What is your best evidence for Evolution?

[JohnR7]

If what were to "turn out true"? These sequences really do exist. Retroviruses really do exist.

The problem is that evolutionists do not have a very good track record. There are many cases of fraud and falsifications when it comes to the evidence. In this case: Yes, the evidence appears to be convincing, but it could turn out to be a fraud. The fat lady has not sung yet.

 

[Guywiththehead]

As for "false" tails, I'm sure it's a complete concidence that they look like tails and are in the exact spot a tail would be.

 

[Dannager]

The problem is that evolutionists do not have a very good track record. There are many cases of fraud and falsifications when it comes to the evidence. In this case: Yes, the evidence appears to be convincing, but it could turn out to be a fraud. The fat lady has not sung yet.

No, people don't have a very good track record. There are always going to be deceivers out there, but to point at scientists as being more guilty than, oh, creationists is just silly. On top of that, these deceptions are quickly uncovered and are uniformly perpetrated by small groups of people. Retroviruses, though? That's huge stuff, under ridiculously close scrutiny by the scientific community at large. So unless you want to jump on the It's-A-Conspiracy bandwagon, holding onto the belief that fraud may be in the works may prove to be a little unfulfilling.

 

[JohnR7]

to point at scientists as being more guilty than, oh, creationists is just silly.

Perhaps, but there are people like Moses and those who gave us our Bible, that have turned out books that are dependable and reliable. Actually, in the case of Solomon, he wrote 1000 books and only three of them have been approved. But in 3000 years no one has falsified anything in those three books.

 

[Split Rock]

There are many cases of fraud and falsifications when it comes to the evidence.

Yeah, and 99.9% of them are made by Creationists and ID advocates.

 

[Loudmouth]

The problem is that evolutionists do not have a very good track record. There are many cases of fraud and falsifications when it comes to the evidence. In this case: Yes, the evidence appears to be convincing, but it could turn out to be a fraud. The fat lady has not sung yet.

As I have mentioned in other threads, the evidence is still breathing and multiplying. It would be silly to claim that a specific ERV sequence is found at a specific base in each genome if it weren't true. All that it would take is for a creationist to run the tests and see if those sequences were in the right places. It's a bit like claiming that Ft. Lauderdale is not real, just a place cooked up by travel agencies. Retroviruses exist today. Anybody, with the right equipment, can observe how they infect cells and test the way in which they insert into the host genome.

You can stick your head in the sand all you want, but the real world will continue to exist.

 

[Dannager]

Perhaps, but there are people like Moses and those who gave us our Bible, that have turned out books that are dependable and reliable. Actually, in the case of Solomon, he wrote 1000 books and only three of them have been approved. But in 3000 years no one has falsified anything in those three books.

Don't bait us. The validity of scripture is not the topic at hand, and you know full well it's being discussed elsewhere. Feel free to tell everyone about how dependable and reliable scripture is in those threads.

 

[Joman]

Source:Public Library Of Science

Date:
​

2005-04-05

URL:
​

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/03/050328174826.htm

​

The Chimp Genome Reveals A Retroviral Invasion In Primate Evolution

It’s been known for a long time that only 2%–3% of human DNA codes for proteins. Much of the rest of our genomes—often referred to as junk DNA—consists of retroelements: genomic elements that are transcribed into RNA, reverse-transcribed into DNA, and then reinserted into a new spot in the genome. Human endogenous retroviruses make up one class of these retroelements. Retroviruses can insinuate themselves into the host’s DNA in either soma (nonreproductive cells) or the germline (sperm or egg).

If the virus invades a nonreproductive cell, infection may spread, but viral DNA will die with the host. A retrovirus is called endogenous when it invades the germline and gets passed on to offspring. Because endogenous retroviruses can alter gene function and genome structure, they can influence the evolution of their host species. Over 8% of our genome is made of these infectious remnants—infections that scientists believe occurred before Old World and New World monkeys diverged (25–35 million years ago).

In a new study, Evan Eichler and colleagues scanned finished chimpanzee genome sequence for endogenous retroviral elements, and found one (called PTERV1) that does not occur in humans. Searching the genomes of a subset of apes and monkeys revealed that the retrovirus had integrated into the germline of African great apes and Old World monkeys—but did not infect humans and Asian apes (orangutan, siamang, and gibbon). This undermines the notion that an ancient infection invaded an ancestral primate lineage, since great apes (including humans) share a common ancestor with Old World monkeys.

Eichler and colleagues found over 100 copies of PTERV1 in each African ape (chimp and gorilla) and Old World monkey (baboon and macaque) species. The authors compared the sites of viral integration in each of these primates and found that few if any of these insertion sites were shared among the primates. It appears therefore that the sequences have not been conserved from a common ancestor, but are specific to each lineage.

PTERV1 contains three structural genes—gag, pol, and env—and regulatory sequences called long terminal repeats (LTRs). To further explore the evolutionary history of the retroviral elements, the authors compared the sequences of gag and pol, as well as the LTR sequences, for each infected primate species. The sequence history, they discovered, did not comport with the established evolutionary history of the primates themselves. Divergence between macaque and baboon was significantly greater than between gorilla and chimp—even though slightly more evolutionary time separates gorilla and chimp than macaque and baboon.

When a retrovirus reproduces, identical copies of LTR sequences are created on either side of the retroviral element; the divergence of LTR sequences within a species can be used to estimate the age of an initial infection. Eichler and colleagues estimate that gorillas and chimps were infected about 3–4 million years ago, and baboon and macaque about 1.5 million years ago. The disconnect between the evolutionary history of the retrovirus and the primates, the authors conclude, could be explained if the Old World monkeys were infected by “several diverged viruses” while gorilla and chimpanzee were infected by a single, though unknown, source.

As for how this retroviral infection bypassed orangutans and humans, the authors offer a number of possible scenarios but dismiss geographic isolation: even though Asian and African apes were mostly isolated during the Miocene era (spanning 24 to 5 million years ago), humans and African apes did overlap. It could be that African apes evolved a susceptibility to infection, for example, or that humans and Asian apes evolved resistance. A better understanding of the evolutionary history and population genetics of great apes will help identify the most likely scenarios. And knowing how these retroviral elements infiltrated some apes while sparing others could provide valuable insights into the process of evolution itself.

The above falsifies evolutionary thinking about ERV's. It only takes on example.

Joman

 

[nvxplorer]

Perhaps, but there are people like Moses and those who gave us our Bible, that have turned out books that are dependable and reliable. Actually, in the case of Solomon, he wrote 1000 books and only three of them have been approved. But in 3000 years no one has falsified anything in those three books.

Don’t you find it a bit odd that inspired men of God would need to have their inspired writings approved by the Church?

 

[MartinM]

The above falsifies evolutionary thinking about ERV's.

Not as I read it. Had an ERV inserted itself at the same sites in all species, that would do it. But in this case, the scientists could tell that the ERV infected the species separately, rather than infecting a common ancestor, precisely because the insertion sites were different.

 

[Loudmouth]

The above falsifies evolutionary thinking about ERV's. It only takes on example.

Joman

No it doesn't. ERV's are base specific. The evidence is not that different species share the same type of retrovirus. The evidence is that each species shares the same insertion at the same exact base out of approx. 3 billion possible bases. It is not a matter of being infected by the same virus. It is a matter of inheriting the same mis-incorporation of a retrovirus at the same exact base in the genome.

From your quoted material:

In a new study, Evan Eichler and colleagues scanned finished chimpanzee genome sequence for endogenous retroviral elements, and found one (called PTERV1) that does not occur in humans. Searching the genomes of a subset of apes and monkeys revealed that the retrovirus had integrated into the germline of African great apes and Old World monkeys—but did not infect humans and Asian apes (orangutan, siamang, and gibbon). This undermines the notion that an ancient infection invaded an ancestral primate lineage, since great apes (including humans) share a common ancestor with Old World monkeys.

For clarity, do these insertions occur at the same base in the genomes of chimps and gorillas? If not, then they would be indicative of separate insertions, not a common one.

Again, ERV's indicate common ancestory when they occur at the same position in the genome. The same virus found in separate areas of the genome can be explained through separate infections. Shared ERV's at the same base amongst different species can only be explained through common ancestory. This is due the random nature of viral insertion. As an analogy, it is quite common for two people to have lottery tickets. It is extremely rare for two people to have the same numbers on their separate lottery tickets. The commonality between humans and the great apes is akin to whole populations arriving at the same lottery ticket over 30 times by accident.

 

[JohnR7]

Don’t you find it a bit odd that inspired men of God would need to have their inspired writings approved by the Church?

No, not really, that is just the way it is. Through Christ we are reconciled to God, but we are also reconciled with each other. So at times God works though the church and at other times He will work through individuals.

 

[Ampoliros]

There are no bones in this tail. This is the sort of deception we have come to expect from evolutionists.
That could be one of the reasons so many people have a problem accepting their theorys.
A doctor today would simply say it is of unknown origion, they would suggest it be cut off, thrown away and that would be the end of it.
If you think you have unexplained growths when your young, just want until you get old to see what sort of unexplained growths start to show up on your body.

John, the bones are right there, staring you in the face. Its pretty easy to see with even a casual glance. They even have numbers next to them. Amazing.

Unless, of course, radiology is an evil science twisted by us evilutionists to our terrible, terrible ends, and those pictures are entirely made up (Photoshopped even!), and have been for many years. Bwa-ha-ha.

 

[EvoDan]

No, not really, that is just the way it is. Through Christ we are reconciled to God, but we are also reconciled with each other. So at times God works though the church and at other times He will work through individuals.

How convenient for those bent on doing evil...

 

[Lord Emsworth]

The above falsifies evolutionary thinking about ERV's. It only takes on example.

Joman

The authors compared the sites of viral integration in each of these primates and found that few if any of these insertion sites were shared among the primates. It appears therefore that the sequences have not been conserved from a common ancestor, but are specific to each lineage.​

That is the part on which you have to focus.

 

[Guywiththehead]

John, the bones are right there, staring you in the face. Its pretty easy to see with even a casual glance. They even have numbers next to them. Amazing.

Unless, of course, radiology is an evil science twisted by us evilutionists to our terrible, terrible ends, and those pictures are entirely made up (Photoshopped even!), and have been for many years. Bwa-ha-ha.

I think he actually means the picture of the baby with a tail and completely ignored the x-ray, even though he quoted it.

Creationists' dishonest tactics astound me. You could bring them into the past and use microscopes to see the first self-replicating molecule and they'd start talking about irreducable complexity.

 

[mikeynov]

The above falsifies evolutionary thinking about ERV's. It only takes on example.

Joman

No, it doesn't. If it did, you could explain why.

*all ears*

 

[mikeynov]

I'd also like to say that reading some of the replies in this thread are the exact reason I don't spend nearly as much time in this forum as I once did.

Seriously, how do you argue with somebody who says "there are no bones in those tails" despite being given a picture of an x-ray from a peer reviewed study? There's not much defense against the ostrich strategy.

And then there's "I'll copy/paste this article in the hopes that it abstractly disproves an entire field of inquiry into evolution." No effort to even explain why - just "read this - it disproves it all. *** I WIN."

Having seen variations of these tactics in nearly every thread for a year straight, I've at least temporarily lost my enthusiasm for it all.

 

[Ampoliros]

I think he actually means the picture of the baby with a tail and completely ignored the x-ray, even though he quoted it.

You know, I certainly hope so.

 

[Dexx]

No, it doesn't. If it did, you could explain why.

*all ears*

I dont know how authorative the quoted article is. But my take on it was that the author is saying that ERVS infect species independently.

The authors compared the sites of viral integration in each of these primates and found that few if any of these insertion sites were shared among the primates. It appears therefore that the sequences have not been conserved from a common ancestor, but are specific to each lineage.