]

We don't assume that common ancestry would produce ERV's at the same location in multiple organisms. We OBSERVE that this is the case. You share the same ERV's as your siblings and cousins because you share a common ancestor. Again, this is the OBSERVED mechanism for shared ERV's.

On top of that, the shared ERV's produce the expected nested hierarchy, also known as a phylogeny. This is true both for placement of the ERV in the genomes and the sequence of the ERV's themselves. If you had actually read the post I wrote, you would see that the ERV genome is flanked by two LTRs, which stands for long terminal repeats. These act as promoters for the viral genes in between them, allowing the virus to produce more copies of itself. Part of the copying and insertion process causes the two LTRs on either side of the viral genome to be the exact same sequence when they are inserted. If evolution is true, then the longer an ERV has been in a lineage the more differences we should see between LTRs of the same ERV as mutations accumulate in each of them. This can be tested, and has been tested. When we look at LTR divergence, we again get the expected phylogeny, yet more proof of evolution.

http://www.pnas.org/content/96/18/10254.full

Why do we have less ERVs than our 'ancestors'? Shouldn't we have more?

 

[ClothedInGrace]

Ding. Ding. Ding.

Inheriting traits from your parents is not evolution I'm afraid; unless your parents were apes.

 

[46AND2]

Why do we have less ERVs than our 'ancestors'? Shouldn't we have more?

Nobody has said we have fewer ERVs than our ancestors. Where are you getting this?

 

[46AND2]

Inheriting traits from your parents is not evolution I'm afraid; unless your parents were apes.

If we inherited ERVs from our parents, and we also share the vast majority of those same ERVs with chimps, then....

 

[ClothedInGrace]

If we inherited ERVs from our parents, and we also share the vast majority of those same ERVs with chimps, then....

Then that must mean our grandparents were chimps! Yes, it all makes sense now!... Really?

 

[Loudmouth]

Why do we have less ERVs than our 'ancestors'?

Shouldn't we have more?

First, you would need to show that we do have less than our ancestors, and which ancestors you are talking about.

Second, recombination and accumulation of mutations are going to be ridding all genomes of detectable ERV's over time. There are mechanisms for both addition and removal. However, the mechanisms of adding ERV's are incapable of putting the same ERV at the same location in two different species through independent insertions.

 

[Loudmouth]

Inheriting traits from your parents is not evolution I'm afraid; unless your parents were apes.

Inheritance of DNA is part of evolution. Common ancestry is part of evolution. The divergence of LTRs that I discuss in the other post covers the other evolutionary mechanisms of mutation and selection.

Are you saying that you have no problem with humans sharing a common ancestor with other ape species?

 

[46AND2]

Then that must mean our grandparents were chimps! Yes, it all makes sense now!... Really?

No, it means that both chimps and humans inherited those ERVs from a common ancestor. Do you have another explanation? You've already stated that the parsimonious explanation for you sharing the same ERVs as your parents is inheritance. So...

 

[Loudmouth]

Then that must mean our grandparents were chimps! Yes, it all makes sense now!... Really?

We are saying that we share a common ancestor with chimps in the same way that you share a common ancestor with your cousins. The common ancestor with chimps would just be more distant, that's all.

 

[ClothedInGrace]

Are you saying that you have no problem with humans sharing a common ancestor with other ape species?

Uhh, I have a huge problem with that. I don't believe in evolution, so I don't believe our ancestors were apes.

 

[ClothedInGrace]

No, it means that both chimps and humans inherited those ERVs from a common ancestor. Do you have another explanation? You've already stated that the parsimonious explanation for you sharing the same ERVs as your parents is inheritance. So...

How do chimps having ERVs prove that we have a common ancestor? It is correlation, not causation.

 

[Loudmouth]

No, I don't have one, but why must evolution be the case? Correlation is not causation.

When we find the exact evidence we would expect from evolution, we count that as evidence for evolution. Why shouldn't we make that conclusion?

Sorry, less. Wow, the exact same virus, does that mean we evolved from them? No, not really.

Are your cousins your ancestors?

Maybe because the ERV is inherited? Why must evolution be the case?

For the same reason that the criminal being at the crime scene is the reason for finding the criminal's fingerprints at the crime scene. Or do you think that God planting fingerprints at a crime scene is a better explanation?

 

[Loudmouth]

How do chimps having ERVs prove that we have a common ancestor? It is correlation, not causation.

It is proof in the same way as finding a defendant's fingerprints and DNA at a crime scene. Or are you going to say that God plants evidence at crime scenes?

 

[46AND2]

How do chimps having ERVs prove that we have a common ancestor? It is correlation, not causation.

Why evade my question? Why do we have nearly identical sets of ERVs with chimps? We already have an observed mechanism for how that can happen, and you pointed it out...inheritance.

 

[Loudmouth]

Uhh, I have a huge problem with that.

Then stop acting as if common ancestry between species is not a part of evolution.

 

[Patmos]

What is the greatest evidence against the theory of evolution...?

Maths

If there is no chance that a bunch of slime turns into a life form , then it a'int going to happen - however long planet Earth has been hanging around.

Besides. Any process does not evolve, it Devolves - Devolution. E.g:
The gene pool has always reduced as life forms go extinct.
The law of entropy - Order to disorder - never the other way.

Darwin got it backward. The population of Chaffinches in the Gallapagos Island did Not adapt - growing longer beaks etc to get food. Rather the ones with the fat beaks died out from starvation, and in a short period.
Same with 'the pepperd moth' theory during the industrial revolution. Stick, you get eaten. Nothing to do with adaptation over a long period.

Same with soldiers. In the Crimean war, British Soldiers wore bright red uniforms, stuck out big time and got shot. When they wore camouflage they survived. No long evolutionary process.

I said ' Maths' above. It is a contentious subject. Did God write the rules of Maths or did man invent it to describe the heavens.It is contentious as the heavens seem to obey the rules of maths and man just discovers it.