You can't argue with DNA

ragarth · Mar 3, 2009

Bombila said:
Go with bonobos. They aren't perfect, but they certainly are a touch more mellow than chimps.

http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/susan_savage_rumbaugh_on_apes_that_write.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J-tJKP1bWFw

Disclaimer: Has some crude language, and is a satire.

ragarth · Mar 3, 2009

AV1611VET said:
I heard we got Carbon like they do too.

Is this true???

Poor analogy AV, I heard them there diamonds got carbon too! Is this true?

If you want to take it back to abiogenesis, yes, we are related to other material that contains carbon, but not via evolution. We can look at the fact that we have DNA, and that bacteria have DNA, and conclude that we are more closely related to bacteria than to diamonds though, even though all three have carbon. By the same token, we can look at the fact that we share ERV insertions with other Hominids and conclude that we are more closely related to other Hominoids than bacteria or diamonds.

Why don't you read the articles I posted, they deal directly with ERV's.

AV1611VET · Mar 3, 2009

ragarth said:
Why don't you read the articles I posted, they deal directly with ERV's.

ERVs can take a hike.

ragarth · Mar 3, 2009

AV1611VET said:
ERVs can take a hike.

I'm sorry to hear that, but if you weren't going to discuss genetics and dna, then why did you post in this thread to begin with? ERV's are, afterall, genetic evidence for evolution.

Cabal · Mar 3, 2009

AV1611VET said:
ERVs can take a hike.

Viruses can't walk.

Now evolve a pair and answer the question

MrGoodBytes · Mar 3, 2009

AV1611VET said:
ERVs can take a hike.

Why did God include them in our genome, then?

AV1611VET · Mar 3, 2009

ragarth said:
I'm sorry to hear that, but if you weren't going to discuss genetics and dna, then why did you post in this thread to begin with? ERV's are, afterall, genetic evidence for evolution.

You guys want to handwave my point, I can handwave yours --- how does it feel?

MrGoodBytes · Mar 3, 2009

AV1611VET said:
You guys want to handwave my point, I can handwave yours --- how does it feel?

What point did we handwave?

ragarth · Mar 3, 2009

AV1611VET said:
You guys want to handwave my point, I can handwave yours --- how does it feel?

I'm sorry, I answered your question. You handwaved it by saying it could take a hike. Here, I'll post my answer to your last point again:

Poor analogy AV, I heard them there diamonds got carbon too! Is this true?

If you want to take it back to abiogenesis, yes, we are related to other material that contains carbon, but not via evolution. We can look at the fact that we have DNA, and that bacteria have DNA, and conclude that we are more closely related to bacteria than to diamonds though, even though all three have carbon. By the same token, we can look at the fact that we share ERV insertions with other Hominids and conclude that we are more closely related to other Hominoids than bacteria or diamonds.

Why don't you read the articles I posted, they deal directly with ERV's.

Or are you going to ignore a direct response to your point, again?

Hespera · Mar 3, 2009

A serious discussion is less likely to get bogged down with fifth grade level quips and sniping if it isnt responded to as if it were serious.

AV1611VET · Mar 3, 2009

ragarth said:
Or are you going to ignore a direct response to your point, again?

I'll ignore it --- it's worth it.

I said nothing about abiogenesis, diamonds, or anything else.

Just like MrGoodBytes is trying to change the wording of a post in another thread right now --- I have no reservations at all about ignoring you guys.

I'll attempt to make my point one more time, and see where it goes:

I heard we got Carbon like they do --- is this true???

ragarth · Mar 3, 2009

AV1611VET said:
I'll ignore it --- it's worth it.

I said nothing about abiogenesis, diamonds, or anything else.

Just like MrGoodBytes is trying to change the wording of a post in another thread right now --- I have no reservations at all about ignoring you guys.

I'll attempt to make my point one more time, and see where it goes:

I heard we got Carbon like they do --- is this true???

It's quite relevent, Diamonds have carbon, bacteria have carbon, trees have carbon. We can ascertain a relationship based on this fact. We can also ascertain a closer relationship to things with DNA, because diamonds to not contain DNA. We can ascertain an even closer relationship between things that share the same ERV, because other things do not share the same ERV.

We can then look at the pattern of shared ERV's to ascertain common descent. So yes, if you're going to say that diamonds are not relevent to the discussion, then carbon is not relevent to the discussion. You're attempt to handwave away my point is you applying a double standard.

AV1611VET · Mar 3, 2009

ragarth said:
It's quite relevent, Diamonds have carbon, bacteria have carbon, trees have carbon. We can ascertain a relationship based on this fact. We can also ascertain a closer relationship to things with DNA, because diamonds to not contain DNA. We can ascertain an even closer relationship between things that share the same ERV, because other things do not share the same ERV.

We can then look at the pattern of shared ERV's to ascertain common descent. So yes, if you're going to say that diamonds are not relevent to the discussion, then carbon is not relevent to the discussion. You're attempt to handwave away my point is you applying a double standard.

Let me get this straight ---

You're saying that since you see ERVs [whatever those are - and please don't explain it - it doesn't change the point] ---

But you're saying that since you see ERVs in apes, and ERVs in people, that that means that people came from apes?

sfs · Mar 3, 2009

AV1611VET said:
Let me get this straight ---

You're saying that since you see ERVs [whatever those are - and please don't explain it - it doesn't change the point] ---

But you're saying that since you see ERVs in apes, and ERVs in people, that that means that people came from apes?

Since you don't know, and don't want to know, what ERVs are, how could an answer to your question mean anything to you?

(The answer, by the way, is that seeing the same ERVs in the same places in humans and apes is powerful evidence that they share a common ancestor. But this won't mean anything to you, since you don't want to know about ERVs, or any other part of reality, as far as I can tell.)

AV1611VET · Mar 3, 2009

sfs said:
The answer, by the way, is that seeing the same ERVs in the same places in humans and apes is powerful evidence that they share a common ancestor.

And you want me to abandon a literal interpretation of Genesis 1 based on this?

Wow!

You call this "powerful evidence"?

I've got eyes in the same place as apes --- who needs ervs?

Cabal · Mar 3, 2009

AV1611VET said:
And you want me to abandon a literal interpretation of Genesis 1 based on this?

Wow!

You call this "powerful evidence"?

I've got eyes in the same place as apes --- who needs ervs?

Is anyone else enjoying the MASSIVE irony in this statement as much as I am?

Hey, AV, apart from anything else, even having eyes in common is empirical EVIDENCE - which you delight in reminding us that your seemingly superior literal interpretation lacks.

ragarth · Mar 3, 2009

AV1611VET said:
Let me get this straight ---

You're saying that since you see ERVs [whatever those are - and please don't explain it - it doesn't change the point] ---

But you're saying that since you see ERVs in apes, and ERVs in people, that that means that people came from apes?

To explain that requires explaining what an ERV is, but since you refuse to have this explained to you, you refuse to have your question answered. This is akin to a quadriplegic attempting a triathlon, so unless you're willing to attempt to understand what an ERV is, any explanation given to you will make no sense.

poof of my point about ERV's not making sense without an explanation of what they are:

AV1611VET said:
And you want me to abandon a literal interpretation of Genesis 1 based on this?

Wow!

You call this "powerful evidence"?

I've got eyes in the same place as apes --- who needs ervs?

This is in here to protect AV's innocence from fact.

ERV stands for Endogenous RetroVirus. Basically, it's a virus that manages to insert itself into a hosts germline cell (the cells that produce sperm or eggs for reproduction) but the inserted DNA/RNA fails to replicate itself and instead remains within the germline deactivated. an Endogenous Retovirus Insertion is what happens when the ERV becomes a part of the host's DNA itself. Once insertion takes place, the position of the ERV within the host's DNA is set and will remain in the same position over recursive generations.

Transcription errors on the ERV insertion happen over time, duplicating or modifying it over the period of thousands or millions of years. By looking at the HERV-w insertion in Hominid DNA, we can see that almost all Hominids share this insertion. This tells us that some hominids are more closely related (The duplications and mutations of their HERV-w are more similar) and others are less related (The duplications and mutations in their HERV-w are less similar) and we can map these duplications and insertions to create an evolutionary tree. Because this is all based upon the insertion of viral dna, this is conclusive proof of common decent from the moment of insertion to now.

Since HERV-w was inserted around 5 million years ago, we have conclusive proof of common decent of hominids going back 5 million years based upon this evidence.

Skaloop · Mar 3, 2009

AV1611VET said:
Evolution can be bad (Planet of the Apes), stupid (opening scene, 2001: A Space Odyssey), or just plain wrong (Genesis 1).

Three bits of fiction, each incorrectly applied to evolution.

In PotA, it wasn't evolution that was bad, it was humans destroying themselves which allowed the apes to take over our niche. Still not an accurate portrayal of evolution, though, since the apes that evolved would not end up speaking English, for one thing.

In the opening of 2001, that's not biological evolution. That's an ape coming to a realization of manipulating an object for use as a tool.

As for Genesis 1, if it were true, evolution happens afterwards. Genesis doesn't make evolution wrong, it just suggests a different set of starting conditions.

CACTUSJACKmankin · Mar 3, 2009

if DNA proves two people are related why does it not follow that it proves species are related?

DNA is a blueprint but it's also more than that. species that arent closely related can share traits, when this happens the similarities will manifest differently in the DNA.

This is how we get concepts like convergent evolution.

the more similar the DNA between people, the closer they are related. Same with species. we have more DNA in common with chimpanzees, less with gorillas, less with spider monkeys, less with cats, less with lizards, and so on.

CACTUSJACKmankin · Mar 3, 2009

AV1611VET said:
And you want me to abandon a literal interpretation of Genesis 1 based on this?

Wow!

You call this "powerful evidence"?

I've got eyes in the same place as apes --- who needs ervs?

You dont think it's powerful because you dont understand it (and you dont care to). But heres why:

talk about impossible odds - the same strain of the same virus inserting itself in the same position in the DNA, out of the billions and billions of positions, of unrelated species.
also keep in mind: Species werent designed with viral insertions.

You can't argue with DNA

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Seeker for life, probably

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Seeker for life, probably

Well-Known Member

Junior Member

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Well-Known Member

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Senior Member

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Agnostic atheist, pro-choice anti-abortion

Scientist

Scientist

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency