NationStates Jolt Archive

I was recently engaged in another one of the evolution vs. creationism/intelligent design threads on the boards (Tired of them? Feel free to go away now) and for something like the 700th time I encountered the absurd claim that there is absolutely NO evidence for “macroevolution”. Rather than run through the (very) extensive list of evidence for macroevolution I figured we’d just narrow it down to one item and let the creationists and selected IDers try to explain why it isn’t actually evidence of “macroevolution”. In order to do that however a bit of explaining will be necessary first.

Retroviruses

Retroviruses contain viral RNA, as opposed to the DNA in humans and other animals and plants… and they also contain a reverse transcriptase. What this means is that they have the ability to insert the complimentary DNA sequence of their own RNA genetic code into the genetic code of the host organism they infect. It’s how they reproduce. Example of a retrovirus: HIV.

Here’s how it works in a little more detail.

The virus infects a cell. It then releases the reverse transcriptase. The reverse transcriptase makes a copy of viral DNA from the viral RNA. The viral DNA then gets spliced into the DNA of the infected host cell, at a random location… so from now on every time that cell’s DNA is replicated the viral DNA gets replicated right along with it. In the meantime the viral DNA in the cell serves as the template for producing new copies of viral RNA. Now, while the initial insertion point of the viral DNA is random, in any subsequent copies made when the cell reproduces the exact same location of the viral DNA will be copied as well.

(Side note: The random nature of the retroviral insertion is one well known hurdle faced by researchers of genetic therapies, since if they attempt to engineer a retrovirus to deliver their developed therapy to their patient a random insertion could place it in the middle of DNA that was already coding for something else that was fairly important)

When a retrovirus infects a host’s reproductive system - and thus the copies of the host’s DNA which will be passed on to it’s offspring - it becomes heritable by the host organism’s offspring, passed onto them just like any gene would be. And again, the location of the viral DNA within the genetic code will be the same as in the parent organism the DNA was inherited from.

The Evidence

The human genetic code is huge. It’s over 3 billion base pairs long. The genetic codes of the other primates (chimps, gorillas, orangutans, gibbons, etc…) are similarly massive. The odds of a single retrovirus infecting two of these individual species independently and just happening through pure coincidence to randomly splice themselves into the exact same location in their DNA are, obviously, not good.

So if we were to find, for example, that an analysis of human and chimp DNA revealed a single identical retroviral genetic sequence at an identical location that would be extremely solid evidence that they had both inherited that genetic sequence from a common ancestor who was originally infected by the retrovirus… thus also inheriting it’s common location in their genome. Not only is this a similar type of evidence that is possible from analysis of other genetic information… but this information in particular is completely immune to being hand-waved away as being somehow due to “common design” of similar appearing animals or functions as IDers and creationists attempt (and I stress “attempt”) to do with other findings. There is no rational way to argue that a viral infection was an element of the design of an organism.

So, in all of our studying of the genetic codes of humans, chimps, and other primates have we found a case of a retroviral insertion in an identical location in both humans and another primate? No…

We’ve found multiple cases.

The odds of finding a single example occurring by coincidence are mind bogglingly bad. The odds of finding multiple examples occurring by coincidence are exponentially worse. They defy description. And for the final nail in the coffin (as if we needed it), there’s the pattern we find these common insertions in:

So far (with the sequencing of the human and primate genomes still far from complete) the primate species we share the most common insertions with are chimps, which all other genetic evidence says are the most closely related primates to humans. We share the second most common insertions with gorillas… the second most closely related primates. Third and fourth most common insertions = orangutans and gibbons respectively… also the third and fourth most closely related according to the other genetic evidence. Fifth most = old world monkeys… sixth most = new world monkeys… fifth and sixth most closely related groups, respectively, according to the other genetic evidence.

A diagram of the pattern of insertions in question, courtesy of talk.origins:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/images/retrovirus.gif

The arrows show where the evidence indicates the original retroviral infection occurred.

So please, creationists and IDers… explain how this piece of evidence isn’t actually evidence at all.

One note, don't bother bringing up the existence of other viruses that are capable of non-random targetted insertion. Yes, they exist (parvoviruses). No, these aren't them. They know this because the reason they were able to identify them in the first place is they know which viral proteins those sequences code for, and they aren't from parvoviruses.

Either that, or I expect never to see another one of you claiming there is no evidence for macroevolution. Those IDers (I'm aware they exist) who do not argue against there being evidence of macro-evolution may feel free to ignore this challenge.

um the bible..... jesus.....

Nah good stuff good reserch, you diserve a teachers star for good work.

Bump

Informative biochemistry, good stuff. I find it interesting, though, that Creationists and IDers, as you call them, even want to begin a contest of evidence. Their belief system is rife with people rising from the dead, and every species on earth living on a boat, and a loving parent preparing eternal torture for his children, knowing in advance which ones would go there...I'm not sure your well researched and knowledgable example will compel them.

I wonder how often obstinance is mistaken for conviction. Anyway, great post, informative.

I get the feeling this is going to be silently ignored.

But i wont let it, this guy's busted his ass righting it, and i want to see someone at least try to refute it.

But i wont let it, this guy's busted his ass righting it, and i want to see someone at least try to refute it.

Actually, more like "killed an hour or two this afternoon writing it"... but thanks. :)

Actually, more like "killed an hour or two this afternoon writing it"... but thanks. :)
Man i wish i could concentrate that long I’d be able to conquer the world.

Doesn’t look like the fish are biting.

I love it the minute a really good argument comes along that cant simply be disputed his some stupid circular argument.

A wall of silence.

I get the feeling this is going to be silently ignored.


the most we can do is to keep it bumped.

failing that, let's all copy/paste it to a text document as ammunition for our next debate

one last bump before i retire for the night.

Stop ignoring it.

At least admit your wrong

IDers/Creationists: I believe your battleship has been sunk.

We could troll some creationalist forums. :0

i changed my sig temporarily, just for the occasion

Good stuff. *thumbs up*

they'll just say the retrovirus is an example of the complexity of life and that God put it into two different species that he was creating. Or that Satan put it there to test our faith

Good stuff dude! There is absolutly NO way anyone can prove evolution wrong (nor can you prove ID wrong, untill your dead ;) ) and this is just one reason why.


Great research, and you even explained stuff so easy a 10-year old could read it, but I'm not sure ID's can...

Good stuff dude! There is absolutly NO way anyone can prove evolution wrong (nor can you prove ID wrong, untill your dead ;) ) and this is just one reason why.

but unlike ID, evolution can be proved right

There is absolutly NO way anyone can prove evolution wronguse the theory of evolution to predict something that turns out to be wrong. That's all it takes to disprove it

my philosophy professor would say that you made the mistake of proving your assumptions correct. Don't worry, philosophers do it all the time.

So, lets summarize a little, right? What you are saying is that the manner of viral insertion is random. Since viral insertions are not "intelligently" designed into a being, the fact that the same virus (at least one that depends so much on the species it infects) could effect several species with similar DNA is proposterously unlikely- and therefore could not be brought about by coincidence.

The claims of IDers is precisely the opposite of what you are attempting to disprove. IDers do not depend upon coincidence for their theories to work. Anything that Evolution attributes to chance, they claim is a design. That argument still fails, however, since this sounds like a bad design.

But here's the trouble. You only discussed the design of the animal that is infected (be it human or ape) and not the virus. It is clearly advantageous to the virus to infect several different kinds of animals. This could be the result of an intelligently designed virus, rather than a stupidly built primate.


Now, i'm no biologist. in fact, i think i am a little sick of these Creationist vs. Evolutionist arguments (both theories have holes in them) so i might have missed something crucial in my misanthopy. feel free to refute me. or you could just call me a nazi and get it over with.

Use the bible to predict the future, thats all it takes to prove it wrong.

Sorry, that came out wrong... use works of the bible, like the NT, mainly, to predict the future.


Thats what i meant, ok?

As a theistic evolutionist (ie: God created Evolution as his Almighty Socket Wrench) I staunchly, and call me all the names you want, maintain that the retrovirus evidence is very clear and concise and well-presented *circumstantial* evidence. The Scientific Method dictates the necessity of observation. Macroevolution simply is not a process that can be observed in the human timespan. This retrovirus argument is very good and compelling, and certainly reinforces the Evolutionary standpoint. In any case, I firmly believe that Macroevolution can and does take place. But I don't believe it can be proven. I also believe that God created it that way to make the world interesting. Can't prove that either, at least not in any tangible way. Basically, IMO, this is not a scientific debate at all, but a philosophical one.

This is what I leave you with, so grab your King Jame's!

Read this, ok?

Luke 21:25-33

Good research work mate. I'm glad you posted that. :)

Hello, ShinraMegacorporation

I don't think anybody thinks you're a Nazi.

But I'm not sure the thread originator was referring to the idea of a virus infecting differing species. I believe it was the location on the DNA where a virus insertion occurred being perpetuated in a species as a sort of biochemical scar, an identifying scar allowing two species to be demonstrated as having another species as a common ancestor. This demonstrates evidence in favor of "macroevolution".

Hence, we are not talking about separate infections of separate species, but rather a remnant chemical signature caused by a single past infection being detectable in different species, creating a heriditary link between the species. I admit that I'm not far progressed in my study of Biochemistry, and I could be misunderstanding things. Thread originator, am I getting this?

my philosophy professor would say that you made the mistake of proving your assumptions correct. Don't worry, philosophers do it all the time.

So, lets summarize a little, right? What you are saying is that the manner of viral insertion is random. Since viral insertions are not "intelligently" designed into a being, the fact that the same virus (at least one that depends so much on the species it infects) could effect several species with similar DNA is proposterously unlikely- and therefore could not be brought about by coincidence.

You missed a rather important point. If the virus independently infected a bunch of distinct species we would see it showing up in a different random locations in each given species genome unless by sheer coincidence every single independent random insertion occured at eactly the same place in every single case.

The odds of ONE virus independently infecting just TWO different species and happening to have done it at identical locations in their genome is something lover 1 in 3 billion. The odds of it infecting THREE different species at an identical location gets up over 1 in 9,000,000,000,000,000,000

Now... want to consider the odds of a dozen or so viruses independently infecting species all throughout the primate group in identical locations in the genome?

The claims of IDers is precisely the opposite of what you are attempting to disprove. IDers do not depend upon coincidence for their theories to work. Anything that Evolution attributes to chance, they claim is a design. That argument still fails, however, since this sounds like a bad design.

It's not any kind of design. You can't claim a viral infection is part of your design any more than you can claim a scar from when you fell off your bike when you were 7 is part of your design.

But here's the trouble. You only discussed the design of the animal that is infected (be it human or ape) and not the virus. It is clearly advantageous to the virus to infect several different kinds of animals. This could be the result of an intelligently designed virus, rather than a stupidly built primate.

No, because whether you want to claim those viruses were intelligently designed or not we still know their insertion pattern is random when it's spliced into the host DNA.. and so their common locations throughout the primate genome is indication of inheritance from common descent. IE: macroevolution.

Now, i'm no biologist. in fact, i think i am a little sick of these Creationist vs. Evolutionist arguments (both theories have holes in them) so i might have missed something crucial in my misanthopy.

Your wish is my command.

EDIT: Saint Curie: Yup.

but unlike ID, evolution can be proved right

um, actually, cant really prove a theory, you can just repeatedly fail to disprove it:)

not trying to argue with you, as i am a proponnent of evolution, but it seems like the misunderstanding of the definition of a theory is behind a lot of these arguments

I sort of regard "theory" as a hallowed status for an idea. To me, a theory is is living, a growing body of knowledge subject to the invigorating attentions of proponents and detractors alike. I hope evolution remains a "theory" for many years, because I think there is tremendous opportunity to understand it better, and to apply those understandings. If you're a true scientist, you attack your own hypothesis brutally, and you let your beliefs change with every insight, with every experiment. It combines the virtues of humility, intellect, and diligence, and the result is knowledge.

So, yea, verily, let Evolution be labeled Theory. Theory is Sacred.

As a theistic evolutionist (ie: God created Evolution as his Almighty Socket Wrench) I staunchly, and call me all the names you want, maintain that the retrovirus evidence is very clear and concise and well-presented *circumstantial* evidence.

Yes, like the circumstantial evidence of arriving at a murder scene and finding bloody fingerprints that you match up to suspect "A" and DNA samples that you also match up to suspect "A" and finding that the victim with his dying strength had scribbled the first name of suspect "A" on a peice of paper clutched in his hand, and having suspect "A" on video threatening to kill the victim, and finding the murder weapon stashed in suspect "A"s house along with a detailed plan of how to murder the victim written in suspect "A"s handwriting....

But you didn't actually watch him kill the guy with your own two eyes! So much for forensic "science".

The Scientific Method dictates the necessity of observation.

And unfortunately people unfamiliar with the scientific method think that means if you don't directly observe the exact instance of the process under study that you are currently speaking of it is somehow beyond the realm of scientific inquiry. And then thinking that because we didn't actually sit around watching the evolution of humans and modern primates from a common ancestor we can't scientifically investigate it.

Well... toss out gelology, paleontology, astronomy, cosmology...

Macroevolution simply is not a process that can be observed in the human timespan.

Actually, it can and has been observed in the human timespan:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

But that would be getting off topic as we're supposed to be limitting ourselves to one example of the evidence.

This retrovirus argument is very good and compelling, and certainly reinforces the Evolutionary standpoint. In any case, I firmly believe that Macroevolution can and does take place. But I don't believe it can be proven.

Science isn't about proof. Science is about evidential support beyond any reasonable doubt.

The occurance of macroevolution passed that threshold a long time ago.

I also believe that God created it that way to make the world interesting. Can't prove that either, at least not in any tangible way. Basically, IMO, this is not a scientific debate at all, but a philosophical one.

Well, I agree it isn't a scientific debate, but only because only one side of the debate has any grounding in actual science.

Please, Please, PLEASE do not make the same mistake as those you debate with so frequently. Otherwise, you are no different then the intelligent design supporters.


Science is about the scientific method.

* 1. Observe some aspect of the universe.
* 2. Invent a tentative description, called a hypothesis, that is consistent with what you have observed.
* 3. Use the hypothesis to make predictions.
* 4. Test those predictions by experiments or further observations and modify the hypothesis in the light of your results.
* 5. Repeat steps 3 and 4 until there are no discrepancies between theory and experiment and/or observation.


Science is about finding the truth.

Science can never be 100% accurate, we can only attempt to explain the world around us. This is a major foundation of science.

Hypothesis ---> Testing <---> Conclusion <---> Theory

NEVER, EVER, FACT.

Never defend any Theory as fact, while a theory does have almost the same weight as a fact and should be taken very seriously, to cannonize a theory is the ULTIMATE betrayal of Science.

For the record, I am but a simple man of logic and science, I as you humbly not to corrupt the path we walk.

Despite what most people may think, real scientists, never believe they know everything and are ALWAYS questioning their finding. A real scientist lives to disprove his own theories.

* 1. Observe some aspect of the universe.

some creatures are remarkably similare to eachother, physically and/or genetically

* 2. Invent a tentative description, called a hypothesis, that is consistent with what you have observed.

perhaps they derive from a common ancestor, and varying environmental conditions changed the frequency of certain traits in different populations

* 3. Use the hypothesis to make predictions.

i predict that the environmental differences in different places will result in physical differences in different populations of similar animals

* 4. Test those predictions by experiments or further observations and modify the hypothesis in the light of your results.

wow, look! the finches on different galapagos islands have different beak shapes depending on the supply of food they are provided with!

* 5. Repeat steps 3 and 4 until there are no discrepancies between theory and experiment and/or observation.

and dogs from different climates have different furs and body shapes that help them survive there!

and moths from pre-industrial england were predominantly white, with a few blacks, while moths in post industrial england are black with a few whites! their ability to hide from predators must have resulted in the change!

Errrr...

I'm not challanging Evolution, I'm simply saying honor the principles of Science that produced it. In science, there is no such thing as fact, no absolutes.

We don't know everything.

Church people think they do.

That's the difference. :)

in statistics we learned that if the probability of an event occuring is less than .01 (like in this case) that event can be rejected. .01 is considered an extremely conservative estimate by the way. and yes i realize its not just your straight up divide your two numbers crap they teach you in elementary school for anyone who has taken statistics. its still less than .01. anyway no one knows what the hell im talking about... lets just put it this way statistics and biology both defy creationism.... just thought id use another highschool class in this disucussion....

Errrr...

I'm not challanging Evolution, I'm simply saying honor the principles of Science that produced it. In science, there is no such thing as fact, no absolutes.

We don't know everything.

Church people think they do.

That's the difference. :)


i know what you were doing.

and i was providing an example of how evolution follows those guidelines

hrm.... Noted. ;)

yes, those were excellent examples.

in statistics we learned that if the probability of an event occuring is less than .01 (like in this case) that event can be rejected. .01 is considered an extremely conservative estimate by the way. and yes i realize its not just your straight up divide your two numbers crap they teach you in elementary school for anyone who has taken statistics. its still less than .01. anyway no one knows what the hell im talking about... lets just put it this way statistics and biology both defy creationism.... just thought id use another highschool class in this disucussion....

.01 is not very inclusive when you consider that the odds of evolution occurring are 1 in 10 to the 35(50 zeros added) power.

That's 1:3,500,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000

odds.

Not including the probability of a friendly biosphere, i.e. earth.

Sounds like a lottery you'll never win.

I wonder why so many people actually believe it could be true?

Good stuff dude! There is absolutly NO way anyone can prove evolution wrong (nor can you prove ID wrong, untill your dead ;) ) and this is just one reason why.


Great research, and you even explained stuff so easy a 10-year old could read it, but I'm not sure ID's can...
:( i'm 14 and i don't get it.
Does that mean i'm dum?

.01 is not very inclusive when you consider that the odds of evolution occurring are 1 in 10 to the 35(50 zeros added) power.

That's 1:3,500,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000

odds.

Not including the probability of a friendly biosphere, i.e. earth.

Sounds like a lottery you'll never win.

I wonder why so many people actually believe it could be true?
the problem is you cant apply statistics or biology to anyone who is creationist because they believe that god controls everything. what you can do is challenge there faith....
so if your religous i suggest you read just one chapter from dostoevsky's "Brothers Karamazov", and that is The Rebellion

Good stuff dude! There is absolutly NO way anyone can prove evolution wrong (nor can you prove ID wrong, untill your dead ;) ) and this is just one reason why.


Great research, and you even explained stuff so easy a 10-year old could read it, but I'm not sure ID's can...
:( i'm 14 and i don't get it.
Does that mean i'm dum?

(i might've wanted to read more the 5 lines, but i have a short atten- Look at the pretty butterfly!)

:( i'm 14 and i don't get it.
Does that mean i'm dum?
yes

In science, there is no such thing as fact, no absolutes.

sure there is. facts exist. without them, what would we need theories to explain?

.01 is not very inclusive when you consider that the odds of evolution occurring are 1 in 10 to the 35(50 zeros added) power.

That's 1:3,500,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000

odds.

Not including the probability of a friendly biosphere, i.e. earth.

Sounds like a lottery you'll never win.

I wonder why so many people actually believe it could be true?

and where, exactly, does one pull such a number out of?

There is absolutly NO way anyone can prove evolution wrong

sure you could. it's just that no one has and it seems unlikely that anyone will. but it's completely within the realm of possibility.

Winter,

It's extremely difficult to wrap the mind around such a realization, probability dictates anything is possible, as improbably as an event my be, it WILL happen given enough chances.

If it didn't happen, we wouldn't be here discussing it, end of story. I'm sure there could have been some race of giant floating eyes feeding off of photosynthesis with brains operating under a switch gate process much like a computer processor, living on a gas giant like jupiter, maybe they'd spend all their lives debating the probability of their existance.

They don't exist. We do.

Probability dictates that eventually that race will exist if the universe continues to exist in it's current form for all eternity.

It's extremely hard for someone with a limited frame of mind to come to terms with this, it is by no means an insult I assure you, some people who can handle it, usually ones used to objective thinking.

Someone raised on a farm or in a comfortable suburbia by extremely religious parents, or someone who does poorly in science or philosophy will not be able to understand that and will obviously come to the conclusion that a being must have created us.

It is basically the same reason why thousands of years ago we thought it rained because Zeus was crying instead of a side effect the atmospheric processes we know of today.

.01 is not very inclusive when you consider that the odds of evolution occurring are 1 in 10 to the 35(50 zeros added) power.

That's 1:3,500,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000


HA!

and give me a reason to believe that you did not just pull that number out of your ass.

sure there is. facts exist. without them, what would we need theories to explain?

Information is always corruptable, a observation can always be incorrect. That's why we preform more then one experiment, error will always leak into our careful equations.

That's why we never stop testing, never stop increasing our observations.

Fact is relative.

sure you could. it's just that no one has and it seems unlikely that anyone will. but it's completely within the realm of possibility.

Now THAT is the scientific spirit at it's finest. :)

.01 is not very inclusive when you consider that the odds of evolution occurring are 1 in 10 to the 35(50 zeros added) power.

That's 1:3,500,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000

Uh-huh...

And you calculated those odds how?

Errrr, no matter the odds on an almost infinite timescale the birth of life is a given.

So why debate his probability figure anyway?

1:1

1:1 to the power of 5,000,000

On an infinite timescale. Same thing.

Winter Alliance: Please concede my point, it is true that on an infinite timescale anything is possible, if I pulled a chip out of a bag of 1 million black chips and 1 white, I might get the white one on the first try.

That is how evolution happened. (Not saying it was the first try though.)

So why debate his probability figure anyway?

mainly because i like digging holes in front of people and putting sharpened sticks at the bottom of them.

I had a stats professor years ago who felt that any discussion of probability must begin with a determination of whether the possible outcomes fell on a continuous spectrum (such as the real number line), or a finite subset of outcomes. If the range were continuous, we must recognize that even a bounded continuous range contains infinite possible results (say, between 0 and 1, there's 1/2, 1/4, 1/8, 1/16, 1/n...as n approaches infinity, going forever and yet always remaining between 0 and 1), and when you divide one outcome by infinite possible outcomes, 1/(infinity)=0 , thus the likelihood is actually zero. Yet, paradox as it is, one outcome will materialize as the result. A great joke of mathematics, that the chance of it being any particular one approaches zero, but the chance of it being SOMETHING is certainty.

So, I'm afraid I find the 1/(1X10^35) observation to be uncompelling at this time. Still, I don't regard my reverence for Theory as being "canonization" or corruption of science. Nikoko, could I ask you to elaborate?

I must admit, I find what you've done to be very good. The information you provided is top-notch, and the manner you present them speak greatly of your intelligence.

Personally, I don't give half a flying cockroach's arse how we came to be. As I always say, 'Never focus on the past, as you'll miss the present.' I suppose in that aspect I am neither Evolutionist, Creationist/ID-ist.

However, if I were the latter, I probably would come to question my beliefs, if only somewhat, based on the information you provided and continue to provide.

If I were the former, I'd feel greatly honored to stand on the same side as you.

Now, be that as it may, I have a small challenge in return for you. Can you switch sides of the field and try to defeat your own hypothesis from a Creationist's view point?

Since I've provided nothing more then a long winded compliment, I actually don't feel as if you should take my challenge seriously, but do as you please. I shall continue to follow this convo.

use the theory of evolution to predict something that turns out to be wrong. That's all it takes to disprove it

dude, that's completely and utterly god-damn FALSE. One example, for or against anything, doesn't disprove SHIT. However, whereas we can make pretty good predictions as to the future of a given genome after careful study and observation of past trends, there is no way in hell to predict anything using the Bible. Can't be done (and no, interpretations of Biblical texts after-the-fact to bring them in line with previous events is NOT the Bible predicting anything; its just Bible-revisionism).

I wonder, could we examine the viral-marker premise on a microbial level, not as definitive proof, mind you, but just as a glance at the process?

We could take a series of fast-reproducing bacteria, hundreds or thousands of batches. Designate control and experiment groups, several of each.

Infect some groups with a batch of a virus (we would generate a sizable volume of this virus in a large host creature, then harvest the virus, enough for several infections).

Examine several examples from the same infected batch, separate the microbes and see if the virus left its infection marker overwritten in random places on each infected individual microbe.

Farm the separate microbes in their own enclosed high nutrient environment, and examine successive generations for the presence and location of the marker.

Separate the descendent bactera into new separate control and experiment groups. Reinfect some with the same virus, observe for resistance, reinfection, and if, where and how the virus overwrites the descendant bacterium.

Infect some with a different virus, and follow the same process. Is a new genetic overlay scar created, does it perpetuate, and will the progeny of any particular bacteria now have a unique set of two genetic markers, distinguishing it from its uncles and cousins?

Now we have some attempt at a baseline and context for observation of evolution. Try to induce a new species by subjecting groups of bacteria to light/heat/radiation/chemicals until a distinct but viable bacteria results from mutation.

Does the new bacterium have the markers? Does its descendants? If it demonstrates sufficient genetic divergence to be called a new species, and yet still retains the marker(s), I would find that meaningful.

Has anybody done this? I think its easier and perhaps even more ethical to purposefully infect and forcefully mutate some poor prokaryote than to do it to chimpanzees. Or us undergrads.

I dunno.

Now, be that as it may, I have a small challenge in return for you. Can you switch sides of the field and try to defeat your own hypothesis from a Creationist's view point?

Could I try? Yes. Could I succeed? Nope.

To the best of my knowledge there is absolutely no alternative explanation for the data presented in that post.

Why does it have to be intelligent design? Has anyone considered that the god who created this universe may be one of the retarded gods in the godverse?

Why does it have to be intelligent design? Has anyone considered that the god who created this universe may be one of the retarded gods in the godverse?

He said He was the only one. Why waste brain cells pondering your fiction?

Heh, not to be irreverent, but a retarded deity might be funny.

The Ten Commandments, as delivered to humanity by "Dougie the Retarded God"

1. I am the Lord thy God. Will you be my friend?
2. Thou shalt have no other gods before me, because my mother says we should take turns.
3. I want a cookie.
4. Thou shalt go to McDonalds on Thursdays. Yay!
5. You're pretty.
6. I saw a dog one time.
7. Don't hit. Hitting is bad.
8. Thou shalt not tie my shoes. I can do it myself. Watch.
9. I get really offended when people mock religion, even if its not mine.
10. My relatives get really mad when people mock retardation! Coincidentally, they also have no sense of humor.

Before I turn in for the night... a quick tally. In the 4 pages of responses so far we've had 2 posts that even touched on the actual challenge.

One that posited that perhaps the reason we saw the virus insertions in different species was because the virus had been designed to be infectious in more than one species... but overlooked the detail that the point of the post was that the insertion point of a retrovirus is random and the virus insertions shared common location across many different species of primates in a nested hierarchical pattern.

One that said, to paraphrase: "Well, evolution is super unlikely" accompanied by a really big number with lots of zeros in it... still waiting on how the calculation of how unlikely it is was performed however.... and no attempt was made to explain the data presented in the original post.

I'll be checking back in tomorrow morning to see if there have been any new developments.

Who's to say God didn't make our genetic code that way?

Who's to say God didn't make our genetic code that way?


forgive me if im misunderstanding you, but i think that's the thing with this thread. it seems like the best creationist/I.D. argument we have heard so far is that, or similar.

granted, im not saying I.D. does not exist (although, i dont believe in it personally) I just feel that, like the existance of a god, it can neither be proven or disproven.

well, basically evolution stands on its own, whereas the best/most scientifically acceptable arguments we have heard for intelligent design involve faith, satan, and tests for the nonbelievers to explain things like this. Applying Occam's razor (as was done in a previous thread) evolution is currently the most consistant, effective, and to a certain extent, simple explanation available.

forgive me if im misunderstanding you, but i think that's the thing with this thread. it seems like the best creationist/I.D. argument we have heard so far is that, or similar.

granted, im not saying I.D. does not exist (although, i dont believe in it personally) I just feel that, like the existance of a god, it can neither be proven or disproven.

well, basically evolution stands on its own, whereas the best/most scientifically acceptable arguments we have heard for intelligent design involve faith, satan, and tests for the nonbelievers to explain things like this. Applying Occam's razor (as was done in a previous thread) evolution is currently the most consistant, effective, and to a certain extent, simple explanation available.
But that's I'm saying. Under the Creationist argument, there is an explanation for why we would have similar genetic codes. There is no way to beat the Creationist argument, because you can't beat "because God made it that way."

But that's I'm saying. Under the Creationist argument, there is an explanation for why we would have similar genetic codes. There is no way to beat the Creationist argument, because you can't beat "because God made it that way."


cool. unless someone has something further to add, then i imagine this thread is finished (not that it will be, but its got the potential too be).

I think this is what most of it is getting at. in a scientific context, creationism/I.D. dont quite hold up.

at the same time, evolutionary theory and the fossil record prolly doesnt carry much weight at sunday church:)

anyways, i may be wrong, but i think the creator of this thread was looking to see if anyone had any good arguments for I.D. that would hold up scientifically.

I think this is what most of it is getting at. in a scientific context, creationism/I.D. dont quite hold up.

at the same time, evolutionary theory and the fossil record prolly doesnt carry much weight at sunday church:)
That's exactly the point and the problem. Creationism defeats science in the creationist arena, God did it. Science defeats creationism in the scientific arena, viruses did it. Neither side will budge because on their own turf, they're right.

I was recently engaged in another one of the evolution vs. creationism/intelligent design threads on the boards (Tired of them? Feel free to go away now) and for something like the 700th time I encountered the absurd claim that there is absolutely NO evidence for “macroevolution”. Rather than run through the (very) extensive list of evidence for macroevolution I figured we’d just narrow it down to one item and let the creationists and selected IDers try to explain why it isn’t actually evidence of “macroevolution”. In order to do that however a bit of explaining will be necessary first.

Retroviruses

Retroviruses contain viral RNA, as opposed to the DNA in humans and other animals and plants… and they also contain a reverse transcriptase. What this means is that they have the ability to insert the complimentary DNA sequence of their own RNA genetic code into the genetic code of the host organism they infect. It’s how they reproduce. Example of a retrovirus: HIV.

Here’s how it works in a little more detail.

The virus infects a cell. It then releases the reverse transcriptase. The reverse transcriptase makes a copy of viral DNA from the viral RNA. The viral DNA then gets spliced into the DNA of the infected host cell, at a random location… so from now on every time that cell’s DNA is replicated the viral DNA gets replicated right along with it. In the meantime the viral DNA in the cell serves as the template for producing new copies of viral RNA. Now, while the initial insertion point of the viral DNA is random, in any subsequent copies made when the cell reproduces the exact same location of the viral DNA will be copied as well.

(Side note: The random nature of the retroviral insertion is one well known hurdle faced by researchers of genetic therapies, since if they attempt to engineer a retrovirus to deliver their developed therapy to their patient a random insertion could place it in the middle of DNA that was already coding for something else that was fairly important)

When a retrovirus infects a host’s reproductive system - and thus the copies of the host’s DNA which will be passed on to it’s offspring - it becomes heritable by the host organism’s offspring, passed onto them just like any gene would be. And again, the location of the viral DNA within the genetic code will be the same as in the parent organism the DNA was inherited from.

The Evidence

The human genetic code is huge. It’s over 3 billion base pairs long. The genetic codes of the other primates (chimps, gorillas, orangutans, gibbons, etc…) are similarly massive. The odds of a single retrovirus infecting two of these individual species independently and just happening through pure coincidence to randomly splice themselves into the exact same location in their DNA are, obviously, not good.

So if we were to find, for example, that an analysis of human and chimp DNA revealed a single identical retroviral genetic sequence at an identical location that would be extremely solid evidence that they had both inherited that genetic sequence from a common ancestor who was originally infected by the retrovirus… thus also inheriting it’s common location in their genome. Not only is this a similar type of evidence that is possible from analysis of other genetic information… but this information in particular is completely immune to being hand-waved away as being somehow due to “common design” of similar appearing animals or functions as IDers and creationists attempt (and I stress “attempt”) to do with other findings. There is no rational way to argue that a viral infection was an element of the design of an organism.

So, in all of our studying of the genetic codes of humans, chimps, and other primates have we found a case of a retroviral insertion in an identical location in both humans and another primate? No…

We’ve found multiple cases.

The odds of finding a single example occurring by coincidence are mind bogglingly bad. The odds of finding multiple examples occurring by coincidence are exponentially worse. They defy description. And for the final nail in the coffin (as if we needed it), there’s the pattern we find these common insertions in:

So far (with the sequencing of the human and primate genomes still far from complete) the primate species we share the most common insertions with are chimps, which all other genetic evidence says are the most closely related primates to humans. We share the second most common insertions with gorillas… the second most closely related primates. Third and fourth most common insertions = orangutans and gibbons respectively… also the third and fourth most closely related according to the other genetic evidence. Fifth most = old world monkeys… sixth most = new world monkeys… fifth and sixth most closely related groups, respectively, according to the other genetic evidence.

A diagram of the pattern of insertions in question, courtesy of talk.origins:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/images/retrovirus.gif

The arrows show where the evidence indicates the original retroviral infection occurred.

So please, creationists and IDers… explain how this piece of evidence isn’t actually evidence at all.

One note, don't bother bringing up the existence of other viruses that are capable of non-random targetted insertion. Yes, they exist (parvoviruses). No, these aren't them. They know this because the reason they were able to identify them in the first place is they know which viral proteins those sequences code for, and they aren't from parvoviruses.

Either that, or I expect never to see another one of you claiming there is no evidence for macroevolution. Those IDers (I'm aware they exist) who do not argue against there being evidence of macro-evolution may feel free to ignore this challenge.


Um... wouldn't this be like the toolmarks left behind by a Creator? As you noted... then again, I guess I wouldn't be with the 'mainstream' ID people- I respect the Scientific Process for what it is, not what Philosophers might mistake it as being. (Science: telling man how God designed a system that works on itself without needing constant adjustment... The purpose of Science is neither to prove, nor disprove the existence of God, but only to tell MAN how god did it.)

urrrrg!.

How can god have a hand on evolution, it would then cease to be evolution as god would act as a varible other than the natural selection system of nature.

So in theory you would get species evolving that were not the best adapted for the enviroment, just that god effectively 'proped' them up, gentically speaking so they survived.

bullcrap!

.01 is not very inclusive when you consider that the odds of evolution occurring are 1 in 10 to the 35(50 zeros added) power.

That's 1:3,500,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000

odds.

Not including the probability of a friendly biosphere, i.e. earth.

Sounds like a lottery you'll never win.

I wonder why so many people actually believe it could be true?
Well, Godammit! That's an awful big number ya got there, buddy!
It's so big, well, ya must be tellin' the truth. Us simple folk can't even rite that many O's. I guess this big number is all the proof we need fer God's existance.

In other words:
No need to tell us what creationist site you got it from, then. Feel free to add another couple of zeros if you ever feel your creationist world collapsing round you and need the security of big numbers (ok, technically a small number) to keep you from focusing on rational arguments against your beliefs.

To put it bluntly,
I estimate the posibility that you weren't talking out of a hole in your arse when you made that post is:
1:35,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000


As to the original post:
The enormous unlikelihood of having retroviruses hitting the same DNA segment in several primates only goes to prove just how powerful the Invisible Pink Unicorn was when she designed and created everything.

Um... wouldn't this be like the toolmarks left behind by a Creator?

No.

How can an argument be made that a viral infection, which by necessity occurs after an organism already exists, is a remnant of the divine creation of the organism?

Who's to say God didn't make our genetic code that way?

Rational thought. See above.

Unless of course you claim that God "created" by kicking off the evolutionary process and then letting it do it's thing... in which case my argument has still been conceded that this is in fact evidence of macroevolution.

in statistics we learned that if the probability of an event occuring is less than .01 (like in this case) that event can be rejected. .01 is considered an extremely conservative estimate by the way. and yes i realize its not just your straight up divide your two numbers crap they teach you in elementary school for anyone who has taken statistics. its still less than .01. anyway no one knows what the hell im talking about... lets just put it this way statistics and biology both defy creationism.... just thought id use another highschool class in this disucussion....
Then your stats teacher should be evaluated and taught that is only when OUTLIERS fall out of the statistical norm can they be eliminated

Lets say the whole sample range is below the .01 mark ... do you eliminate the whole sample ... NO

ok, evolution is uncontestable. but that doesn't dismiss the posibillity of a thing like reincarnation. it would just mean that the souls incarnate in more and more developed organisms.

just how powerful the Invisible Pink Unicorn was when she designed and created everything

Tell us more about the Invisible Pink Unicorn, it sounds so propostorus that everyone will have to believe it, and believe me they'll HAVE to believe it. If we keep the thread going for a couple of thousand years, delete the early posts replacing them with our own ideas, erase a few of key posters from history perhaps we could use the Invisible Pink Unicorn to control the masses?

I wonder if anyone's ever had this idea before it sounds like a real wheeze?

Originally posted by Evil British Monkeys
Good stuff dude! There is absolutly NO way anyone can prove evolution wrong (nor can you prove ID wrong, untill your dead ) and this is just one reason why.
I concur and I am chuckling a bit, because I even used the word "macroevolution" in a post yesterday, so I am wondering if the original poster was thinking of my post when he did it. My post, however, was merely addressing one test of the evolutionary process.

I will also concede that, if there is no God, then evolution is the only possible answer.

Great research, and you even explained stuff so easy a 10-year old could read it, but I'm not sure ID's can...

I agree that this is great research. The site, though obviously proving a point it already supports, does so in a scholarly manner. That is probably all you can hope for anymore.

Though I wouldn't go so far as to say that a 10-year-old child could understand it, it was clear.

Now, I am no scientist. I have never seen any of the experimental examples that have been done. I still wonder . . .

Is it possible that it is more beneficial for a virus to infect a particular part of a strand of DNA? How do we know that the attachment is completely random?

Also, as viruses are generally not something progressive (as HIV), correct? If these multiple viral connections between species are evidence of relationship, then how is this progressive? It seems that if a host is infected with viruses, and the offspring is infected with the same viruses, and generations down the road are invected with the same viruses, then this is not progressive, but detrimental.

If it is not detrimental, then why must this have been a design that is less than intelligent?

Just a few questions.

Basically, however, the presuppositions provide either side with claims that cannot be disproved. I will respect that your belief is well anchored in your presuppositions. Very nicely done.

I say kudos to the person who originated that thread. However, I see one problem with it:
and moths from pre-industrial england were predominantly white, with a few blacks, while moths in post industrial england are black with a few whites! their ability to hide from predators must have resulted in the change!

There was always a "black" and a "white" gene in the moths. Every moth has it. It's the same concept as humans having genes for red hair, brown hair and blonde hair. There was always about an equal number of each type of color moth produced. What you are referring to is natural camoflage. See, at first, the tree's bark had a lighter color in pre-industrial England. The light-colored moths were much better protected from predators than the black ones. The predators therefore, ate a disproportionate number of black ones than light ones. There were still black colored moths in pre-industrial England, just not nearly as many that were black lived a full life. Conversely, there was a disproportionate number of "white" ones around, since the predators had a more difficult time catching the "white" ones. Then, England burned soft coals, wood, and "dirty" fuels. The bark of the trees were covered in dark soot, thusly the trees became temporarily darker. The white ones stood out like a sore thumb in the new darkened trees. The predators picked off the "white" ones very easily, and now they ate disproportionate amounts of the white. Now, there were more "black" colored moths left, because they were better off against the dark trees. When England enacted cleaner air laws, etc. the trees became lighter from the soot going away. Now we are back to where we started. NOTE: The moths did NOT mutate, evolve, change shape, form or anything. It was little more than natural selection.
The same applies to "tolerance" to poisons. Such as the pest/mosquito problems we experienced in 1930-1960 or so. There were terrible problems with pests lowering the crop yields of farms. We come up with DDT. It killed many lower-level pests right away. But, some were naturally resistant, and they lived on. The problem is, when we sprayed as much as we did, all we were doing was killing off the types that were weak against DDT, so all that happened was that the ones that were more resistant to DDT lived. The ones that were "immune" STILL produced offspring that were suseptible to the poison. They never evolved, just the more fit survived. ...and we seriously screwed up the higher tropic level animals. Just look at the hawk/falcon/eagle population horror stories.

No.

How can an argument be made that a viral infection, which by necessity occurs after an organism already exists, is a remnant of the divine creation of the organism?



Rational thought. See above.

Unless of course you claim that God "created" by kicking off the evolutionary process and then letting it do it's thing... in which case my argument has still been conceded that this is in fact evidence of macroevolution.

Um...no. It does not necessarily follow that Evolution disproves God. Species being 'propped up' is, for want of a better term, shoddy workmanship. Evolution itself is one of the best arguments in favour of divinity. (in a random system, you're more likely to have unworkable results than workable ones.)
Further, if a Creator designs a system that requires its active participation, then the work is obviously half-arsed. The best systems do not require direct inputs from the designer. Every 'miracle' explained scientifically, shows that the 'miracle' in question did not require a change in the mechanics of how the Universe functions-proof of perfection-in-design, ergo, proof of a god.

Um...no. It does not necessarily follow that Evolution disproves God.

Umm, ok. But where did I say, or even suggest, that it did?

Species being 'propped up' is, for want of a better term, shoddy workmanship. Evolution itself is one of the best arguments in favour of divinity. (in a random system, you're more likely to have unworkable results than workable ones.)

...

What? I'm sorry... you're really going to need to expand on that more. I have no idea what argument you're trying to present there.

As for the "lack of miracles is proof of God" reasoning... well, perhaps we can take this all to a different thread where it would be on topic?

There was always a "black" and a "white" gene in the moths...<Snip>

I must have missed something as the thread progressed... when did the subject of preferential selection among moth or mosquito populations come up and in what way was it relevent to the topic of the original post?

Either that, or I expect never to see another one of you claiming there is no evidence for macroevolution. Those IDers (I'm aware they exist) who do not argue against there being evidence of macro-evolution may feel free to ignore this challenge.

By suggesting that humans and apes have a common ancestry because of this retrovirus, you are therefore essentially aslo sugesting that a human was born of a non human (IE seperation of species). Is this so?

I must have missed something as the thread progressed... when did the subject of preferential selection among moth or mosquito populations come up and in what way was it relevent to the topic of the original post?

Page 2, post 30 :)

Either that, or I expect never to see another one of you claiming there is no evidence for macroevolution. Those IDers (I'm aware they exist) who do not argue against there being evidence of macro-evolution may feel free to ignore this challenge.

By suggesting that humans and apes have a common ancestry because of this retrovirus, you are therefore essentially aslo sugesting that a human was born of a non-human (IE seperation of species). Is this so?

He said He was the only one. Why waste brain cells pondering your fiction?

God doesn't have to be from the bible you know.

Um...no. It does not necessarily follow that Evolution disproves God. Species being 'propped up' is, for want of a better term, shoddy workmanship. Evolution itself is one of the best arguments in favour of divinity. (in a random system, you're more likely to have unworkable results than workable ones.)
Further, if a Creator designs a system that requires its active participation, then the work is obviously half-arsed. The best systems do not require direct inputs from the designer. Every 'miracle' explained scientifically, shows that the 'miracle' in question did not require a change in the mechanics of how the Universe functions-proof of perfection-in-design, ergo, proof of a god.

None of that is even evidence for god let alone proof. In a random system you are more likely to get unworkable results than workable ones but the unworkable ones die off and the animals with the beneficial genes prosper. Thats one of the most basic concepts of evolution.

How is the second point anything to do with god. The laws of this universe never change, yes but you would expect this if there was no god.

In conclusion, the debate about evolution has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with the debate about the existence/nonexistence of god. So stop bringing him up.

None of that is even evidence for god let alone proof. In a random system you are more likely to get unworkable results than workable ones but the unworkable ones die off and the animals with the beneficial genes prosper. Thats one of the most basic concepts of evolution.

How is the second point anything to do with god. The laws of this universe never change, yes but you would expect this if there was no god.

In conclusion, the debate about evolution has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with the debate about the existence/nonexistence of god. So stop bringing him up.

But it has everything do with it-consider this: Person "A" (no names here) claims that Evolution disproves both Creation, and Intelligent Design-i.e. that god does not exist.
The entire Evolution/Creation argument gets most of its steam from facing Atheist against Theistic or Deistic believers.


Selective Breeding obviously works-10,000 years of Agriculture shows that it works. Likewise, we see that survival of the Fittest works (the referenced events like the British moths, Mosquitoes and DDT, etc, etc.) I don't think anyone with a notion of basic cause-and-effect can argue against either of those.

But... What are the odds, running a random series of events, of generating an intelligent species with poor vision, hearing, sense of smell, thin skin, extreme temperature sensitivity, thin tooth enamel, and very little fur, that takes 12-18 years to become self-sufficient and 9 months to germinate in-utero?
Human beings are weak, slow, vulnerable, and take a long time to develop. Pound for pound, without a high intelligence, humans are not a viable animal. they're too undefended to be good at escaping/defeating predators, and too weak and slow to make for good predators themselves.

So... How did Humans manage to develop the intelligence to become the top predator in the environment? and what are the odds the genus would survive long enough to develop those big brains?

Pure-Evolution is longshot betting, everything has to 'randomly' occur exactly the right way-from the Big Bang onward, for Random evolution to be a good foundation. A designed universe, in which the probabilities have been limited, and the laws are sound, makes far more sense than a purely random-by-chance origin.

Page 2, post 30 :)

Ahhh, I see. However that appears to be a tangentially related discussion of what the scientific method entails with little direct bearing on the specific content of the original post.

Oh well...

y suggesting that humans and apes have a common ancestry because of this retrovirus, you are therefore essentially aslo sugesting that a human was born of a non-human (IE seperation of species). Is this so?

Yes... over the course of many many generations of course.

Exactly the same way this chihuahua:

http://texasteacups.smugmug.com/gallery/113760/6/4065011/Small

Was born of something very much not a chihuahua that resembled something more like this:

http://www.evergreen.edu/library/govdocs/photogallery/usa/montana/wolf.jpg

But nobody in their right mind is suggesting it went like this:

Wolfy begets Wolfy begets Wolfy begets Wolfy begets Wolfy begets Chihuahua!

There's just a few intermediary stages, and exactly at what point you should stop calling what you have a wolf and star calling it a dog... and then at what stages you should stop calling it one kind of dog and start calling it another kind of dog... are NOT something that are somehow set in stone. Tangible barriers that need to be hurdled in a single generational event. They're just lines drawn in the sand, so to speak. Fairly arbitrary divisions along a continuum.

Same goes for a human being "born of a non-human"

But it has everything do with it-consider this: Person "A" (no names here) claims that Evolution disproves both Creation, and Intelligent Design-i.e. that god does not exist.
The entire Evolution/Creation argument gets most of its steam from facing Atheist against Theistic or Deistic believers.

Creationism and ID are to put it nicely, very unscientific. You cannot argue with that as not a single professor considers them viable. However this does not mean god doesnt exist. Its not god vs evolution, you could have both.


Selective Breeding obviously works-10,000 years of Agriculture shows that it works. Likewise, we see that survival of the Fittest works (the referenced events like the British moths, Mosquitoes and DDT, etc, etc.) I don't think anyone with a notion of basic cause-and-effect can argue against either of those.

But... What are the odds, running a random series of events, of generating an intelligent species with poor vision, hearing, sense of smell, thin skin, extreme temperature sensitivity, thin tooth enamel, and very little fur, that takes 12-18 years to become self-sufficient and 9 months to germinate in-utero?
Human beings are weak, slow, vulnerable, and take a long time to develop. Pound for pound, without a high intelligence, humans are not a viable animal. they're too undefended to be good at escaping/defeating predators, and too weak and slow to make for good predators themselves.

So... How did Humans manage to develop the intelligence to become the top predator in the environment? and what are the odds the genus would survive long enough to develop those big brains?

Pure-Evolution is longshot betting, everything has to 'randomly' occur exactly the right way-from the Big Bang onward, for Random evolution to be a good foundation. A designed universe, in which the probabilities have been limited, and the laws are sound, makes far more sense than a purely random-by-chance origin.

You're right, looking at it from the beginning of the universe, our current situation is very unlikely. But any other situation is equally unlikely. Its just our luck ours happenens to come along.

As for the weak humans argument, brains are more useful than brawn. And hundreds of thousands of years of domestication have probably weakned us up a bit.

Human beings are weak, slow, vulnerable, and take a long time to develop. Pound for pound, without a high intelligence, humans are not a viable animal. they're too undefended to be good at escaping/defeating predators, and too weak and slow to make for good predators themselves.

That's just it. Look at animals before us, say, one million years ago. Note that they had very small brain capacity, didn't work together necessarily, had razor-sharp claws, could run up to 30 mph, and were full-time quadripeds. As life progressed, its central nervous developed significantly. We now are able to MAKE our weapons, apparatuses, and overall become more efficient at our tasks in general. Just look how we overpower nature. Also, we became bipedal because walking on all fours consumes far more energy walking than bipedal motion. Considering we don't run all over the world 24/7, that's a really good thing. Our energy consumption would be enormous. We are able to coordinate with other animals, develop tools, harness and adapt to our environment than other beings. We can live in anywhere from mountainous terrain to barren deserts fairly well, wouldn't you say? You cant do that with just about any other animal.

That's just it. Look at animals before us, say, one million years ago. Note that they had very small brain capacity, didn't work together necessarily, had razor-sharp claws, could run up to 30 mph, and were full-time quadripeds. As life progressed, its central nervous developed significantly. We now are able to MAKE our weapons, apparatuses, and overall become more efficient at our tasks in general. Just look how we overpower nature. Also, we became bipedal because walking on all fours consumes far more energy walking than bipedal motion. Considering we don't run all over the world 24/7, that's a really good thing. Our energy consumption would be enormous. We are able to coordinate with other animals, develop tools, harness and adapt to our environment than other beings. We can live in anywhere from mountainous terrain to barren deserts fairly well, wouldn't you say? You cant do that with just about any other animal.

You are of course assuming that there was a million years ago, which is highly debatable, and that animals have "progressed" from dumb quadrupeds to bipeds capable of fashioning weapons.

Show me the fossil records that support either of those assumptions. There aren't any, of course. There are a couple of intriguing finds which have been perverted into false proofs of evolution, by (surprise) evolution-biased rersearchers.

Nope, sounds like most of the quadrupeds I know are smarter then the bipeds in a public high school science class. Guess that doubly disproves your progression.

Creationism and ID are to put it nicely, very unscientific. You cannot argue with that as not a single professor considers them viable. However this does not mean god doesnt exist. Its not god vs evolution, you could have both.



You're right, looking at it from the beginning of the universe, our current situation is very unlikely. But any other situation is equally unlikely. Its just our luck ours happenens to come along.

As for the weak humans argument, brains are more useful than brawn. And hundreds of thousands of years of domestication have probably weakned us up a bit.

How can you NOT look at it from beginning of the universe on? that's like arguing climate change without looking past the last six hundered years!
(or viewing the whole history of mankind only over the last four thousand...)

Brains are more useful than brawn, of course-but if they're SO much more useful, why is only one species gifted with enough to develop things like winter-clothes, guns, knives, and the mastery of fire?
Certainly other species have had as long a history (or longer) at similar levels of development...

You are of course assuming that there was a million years ago, which is highly debatable, and that animals have "progressed" from dumb quadrupeds to bipeds capable of fashioning weapons.

Show me the fossil records that support either of those assumptions. There aren't any, of course. There are a couple of intriguing finds which have been perverted into false proofs of evolution, by (surprise) evolution-biased rersearchers.

Nope, sounds like most of the quadrupeds I know are smarter then the bipeds in a public high school science class. Guess that doubly disproves your progression.

Your the one degrading a scientific thread into name calling. Your the one completely avoiding any attempt at intelligent debate. Ignoring millions of years of rock layers, the findings of the Human Genome Project and the fact that the same scientists who support evolution also have managed to create technological marvels beyond all comparison.

Get the hell off my internet, because a group atheists invented it. A bible thumper like yourself would only have shook his head and wandered off to go murder some pegan or hang a witch or two.

We built this modern civilization, without it, you have no food, no water, no heat and no electricity. You've lost the survival skills of your ancestors and now completely rely on those you call names.

Perhaps thats why you are so angry, you feel small and insignificant? So you turn to perverting the message of your god into one fillled with hate and jealously.

Who is smarter then who?

You Sir, have lost the way.

Brains are more useful than brawn, of course-but if they're SO much more useful, why is only one species gifted with enough to develop things like winter-clothes, guns, knives, and the mastery of fire?
Certainly other species have had as long a history (or longer) at similar levels of development.

Ape-like animals have been found to utilize sticks as a tool to harvest large quantities of ants and termites. They are also able to make stone tools (ie chisel flint into sharper points) to their advantage, both not coincidental. Animals have progressed in communication. Look at the trend from simple animals to chimps to humans. Bonobo apes can be taught to communicate through the form of a picture keyboard. In the course of the "test subject's" life 85% of the time, they got the exact answer as the ape's actions. Not coincidental.

If you want a source, and more thorough information, I can give you the works cited info.

If you need even more information, I'd suggest a certified "Physical Anthropologist," or you would probably dismiss him as a "perverted" quack, so it wouldn't matter...

Brains are more useful than brawn, of course-but if they're SO much more useful, why is only one species gifted with enough to develop things like winter-clothes, guns, knives, and the mastery of fire?
Certainly other species have had as long a history (or longer) at similar levels of development...

Brains are more useful than brawn, but only within certain niches, and only if a species has already developed a strategy that leaves them with some free time. Note that many of the great apes use tools, for everything from getting food to masturbation. They also (in the case of bonobos chimps) have developed a rather intricate sign language relating to procreation.

But tell me this, if brains aren't so great, when why do you find it so important to extrapolate? Only humans are certifiably able to do so. We also can personify, symbolize, analyze outside of its context. Proof: The Holy Cross. To any other animal, they would never think of it in a religious manner; The Sun, we can make it the "bearer of light," "a beacon of hope," "The light at the end of the tunnel," "and that great big ball of gas that's 93 million miles away from us." NOTHING else can be proven to do the same

You are of course assuming that there was a million years ago, which is highly debatable,

This is just getting silly.

I would greatly appreciate it if you would create a seperate thread if you have some desire to discuss evidence of the age of the earth. I will even happily follow you over to it and dismantle whatever evidence it is you think you have that the earth isn't billions of years old... which isn't even marginally debatable let alone highly debatable.

In the meantime, could you please either present your explanation of why the data in the original post does not constitute evidence of the occurance of macroevolution or concede that you do not possess such an explanation?

They also (in the case of bonobos chimps) have developed a rather intricate sign language relating to procreation.

Come on, to be fair, humans do the same... :D

But tell me this, if brains aren't so great, when why do you find it so important to extrapolate? Only humans are certifiably able to do so. We also can personify, symbolize, analyze outside of its context. Proof: The Holy Cross. To any other animal, they would never think of it in a religious manner; The Sun, we can make it the "bearer of light," "a beacon of hope," "The light at the end of the tunnel," "and that great big ball of gas that's 93 million miles away from us." NOTHING else can be proven to do the same

Nothing else can be disproven from doing the same either.

Meanwhile, these types of things help us to relate to our surroundings and to each other - and social stability is a big part of the human niche.

You are of course assuming that there was a million years ago, which is highly debatable, and that animals have "progressed" from dumb quadrupeds to bipeds capable of fashioning weapons.

Show me the fossil records that support either of those assumptions. There aren't any, of course. There are a couple of intriguing finds which have been perverted into false proofs of evolution, by (surprise) evolution-biased rersearchers.

Nope, sounds like most of the quadrupeds I know are smarter then the bipeds in a public high school science class. Guess that doubly disproves your progression.


actually, the earth has existed for approximately 4.6 billion years. if your math is as bad as your science, that is 4,600 million years, or 4,600,000,000 years.
there is an immense amount of evidence to suppport this. numerous radio-isotopes, fossils(as said above) the prescence of crystals in certain rock formations that alone take millions of years to form.

bipedalism doesnt necessarily make an animal smarter, it just frees up one set of limbs for something else- for example, birds made wings out of that extra set. humans happen to use their non-walking limbs for object manipulation. object manipulation and tool use/creation gae almost instant rewards if an individual had more intellegence (they could better use and make tools, increasing the amount of food they gathered/shelter they built, or time spent doing so, and therefore had a higher survival rate)

im sure others will post plenty more on here

I like monkeys.... They just evolve so well

actually, the earth has existed for approximately 4.6 billion years. if your math is as bad as your science, that is 4,600 million years, or 4,600,000,000 years. <snipped due to propgandaism>

So, tell me, where did you get that figure from? :rolleyes: Oh, right. An EVOLUTIONIST. It is a lie. Even most evolutionists would not claim that the earth has been around for 5 billion years. Plus, the radiographic techniques they use to extrapolate those figures have an infinitesimally small accuracy rate. You could test the same sample with the same test and get a result of 30 million years one time and 3 billion years the next time. Radiographic testing ignores the possibility of other factors which would impart neutronic radiation to a sample. I would never trust a test that used a false assumption in it's very design and inception (constant rate of decay, primarily.)

And to "react" to your second statement. I bet I have a much better concept of "billion" then you do.

Hrm, okay. So decay rate is out the window. Obviously science is wrong.

How do we know the Earth is 6,000 years old then, winter?

Hey guys....

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8661302&postcount=90

Please.

So, tell me, where did you get that figure from? :rolleyes: Oh, right. An EVOLUTIONIST. It is a lie. Even most evolutionists would not claim that the earth has been around for 5 billion years. Plus, the radiographic techniques they use to extrapolate those figures have an infinitesimally small accuracy rate. You could test the same sample with the same test and get a result of 30 million years one time and 3 billion years the next time. Radiographic testing ignores the possibility of other factors which would impart neutronic radiation to a sample. I would never trust a test that used a false assumption in it's very design and inception (constant rate of decay, primarily.)

And to "react" to your second statement. I bet I have a much better concept of "billion" then you do.
And I would like to know how you got "infinatly small acuracy rate"

So, tell me, where did you get that figure from? :rolleyes: Oh, right. An EVOLUTIONIST.

Pray tell:

What is an evolutionist?

Since when do evolutionary biologists determine what geologists say?

Hey guys....

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8661302&postcount=90

Please.

QUIET YOU, TAKE YOUR REASONABLE POLITE REQUEST TO ANOTHER FORUM.

SO HELP ME GOD I'LL SHOVE A FORK SO FAR UP YOUR....


;)

can everybody quit using the stupid moths? Surely there is better evidence to support your side.

Creationist discredits(but doesnt disprove)
http://www.arn.org/docs/wells/jw_pepmoth.htm
Evolutionist reply
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB601.html
The point is that the experiment had some problems.



And anyway, I dont see how anybody can dispute that Max Barry did most of the creating of the world...

Ah, that is some intelligent design.

So, tell me, where did you get that figure from? :rolleyes: Oh, right. An EVOLUTIONIST. It is a lie. Even most evolutionists would not claim that the earth has been around for 5 billion years. Plus, the radiographic techniques they use to extrapolate those figures have an infinitesimally small accuracy rate. You could test the same sample with the same test and get a result of 30 million years one time and 3 billion years the next time. Radiographic testing ignores the possibility of other factors which would impart neutronic radiation to a sample. I would never trust a test that used a false assumption in it's very design and inception (constant rate of decay, primarily.)

And to "react" to your second statement. I bet I have a much better concept of "billion" then you do.


alright, ill take your bait. wanna post some sources quantifying the accuracy rates? perhaps recent ones(like, within the past decade even, cause last i checked, even 10 years ago, we have refined our techniques to be damned accurate) i dont think ive ever heard of a sample ranging from 30 million to 3 billion years, but if you have a source/article/example, please post, and if it is reliable, i will gladly acknowledge my mistake and ignorance.

most of the radioisotope tests i am familiar with involve measuring the ratio of parent to daughter isotopes, and when you have those figures, and the 1/2 lives, you can get a decent date of the formation of the sample.
and aside from radio isotopes, how about sea-floor spread rates? or tectonic evidence? before you just trash an entire scientific field you should try to get some understanding of what your talking about. and if you do have accurate, reliable information on these, then please post them, but i highly doubt it even exists, let alone is something you will be able to refer/link to

and, for the record, i believe in evolution, but i learned those figures from my study of geology, and although its been a while, ive still got a pretty good grasp of the methods. its not some hocus-pocus story time, it is a science, which means that before anything makes it very far into the knowledge base, it has been thouroughly studied, measured, tested(if possible), published, reviewed, examined, attacked(unsuccessfully), and eventually accepted.

Even most evolutionists would not claim that the earth has been around for 5 billion years.

yeah, the ones that were being precise would say 4.55 billion years ago +/- 1%.

Plus, the radiographic techniques they use to extrapolate those figures have an infinitesimally small accuracy rate.

a what, now? you're just stringing words together at random.

You could test the same sample with the same test and get a result of 30 million years one time and 3 billion years the next time.

source? peer-reviewed journals only please.

Radiographic testing ignores the possibility of other factors which would impart neutronic radiation to a sample.

and those words don't even make sense in this context

I would never trust a test that used a false assumption in it's very design and inception (constant rate of decay, primarily.)

a variable rate of decay would have observable effects in the universe. effects we do no see. for example, decay rates high enough to trick us into thinking that the earth is 4.55 billion years old when it is really only several thousand years old would produce enough heat to melt the planet. since the planet is not melted, the rates were not that high.

secondly, we have consistently gotten the same decay rates for things the entire time we have been able to observe them. so this change must have magically stopped just prior to us gaining the ability to check, yes?

third, we consistently get the same radiometric dates for objects using different methods and different isotopes with different decay rates. in order for this work out like it does requires a large number of independently varying decay rates (changing at different rates for each isotope) in some sort of stagered pattern across the universe (in order to account for the observed decay rates of materials from distant supernova that all just happen to coincide with each other to give us multiple consistent ancient ages. or the dates must actually be accurate. i guess we should choose the one with the most multiplication of entities...

But... What are the odds, running a random series of events, of generating an intelligent species with poor vision, hearing, sense of smell, thin skin, extreme temperature sensitivity, thin tooth enamel, and very little fur, that takes 12-18 years to become self-sufficient and 9 months to germinate in-utero?
Human beings are weak, slow, vulnerable, and take a long time to develop. Pound for pound, without a high intelligence, humans are not a viable animal. they're too undefended to be good at escaping/defeating predators, and too weak and slow to make for good predators themselves.

So... How did Humans manage to develop the intelligence to become the top predator in the environment? and what are the odds the genus would survive long enough to develop those big brains?

Pure-Evolution is longshot betting, everything has to 'randomly' occur exactly the right way-from the Big Bang onward, for Random evolution to be a good foundation. A designed universe, in which the probabilities have been limited, and the laws are sound, makes far more sense than a purely random-by-chance origin.

Which only goes to show that you don't really know all that much about biology. Human beings are supremely well-adapted for the area most "evolutionists" to use the term several other people were using, think that we came from: central Africa. We are tall enough to see over the grass (the better to see predators). Our eyesight is actually superb among the animal kingdom (only birds of prey could be said to have markedly superior eyesight than ours, which is counterbalanced by the fact that their eyesight isn't stereoscopic), again the better to see predators. Our arms and shoulders are well-suited for heavy lifting, tool-use, and climbing trees, which allows us to move prey, cut prey, and store prey where most big cats can't reach. Our legs are capable of sustained, long-term movement for many hours at a time, a level of endurance matched only by the wild dogs in Africa (many natives and wild dogs hunt by running a wildebeast 20 miles or more to utter exhaustion, something that a big cat would die trying to do). Moreover, our bodies are capable of incredible endurance and punishment before collapsing: a horse will die in 24 hours if it gets no water, while a human can go for a week on his feet and walk 100+ miles before giving out. Now, you want to look at all that, add in a superior planning ability, and tell me again that we are an easily clobbered species in need of a God for protection?

Moreover, there are other fairly easy examples of macroevolution that occurred within a few lifetimes (not necessarily our lifetime). To give one example, take the sexually-transmitted disease syphillis. When it was first seen in Europe (likely as a result of sexual contact between New World natives and Spanish sailors), syphillis was virulent and it was extremely lethal. People would break out into boils and die within a few weeks in almost 100% of cases. Nowadays, however, and even going back to the 1800's, an untreated case of syphillis rarely causes any symptoms, and it takes as much as 30 years to manifest itself in a lethal form. Why the difference? Well, it probably isn't because of God's good will (God hating sexual relations, after all), and if it is an act on Satan's part, then one seriously has to question the idea that God is the one that is all-Good. The easy way to answer the question is simply to say that syphillis adapted itself to human hosts: in its older form, it killed its victims far too quickly to be readily transmitted, so it gradually evolved into a form that could lie dormant and transmit itself multiple times before manifesting itself and killing its host. This is in fact a fairly common occurence within epidemiology: many diseases, such as cholera, typhus, and typhoid fever have all eased their severity over the years, not because of any act of God, but simply because they spread more readily to the degree they don't kill their hosts as quickly.

Those are microbes, not complex organisms.

Also, about the diagram, could you make clear what the similarities are?

snip Our legs are capable of sustained, long-term movement for many hours at a time, a level of endurance matched only by the wild dogs in Africa (many natives and wild dogs hunt by running a wildebeast 20 miles or more to utter exhaustion, something that a big cat would die trying to do). snip

glad you mentioned this(also liked the other parts, but i think this is my favorite) Ive heard it stated (sorry, cant remember any sources) that if a human is in shape (probablly excellent shape by todays standards, but may not be much unusual for a hunter-gatherer) and can maintain constant sight of an animal, we have the potential to out-run almost any animal out there. a guy i knew in college ran down a rabbit once, said it just sat there breathing and wouldnt move. not sure what he did with it next, i imagine it was damn near dead after that energy expenditure though.

but yeah, we aren't the greatest sprinters, but we do have _amazing_ capability for endurance, and not too many other animals have built-in evaporative cooling:)

just wanted to add my $0.02 to that :)

Greetings from the "Pro-Life Perspectives" thread. Just wanted to come over here and bathe in the sheer radiance of actual facts. I'm so relieved to see smart people shooting multiple holes at these random ad hominem attacks on evolution. Most notably the defense of carbon dating and the complete refutation of humanity being an ungainly and poor evolution. Well done there.

RIGHT ON!

Keep fighting the smart AND good fight.

Okay, gotta go back over there and explain about zygotes yet again....

His Benevolence,
Magister Jubal Harshaw of Intangelon

Alright so...Lets start with saying I'm convinced with Micro Evolution, but not convinced with Macro, not because of Religious reasons, but the fact that...

The definition of species is a group of animals that can breed and create offspring that can breed. So, if two animals can't breed, they aren't of the same species. If two animals of different species, they cannot have viable offspring that aren't mule-like in their inability to breed.

So, the claim that evolution takes time to change one species to another seems to be ignoring the critical piece. The change of a species.
Let's say 'A' has a kid, which has a kid, etc etc

A -> B -> C -> D-> E-> F-> G-> H-> .... ->Z
A's child, B, is the same species as A, otherwise A would not been able to have produced B. But this leads C to being the same species as A, and all the way down at the end, Z must be the same species as Y which is the same as X...which is the same as B which is the same as A.
If the species were to change...when would it change, and how would it change? How can one species give birth to another? Technically, they should be the same species then.
Now, if this isn't annoying and boggling enough, throw in the factor that it takes two to make the baby. Two animals of the same species must breed to have a baby. Now, if you have a 'random' mutation that some how makes the animal a different species, it is now UNABLE to pass the gene because it is of a different species, unable to breed and create viable offspring with any other species, and thus will die out when that animal dies. Also, what is the probability that Sex became a characteristic in animals: What are the chances that two mutations that were mutually cooperative yet quite different occured in the same time period at the same location, in the same "species?"

Now, if you argue that these things take time and thus the chance will finally come around, you still have to answer when do you draw the line? As you look closer and closer into it, there has to be a point which you can say this change exists, but by definition of basic biological principles, you can't say that because it would violate those principles.

It is impractical to look at the assumed big picture when the smaller pieces don't fit into it.

If you want a sort of analogy, I'm thinking of this with a calculus type mindset: Is this function smooth? Does the limit exist? As you take the difference in generations and approach zero, do you get anything meaningful that will point towards macro-evolution? Most certainly not, thus far.

I enjoyed the thread argument, but I'm sure the creationists could easily say something like 'God works in mysterious ways and so left evidence to make you think he doesn't exist'. With an all powerful god, no matter how compelling the evidence you just can't win the argument.

I've just looked up the term 'macroevolution' and I don't like it. To my mind there is no such thing. There's just evolution which is tiny steps/mutations, necessitated because large steps would make the organism inviable.

And anyone who doesn't believe 'microevolution' can't bring about different species isn't thinking in the correct timescapes.
Imagine a cat population, splits into two groups separated by a geological feature (mountain range, rivers etc.) One group ends up in lush grasslands, the other in prairie scrub. Is it not obvious that these two groups will evolve to become different species (tigers and lions say). Now lets say these two groups further split, one that stays near trees the other that keeps out in the flat, is it not obvious that the tree loving panther and the cheetah may evolve.

These are all different species, but some cross reproduction can still take place such as the Liger and Tigon, (I believe the Liger is not infertile). But these new species will stick to their own, and over time reproduction will become impossible because the genetic makeups are just too radically different.

Also, which came first the Chicken or the Egg?
The egg obviously because dinosaurs laid eggs.

Actually, species isn't that easy.

Ever heard of a Liger or a Tigon?

Get a tiger and a lion together... when they're horny...

You get a new, freaky-deaky creature, different from either. (And it depends on which type of creature is the mother, VAST difference). Fully viable.

Would you call a lion and a tiger the same?

It's closer to our notion of 'race' than anything else.

But they're so DIFFERENT...

Nexire Republic - genetic information is digital, not analog, there are no smoothe transitions, it's little discrete transitions. A gene is either present or not.

Stuff I sorta said


Sane minds think alike?

[Erm, more or less what soeone else has said... Took too long writing this it looks like... ;)]


Alright so...Lets start with saying I'm convinced with Micro Evolution, but not convinced with Macro, not because of Religious reasons, but the fact that...First I thought this was off-topic... but not sure, so I'll bite...

Your argument boils down to a chain of ancestry leading from individual A to individual Z. With Macro evolution, A's offspring, B, has differences to the parents, B's offspring, 'C', have differences to the parents and more differences with grandparents. Eventually Z looks different and is considered different species from A. (In this example, hough I'd normally expect a few more generations to be sure...)

What you have to realise is both that the differences /are/ cumulative and that there is no 'line' across which no breeding can occur, but instead progressively less commonality, as the finely-tuned biochemical properties involved in reproduction lose efficacy if attempted between an ever increasing generation gap. (Though, in actual fact, you'd be more likely to be comparing the possibility of breeding B with b, C with c, D with d, where A has offspring B and b who go separate ways and end up producing separate species in individuals Z and z who look different because different influences and genetic randomnesses have effected their line of succession.)

And as to your point regarding sexual (two-parent) reproduction, that's not a show stopper. Instead of considering 'A', 'B', 'b', etc to be individuals, consider them to be generations of a a herd/tribe/flock/troop/school/whatever of creatures. Within a current generation, there'll be a predominant set of genes and a few outliers, the next generation is produced by the mating of the members of the previous generation that reached maturity, that will initially consist largely of those with the standard genes, but may include a larger proportion of those with beneficial variations, which may (especially in a species with patriarchal breeding benefits) start to significantly out-compete the 'standard', and become the standard for the next generation.

Tribe A, of course, produces a generation that (for whatever reason) splits into tribe B and b, and they are going to be similar. C will be similar to B but slightly different, c will be similar to b but slightly (and differently) different. The random walk of mutation, and different selective pressures, mean that Z is only slightly different from Y and z only slightly different from y, but Z and z have had, as each generation unfurls, more and more incompatible ancestry.

Of course, this is assuming the same separation, either social or geographical, otherwise liasons between (say) D and d members could (while there was still a fairly good chance of viable inter-branch reproduction) have produced e/E offspring with regained compatibility with each other. If the branches are kept separate, however, you do get to the stage where M and m effectively can't (possibly even won't) breed together, succesfully. It's not absolutely certain, but it's getting (in our hypothetical generational-scale) pretty difficult to guarantee the same chemical markers and mechanisms exist in both creatures. Markers that aren't significantly different between parents and children [and also vary, but not enough to prevent most unions bearing fruit, within the members of that generation itself], but are wildly different, now, between distant cousins, should they ever meet up once more.

Still haven't seen Napoleon Dynamite yet!

Actually, species isn't that easy.

Ever heard of a Liger or a Tigon?

Get a tiger and a lion together... when they're horny...

You get a new, freaky-deaky creature, different from either. (And it depends on which type of creature is the mother, VAST difference). Fully viable.

Would you call a lion and a tiger the same?

It's closer to our notion of 'race' than anything else.

But they're so DIFFERENT...

Just to be pedantic, a liger is not "perfectly viable" as it is always sterile and thus unable to reproduce.

A -> B -> C -> D-> E-> F-> G-> H-> .... ->Z
A's child, B, is the same species as A, otherwise A would not been able to have produced B. But this leads C to being the same species as A, and all the way down at the end, Z must be the same species as Y which is the same as X...which is the same as B which is the same as A.

Wrong.

A can mate with B. B can mate with C and so on. However, Z may be able to mate with existing members of Y and X, it cannot mate with members of A and produce viable offspring able to reproduce. THus, Z is a different species than A.

I was recently engaged in another one of the evolution vs. creationism/intelligent design threads on the boards (Tired of them? Feel free to go away now) and for something like the 700th time I encountered the absurd claim that there is absolutely NO evidence for “macroevolution”. Rather than run through the (very) extensive list of evidence for macroevolution I figured we’d just narrow it down to one item and let the creationists and selected IDers try to explain why it isn’t actually evidence of “macroevolution”. In order to do that however a bit of explaining will be necessary first.

Retroviruses

Retroviruses contain viral RNA, as opposed to the DNA in humans and other animals and plants… and they also contain a reverse transcriptase. What this means is that they have the ability to insert the complimentary DNA sequence of their own RNA genetic code into the genetic code of the host organism they infect. It’s how they reproduce. Example of a retrovirus: HIV.

Here’s how it works in a little more detail.

The virus infects a cell. It then releases the reverse transcriptase. The reverse transcriptase makes a copy of viral DNA from the viral RNA. The viral DNA then gets spliced into the DNA of the infected host cell, at a random location… so from now on every time that cell’s DNA is replicated the viral DNA gets replicated right along with it. In the meantime the viral DNA in the cell serves as the template for producing new copies of viral RNA. Now, while the initial insertion point of the viral DNA is random, in any subsequent copies made when the cell reproduces the exact same location of the viral DNA will be copied as well.

(Side note: The random nature of the retroviral insertion is one well known hurdle faced by researchers of genetic therapies, since if they attempt to engineer a retrovirus to deliver their developed therapy to their patient a random insertion could place it in the middle of DNA that was already coding for something else that was fairly important)

When a retrovirus infects a host’s reproductive system - and thus the copies of the host’s DNA which will be passed on to it’s offspring - it becomes heritable by the host organism’s offspring, passed onto them just like any gene would be. And again, the location of the viral DNA within the genetic code will be the same as in the parent organism the DNA was inherited from.

The Evidence

The human genetic code is huge. It’s over 3 billion base pairs long. The genetic codes of the other primates (chimps, gorillas, orangutans, gibbons, etc…) are similarly massive. The odds of a single retrovirus infecting two of these individual species independently and just happening through pure coincidence to randomly splice themselves into the exact same location in their DNA are, obviously, not good.

So if we were to find, for example, that an analysis of human and chimp DNA revealed a single identical retroviral genetic sequence at an identical location that would be extremely solid evidence that they had both inherited that genetic sequence from a common ancestor who was originally infected by the retrovirus… thus also inheriting it’s common location in their genome. Not only is this a similar type of evidence that is possible from analysis of other genetic information… but this information in particular is completely immune to being hand-waved away as being somehow due to “common design” of similar appearing animals or functions as IDers and creationists attempt (and I stress “attempt”) to do with other findings. There is no rational way to argue that a viral infection was an element of the design of an organism.

So, in all of our studying of the genetic codes of humans, chimps, and other primates have we found a case of a retroviral insertion in an identical location in both humans and another primate? No…

We’ve found multiple cases.

The odds of finding a single example occurring by coincidence are mind bogglingly bad. The odds of finding multiple examples occurring by coincidence are exponentially worse. They defy description. And for the final nail in the coffin (as if we needed it), there’s the pattern we find these common insertions in:

So far (with the sequencing of the human and primate genomes still far from complete) the primate species we share the most common insertions with are chimps, which all other genetic evidence says are the most closely related primates to humans. We share the second most common insertions with gorillas… the second most closely related primates. Third and fourth most common insertions = orangutans and gibbons respectively… also the third and fourth most closely related according to the other genetic evidence. Fifth most = old world monkeys… sixth most = new world monkeys… fifth and sixth most closely related groups, respectively, according to the other genetic evidence.

A diagram of the pattern of insertions in question, courtesy of talk.origins:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/images/retrovirus.gif

The arrows show where the evidence indicates the original retroviral infection occurred.

So please, creationists and IDers… explain how this piece of evidence isn’t actually evidence at all.

One note, don't bother bringing up the existence of other viruses that are capable of non-random targetted insertion. Yes, they exist (parvoviruses). No, these aren't them. They know this because the reason they were able to identify them in the first place is they know which viral proteins those sequences code for, and they aren't from parvoviruses.

Either that, or I expect never to see another one of you claiming there is no evidence for macroevolution. Those IDers (I'm aware they exist) who do not argue against there being evidence of macro-evolution may feel free to ignore this challenge.

The only thing this really suggests is that there are similarities in the genetic codes between humans and primates, not new news btw. The possible reasons that genetic codes might be similar do include common anscestry, but that is not the only possible conclusion, it is one of many possible conclusions, none of which can be proven with this data.

So, to make sure I'm following...

when a mutation occurs, is judged via natural selection for viability, and results in an individual specimen with a differing trait...

Does this single differing trait define the specimen as a "New Species ==cannot breed with anythingelse since it is unique"? Does one single gene a new species (as above define) make? I'll call it a microchange until somebody gives me the correct term (and please do).

So, the specimen (Stewart) can continue to breed with his parent species, and if the new trait is an advantage, it spreads in a downward pyramid, either subsuming or separating from the parent species.

But the new trait doesn't spread unanimously, some of the parent species are still thriving in another geographic area or habitat niche. The parent species continues undergoing micro-changes in one direction, the descendents of Stewart undergo micro changes in another.

With all the factors involved, does there have to be a specific line in which Stewies kids and the core species kids can't make babies? Could that incompatability develop gradually?

Say I start slowly believing different things from my wife, and vice versa. Today, I say "You know, I don't think I'll vote this way again next year", must she divorce me immediately? Or, from that instance, can she say "Well, if our personalities diverge at this rate, we will reach incompatability threshold and divorce on June 23, 2011"? Maybe there are a lot of factors involved with personal compatability, and maybe there are a lot of factors involved with biochemical or genetic compatability. Maybe the point of divergence (and achieving the "Species==cannot interbreed" difference) is a moving target based on lots of factors, and eventually, a microchange down the line becomes the straw that makes the camel incompatable.

If we accept microevolution, and that long, cumulative microevolution can cause huge changes, and we accept the idea that a microevolution begins with a single specimen that can separate geographically or in habitat from its cousins, I believe its reasonable that Macroevolution follows as a possibility.

As far as "Species cannot interbreed, so a specimen of a new species would have nobody to party with", I still think a specimen can acquire via mutation a viable trait that can be passed on to descendants, and still make babies with his species mates. The accumulation of traits could stack up until their aggregate makes the result incompatable with the old core species.

Like, how I used to be able to run Windows 3.11 games on Windows 95, and 98, and NT...and then XP won't run them all anymore...gradual incompatability. Not a meaningful analogy, just crying...

The only thing this really suggests is that there are similarities in the genetic codes between humans and primates, not new news btw.

um...no, it suggests that because it has the same retoviral dna at the same point, somewhere a long the line the same individual was an ancestor to both humans and apes

The possible reasons that genetic codes might be similar do include common anscestry, but that is not the only possible conclusion, it is one of many possible conclusions

what else could cause that?

Like, how I used to be able to run Windows 3.11 games on Windows 95, and 98, and NT...and then XP won't run them all anymore...gradual incompatability. Not a meaningful analogy, just crying...

Not meaningful at all, sorry. :) XP, unlike the other OS you mentioned is a full 32 bit OS. The former were 32 bit OS on a 16 bit shell. The idea is protected memory allocations, hence protected mode. There are more technicalities, but it's easier to digest in simple terms. In a 16-bit shell, all the RAM could be accessed by any program at any time. In other words, say Doom 1 and an accounting program would essentially have all the RAM up for grabs. However, other programs need RAM too. So when Doom 1 took up the RAM of say, your accounting program, you got a GPF (General Protection Fault) commonly identified as the "Blue Screen of Death." But in a 32-bit shell, each program gets a specific amount of the space and the other programs were kept away from Doom 1's area. Thusly, BSOD's are pretty much a thing of the past. Unfortunately, those old 16-but programs need exclusive access to all the resources, but XP won't allow it. Then the program doesn't work.

So, to make sure I'm following...

when a mutation occurs, is judged via natural selection for viability, and results in an individual specimen with a differing trait...

Does this single differing trait define the specimen as a "New Species ==cannot breed with anythingelse since it is unique"? Does one single gene a new species (as above define) make?

Almost certainly not. That would have to be one heck of an individual mutation event.

Of course, it has been known to happen. The rather large frame shift mutation in flavobacterium Sp. K172 that turned it into a nylon digester for example. That mutation was the result of an insertion of a Thymine nucleotide that created a new Methionine codon which served as a start codon and also shifted the reading frame for over 300 other codons following it in the bacterium's genome... it ended up producing a completely new protein sequence that happened to react with nylon in a way the bacterium could take advantage of.

That kind of thing is fairly rare though. Generally frame shift mutations are bad news. Also, such an abrupt emergence of a distinct new species is really only a viable option in asexually reproducing populations... for reasons which should be obvious.

I'll call it a microchange until somebody gives me the correct term (and please do).

I'd just call it a mutation.

So, the specimen (Stewart) can continue to breed with his parent species, and if the new trait is an advantage, it spreads in a downward pyramid, either subsuming or separating from the parent species.

But the new trait doesn't spread unanimously, some of the parent species are still thriving in another geographic area or habitat niche. The parent species continues undergoing micro-changes in one direction, the descendents of Stewart undergo micro changes in another.

Yup...

With all the factors involved, does there have to be a specific line in which Stewies kids and the core species kids can't make babies? Could that incompatability develop gradually?

I'm not sure what you mean by "a specific line in which Stewies kids and the core species kids can't make babies" but reproductive incompatibility does indeed tend to develop gradually. The earlier example of lions and tigers was raised. They're fairly widely seperated from each other genetically, but they're still genetically similar enough to produce offspring. However, as they are not similar enough to produce non-sterile offspring no gene transfer between their two popuations can ever occur and over time the differences in their respective genomes will continue to accumulate. Eventually, any kind of cross fertilization at all will become impossible and even non-sterile hybrids will be out of the question. So, looking at lions and tigers today is kind of like seeing a snapshot of speciation "caught in the act" so to speak.

If we accept microevolution, and that long, cumulative microevolution can cause huge changes, and we accept the idea that a microevolution begins with a single specimen that can separate geographically or in habitat from its cousins, I believe its reasonable that Macroevolution follows as a possibility.

Actually, it's more of an inevitability. It's the next best thing to impossible to avoid the gradual modification of the genetic code of a population over successive generations in the face of the combined effects of mutations, selection, and random genetic drift. And since two of those three factors are random and the other is dependent on the local environment if you have two different populations that are reproductively isolated from each other through geographic seperation or some other factor those changes will be different. And without gene transfer between those two populations those differences will only accumulate over time.

As far as "Species cannot interbreed, so a specimen of a new species would have nobody to party with", I still think a specimen can acquire via mutation a viable trait that can be passed on to descendants, and still make babies with his species mates. The accumulation of traits could stack up until their aggregate makes the result incompatable with the old core species.

Exactly.

The only thing this really suggests is that there are similarities in the genetic codes between humans and primates, not new news btw.

You clearly didn't read the post very closely. This is a very specific type of similarity which has never had any explanation of it presented apart from inheritance of that similarity from common ancestry.

The possible reasons that genetic codes might be similar do include common anscestry, but that is not the only possible conclusion, it is one of many possible conclusions,

Well, if there are many possible conclusions indicated by this data then you shouldn't have any problems presenting us with one of these other possible conclusions and explaining how it follows from the observational data I presented.

Please do enlighten us.

Just to be pedantic, a liger is not "perfectly viable" as it is always sterile and thus unable to reproduce.

I was under the impression that they could breed.

Now, mules, USUALLY, can't breed. But sometimes they can.

http://www.tigers-animal-actors.com/about/liger/liger.html

Yep, they can breed.

And good lord, look at the size of that guy. Big kitty indeed.

I was under the impression that they could breed.

Actually... after looking into it a little more it appears that they are almost always sterile, however there have been some extremely rare instances in which they were not.

Also, just as an interesting side note... because they tend not to inherit a growth inhibitting gene from either parent ligers can get to be absolutely huge.

Ligers have no inhibition, while tigons are the other way around, and are puny buggers.

Evolution do'th rock.

And good lord, look at the size of that guy. Big kitty indeed.

and you don't even want to see its litter box.

Either that, or I expect never to see another one of you claiming there is no evidence for macroevolution. Those IDers (I'm aware they exist) who do not argue against there being evidence of macro-evolution may feel free to ignore this challenge.

By suggesting that humans and apes have a common ancestry because of this retrovirus, you are therefore essentially aslo sugesting that a human was born of a non-human (IE seperation of species). Is this so?

By suggesting that humans and apes have a common ancestry because of this retrovirus, you are therefore essentially aslo sugesting that a human was born of a non-human (IE seperation of species). Is this so?

Do you have a condition that affects your short term memory that I should be aware of?

You posted this identical statement and question in post 75 here:

http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8660817&postcount=75

And then 5 minutes later you did it again in post 77 here:

http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8660855&postcount=77

And I have already replied to it in post 81 here:

http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8661006&postcount=81

Do you have a condition that affects your short term memory that I should be aware of?

You posted this identical statement and question in post 75 here:

http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8660817&postcount=75

And then 5 minutes later you did it again in post 77 here:

http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8660855&postcount=77

And I have already replied to it in post 81 here:

http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8661006&postcount=81

Apologies, I traulled through a great deal but could not find it. I guess I didnt look hard enough.

Yes... over the course of many many generations of course.

Exactly the same way this chihuahua:

http://texasteacups.smugmug.com/gallery/113760/6/4065011/Small

Was born of something very much not a chihuahua that resembled something more like this:

http://www.evergreen.edu/library/govdocs/photogallery/usa/montana/wolf.jpg

But nobody in their right mind is suggesting it went like this:

Wolfy begets Wolfy begets Wolfy begets Wolfy begets Wolfy begets Chihuahua!

There's just a few intermediary stages, and exactly at what point you should stop calling what you have a wolf and star calling it a dog... and then at what stages you should stop calling it one kind of dog and start calling it another kind of dog... are NOT something that are somehow set in stone. Tangible barriers that need to be hurdled in a single generational event. They're just lines drawn in the sand, so to speak. Fairly arbitrary divisions along a continuum.

Same goes for a human being "born of a non-human"

Ok there are two problems with this

1) We do not have anywhere near enough fossils of the human-ape linking animal to prove it exists. You describe several generations of change, and while those are observable with the wolf/dog, its not with ape humans. Also there is the question of our transision to sentience. Surely there must have been some semi-sentients along the way or something. Why are there no examples of them. Sentience is to complex a cahatistic by evolutionary standards to make in one leap.

2) If that were the case then once 1 human was born, unless another was born at a roughly simmilar time, and in a nearby location it would mean that it would have to bread with another non human, producing another non human. Surely it would have to breed with other humans to produce more humans, which would seem rather improbable. EDIT The improbable bit being that lots of humans were born around a simmilar time and a simmilar location, that they all got to the right evolutionary place at the same time

Ok there are two problems with this

1) We do not have anywhere near enough fossils of the human-ape linking animal to prove it exists

2) If that were the case then once 1 human was born, unless another was born at a roughly simmilar time, and in a nearby location it would mean that it would have to bread with another non human, producing another non human. Surely it would have to breed with other humans to produce more humans, which would seem rather improbable. EDIT The improbable bit being that lots of humans were born around a simmilar time and a simmilar location, that they all got to the right evolutionary place at the same time

And hence the fatal flaw in evolutionary biology. Given the already improbable (impossible) odds of ONE successful mutation, then there is an additional requirement for two of the exact same mutations to occur at the same general time, and then for them to successfully breed and produce viable offspring, and to overcome predators. And then ALL this would only produce one strain of basic genes, meaning that every human would have roughly similar genetic traits (which is obviously not the case.)

Sorry if I just repeated what you said, Neo Cannen, but I thought it was a pretty good point.

And hence the fatal flaw in evolutionary biology. Given the already improbable (impossible) odds of ONE successful mutation, then there is an additional requirement for two of the exact same mutations to occur at the same general time, and then for them to successfully breed and produce viable offspring, and to overcome predators. And then ALL this would only produce one strain of basic genes, meaning that every human would have roughly similar genetic traits (which is obviously not the case.)

Sorry if I just repeated what you said, Neo Cannen, but I thought it was a pretty good point.

Um, it is the case.

Neo Cannen's point doesn't turn on this at all. But your statement is wrong.

And hence the fatal flaw in evolutionary biology. Given the already improbable (impossible) odds of ONE successful mutation, then there is an additional requirement for two of the exact same mutations to occur at the same general time, and then for them to successfully breed and produce viable offspring, and to overcome predators. And then ALL this would only produce one strain of basic genes, meaning that every human would have roughly similar genetic traits (which is obviously not the case.)

Sorry if I just repeated what you said, Neo Cannen, but I thought it was a pretty good point.
The rate of mutation in humanity is roughly one in ten billion base pairs (with one of the finest DNA copychecking around, the rate of mutation without the copycheckers would be around one in 10,000). There are around 3 billion base pairs. Ergo, the rate of mutation in one copy of the human genome is around 33%. There are literally billions of copies of the genome in the human body. Literally millions of mutations.

You lose.

As for your poor strawman about the 'first humans' mate, you seem to be forgetting that the 'first human' would be so similar to the 'last human ancestor' that they would be able to mate. Learn some biology and come back.

The rate of mutation in humanity is roughly one in ten billion base pairs (with one of the finest DNA copychecking around, the rate of mutation without the copycheckers would be around one in 10,000). There are around 3 billion base pairs. Ergo, the rate of mutation in one copy of the human genome is around 33%. There are literally billions of copies of the genome in the human body. Literally millions of mutations.

You lose.


Nice arrogence there. And did you know that over 90% of all DNA is junk. Thats right, only about 10% of it is used by the body at all, the rest of it is useless and not used to code anything. It may be unique to us but it doesnt determine anything about us.


As for your poor strawman about the 'first humans' mate, you seem to be forgetting that the 'first human' would be so similar to the 'last human ancestor' that they would be able to mate. Learn some biology and come back.

They would be able to mate, but they would not produce another human.

Nice arrogence there. And did you know that over 90% of all DNA is junk. Thats right, only about 10% of it is used by the body at all, the rest of it is useless and not used to code anything. It may be unique to us but it doesnt determine anything about us.

Wrong :)

We don't exactly know what the other 90% is, but we are fairly sure it isn't junk. Besides, this has absolutely nothing to do with my post pertaining to the frequency of mutations, which you claimed was rare. They aren't.

They would be able to mate, but they would not produce another human.
Actually, they would. Or rather, they would show traits of that first human, and a cross of two of those offspring would show the traits of the human. Or, if we wish to assume allopatric speciation, the population in which humanity arose would be so similar to each other and held the same traits so that the 'second human' would be highly similar to the first. See the Galapagos islands, or even Ammospermiophilis Harrisi and Ammospermiophilis Leucurus.

The rate of mutation in humanity is roughly one in ten billion base pairs (with one of the finest DNA copychecking around, the rate of mutation without the copycheckers would be around one in 10,000). There are around 3 billion base pairs. Ergo, the rate of mutation in one copy of the human genome is around 33%. There are literally billions of copies of the genome in the human body. Literally millions of mutations.

You lose.

As for your poor strawman about the 'first humans' mate, you seem to be forgetting that the 'first human' would be so similar to the 'last human ancestor' that they would be able to mate. Learn some biology and come back.

So where are all the mutants with psionics powers a la X-Men, hmm? Oh wait. They're not there.

In 10000 years, the form and capacity of humans has not changed significantly if at all. The only thing that has changed is life expectancy and overall intelligence. (Life expectancy was originally really long, then went down due to various diseases, then went further down due to pollution, then went up due to medical advances.)

So with 10000 years under your belt, and no significant genetic advancements, then if we assume that 1 significant genetic advancement takes 10000 years, and we assume that your fictional "4.5 billion years" argument is correct, then we have possibly, POSSIBLY 450,000 genetic advancements.

Now we all know there are more then 450,000 steps between protozoa and human beings, ACCORDING TO EVOLUTION, in fact there are probably millions due to the extensive length of a strand of DNA and all the possibilities that encompasses.

That right there should be enough to make you think. But it gets better. You see, ACCORDING TO EVOLUTION, biological life has "only" been around a maximum of 150 million years, which means that there could have only been 15 (!!!) advancements in the genetic code.

We have hells more than 15 distinct bodily features that were not borrowed from the earliest protozoans, and each organ, limb, and sensory apparatus would, if evolution were even partially true, take THOUSANDS of iterations to become viable, not to mention the fact that (again) as of recorded history, humans have always had the form you would see right now if you look across the room at whoever's in the house with you.

There is literally not enough time in the universe for your theory to be true.
Hate me if you want.

By suggesting that humans and apes have a common ancestry because of this retrovirus, you are therefore essentially aslo sugesting that a human was born of a non-human (IE seperation of species). Is this so?

Why do you come into these threads if you insist on being ignorant of the actual theory?

Winter Alliance. Judging from your reply following Neo Cannen's post you need to read this too. Please do.

Ok there are two problems with this

1) We do not have anywhere near enough fossils of the human-ape linking animal to prove it exists

1A. There is no such thing as "proof" in science. There is evidence.

1B. The evidence for recent hominid evolution is extremely strong indeed.

1C. While the fossil record is only one single line of evidence among multiple, converging such lines... and is not even the primary means used to evaluate common ancestry of modern living organisms (genetics is more effective) the hominid fossil record is actually quite good.

2) If that were the case then once 1 human was born, unless another was born at a roughly simmilar time, and in a nearby location it would mean that it would have to bread with another non human, producing another non human. Surely it would have to breed with other humans to produce more humans, which would seem rather improbable. EDIT The improbable bit being that lots of humans were born around a simmilar time and a simmilar location, that they all got to the right evolutionary place at the same time

You didn't understand the point of the "Wolfy --> Chihuahua" thing at all did you? What you just described represents such a fundamental misunderstanding of the statements of evolutionary theory that it's difficult to know where to begin.

Let's try this again.

There is no single identifiable point at which you could just point to a set of parents and their offspring and say that the parents are one species and the child is another. There is no point at which there would all of a sudden be "one human" born. What occurs is a progression of primates which, over the generations, take on more and more modern human-like characteristics and at some point we just arbitrarily decide "alright, that's close enough... we'll call that human". If you look at the fossil progression going back, the older the hominid fossils along the human evolutionary line get the more their features tend to resemble other apes. Pelvis shape less and less suited to full time bipedal movement. Cranial cavity gradually smaller. Brow ridges more and more pronounced. Etc...

For a demonstration, here's a 3 dimensional manipulable rendering of a prgression of steadily older skull fossils in the hominid line:

http://www.anth.ucsb.edu/projects/human/#

Click on "Enter the Gallery" to bring up the fossil images.

Now, let's just step through this. First, click on the Chimpanzee. Click and drag on the image it brings up to rotate it and get a profile and rear view. Notice the small size of the cranial cavity. The pronounced brow ridge. The protruding jaw.

Now, click on the picture of the human, and a series of hominid fossils organized by the age of the fossil will be displayed when it zooms in on the line. Click on the last one (modern Homo Sapiens). What do we see? Very large cranial cavity. Jaw not protruding at all. Brow ridges almost (but not quite) non-existant. Canines are a little bit pointed but they're small, equal in size to our other teeth. Quite different from that chimp...

Now, click on the second last picture in that sequence (Neanderthal). The consensus is that Neandrethal was actually a distant cousin of modern humans, not a direct ancestor, but you can see that their jaw is a little more protruding. Their brow ridge is just a little more pronounced. (Edit: oops, put that "pointy canine" sentence in the wrong place during a revision of the draft)

Click on the third last picture in the sequence. What have we here? Homo Sapiens again! Actually, these are archaic Homo Sapiens. They're what Homo Sapiens looked like a few hundred thousand years ago. Fairly large cranial cavity. Those brow ridges stick out a little more. Same goes for the protrusion of the upper jaw.

Fourth image from the end. Homo Erectus. They were in the picture 1 to 2 million years ago. Cranial cavity getting still smaller. Brow ridges pronounced. Jaw protruding. Same goes for Homo Habilis (fifth image from the end) which were around 1.5 to 2.5 million years ago

6th image from the end. A Aferensis. They were around 3 to 5 million years ago. Cranium just keep getting smaller as we go back to older hominid fossils. Jaw protrusion is now even more pronounced. Brow ridges are going strong. Oh, and look at those canines... they're not as impressive as on the chimp but they're certainly getting there.

Get the picture? These are just historical snapshots... looking at fossils is like looking at time lapse photography with a REALLY long time between shots... but the sequential changes occuring here are painfully obvious.

And remember, the fossil record is not the primary evidence for common descent. However, EVERYTHING in the fossil record is completely consistent WITH common descent. Which is just one more peice of corroborating evidence to toss on the mountainous pile of such evidence.

Now that we've covered that...

Neo Cannen and Winter Alliance. Are either of you capable of addressing why the data presented in the original post does not constitute evidence of macroevolution as originally requested?

If so, please do so.

Now if you don't mind.

Nice arrogence there. And did you know that over 90% of all DNA is junk. Thats right, only about 10% of it is used by the body at all, the rest of it is useless and not used to code anything. It may be unique to us but it doesnt determine anything about us.

yes, the human genome contains only about 30K genes. yes, these genes tend to be clustered, and there are long sequences of DNA that don't appear to code for proteins. yes, a jargon term for this kind of DNA used to be "junk DNA."

HOWEVER

this DNA is absolutely not "useless," and no reputable geneticist would say it is. the presence of repetative sequences in much of "junk DNA" alone suggests a more complex role for these pieces of the genome, not to mention the growing body of information about SNPs. the term "junk DNA" is not even used in literature any more, because the important regulatory function of these sequences has been demonstrated so many times.

So where are all the mutants with psionics powers a la X-Men, hmm? Oh wait. They're not there.

In 10000 years, the form and capacity of humans has not changed significantly if at all. The only thing that has changed is life expectancy and overall intelligence. (Life expectancy was originally really long, then went down due to various diseases, then went further down due to pollution, then went up due to medical advances.)

So with 10000 years under your belt, and no significant genetic advancements, then if we assume that 1 significant genetic advancement takes 10000 years, and we assume that your fictional "4.5 billion years" argument is correct, then we have possibly, POSSIBLY 450,000 genetic advancements.

Now we all know there are more then 450,000 steps between protozoa and human beings, ACCORDING TO EVOLUTION, in fact there are probably millions due to the extensive length of a strand of DNA and all the possibilities that encompasses.

That right there should be enough to make you think. But it gets better. You see, ACCORDING TO EVOLUTION, biological life has "only" been around a maximum of 150 million years, which means that there could have only been 15 (!!!) advancements in the genetic code.

We have hells more than 15 distinct bodily features that were not borrowed from the earliest protozoans, and each organ, limb, and sensory apparatus would, if evolution were even partially true, take THOUSANDS of iterations to become viable, not to mention the fact that (again) as of recorded history, humans have always had the form you would see right now if you look across the room at whoever's in the house with you.

There is literally not enough time in the universe for your theory to be true.
Hate me if you want.
Except that we've pretty much removed every impetus for evolution in the past...7000 years. (No active seperation, evolution doesn't occur in a nonstressed, nonisolated environment...often) That and our rate of mutation can't be extrapolated back because of the various genes that control DNA copying that didn't exist back in the days.

However, skin color.


Game set match buddy.

Except that we've pretty much removed every impetus for evolution in the past...7000 years. (No active seperation, evolution doesn't occur in a nonstressed, nonisolated environment...often) That and our rate of mutation can't be extrapolated back because of the various genes that control DNA copying that didn't exist back in the days.

However, skin color.


Game set match buddy.

Impetus for evolution, you must be kidding me. That is really convenient isn't it?

"I'm perfect so my perfect theory had to stop working when it realized how perfect I was."

Not only the height of arrogance but very flawed logic.

Those genes just suddenly disappeared? NO. That has no scientific basis. Whoever is your source for that made it up to support evolution. Genes can't write themselves out of a string code: even assuming evolutionary mutation could happen, the genes would become dormant, but still present.

Impetus for evolution, you must be kidding me. That is really convenient isn't it?

"I'm perfect so my perfect theory had to stop working when it realized how perfect I was."

Not only the height of arrogance but very flawed logic.

Those genes just suddenly disappeared? NO. That has no scientific basis. Whoever is your source for that made it up to support evolution. Genes can't write themselves out of a string code: even assuming evolutionary mutation could happen, the genes would become dormant, but still present.
You do realize what the term 'natural selection' means? And as such, our society severly limits the ability of evolution to occur? You really think that people which such crippling disorders would survive in the wild such as Cystic Fibrosis or even near/farsightedness?

No gene disappeared, there is simply no force for evolution, so none occurs. Our population (humanity) is in Hardy-Weinburg equilibrium.

Impetus for evolution, you must be kidding me. That is really convenient isn't it?

"I'm perfect so my perfect theory had to stop working when it realized how perfect I was."

Not only the height of arrogance but very flawed logic.

Those genes just suddenly disappeared? NO. That has no scientific basis. Whoever is your source for that made it up to support evolution. Genes can't write themselves out of a string code: even assuming evolutionary mutation could happen, the genes would become dormant, but still present.


we don't change because there are no longer environmental pressures for us to do so.

if some new disease came up that killed everyone in the population without a certain gene, you can bet that from that moment on, the human race would no longer include that gene.

something like that has not happened, so of course there is no reason for that particular gene to disappear

that's evolution.

Spookopolis: Cool, thanks for filling me in, although I still have a lot to learn about system resources. I honestly wasn't trying to make an on-topic comparison of evolution to MS operating systems. I don't want to take up space on this thread about computer stuff, but would it bother you if I NS-telegrammed you some questions about backwards compatability with XP? If you've got better things to do, I completely understand.

For the rest of the thread, I've seen the following premises:

*"Not enough time in the universe"
*"a human born of a non-human, is that so?"
*"90% of DNA is useless junk" (Made in God's image?)
*"a human born of a non-human, is that so?"
*"the fossil record supports Creationism" (two examples of each land-dwelling dinosaur species (and every other species) we've discovered, on one boat, cared for and fed by one family...300 cubits long, 50 cubits broad, and 30 cubits high. Thats three stories high, and 150 yards long, two of every species on Earth. With enough food and freshwater for all.)

and, of course
*"a human born of a non-human, is that so?"

So, I'm bailing on the thread. Reformentia and others are more qualified than I to defend evolution. But I'm resovled to become more politically active in support of genetic research. Thanks, creationists, for waking me up.

Ask away, Saint Curie. I saw the words: computer, games, Microsoft, XP, and 3.1, and had to react!

You do realize what the term 'natural selection' means? And as such, our society severly limits the ability of evolution to occur? You really think that people which such crippling disorders would survive in the wild such as Cystic Fibrosis or even near/farsightedness?

No gene disappeared, there is simply no force for evolution, so none occurs. Our population (humanity) is in Hardy-Weinburg equilibrium.

Apparently I have a much better concept of natural selection than you do. Afterall, you just suggested that people with normal vision and health are a step up the evolutionary chain? Please. Seeing as disorders like those are primarily caused by environmental factors, you have no evidence of an advanced gene protecting us from it. In fact, you have proved my theory because there is a normal distribution curve of people who have those disorders in the general population. If natural selection were true, the curve would not be Gaussian.

As for "force for evolution", there are still millions of people who are opressed by authoritarian regimes. Some of them have been in such a state for over a thousand years. If your version of evolution were true, those people should have evolved into something stronger than the leaders who opressed them, shouldn't they? But if anything they have grown stagnant in their opression.

You have not adressed the fact that there is not enough time for the genetic iterations to proceed from protozoa to monkey to man. There are 4 bases in DNA, AGT and C. Adenine, Thymine, Guanine and Cytosine. Earlier it was mentioned that Human DNA has 30,000 distinct genes, by an evolutionist I think.

Look at binary math for a second: we'll use 101 as an example.

1*2^0 + 0*2^1 + 1*2^2 = 5

so 111 would equal 2^3

So, if we use the principles of binary (0 vs 1) on DNA, we have a quaternary (Base 4) system.

Which means that humans have 4^30000 distinct gene possibilities + the base "junk" DNA.

This results in a potential 6.31 x 10^1809 combinations of genes.

That, friends, is 18 googols of pure chance. So even if I halved the requirement for a fundamental shift in DNA and said it only took 5000 years, you still only have 30 major iterations you can work with, assuming no failures.

That means you have 3.15 Googol years that you would need for evolution to successfully complete a transition from amino acid to man.

For those of you who don't know, a googol is a 1 with a HUNDRED ZEROES after it.

Now your task is to prove that the Big Bang happened over 3 or 4 Googol years ago. Can't be done. The most liberal evolutionist claims 20 billion years, which normal people should look at as a simple "Using large numbers to confound the masses", since the previous definition was 4 billion, 16 billion is quite a jump in scientifiic terms.

The basic tactic of evolutionist is to introduce a more outrageous, less logical argument when presented with the facts against them.

Which brings us back to "lack of pressure to evolve." Your definition of lack of pressure is totally arbitrary. Even your basic beliefs have just been disproved by sheer math genius. Why do you persist in believing it?
Evolution is a religion.

So where are all the mutants with psionics powers a la X-Men, hmm? Oh wait. They're not there.

In 10000 years, the form and capacity of humans has not changed significantly if at all. The only thing that has changed is life expectancy and overall intelligence. (Life expectancy was originally really long, then went down due to various diseases, then went further down due to pollution, then went up due to medical advances.)

So with 10000 years under your belt, and no significant genetic advancements, then if we assume that 1 significant genetic advancement takes 10000 years, and we assume that your fictional "4.5 billion years" argument is correct, then we have possibly, POSSIBLY 450,000 genetic advancements.

Now we all know there are more then 450,000 steps between protozoa and human beings, ACCORDING TO EVOLUTION, in fact there are probably millions due to the extensive length of a strand of DNA and all the possibilities that encompasses.

That right there should be enough to make you think. But it gets better. You see, ACCORDING TO EVOLUTION, biological life has "only" been around a maximum of 150 million years, which means that there could have only been 15 (!!!) advancements in the genetic code.

We have hells more than 15 distinct bodily features that were not borrowed from the earliest protozoans, and each organ, limb, and sensory apparatus would, if evolution were even partially true, take THOUSANDS of iterations to become viable, not to mention the fact that (again) as of recorded history, humans have always had the form you would see right now if you look across the room at whoever's in the house with you.

There is literally not enough time in the universe for your theory to be true.
Hate me if you want.


i really want to snip this, but there are too many things wrong with your post to ignore any one part of it.

1.) humans have pretty much escaped the forces of natural selection with the onset of agriculture. i.e., we became capable of caring for and supporting members of our community that would not necesarily be able to do so themselves. so, yes, we havnt evolved much in the past 10K years, maybe more, but at the same time, we havnt had any reason to. secondly, i have to question your sources on human life expectancy. everything i have ever seen has been consistently grantying humans a greater life expectancy due to medical advances, nutrition, etc. id like to see some sources to support your claim that it was originally high, then dropped, and is now creeping up again. or, like everything else youv'e posted, is it merely hot air and anger, and unsupportable by any sort of research and evidence?

2.) id like to see your sources for "ACCORDING TO EVOLUTION, biological life has "only" been around a maximum of 150 million years, which means that there could have only been 15 (!!!) advancements in the genetic code" as far as i know, life has been around for far longer then 150 million years. in fact, last i checked, the current scientific estimate is about 3.5 billion years ago. and we have fossil evidence to back that up (not that that matters to you, since it is all 'evolutionist lies'). furthermore, it seems as if you are haveing a bit of trouble with math. if, as you claim a mutation takes '10,000 years, then, if you kept with that number, 150 million years would offer 15,000 'advancements'. not that i expect you to maintain any consistency with past postings, but, hey, whatever.... so long as you are certain that you have a much better concept of billion then i do....

3.)and by your statement of 1million years, then, yes, possibly, there isnt enough time for evolution as we see it. but we are looking at evolution over the course of billions of years, not youre 'highly debatable' 1 million.
and, i am still willing to take back what i have said, and even apologize if you can post some reliable sources for that, but i really dont think thats going to happen, since i doubt those sources(reliable, that is) exist in the first place. but, yes, if you are going to throw down arbitray out-of-your-ass numbers, then it is highly unlikely that our theories will fit in them. and it is just as unlikely that we will pay any attention to your numbers. now, if you can back up your numbers with some research, evidence, etcetera, then id be willing to consider what you have to say. however, until you manage to produce any such evidence (which i highly doubt will ever happen) then, yes, we will continue to write you off as just another troll/fraud/ignoramus.

please, show me otherwise....

Seeing as disorders like those are primarily caused by environmental factors...

Nearsightedness is caused by environmental factors? What are you smoking and why don't you share?

...As for "force for evolution", there are still millions of people who are opressed by authoritarian regimes. Some of them have been in such a state for over a thousand years. If your version of evolution were true, those people should have evolved into something stronger than the leaders who opressed them, shouldn't they? But if anything they have grown stagnant in their opression.

An "authoritarian regime" is not a force for evolution. You can't evolve something to be stronger than the weapons your oppressors use to keep you in check. Besides, political revolutions usually don't rely on weapons, they rely on a rising tide of dissent and dissatisfaction of those so oppressed. Think of the Bastille. But no, I shouldn't ask you to think because you're actually arguing that we should evolve as a result of politics.

And precisely which millions of people have been under an authoritarian regime for over a thousand years? Dude, if you're gonna pull stuff outta your ass, at least clean 'em off first, will ya?

Nearsightedness is caused by environmental factors? What are you smoking and why don't you share?

Most nearsightedness is caused by poor diet and not eating the correct nutrients to synthesize Vitamin A. Some is admittably genetic.


An "authoritarian regime" is not a force for evolution. You can't evolve something to be stronger than the weapons your oppressors use to keep you in check. Besides, political revolutions usually don't rely on weapons, they rely on a rising tide of dissent and dissatisfaction of those so oppressed. Think of the Bastille. But no, I shouldn't ask you to think because you're actually arguing that we should evolve as a result of politics.

And precisely which millions of people have been under an authoritarian regime for over a thousand years? Dude, if you're gonna pull stuff outta your ass, at least clean 'em off first, will ya?

First of all, you cannot say the switch to an agrarian society would stop the forces of evolution, which would surely be to powerful to stop if they had ever started.

Secondly, you cannot say that "politics is not a force for evolution." Natural selection clearly implies that a species that is opressed and under stress will evolve new features to give it an advantage over Predators. (In this case, dictators.)

On the last comment there, "which people have been under authoritarian rule for a thousand years."

India has had an opressive caste system for 5000 years.
Japan had a feudal system for at least a millenia.
China has been under some form of totalitarian rule for 7000 years.
Every country in the Middle East was ruled by authoritarian Caliphates for 2000 or more years.
Rome was under authoritarian rule for a millenium under the Ceasars.
Egypt was under totalitarian rule since almost the beginning of time.
Persia was under totalitarian rule since almost the beginning of time.

Very few cultures have NOT, at some point, been opressed to the point where a genetic change should have been imminent. You're changing your own rules if you say evolution suddenly becomes irrelevant because you can no longer see its effects.

All the insults in the world won't help you when such a blatant lie is pointed out, revealed in the open. But go ahead, insult me anyway. My numbers are still correct and based in science - both your science and mine.

Unlike you, I can take it when people think I'm wrong.

Most nearsightedness is caused by poor diet and not eating the correct nutrients to synthesize Vitamin A. Some is admittably genetic. Blatant BS.

http://yalenewhavenhealth.org/library/healthguide/en-us/illnessconditions/topic.asp?hwid=hw124098

Most of it IS genetic, with environmental factors playing a lesser role.

Secondly, you cannot say that "politics is not a force for evolution." Natural selection clearly implies that a species that is opressed and under stress will evolve new features to give it an advantage over Predators. (In this case, dictators.) What the hell are you talking about? "Adapt" to an opressive governance?! Are you specifically speaking about executions, forced labour, torture or information suppression? Do you actually have any suggestions as to how humans could magically mutate to overcome these?! ROFL!

I know it's hard when your "thesis" has been utterly shot to pieces, but true strength comes from admitting to your mistakes and moving on. Not parroting on about totally irrelevant and stupid points. "Why haven't people adapted to opressive systems" indeed!

Alright so...Lets start with saying I'm convinced with Micro Evolution, but not convinced with Macro, not because of Religious reasons, but the fact that...

The definition of species is a group of animals that can breed and create offspring that can breed. So, if two animals can't breed, they aren't of the same species. If two animals of different species, they cannot have viable offspring that aren't mule-like in their inability to breed.

So, the claim that evolution takes time to change one species to another seems to be ignoring the critical piece. The change of a species.
Let's say 'A' has a kid, which has a kid, etc etc

A -> B -> C -> D-> E-> F-> G-> H-> .... ->Z
A's child, B, is the same species as A, otherwise A would not been able to have produced B. But this leads C to being the same species as A, and all the way down at the end, Z must be the same species as Y which is the same as X...which is the same as B which is the same as A.
If the species were to change...when would it change, and how would it change? How can one species give birth to another? Technically, they should be the same species then.
Now, if this isn't annoying and boggling enough, throw in the factor that it takes two to make the baby. Two animals of the same species must breed to have a baby. Now, if you have a 'random' mutation that some how makes the animal a different species, it is now UNABLE to pass the gene because it is of a different species, unable to breed and create viable offspring with any other species, and thus will die out when that animal dies. Also, what is the probability that Sex became a characteristic in animals: What are the chances that two mutations that were mutually cooperative yet quite different occured in the same time period at the same location, in the same "species?"

Now, if you argue that these things take time and thus the chance will finally come around, you still have to answer when do you draw the line? As you look closer and closer into it, there has to be a point which you can say this change exists, but by definition of basic biological principles, you can't say that because it would violate those principles.

It is impractical to look at the assumed big picture when the smaller pieces don't fit into it.

If you want a sort of analogy, I'm thinking of this with a calculus type mindset: Is this function smooth? Does the limit exist? As you take the difference in generations and approach zero, do you get anything meaningful that will point towards macro-evolution? Most certainly not, thus far.

This is a fault of logic not in evolutionary theory.

Imagine a colour. say red. Now a drop of yellow, so little that you cannot see a change, you cannot tell the difference between the first and the secong therefore it must be red. Now add a second, cannot see a change from the sample before so therefore the same colour. ad nausim. In the end you end up with a colour that is clearly not red, but as you cannot tell the difference between it and the one before it MUST be red. Covered this one in a logic class years ago.

Most nearsightedness is caused by poor diet and not eating the correct nutrients to synthesize Vitamin A. Some is admittably genetic.As a datum-point, I've got short-sightedness, I've also got particularly good night-vision (at the expense of not being able to adapt as quickly to bright sunshine or indeed oncoming headlights as quickly as others), both of which qualities I have strong evidence to believe are genetic, not environmental (though in recent years I've been looking at monitors more than I've been enjoying the great outdoors, I must admit... :)). But that's irrelevant, as one example is hardly even a sample, never mind truly representative... ;)

However, all this gives me mixed blessing in survival-of-fittest system, since I might detect things better int eh dark, but only with my glasses on... I'd be doomed!!!

First of all, you cannot say the switch to an agrarian society would stop the forces of evolution, which would surely be to powerful to stop if they had ever started.Forces of evolution never stop. If there's people genetically predisposed to resist HIV infection (or development into full-blown AIDS) then they're going to dominate in some of the virus's hotspots in the 3rd world. But here in the 'civilised' world, that rate of selection is lower because we (artificially?) prevent the spread of AIDS and rather discourage infected people (however well they are dealing with the infection) from having offspring who might inherit any resistence they may (by fluke) possess...

This is an (extreme) example of both why you won't get evolution to stop, on a global level and also why natural selection is a lot less active, these days... (And unnatural selection, such as media-fuelled preferences to date supermodels, is based on fads that I doubt last more than a few decades, not enough time to evolve women into supermodel clones, especially given the infertility and contraception factors applied to thin women whose waistlines are their business...

Secondly, you cannot say that "politics is not a force for evolution." Natural selection clearly implies that a species that is opressed and under stress will evolve new features to give it an advantage over Predators. (In this case, dictators.)With sufficient generations. Genes for resistence to dictators are going to take a while to permeate the populations of Iraq and especially one the size of the US, and the dictator (even his system) is only mortal. I doubt that there'd be any significant gain of an 'anti-Nazi' gene during a true Thousand Year Reich (pure example, I do not wish to invoke or succumb to Godwin's Law). And then you're forgetting about general migration of population, which might water-down any changes. (I'd say that, these days, Memes are stronger than Genes, in affecting our society...)

And then along comes another nation (whose people may or may not have similar problems) and changes the whole selection-process at work after only a couple of decades. That's hardly one generation!

On the last comment there, "which people have been under authoritarian rule for a thousand years."

India has had an opressive caste system for 5000 years.
Japan had a feudal system for at least a millenia.
China has been under some form of totalitarian rule for 7000 years.
Every country in the Middle East was ruled by authoritarian Caliphates for 2000 or more years.
Rome was under authoritarian rule for a millenium under the Ceasars.
Egypt was under totalitarian rule since almost the beginning of time.
Persia was under totalitarian rule since almost the beginning of time.All those examples have changed, though, especially during recent years (for the India, Japan and China examples, that 'still' exist today). And whether or not there's been a general increase in migration to cause such changes, I reckon you could associate most of the changes (and, in the case of the defunct systems, their eventual collapse) in Meme-transfer. People in Japan became 'westernised' over the last century and (aided by a growth in trading-territories by some other nations, a couple of wars, the impetous towards technology and communication with the outside world and external pressures to dissolve the original imperial system) this has caused more change than genetics could over the same period.

Very few cultures have NOT, at some point, been opressed to the point where a genetic change should have been imminent. You're changing your own rules if you say evolution suddenly becomes irrelevant because you can no longer see its effects.I argue it's not irrelevent, but it is submerged within a sea of other society-wide effects. Memes I have mentioned more times than I think is good for me. Migration of populations has greatly increased in the last few hundred years, even between the Old and New worlds, and even <humpty-tump>-thousand years ago there was trade and a general sprinkling of population movement all throughout the (then) known world...

All the insults in the world won't help you when such a blatant lie is pointed out, revealed in the open. But go ahead, insult me anyway. My numbers are still correct and based in science - both your science and mine.

Unlike you, I can take it when people think I'm wrong.Hopefully I'm not seen as insulting, but feel free to take my points as you see them.

Wrong :)

We don't exactly know what the other 90% is, but we are fairly sure it isn't junk. Besides, this has absolutely nothing to do with my post pertaining to the frequency of mutations, which you claimed was rare. They aren't.


Well if its mutataion in the 90% junk then its very rare that any mutation is passed on

Well if its mutataion in the 90% junk then its very rare that any mutation is passed onActually, that makes it more likely that it is passed on, because it's not going to be an (immediately) detrimental mutation. Then when that area of (supposed) junk DNA is activated for the purpose it really exists for, it may well exist more prevalently...


(There's interesting research I've seen that shows that some of the repeating 'junk' DNA segments are actually useful in conveying charge, such as that generated by ionising radiation, away into a safe part of the DNA strand where it can be more easily repaired by the various mechanisms available to the cell, and away from vital parts of the strand where partial or incorrect repairs might cause serious cell-mechanism failures... I don't know how related that is. All I do know is that 'junk' is a misnomer. And also that if 100% of the genome were 'active', it'd not be as disaster-proof as it is now, which leads me to believe the study I've just paraphrased...)

Well if its mutataion in the 90% junk then its very rare that any mutation is passed on

What? why would you say that? all of the DNA is copied exactly (when there isnt a mutation) and no part gets left out.

And we've established 90% isnt "junk".

All the insults in the world won't help you when such a blatant lie is pointed out, revealed in the open. But go ahead, insult me anyway. My numbers are still correct and based in science - both your science and mine.

Unlike you, I can take it when people think I'm wrong.

do us a favor, and before you post, look up the terms 'natural selection', 'adaptive radiation', and 'punctuated equilibrium'

id try to explain them here, but i have the feeling that you will conveniently ignore it like everything else that doesnt fit with your beliefs.

and being under the rule of a dictator does not equal being preyed upon by another organism. it sucks, and would be great if it didnt happen, but it doesnt put selective pressure on the gene pool.

and as far as evolution stopping, do you know anyone that is absolutely incapable of breeding, were they to try? i highly doubt it, most people in today's society are capable of breeding, regardless of whether or not they would be able to live in the wild.

do you know anyone that is absolutely incapable of breeding I'll point this out before either Neon Cannen or Winter Alliance harp on about it like it's an actual relevant issue.

Don't forget people who are born sterile. It has absolutely nothing to do with species incompatability but I might as well address it before it gets twisted against you.

First of all, you cannot say the switch to an agrarian society would stop the forces of evolution, which would surely be to powerful to stop if they had ever started.

If we take care of the people with "weaker" genes and they get the same reproductive advantage as those with "stronger" genes, then the forces of evolution have stopped.

Secondly, you cannot say that "politics is not a force for evolution." Natural selection clearly implies that a species that is opressed and under stress will evolve new features to give it an advantage over Predators. (In this case, dictators.)

Wrong. Natural selection implies that anything which gives you *reproductive* advantage will be selected for. It says nothing about oppression and happiness. In case you haven't noticed, the oppressed are generally poor and already reproduce more.

IVery few cultures have NOT, at some point, been opressed to the point where a genetic change should have been imminent. You're changing your own rules if you say evolution suddenly becomes irrelevant because you can no longer see its effects.

You have no idea what you are talking about, since "oppressed" has nothing to do with evolutionary theory.

what i want to know is how the first bacteria, etc. had the genetics to reproduce? also, what was their source of food?

what i want to know is how the first bacteria, etc. had the genetics to reproduce? also, what was their source of food?

DNA is essentially self-replicating. All it would take to do without enzymes is the right temperatures and engouh chemicals floating around. We do it ourselves in a process called PCR.

Food - chemicals, same as everything else.

Alright Winter Alliance. I am once agaon going to address the many misconceptions you have presented of evolutionary theory in two more of your posts. I am then once again going to request that you either address the data in the original post by explaining how it does not constitute evidence that macroevolution did in fact occur or admit you are incapable of doing so.

Please do not continue to ignore this request. However, if you do it is simply going to serve as the equivalent of a big flashing neon sign declaring "I can't deal with the data" to anyone reading this thread.

In 10000 years, the form and capacity of humans has not changed significantly if at all. The only thing that has changed is life expectancy and overall intelligence. (Life expectancy was originally really long, then went down due to various diseases, then went further down due to pollution, then went up due to medical advances.)

So with 10000 years under your belt, and no significant genetic advancements, then if we assume that 1 significant genetic advancement takes 10000 years, and we assume that your fictional "4.5 billion years" argument is correct, then we have possibly, POSSIBLY 450,000 genetic advancements.

Misconception #1: That there are individual distinct "significant steps" that need to be taken in the evolutionary progression from one species to another. There are not. For the most part it is the accumulation of many small changes in the genetic code, the aggregate of which eventually results in something we would classify as a species distinct from what it "began" as.

Misconception #2: That evolutionary change is a function of absolute time. It is not. It is a function of generational time. Nobody who knew the first teeny tiny thing about evolution or genetics would suggest that you could possibly extrapolate the rate of accumulated mutations over an absolute time period of a species with generations measured in DECADES back into the past and apply it to single celled organisms with generations measured in MINUTES... or simple muticellular organisms with generations measured in DAYS...

Now we all know there are more then 450,000 steps between protozoa and human beings, ACCORDING TO EVOLUTION, in fact there are probably millions due to the extensive length of a strand of DNA and all the possibilities that encompasses.

That right there should be enough to make you think. But it gets better. You see, ACCORDING TO EVOLUTION, biological life has "only" been around a maximum of 150 million years, which means that there could have only been 15 (!!!) advancements in the genetic code.

Misconception #3: That anyone thinks biological life has only been around 150 million years when the fossilized remains of colonies of single celled organisms up to 3.5 billion years old have been found.

At this point let's pause and see what effect just these three misconceptions have had on the conclusions reached so far.

First, we have 3.5 billion ears in which evolution has been operating. Add to that that it is absolutely absurd to divide this into chunks of 10,000 years as if protozoa have the same reproductive rate as a human being... so greatly accelerate the rate of evolutionary change WITHIN that greatly expanded timeframe. Add to that that we are not talking about having to luck into a single mutation that results in a "significant change", but we are simply for the most part witnessing the results of the steady and gradual accumulation of change due to constant minor mutations which are occuring constantly, and the effects of natural selection AND random genetic drift acting on the already existing genetic code.

And all of a sudden the great giant problem that was supposed to exist vanishes.

We have hells more than 15 distinct bodily features that were not borrowed from the earliest protozoans, and each organ, limb, and sensory apparatus would, if evolution were even partially true, take THOUSANDS of iterations to become viable,

Misconception #4: That new traits start out as worthless partially formed versions of their "fully formed and fully functional" somehow intended use which serve no purpose until they've gone through thousands of generations of refinement. If a new trait isn't serving some purposel AS IT EMERGES and develops it isn't selected for in the first place.

not to mention the fact that (again) as of recorded history, humans have always had the form you would see right now if you look across the room at whoever's in the house with you.

Wow. Across the whole of recorded history? From the numbers you're using I assume you mean written history? All 500 or so generations of it? (assuming 20 years/generation and just accepting your 10000 year figure since it's not worth arguing about)

Misconception #5: That a few hundred generations of a population of millions of interbreeding members is more than an eyeblink in evolutionary time. And as for humans always having the form they have now...

Misconception #6: That we have no record of humans looking different than they do now. This fact was already presented to you in my earlier post which contained the 3 dimensional rendering of, among other things, an archaic homo sapien skull fossil from three hundred and fifty thousand years ago (not ten) which was quite clearly different than modern homo sapiens.

There is literally not enough time in the universe for your theory to be true.
Hate me if you want.

Martyr complex?

And on to post 2:

Apparently I have a much better concept of natural selection than you do. Afterall, you just suggested that people with normal vision and health are a step up the evolutionary chain? Please. Seeing as disorders like those are primarily caused by environmental factors, you have no evidence of an advanced gene protecting us from it.

Misconception #7: That there are no genetic factors involved in both quality of eyesight or human health.

In fact, you have proved my theory because there is a normal distribution curve of people who have those disorders in the general population. If natural selection were true, the curve would not be Gaussian.

Misconception #8: That genetically determined or influenced traits do not take on Gaussian distributions in a population. This demonstrates a total lack of knowledge of the existence of polygenic traits. Not all genetically determined traits are a binary state of affairs.

Misconception #9: That "if natural selection were true" the curve would not be Gaussian. Three well known types of natural selective effects are: Stabilizing, Directional, and Disruptive... and every one of them is described by their effects on shifting either the position or shape of a Gaussian distribution of a trait(s) in the population undergoing selection. Anyone who had familiarized themselves even a little bit with the principles of natural selection would have been aware of this.

As for "force for evolution", there are still millions of people who are opressed by authoritarian regimes. Some of them have been in such a state for over a thousand years. If your version of evolution were true, those people should have evolved into something stronger than the leaders who opressed them, shouldn't they?

Misconception #10: That evolution somehow acts based on what is in the best SOCIETAL interest of a population. Evolution is only 'concerned' with factors which confer a statistical advantage on reproductive success over an organisms contemporaries.

You have not adressed the fact that there is not enough time for the genetic iterations to proceed from protozoa to monkey to man.There are 4 bases in DNA, AGT and C. Adenine, Thymine, Guanine and Cytosine. Earlier it was mentioned that Human DNA has 30,000 distinct genes, by an evolutionist I think.

Look at binary math for a second: we'll use 101 as an example.

1*2^0 + 0*2^1 + 1*2^2 = 5

so 111 would equal 2^3

So, if we use the principles of binary (0 vs 1) on DNA, we have a quaternary (Base 4) system.

Which means that humans have 4^30000 distinct gene possibilities + the base "junk" DNA.

Misconception #11: That genes = nucleotides (A,G,T and C). Anyone with even a basic familiarity with genetics would be aware that this is not the case.

This results in a potential 6.31 x 10^1809 combinations of genes.

That, friends, is 18 googols of pure chance. So even if I halved the requirement for a fundamental shift in DNA and said it only took 5000 years, you still only have 30 major iterations you can work with, assuming no failures.

That means you have 3.15 Googol years that you would need for evolution to successfully complete a transition from amino acid to man.

Misconception #12: That you can apply a calculation of total number of possible genes in a genome of equivalent size to a human genome (a calculation you got wrong due to not knowing what a gene even is, but it doesn't matter because you're not using it properly anyway) to the probability that it could have evolved in the manner you just attempted.

1. You really need to drop the "major iterations" nonsense.

2. What the heck kind of math were you doing to go from your first completely irrelevent "6.31 x 10^1809" number to this "3.15 google years" value? You appear to have just divided the first number by your 30 "major iterations" number to come up with a value which for some reason is measured in units of years. WHY? What reasoning was this based on?

Now, having dealt with the slew of blatant misconceptions of evolutionary theory in your posts it is becoming quite clear that you don't have even a minimal level of familiarity with the subject matter you are so forcefully and assertively expounding on. You don't know what a gene is, which indicates you don't know the first thing about genetics. You don't know how natural selection operates. You don't know how mutations occur or what effects they have. You don't understand that evolution is a generational process. You don't know how long the evidence indicates biological life has been around on this planet. You have no grasp of geologic time. You are completely unfamiliar with the hominid fossil record and it's a good bet the rest of the fossil record as well. Etc..

And yet somehow you appear to be under the impression that you are adequately equipped to make sweeping absolute claims of fact which rely on at least semi-detailed knowledge of all of these subjects. I'm curious what gave you this impression.

Additionally, in the 8 posts you have made in this thread you have still managed to avoid even ONCE responding to the request that you deal with the data presented in the original post... which you have so far managed to avoid even so much as mentioning. You have been asked repeatedly to either explain how it does not constitute evidence that macroevolution did indeed occur or to concede that you can provide no such explanation. Instead you threw out a ridiculously large number of what you claimed was the odds of evolution occuring while neglecting to address that data... then when asked to explain how you came by this figure you failed to respond. Then you switched tactics and claimed it was highly debatable that the earth was billions of years old and that radiometric dating methods were grossly unreliable, which had nothing to do with the original data. And even though you have been invited to post your own seperate thread to argue these points and present some kind of support for them, you have not done so and thus failed to back them up as well. Ignoring repeated requests that you respond to the data in the original post you them moved on to toss out figures regarding the odds of various genetic occurances, claims regarding the impossibility of speciation events, and stories about what we should see if natural selection were true which demonstrated you understood next to nothing about the processes involved in any of the above. Which has brought us to where we are now.

Now please either address the data in the original post, explaining why it does not constitute evidence macroevolution occured, or concede that you have no such explanation.

um...no, it suggests that because it has the same retoviral dna at the same point, somewhere a long the line the same individual was an ancestor to both humans and apes



what else could cause that?
From a strictly non-religious standpoint, could have been caused by evolutionary adaptation to similar environmental causes though from differing anscestors. Or highly advanced civilizations from other parts of the universe, may have decided to create a zoo of carbon based life forms capable of living on a planet with features similar to earth. Or, a host of other variations.

The problem with science is that it can only study possibilities it has the current technology to test. Which means that it is essentially throwing darts blindfolded when it trys to theorize about causes for a specific data set. That isn't to say that there isn't value in analyzing the world around us and coming to the best conclusions we can, but to suggest that we "know" something about a theory base on a data set is little better than random speculation. The only thing we know from a data set is that, given the current variables known a given data set should be reproducable. But, even then it is possible that there are extraneous variables that we don't even yet have any conception of that could just as well have cause the outcome of a given data set.

As I frequently tell my brother about psychological testing, no it isn't perfect it doesn't tell us the whole picture, or maybe not even very much of it, but it is the best thing we have at present and it allows us to make functional predictions about behavior and likely responses to stimuli. I just get tired of people touting science like it is the end all be all method of acquiring knowledge or that its theories should be accepted a facts.

You clearly didn't read the post very closely. This is a very specific type of similarity which has never had any explanation of it presented apart from inheritance of that similarity from common ancestry.



Well, if there are many possible conclusions indicated by this data then you shouldn't have any problems presenting us with one of these other possible conclusions and explaining how it follows from the observational data I presented.

Please do enlighten us.

Please see my response to Cafetopia.

From a strictly non-religious standpoint, could have been caused by evolutionary adaptation to similar environmental causes though from differing anscestors.

And would you care to explain how a remnant viral infection at identical genetic locations could be such a thing?

Or highly advanced civilizations from other parts of the universe, may have decided to create a zoo of carbon based life forms capable of living on a planet with features similar to earth.

Repeat above question. How could the data presented be construed to be a possible result of such an occurance?

You appear to be just throwing out ad-hoc scenarios with no consideration for how they are supposed to account for the data presented.

There was always a "black" and a "white" gene in the moths. Every moth has it. It's the same concept as humans having genes for red hair, brown hair and blonde hair. There was always about an equal number of each type of color moth produced. What you are referring to is natural camoflage. See, at first, the tree's bark had a lighter color in pre-industrial England. The light-colored moths were much better protected from predators than the black ones. The predators therefore, ate a disproportionate number of black ones than light ones. There were still black colored moths in pre-industrial England, just not nearly as many that were black lived a full life. Conversely, there was a disproportionate number of "white" ones around, since the predators had a more difficult time catching the "white" ones. Then, England burned soft coals, wood, and "dirty" fuels. The bark of the trees were covered in dark soot, thusly the trees became temporarily darker. The white ones stood out like a sore thumb in the new darkened trees. The predators picked off the "white" ones very easily, and now they ate disproportionate amounts of the white. Now, there were more "black" colored moths left, because they were better off against the dark trees. When England enacted cleaner air laws, etc. the trees became lighter from the soot going away. Now we are back to where we started. NOTE: The moths did NOT mutate, evolve, change shape, form or anything. It was little more than natural selection.

The allele frequency of the population changed. This is, by definition, evolution.

Damnit, people! Stop writing a doctoral disseration on these forums! I seriously doubt everyone will read that crap, damn!

The allele frequency of the population changed. This is, by definition, evolution.

No. There weren't any disproportionate numbers of whites over blacks born, only the number who weren't picked off by predators. The genes didn't pop up more often of one type over another. The white moths still produced an equal number of black and white offspring. The black ones did the same. There was no form of "evolution" here; the animal stayed the same and still produced the SAME quantity of each color before AND after the industrial revolution.

No. There weren't any disproportionate numbers of whites over blacks born, only the number who weren't picked off by predators. The genes didn't pop up more often of one type over another. The white moths still produced an equal number of black and white offspring. The black ones did the same. There was no form of "evolution" here; the animal stayed the same and still produced the SAME quantity of each color before AND after the industrial revolution.
I don't claim to be an expert on moths but I seriously think you're wrong.
There's usually a gene for producing colouration, the absence of which results in lack of colour (hence a recessive non-colour allele).
If white moths have no dominant colour producing gene, and two of these reproduce then they will have white moth babies. They cannot produce black moths without a gene mutation.
If it does not work like this, i.e. two white moths can have black moth offspring then it is more complicated and a switch gene is likely to be involved.
But it's still evolution.

Then do some homework and read some books, online articles from reputable sources, and find out for yourself. It's roughly a 50:50 chance of being either color period, regardless of what color the parents are. It's natural selection, that's all that needs to be said.

They cannot produce black moths without a gene mutation.

Then in humans, every other trait but brown hair and brown eyes is a mutation, or flaw as you see it.

Then in humans, every other trait but brown hair and brown eyes is a mutation, or flaw as you see it.Regardless of the other point, I wouldn't want anyone to portray any conclusive link between "mutation" and "flaw", because a "mutation" could easily (if rarely) be a direct improvement of some kind. A lot of them do (or appear to do) nothing...

(Additionally, it's more than 18 years since Chernobyl, I think, and yet I haven't seen any new superheroes heraldring from the Ukraine, so 'comic-book' mutation isn't that prevalent, or at least not made known to the general public... ;))

The allele frequency of the population changed. This is, by definition, evolution.

But it didnt come about as a random mutation. It came about because of a changing circumstance. This isnt mutation, the moth's genes didnt change to deal with the situation.

But it didnt come about as a random mutation. It came about because of a changing circumstance. This isnt mutation, the moth's genes didnt change to deal with the situation.

Once upon a time, there was a mutation (or set of mutations) that resulted in black and white moths. The number of each that survives is dependent on the environment, but the underlying genetics is random.

But it didnt come about as a random mutation. It came about because of a changing circumstance. This isnt mutation, the moth's genes didnt change to deal with the situation.
Evolution is more than mutation. Do yourself a favor and read up on the subject before opening your mouth.

Once upon a time, there was a mutation (or set of mutations) that resulted in black and white moths. The number of each that survives is dependent on the environment, but the underlying genetics is random.

Yep, exactly. That's the difference between mutation and selection.

Oh hey, and it's good to be back again. I've missed this kind of conversations, really. They are so... entertaining. Oh, and Neo Cannen, in the case you still don't believe Earth is millions of years old, i have the evidence right at my hand that is. :p

Evolution is more than mutation. Do yourself a favor and read up on the subject before opening your mouth.

There is a diffrence between evolution and natural selection

Once upon a time, there was a mutation (or set of mutations) that resulted in black and white moths. The number of each that survives is dependent on the environment, but the underlying genetics is random.

Yes but the mutaiton wasnt (like so many textbooks claim) a result of what happened. Its nautral selection not evolution.

Yes but the mutaiton wasnt (like so many textbooks claim) a result of what happened. Its nautral selection not evolution.

Yeah, but, natural selection is one of the factors of evolution. Although "selection" is a fuzzy term. It can be all kinds of things.

Btw, i'd say another (major) factor of evolution is opportunistic radiation.

Have fun debating this, it's nothing more than a perpetual circle.

Yes but the mutaiton wasnt (like so many textbooks claim) a result of what happened. Its nautral selection not evolution.

That's like saying "It's paddling... not propelling yoursellf through the water."

Natural Selection = Mechanism.
Evolution = Effect of mechanism.

When natural selection acts, evolution is what we call the result.

I haven't seen any refutations of the original post and nor do I have one. I realize that I hardly think objectively anymore. Must of been those secret books I read "Saving Appearances" and "Poetic Diction" mostly around anthroposophy. You have seen something objectively that I cannot see subjectively, therefore I lose on this one. I cannot experience the experiment nor do I want to go through the entire process of understanding it. It is far too tedious. Evolution wins until someone who sees objectively can prove otherwise. I am not the one to prove otherwise. It forces me to now make the choice to follow God with my whole heart and see what happens when I become immersed in Him. As I write this, Creed "Who's got my back? is going through my mind.

What do you guys mean by ID'ers Poeple who believe in Adam and Eve or anyone who believes God created the universe?

I believe God created the earth. Then Evolution took place.



Also, you can't technically prove evolution. Its still just a theory. ;)

That's like saying "It's paddling... not propelling yoursellf through the water."

Natural Selection = Mechanism.
Evolution = Effect of mechanism.

When natural selection acts, evolution is what we call the result.

You misunderstand me. Nautral selection is the process by which conditions change which favour an existing species. This system says that both the white and black moth existed previously and that this scenerio allowed the black moth to propoagte better than the white

However some people claim that the mutation for black and white varients happened "Because" of the change in enviroment. In other words that the genes of the moth were somehow aware of the British industrial change and so morphed black to avoid it. This is what is stupid.

You misunderstand me. Nautral selection is the process by which conditions change which favour an existing species.

Not exactly, natural selection is the effect that environmental factors have in biasing the statistical likelyhood of reproductive success of either a species or individuals within the species. Those environmental factors do not have to change for natural selection to occur... nor is the process of environmental change itself natural selection.

This system says that both the white and black moth existed previously and that this scenerio allowed the black moth to propoagte better than the white

However some people claim that the mutation for black and white varients happened "Because" of the change in enviroment.

Which people would these be? That would of course be a completely unfounded claim as environmental influences do not in any way predispose an organism to experience new mutations that it would find beneficial in that specific environment. That has been well established through extensive experimental testing.

In other words that the genes of the moth were somehow aware of the British industrial change and so morphed black to avoid it. This is what is stupid.

If anyone is in fact sayng that, yes, it would be stupid.

massive snip
there is one small kink in all this massive conjecture... that is the every prevailing problem of the nature of our fossil records. Our records are astonishingly incomplete and so this illustration you so kindly provided us of evolutoin showing where commen ansestors were infected with the retrovirus is a problem in that no fossil evidence exists verifying the existence of any of these common ansestors... Could it not be each species developed sperarte from one another though maintaining similiar enough DNA structures so that the virus infected these structures in the same manner.. you yourself admit it is UNLIKELY for this to occur.. but in science unlikelness does not denote an absolute answer does it.. in fact sceince itself finds the existence of life on this planet to be an extremely almost astronomical biproduct of randomness and the existence of humans 100 times more astronomically rare. However here we are, and here we think. Even if this possibility you cast a side is almost "certianly iron clad proof" the fact that a possibility exists however rare it be casts significant doubt on your theory. And as far as I know.. there is still wide acceptance in the scentific community that insuffient evidence of macroevolutoin exists to accept it for certain.

While you point to this bit of evidence recently a story found plants are able to overide their inherited DNA structures from parents replacing them with an almost backup copy from past generations casting significant doubt on the idea of inherited mutations which is the foundation of evolution itself. Scientists are as well speculating this same occurance may well happen in humans in addition to plants.

In other words that the genes of the moth were somehow aware of the British industrial change and so morphed black to avoid it. This is what is stupid.


The only people I have ever heard say that in my entire existence are creationists who have no concept of evolution/natural selection and try, through their own ignorance, to make an argument against it, even though they have no idea what they are talking about.

I was recently engaged in another one of the evolution vs. creationism/intelligent design threads on the boards (Tired of them? Feel free to go away now) and for something like the 700th time I encountered the absurd claim that there is absolutely NO evidence for “macroevolution”. Rather than run through the (very) extensive list of evidence for macroevolution I figured we’d just narrow it down to one item and let the creationists and selected IDers try to explain why it isn’t actually evidence of “macroevolution”. In order to do that however a bit of explaining will be necessary first.

Retroviruses

Retroviruses contain viral RNA, as opposed to the DNA in humans and other animals and plants… and they also contain a reverse transcriptase. What this means is that they have the ability to insert the complimentary DNA sequence of their own RNA genetic code into the genetic code of the host organism they infect. It’s how they reproduce. Example of a retrovirus: HIV.

Here’s how it works in a little more detail.

The virus infects a cell. It then releases the reverse transcriptase. The reverse transcriptase makes a copy of viral DNA from the viral RNA. The viral DNA then gets spliced into the DNA of the infected host cell, at a random location… so from now on every time that cell’s DNA is replicated the viral DNA gets replicated right along with it. In the meantime the viral DNA in the cell serves as the template for producing new copies of viral RNA. Now, while the initial insertion point of the viral DNA is random, in any subsequent copies made when the cell reproduces the exact same location of the viral DNA will be copied as well.

(Side note: The random nature of the retroviral insertion is one well known hurdle faced by researchers of genetic therapies, since if they attempt to engineer a retrovirus to deliver their developed therapy to their patient a random insertion could place it in the middle of DNA that was already coding for something else that was fairly important)

When a retrovirus infects a host’s reproductive system - and thus the copies of the host’s DNA which will be passed on to it’s offspring - it becomes heritable by the host organism’s offspring, passed onto them just like any gene would be. And again, the location of the viral DNA within the genetic code will be the same as in the parent organism the DNA was inherited from.

The Evidence

The human genetic code is huge. It’s over 3 billion base pairs long. The genetic codes of the other primates (chimps, gorillas, orangutans, gibbons, etc…) are similarly massive. The odds of a single retrovirus infecting two of these individual species independently and just happening through pure coincidence to randomly splice themselves into the exact same location in their DNA are, obviously, not good.

So if we were to find, for example, that an analysis of human and chimp DNA revealed a single identical retroviral genetic sequence at an identical location that would be extremely solid evidence that they had both inherited that genetic sequence from a common ancestor who was originally infected by the retrovirus… thus also inheriting it’s common location in their genome. Not only is this a similar type of evidence that is possible from analysis of other genetic information… but this information in particular is completely immune to being hand-waved away as being somehow due to “common design” of similar appearing animals or functions as IDers and creationists attempt (and I stress “attempt”) to do with other findings. There is no rational way to argue that a viral infection was an element of the design of an organism.

So, in all of our studying of the genetic codes of humans, chimps, and other primates have we found a case of a retroviral insertion in an identical location in both humans and another primate? No…

We’ve found multiple cases.

The odds of finding a single example occurring by coincidence are mind bogglingly bad. The odds of finding multiple examples occurring by coincidence are exponentially worse. They defy description. And for the final nail in the coffin (as if we needed it), there’s the pattern we find these common insertions in:

So far (with the sequencing of the human and primate genomes still far from complete) the primate species we share the most common insertions with are chimps, which all other genetic evidence says are the most closely related primates to humans. We share the second most common insertions with gorillas… the second most closely related primates. Third and fourth most common insertions = orangutans and gibbons respectively… also the third and fourth most closely related according to the other genetic evidence. Fifth most = old world monkeys… sixth most = new world monkeys… fifth and sixth most closely related groups, respectively, according to the other genetic evidence.

A diagram of the pattern of insertions in question, courtesy of talk.origins:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/images/retrovirus.gif

The arrows show where the evidence indicates the original retroviral infection occurred.

So please, creationists and IDers… explain how this piece of evidence isn’t actually evidence at all.

One note, don't bother bringing up the existence of other viruses that are capable of non-random targetted insertion. Yes, they exist (parvoviruses). No, these aren't them. They know this because the reason they were able to identify them in the first place is they know which viral proteins those sequences code for, and they aren't from parvoviruses.

Either that, or I expect never to see another one of you claiming there is no evidence for macroevolution. Those IDers (I'm aware they exist) who do not argue against there being evidence of macro-evolution may feel free to ignore this challenge.


I found this quote (a quote from a quote):

"Vertebrate retrotransposons have been used extensively for phylogenetic analyses and studies of molecular evolution. Information can be obtained from specific inserts either by comparing sequence differences that have accumulated over time in orthologous copies of that insert or by determining the presence or absence of that specific element at a particular site. The presence of specific copies has been deemed to be an essentially homoplasy-free phylogenetic character because the probability of multiple independent insertions into any one site has been believed to be nil. . . . We have identified two hot spots for SINE* insertion within mys-9 and at each hot spot have found that two independent SINE insertions have occurred at identical sites. These results have major repercussions for phylogenetic analyses based on SINE insertions, indicating the need for caution when one concludes that the existence of a SINE at a specific locus in multiple individuals is indicative of common ancestry. Although independent insertions at the same locus may be rare, SINE insertions are not homoplasy-free phylogenetic markers. (Cantrell and others, 769.)"


*Short INterspersed Element. A type of small dispersed repetitive DNA sequence (eg Alu family in the human genome) found throughout a eukaryotic genome.

The quote was taken from this article:
http://www.trueorigin.org/theobald1a.asp

Which in turn is a critique of this article:
http://www.talkreason.org/articles/phylo.cfm

there is one small kink in all this massive conjecture...that is the every prevailing problem of the nature of our fossil records.

Well... the original post had nothing to do with the fossil record... and I am aware of not one single aspect of the fossil record that undermines in the slightest way the clear implications of the evidence presented in that post... but do elaborate.

Our records are astonishingly incomplete

In what way are thay "astonishingly" incomplete?

and so this illustration you so kindly provided us of evolutoin showing where commen ansestors were infected with the retrovirus is a problem in that no fossil evidence exists verifying the existence of any of these common ancestors...

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8667310&postcount=141

Feel free to skip down to where it says "For a demonstration, here's a 3 dimensional manipulable rendering of a prgression of steadily older skull fossils in the hominid line:" and begin reading from there.

Could it not be each species developed sperarte from one another though maintaining similiar enough DNA structures so that the virus infected these structures in the same manner..

Retroviral insertion location isn't determined by the DNA structure... so no.

Just for example, here's a chromosome map of the insertion location of three different retroviruses 9HIV, MLV, and ASLV)... and the locations they inserted at in the human genome in 3,127 independent trials:

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=509299&rendertype=figure&id=pbio-0020234-g001

Now, in all these insertions in a genome with the same structure every time... guess how many times they inserted in the same place? **

you yourself admit it is UNLIKELY for this to occur..

I'm sorry... I "admit"? It was a major point of the post... so yeah, I guess I "admitted" it... :rolleyes:

As for your "odds of life developing" example... please consider the concept of parsimony for just a moment.

We have two options:

1. The evidence that EXACTLY MATCHES THE PREDICTIONS OF A MODEL is evidence of the accuracy of the model.

2. It's just an astronomical coincidence that the model fluked into a correct prediction. And then repeated it dozens of times. And has yet to have the prediction falsified by any finding. Yup... pure concidence...

Which option should we conclude is the rational one?

While you point to this bit of evidence recently a story found plants are able to overide their inherited DNA structures from parents replacing them with an almost backup copy from past generations casting significant doubt on the idea of inherited mutations which is the foundation of evolution itself. Scientists are as well speculating this same occurance may well happen in humans in addition to plants.

Ha!!! To anybody who read that thread when it was first posted here, I TOLD YOU ALL!

I specifically predicted it was only a matter of time before a creationist posted a total misunderstanding of the implications of that finding EXACTLY like the above.

Damn, I should have put money on it.

**Answer key: ZERO.

-------------------------------------------------------------
Short INterspersed Element. A type of small dispersed repetitive DNA sequence (eg Alu family in the human genome) found throughout a eukaryotic genome.

SINE's aren't endogenous retroviruses.

And don't even get me started on Camp... I love how in his attempt to try to dismiss the actual endogenous retrovirus issue on page 4 of his critique he only ever references one paper (by Sverdlov)... going on and on about the paper's study of effects retroviral insertions can have when they insert near functional genes... but neglecting to mention that that same paper states that the retroviral insertions it is talking about likely occured at times ranging from 10 million to 60 million years ago in a primate ancestor.

Here's the abstract of the article in question for those interested... sure does seem to back up his point don't it? :rolleyes:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=9645463&dopt=Abstract

And his claim that the nested hierarchical pattern of retroviral insertions ISN'T a prediction of evolution!?!?!? That one's priceless.

SINE's aren't endogenous retroviruses.

My knowledge of genetics isn't overwhelming, but isn't the SINE's in my quotation referred to as inserted by retrotransposons?

Here is another one:

"One of the most widespread and functionally conserved families of endogenous retroviruses, the HERV-K family, is represented in genome not only by retrovirus-like sequences but also by much more abundant long terminal repeats (LTR). A solitary LTR retains many regulator elements and consequently is able to modulate activity of adjacent genes. This study aimed at evolutionary analysis of HERV-K (HML-2) LTRs in the human genome.

The sequences under consideration are relatively abundant in the genome. We estimate the total amount of HERV-K LTR sequences as 1200 copies per haploid genome. We analyzed locations of HERV-K LTRs in the human genome and compiled a complete databank of these LTRs. Distribution of LTR sequences in individual chromosome was studied. It was proved to be highly non-uniform with respect to chromosome lengths. The density of LTRs varies significantly between chromosomes. All human chromosomes can be divided into two classes, those with relatively high or low LTR content. Analysis in LTR positions in individual chromosomes demonstrated that the majority of HERV-K LTR form clusters with the level of local LTR density more than 5 times higher than that for the whole chromosome. Almost every chromosome contains 1-5 LTR clusters. We described 68 clusters of LTR sequences. Clusters are formed by LTRs from different HERV-K subfamilies. However, there is no direct correlation between the proximity of LTRs in the cluster and their structural divergence. This is the ground for a hypothesis that successive infections were independent but human chromosomes contain regions preferable for retrotransposition."

(My emphasis)

Article at:
http://www.iscb.org/ismb2003/posters/irenaAThumgen.siobc.ras.ru_92.html
(It seems to be another russian scientist, and yes he (sorry, *she) is referring to Sverdlov.)

My knowledge of genetics isn't overwhelming, but isn't the SINE's in my quotation referred to as inserted by retrotransposones?

Yes, it is referred to as such...

http://www-biology.ucsd.edu/classes/bimm100.WI00/XI.Retros.html

A. Retrotransposons

Two classes of Retrotransposons:

1. Viral Retrotransposons - contain an LTR (Long Terminal Repeat) at each end of the Retrotransposon - LTRs are characteristic of Retroviruses (see below) - [Lod3: 9-23; Lod4: 9-14 part]

Examples: Yeast Ty elements, Drosophila Copia element [Lod3: Table 9-5; Lod4: Table 9-3]

2. Nonviral Retrotransposons - no LTR present, but transpose via an RNA intermediate ...

Examples: LINES and SINES ... [Lod3: 9-30; Lod4: 9-18] ... classified as Medium Repetitive DNA, due to abundance in eukaryotic genomes ... recall Cot Curves

LINES - Long INterspersed ElementS - 6-7 kb long
SINES - Short INterspersed ElementS - ~ 300 bp

Highly abundant in the human genome: once every 5 kb => 500,000 copies per human genome (5% of total DNA!)

Most SINE elements contain an AluI restriction site ... hence called Alu repeats

As I said... SINEs aren't retroviruses.

Here is another one:

<snip>

(My emphasis)

Yes... and? You realize that that is saying there is a possibility that there is a statistical tendency for certain chromosome regions to be more susceptible to retrotransposition whereas to account for the data in the original post you would have to demonstrate highly repeatable targetting of retroviral insertions with accuracy down to the nucleotide?

If you do find such a thing be sure to alert every single resercher in gene therapies on the planet because they've been trying their best to MAKE retroviruses be capable of that kind of thing and so far they can't do it if they try. They would make excellent gene therapy delivery systems if they could.

Could this be of relevance?

http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-6750/2/15


Now I REALLY have to go to bed. I'll check up asap.

On the moth thing:

If, in fact, allele frequency is NOT changing the population, and the black/white thing happens NORMALLY, then it's just an older mutation showing how useful it is. It's along the lines of the theorized 'gay gene' in humans. If it does, in fact, exist, it's sometimes not useful (wherein social pressures tend to force people in to having kids ANYWAYS), and sometimes its VERY useful (wherein there's an overpopulation situation, and as useful as Sven is, if he has kids, everyone goes hungry).

It just means that, in the past, some moth developed this unusual 'color option' mutation, which made them better at surviving; they would have had both hues of offspring, which would have a strong ability to survive in changing situations, since if the world goes black, half survive, if the world goes white, half survive, while the less flexible groups would die out if the world ever went a detrimental hue.

Could this be of relevance?

http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-6750/2/15

Relevant in that it's related to genetic therapies... yes.

Relevant in that it's talking about targetted retroviral insertion... no.

Actually that's a really interesting article, thanks for pointing me at it.

What they're doing there is something referred to as "gene silencing" or "RNA interference" (RNAi). They use siRNA... which is a little different than the RNA you find in a regular retrovirus (It's double stranded). What they do is create an artificial siRNA sequence that exactly corresponds to the specific gene sequence they want to suppress the effects of and then they introduce it to the cell. The siRNA never inserts itself into the DNA, but what it does do is kind of suppress the activity of the gene sequence it corresponds to by preventing it from being transcribed. And that much explanation takes me about to the ends of my relatively limitted knowledge of molecular biology.

They do also talk about RNA insertions... but that's using regular RNA as a delivery mechanismto insert a sequence that can cause the DNA in the cell to produce it's OWN siRNA. The actual insertion point of that sequence isn't targetted, but the siRNA thus produced is targetted to only suppress the activity of a certain other gene once it is produced.

Yes but the mutaiton wasnt (like so many textbooks claim) a result of what happened. Its nautral selection not evolution.

Point me to any such textbook.

It sounds to me like this is just more of your complete misunderstanding of the theory.

I found a recent (march -05) article on retroviral insertions:


"Within the limits of this BAC-based end-sequencing mapping approach, 24 sites mapped to similar regions of the human reference genome (approximately 160 kb) and could not be definitively resolved as orthologous or non-orthologous (Table S3). We classified these as “ambiguous” overlap loci (Figure 3). If all 24 locations corresponded to insertions that were orthologous for each pair, this would correspond to a maximum of 12 orthologous loci. The number of non-orthologous loci was calculated as 275/287 (275 + 12) or 95.8%. This is almost certainly a lower-bound estimate owing to the limitation of our BAC-based mapping approach to refine the precise locations of the insertions.

We performed two analyses to determine whether these 12 shared map intervals might indeed be orthologous. First, we examined the distribution of shared sites between species (Table S3). We found that the distribution is inconsistent with the generally accepted phylogeny of catarrhine primates [5]. This is particularly relevant for the human/great ape lineage. For example, only one interval is shared by gorilla and chimpanzee; however, two intervals are shared by gorilla and baboon; while three intervals are apparently shared by macaque and chimpanzee. Our Southern analysis shows that human and orangutan completely lack PTERV1 sequence (see Figure 2A). If these sites were truly orthologous and, thus, ancestral in the human/ape ancestor, it would require that at least six of these sites were deleted in the human lineage. Moreover, the same exact six sites would also have had to have been deleted in the orangutan lineage if the generally accepted phylogeny is correct. Such a series of independent deletion events at the same precise locations in the genome is unlikely (Figure S3).

For the three intervals putatively shared between macaque and chimpanzee, we attempted to refine the precise position of the insertions by taking advantage of the available whole-genome shotgun sequences for these two genomes. For each of the three loci, we mapped the precise insertion site in the chimpanzee and then examined the corresponding site in macaque. In one case, we were unable to refine the map interval owing to the presence of repetitive rich sequences within the interval. In two cases, we were able to refine the map location to single basepair resolution (Figures S4 and S5). Based on this analysis, we determined that the sites were not orthologous between chimpanzee and macaque. It is interesting to note that this level of refined mapping in chimpanzee revealed 4- to 5-bp AT-rich target site duplications in both cases. These findings are consistent with an exogenous retrovirus source since proviral integrations typically target AT-rich DNA ranging from 4 to 6 bp in length [24]. Although the status of the remaining overlapping sites is unknown, these data resolve four additional sites as independent insertion events and suggest that the remainder may similarly be non-orthologous. This apparent independent clustering of retroviral insertions at similar locations may be a consequence of preferential integration bias or the effect of selection pressure against gene regions, limiting the number of effective sites that are tolerated for fixation."

And:

"Discussion

Most human endogenous retroviruses are thought to have emerged as a result of ancient infections more than 25 million years ago [7,8], followed by subsequent retrotransposition events. Several lines of evidence indicate that chimpanzee and gorilla PTERV1 copies arose from an exogenous source. First, there is virtually no overlap (less than 4%) between the location of insertions among chimpanzee, gorilla, macaque, and baboon, making it unlikely that endogenous copies existed in a common ancestor and then became subsequently deleted in the human lineage and orangutan lineage. Second, the PTERV1 phylogenetic tree is inconsistent with the generally accepted species tree for primates, suggesting a horizontal transmission as opposed to a vertical transmission from a common ape ancestor. An alternative explanation may be that the primate phylogeny is grossly incorrect, as has been proposed by a minority of anthropologists [29]. This seems unlikely in light of the extensive molecular evolutionary data that have been collected over the last few years [5,25] that clearly place orangutan as the outgroup species to the human–chimpanzee–gorilla clade and Old World monkeys as an outgroup to the human/ape lineage.

Third, the single nucleotide substitution rate for the viruses is significantly greater than what would be expected for neutral nuclear DNA. The extent of chimpanzee and gorilla substitution, for example, has been estimated at approximately 0.016 ± 0.008 substitutions per site [25], with approximately half of this variation occurring in each lineage. The endogenous retrovirus sequence that we examined showed significantly greater divergence (0.038 ± 0.003) (62 pairwise comparisons). A similar excess of divergence was observed if only intraspecific retroviral divergence was compared (0.028 ± 0.003 and 0.041 ± 0.003 for chimpanzee and gorilla, respectively) (see Table S4). Such an acceleration of neutral substitution would easily be explained if it were composed of a viral and nuclear component (see Materials and Methods). Fourth, if we partition synonymous and non-synonymous substitution sites (see Materials and Methods), we observe a deficiency of amino acid replacement sites (Ka/Ks = 0.63). We observed a similar result (Ka/Ks = 0.44) for one of the ambiguous overlap loci shared between gorilla and chimpanzee (see Table S3). This significant departure from neutrality would be an expected residuum if a portion of PTERV1 sequence variation accrued while being propagated as an infectious virus [11]. If it were solely derived from an ancestral endogenous element, a neutral pattern, as opposed to a relaxed pattern of purifying selection, would be expected. Finally, in the few examples where the insertion sites have been mapped precisely, both the length and the composition of the target site duplications are characteristic of the patterns of retroviral integrations [24]."


(My emphasis)


http://biology.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1371/journal.pbio.0030110

I found a recent (march -05) article on retroviral insertions:

Cool. Actually, very cool, this is a great article.

First, regarding your emphasized sections, I agree completely with what they're saying..

However, I get the feeling you may be misreading what that is. The authors of the paper are presenting a case for a... retroviral epidemic, I guess you'd call it... that hit the chimp and gorilla ancestral populations about 3-4 million years ago after they had each branched off from the other primates. (Chimps branched off ~5 million years ago, Gorillas closer to 10 million). They call it a retroviral "bombardment", but I think that's a silly term for it personally. There’s a couple reasons why they conclude this was the case:

1. Unlike the HERV sequences we were discussing as evidence of common primate ancestry the PTERV sequences they are discussing here are located in similar regions in the genome but not identical locations. Thus indicating independent instances of infection. They mention this themselves in the third section you emphasized when they say there is virtually no overlap in insertion sites between the species which do have the insertions.

Refer to their chart of the sequences they studied and their insertion locations: http://biology.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=slideshow&type=figure&doi=10.1371/journal.pbio.0030110&id=24596

Most of the PTERV1 insertions sites are completely different between species. And even in the few instances where they’re relatively similar (marked by the triangles, the two colors indicate the two species in which there was similarity) they only inserted in the same loci. A loci is the physical position of an entire gene (or sometimes only expressed gene) on a chromosome. Genes are thousands or tens of thousands of nucleotides long, a much bigger target than the identical insertion sites observed in the HERVs that were used to map out phylogenetic relationships between the primates.

In three of those cases the loci infected in common was shared between chimps and rhesus macaques… so they very carefully checked just how well those insertions lined up within that loci between those two species… you actually quoted it in a section before an area you wanted to bold:

For the three intervals putatively shared between macaque and chimpanzee, we attempted to refine the precise position of the insertions by taking advantage of the available whole-genome shotgun sequences for these two genomes. For each of the three loci, we mapped the precise insertion site in the chimpanzee and then examined the corresponding site in macaque (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov). In one case, we were unable to refine the map interval owing to the presence of repetitive rich sequences within the interval. In two cases, we were able to refine the map location to single basepair resolution (Figures S4 and S5). Based on this analysis, we determined that the sites were not orthologous between chimpanzee and macaque.

So based on the tests they ran the insertion locations were not identical down to the nucleotides (basepair) level as it is in the HERV insertions in the original post… indicating they were not commonly inherited vestiges of the same infection, but the result of two independent infections that just happened to insert fairly close to each other. In the section you bolded they then went on to elaborate on how this indicated that these insertions would have been from seperate independent infections.

However, whether they’re a bigger target or not there’s still a LOT of loci in the genome and finding several different cases of the same virus infecting the same loci out of only 275 trials does beat the odds, so they’re speculating that this could be due to that particular region of DNA being statistically more prone to retroviral infection. Or it could just be a fluke. It would take more testing to figure out which.

2. The sheer number of copies of the virus which have become fixed in the genome of the primates they found the virus in means there was a LOT of these viral infections occurring in the past. A more detailed explanation of the process of how a retrovirus reaches such a state might be in order here…

A. An individual in the species must first actually encounter the virus.
B. That virus has to successfully integrate itself into a cell in that individual. Studies suggest the odds of this occurring are around 5%... but it varies depending on the virus.
C. That cell has to be a germline cell. Of all the trillions of cells in the body it has to infect either a sperm cell in a male or an ovum in a female. Otherwise while it will infect that individual it can’t be passed on in the genes of the next generation.
D. It has to infect a germline cell that actually contributes to the next generation. Which sperm or egg actually ends up producing a kid is a pretty big roll of the dice itself.
E. After beating ALL these odds it then has to reach fixation in the wider genome of the species… which means it has to spread, generation after generation, until it eventually becomes present in ALL members of that species.

They found that over a hundred copies of this particular virus had reached that state in the species in which it was found. That would have taken a LOT of infections for that many of them to have beaten the odds to get there.

So you see, this really isn’t contradicting the points made in the original post at all.

That aside, there’s another detail of interest in their figure 1:

http://biology.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=slideshow&type=figure&doi=10.1371/journal.pbio.0030110&id=24588

On image A you can see where they mapped the human genome directly against the chimp genome. The dark blue regions align directly to each other… but you can see in the chimp sequence there’s a big huge gap between the first and second regions that isn’t there in the human sequence. And… lo and behold… take a look in that gap and they find a retroviral insertion that stuck an extra 10,000 or so nucleotides of it’s own genetic code in there… before which the sequence in that one particular region was basically identical between chimps and humans.

Just one more illustration of one of the many ways in which little differences like this gradually work their way into the DNA of species which used to share a common genetic code back in the day…

This is what I leave you with, so grab your King Jame's!

Read this, ok?

Luke 21:25-33

"Generation" can alternately be translated as "era" or "age".

Forgive me if this idea has been posted, I didn't feel like reading through fourteen pages of posts, but:
You mentioned parvoviruses, which indeed do choose a specific point on the genome. You also mentioned that this couldn't be the case, since the proteins and whatever else don't match up. But the thing about viruses is, they don't exactly fall into well defined species. They evolve rapidly all the time, and that can be observed, but they aren't technically alive so that's not really a problem to IDers.
So what I'm getting at is, isn't it possible that a now extinct virus could have exhibited traits of parvoviruses and retroviruses?
Even if this isn't the case, there are probably a few other possible explanations. The point is, the evidence here is circumstantial.

Forgive me if this idea has been posted, I didn't feel like reading through fourteen pages of posts
I'm in the same boat. 14 pages is, in technical terms, a crapload of stuff.
I'm in no way qualified to debate on the biological front, so I'll stick with what I know, stirring up trouble. :cool:

There is evidence for evolution. There is evidence for creationism. There is also evidence that we never went to the moon, that LBJ was behind Kennedy's assasination, and that the US government created HIV and infected the black population with it to rid the earth of them. There are holes in all of the above theories.

Evolution happens, the differences in appearance from region to region across Earth is proof enough of that.

But in the interest of balance, I would like to point out that in addition to being genetically related to other primates, humans are also 35% genetically identical to bananas.

But in the interest of balance, I would like to point out that in addition to being genetically related to other primates, humans are also 35% genetically identical to bananas.

Why is that in the interest of "balance"? You do realize we happen to also be distantly related to bananas?

Really, really distantly related... like over 2 billion years removed related (I believe the chloroplasts are currently thought to have branched off the evolutionary tree about 2.1 billion years ago)... but still related.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/images/phylo.gif (Ninth entry from the left along the top)

Why is that in the interest of "balance"? You do realize we happen to also be distantly related to bananas?

Really, really distantly related... like over 2 billion years removed related (I believe the chloroplasts are currently thought to have branched off the evolutionary tree about 2.1 billion years ago)... but still related.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/images/phylo.gif (Ninth entry from the left along the top)
Meh, it's unbalanced. I just find it really really funny that fruit might be a distant long lost cousin. You might say it's "apeeling"
Like I said, I'm just stirring up trouble.

Forgive me if this idea has been posted, I didn't feel like reading through fourteen pages of posts, but:
You mentioned parvoviruses, which indeed do choose a specific point on the genome. You also mentioned that this couldn't be the case, since the proteins and whatever else don't match up. But the thing about viruses is, they don't exactly fall into well defined species. They evolve rapidly all the time, and that can be observed, but they aren't technically alive so that's not really a problem to IDers.
So what I'm getting at is, isn't it possible that a now extinct virus could have exhibited traits of parvoviruses and retroviruses?

They can still identify the structure of the retroviruses (plural, many many examples ALL showing the same patterns) they're dealing with in these analyses, and they're just like any modern retrovirus. They have no capacity for targetted insertion... especially right down to the nucleotide.

Gene therapy researchers have been actively trying to FORCE retroviruses to insert in a targetted manner since the 80s so that they can use them as delivery mechanisms for those gene tharapies without having to worry about whether they're going to insert in a vital section of DNA... and they haven't been able to do it even when they're doing everything in their power to help the retrovirus along.

They just don't work that way.

Even if this isn't the case, there are probably a few other possible explanations.

Then by all means provide one.

The point is, the evidence here is circumstantial.

I am so incredibly sick of that claim.

This evidence is "circumstantial" to about the same extent that finding a murder suspect's DNA at the murder scene and his fingerprints on the victim's throat (right where the victim was strangled to death no less) accompanied by video surveillance of the suspect leaving the scene at exactly the established time of death... is "circumstantial" evidence.

Your body is 90% water but I don't see anyone claiming to be related to a raincloud. At least, not in a familial sense.

Your body is 90% water but I don't see anyone claiming to be related to a raincloud. At least, not in a familial sense.

Oh look, you're back.

I don't see anybody claiming H2O molecules are the means of transmitting genetic information from generation to generation either... now did you bring along that explanation of the data in the original post I've requested you provide half a dozen times now by any chance?

Oh look, you're back.

I don't see anybody claiming H2O molecules are the means of transmitting genetic information from generation to generation either... now did you bring along that explanation of the data in the original post I've requested you provide half a dozen times now by any chance?

Nope, but you're a liar anyways. You could say the sky is neon green and someone here would come up and tell you you're right. I have better things to do with my time then to invest any more thought in your drivel.

So instead I will spend 5 seconds posting witty one liners for pure pleasure, since you cannot be reasoned with.

As a matter of fact, you have proven yourself so scientifically worthless that instead of allowing you the pleasure of aggravating me by quoting me out of context, I'm going to officially ignore you.

Nope, but you're a liar anyways.

Oh my. Being completely incapable of answering the original post is really starting to get to you isn't it?

You could say the sky is neon green and someone here would come up and tell you you're right. I have better things to do with my time then to invest any more thought in your drivel.

I'm sorry, "any more"? That would suggest you had invested any thought in it to begin with... but throughout this entire thread every time I have requested you do just that and at least TRY to post something that addresses the data in the original post you've posted anything but that requested info.

Let's see... first you posted nothing but "the odds of evolution occuring are <big huge ridiculous number>" and then when you were asked how you came up with the number... nothing.

Then you moved on to claiming the earth wasn't very old and declaring the unreliability of radiometric dating methods and then when you were invited to write your own thread on the topic providing SOME evidence or explanation of your claim... nothing.

Then you posted a series of horrible misconceptions of evolutionary theory which I took the time to correct point for point.

Your latest attempt was to actually suggest that WATER should tell us as much about biological relatedness as DNA. I can't recall ever hearing of a paternity test being performed by measuring how dehydrated a potential parent was... but whatever.

All this time I kept repeating my request that you either provide the originally requested explanation of the original data or admit you couldn't do so.

And now here you are... still being asked to do so and still absolutely refusing. How surprising.

So instead I will spend 5 seconds posting witty one liners for pure pleasure, since you cannot be reasoned with.

Feel free to spend 5 seconds demonstrating your total inability to deal with the information in the original post. Do so as much as you wish in fact. It's not as if your demonstration isn't just confirming my point anyway.

Wouldn't it be rather humorous if Reformentia and The Winter Alliance met up in real life. What's even cooler is that neither one would know that they are who they are. Maybe it's some weird thing that God is doing to play with our minds.

Wouldn't it be rather humorous if Reformentia and The Winter Alliance met up in real life. What's even cooler is that neither one would know that they are who they are. Maybe it's some weird thing that God is doing to play with our minds. It would probably do something bad to the space-time continuim if that were to happen.

Your body is 90% water but I don't see anyone claiming to be related to a raincloud. At least, not in a familial sense.
True. But since the general consensus among evoluntionists (for lack of a better term) is that anyone who considers ID/creationism to possibly be valid to be dumber than two bags of bricks, I figured it was more fun and less work to play into the stereotype. :D

Nope but you're a liar anyways
Feel free to spend 5 seconds demonstrating your total inability to deal with the information in the original post.
*sniffs the air* Does anyone smell something burning? That could mean...yes it does! We have a Flame War! Aren't they fun boys and girls? :D

:p And remember kids, the best way to win a debate is via insults. If you can't win by reason go for name calling! It's the Internet way! :p

*sniffs the air* Does anyone smell something burning? That could mean...yes it does! We have a Flame War! Aren't they fun boys and girls?

Flames?

Oh please... I was just pointing out the obvious. He said himself that all he was planning on doing was posting witty one liners instead of anything relevent to the subject of the thread.

If I was at all interested in flaming him you'd know. Trust me.

Flames?

Oh please... I was just pointing out the obvious. He said himself that all he was planning on doing was posting witty one liners instead of anything relevent to the subject of the thread.

If I was at all interested in flaming him you'd know. Trust me.
I rest my case.

Ladies, please.

True. But since the general consensus among evoluntionists (for lack of a better term)

Try evolutionary biologists. Or, for shorthand, scientists.

Ladies, please.
Sorry sorry. Fire catches. My mistake. :(

Tag. (interesting reading--minus any tactlessness, of course)

I rest my case.

On what exactly do you rest it? That was practically a direct quote from his own post! In fact, I'll just actually copy and paste directly from his post this time:

"I have better things to do with my time then to invest any more thought in your drivel.

So instead I will spend 5 seconds posting witty one liners for pure pleasure, since you cannot be reasoned with."

So how do you conclude that pointing out that he has not yet actually responded AT ALL to "my drivel", and then inviting him to go ahead and continue investing 5 seconds of his time not doing so since it only proves my point, is starting a "flame war"?

If I wanted to flame someone I would (just as an example illustration) offer an observation that they were so incredibly, astoundingly dim that black holes gather 'round them in wonder.

But I refrain, as I actually am trying to keep this discussion on topic and NOT have it degenerate into nothing but insult trading. Hence my constant requests for posts that actually deal with the original data.

Now, back to the topic at hand... hopefully.

On what exactly do you rest it? That was practically a direct quote from his own post! In fact, I'll just actually copy and paste directly from his post this time:



So how do you conclude that pointing out that he has not yet actually responded AT ALL to "my drivel", and then inviting him to go ahead and continue investing 5 seconds of his time not doing so since it only proves my point, is starting a "flame war"?

If I wanted to flame someone I would (just as an example illustration) offer an observation that they were so incredibly, astoundingly dim that black holes gather 'round them in wonder.

But I refrain, as I actually am trying to keep this discussion on topic and NOT have it degenerate into nothing but insult trading. Hence my constant requests for posts that actually deal with the original data.

Now, back to the topic at hand... hopefully.
Hmm, touchy.

On what exactly do you rest it? That was practically a direct quote from his own post! In fact, I'll just actually copy and paste directly from his post this time:



So how do you conclude that pointing out that he has not yet actually responded AT ALL to "my drivel", and then inviting him to go ahead and continue investing 5 seconds of his time not doing so since it only proves my point, is starting a "flame war"?

If I wanted to flame someone I would (just as an example illustration) offer an observation that they were so incredibly, astoundingly dim that black holes gather 'round them in wonder.

But I refrain, as I actually am trying to keep this discussion on topic and NOT have it degenerate into nothing but insult trading. Hence my constant requests for posts that actually deal with the original data.

Now, back to the topic at hand... hopefully.


As much as id like to see those numbers (i may be mistaken, but i think i asked as to how he arrived at them as well) I highly doubt its going to happen. actually, i doubt they exist.

anyways, im thinking this thread is about dead.... personally, i think the originator demonstrated their point pretty well....

see you around on the next Creationism/Intelligent Design vs Evolution proto-flame war:)

Hmm, touchy.

Hmmm, troll-y.

Rabble Rabble! Neo-conservative Asshole! Rabble Liberal Pussy! Even More Rabbling Blarrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrgh!

Penis

Hmmm, troll-y.
Why yes, how'd you guess? It's a personal goal to antagonize people who take themselves to seriously.
But you know what they say. Don't feed the troll and he doesn't come back.

see you around on the next Creationism/Intelligent Design vs Evolution proto-flame war
I'll be there with bells on, fighting for truth justice and the American way. And a hard-boiled egg. Ooh! and chocolate chip cookies! ;)

Why yes, how'd you guess? It's a personal goal to antagonize people who take themselves to seriously.


Well go and do it in another thread then. Despite being in NS this thread actually tries to take itself seriously.

Well go and do it in another thread then. Despite being in NS this thread actually tries to take itself seriously.
Exactly why I'm here.

Late breaking news:
Acadianada was bombed by severl countries today following the end of an ID-Evolution summit....

Here we go again!

This time featuring an article called: "Protein Determinants of Insertional Specificity for the Drosophila Gypsy Retrovirus"

Drosophila = "fruit fly"
Gypsy = name of the retrovirus


"The ability of gypsy to integrate specifically into ovo sequences was recently analyzed by DEJ et al. 1998 . These studies concluded that gypsy integrates in at least seven different target sites localized within a 200-bp sequence present in the promoter region of the ovo gene. Close analysis of these sites reveals a very relaxed consensus sequence consisting of six alternating pyrimidines and purines. The weak conservation of the observed target sequence suggests that gypsy site-specific integration is not due to a direct interaction of the gypsy integrase with these sequences. Instead, insertional specificity is probably due to interactions with additional factors that remain so far undetermined."

also:

"Figure 2. Binding sites for Ovo proteins and gypsy insertion sites in the ovo promoter region contained within the 1.3-kb 5'ovo fragment. Highlighted sequences correspond to the Ovo recognition sequences as described by LU et al. 1998 . Bold underlined sequences indicate insertion sites A to H, as described by DEJ et al. 1998 . Gypsy insertion sites identified in this work are indicated with numbers above the previously described sites. All sites coincide with previous ones except 8.2 and 8.1, which define a new insertion site. Transcription start sites for RNAs encoding the OvoA and OvoB proteins are indicated. Numbers correspond to nucleotide positions starting at the zero nucleotide position of the ovo sequence (MEVEL-NINIO et al. 1996 )."

and:

"To verify that the y2-like phenotypes were due to insertions of gypsy into the 5'ovo region of the transgene we established six independent y2-like strains starting with a single male or female offspring. All strains showed Mendelian segregation of the reporter gene (w+) located in the transgene, which was always associated with a y2-like phenotype. We followed the procedure of DEJ et al. 1998 , using PCR to clone and sequence the gypsy insertion site in each of the six strains. The results demonstrate that gypsy insertions occurred in the same gypsy target sites found previously in the endogenous ovoD1 sequence (DEJ et al. 1998 ). Fig 2 shows the comparison of the gypsy target sites found previously and the six insertion sites identified in this work. Out of the six insertions, only one was found in a new site, very close to the other seven previously described. From these results we conclude that the signals necessary to determine the specificity of gypsy insertion into ovo reside within the 1.3-kb sequence present in the 5' region of this gene."

(my emphasis)

http://www.genetics.org/cgi/content/full/158/3/1101

Here we go again!

This time featuring an article called: "Protein Determinants of Insertional Specificity for the Drosophila Gypsy Retrovirus"

Drosophila = "fruit fly"
Gypsy = name of the retrovirus


"The ability of gypsy to integrate specifically into ovo sequences was recently analyzed by DEJ et al. 1998 . These studies concluded that gypsy integrates in at least seven different target sites localized within a 200-bp sequence present in the promoter region of the ovo gene. Close analysis of these sites reveals a very relaxed consensus sequence consisting of six alternating pyrimidines and purines. The weak conservation of the observed target sequence suggests that gypsy site-specific integration is not due to a direct interaction of the gypsy integrase with these sequences. Instead, insertional specificity is probably due to interactions with additional factors that remain so far undetermined."

also:

"Figure 2. Binding sites for Ovo proteins and gypsy insertion sites in the ovo promoter region contained within the 1.3-kb 5'ovo fragment. Highlighted sequences correspond to the Ovo recognition sequences as described by LU et al. 1998 . Bold underlined sequences indicate insertion sites A to H, as described by DEJ et al. 1998 . Gypsy insertion sites identified in this work are indicated with numbers above the previously described sites. All sites coincide with previous ones except 8.2 and 8.1, which define a new insertion site. Transcription start sites for RNAs encoding the OvoA and OvoB proteins are indicated. Numbers correspond to nucleotide positions starting at the zero nucleotide position of the ovo sequence (MEVEL-NINIO et al. 1996 )."

and:

"To verify that the y2-like phenotypes were due to insertions of gypsy into the 5'ovo region of the transgene we established six independent y2-like strains starting with a single male or female offspring. All strains showed Mendelian segregation of the reporter gene (w+) located in the transgene, which was always associated with a y2-like phenotype. We followed the procedure of DEJ et al. 1998 , using PCR to clone and sequence the gypsy insertion site in each of the six strains. The results demonstrate that gypsy insertions occurred in the same gypsy target sites found previously in the endogenous ovoD1 sequence (DEJ et al. 1998 ). Fig 2 shows the comparison of the gypsy target sites found previously and the six insertion sites identified in this work. Out of the six insertions, only one was found in a new site, very close to the other seven previously described. From these results we conclude that the signals necessary to determine the specificity of gypsy insertion into ovo reside within the 1.3-kb sequence present in the 5' region of this gene."

(my emphasis)

http://www.genetics.org/cgi/content/full/158/3/1101

All I can say is thank God I went into the social sciences and not genetics!!

snip
"The ability of gypsy to integrate specifically into ovo sequences was recently analyzed by DEJ et al. 1998 . These studies concluded that gypsy integrates in at least seven different target sites localized within a 200-bp sequence present in the promoter region of the ovo gene. Close analysis of these sites reveals a very relaxed consensus sequence consisting of six alternating pyrimidines and purines. The weak conservation of the observed target sequence suggests that gypsy site-specific integration is not due to a direct interaction of the gypsy integrase with these sequences. Instead, insertional specificity is probably due to interactions with additional factors that remain so far undetermined."

also:

"Figure 2. Binding sites for Ovo proteins and gypsy insertion sites in the ovo promoter region contained within the 1.3-kb 5'ovo fragment. Highlighted sequences correspond to the Ovo recognition sequences as described by LU et al. 1998 . Bold underlined sequences indicate insertion sites A to H, as described by DEJ et al. 1998 . Gypsy insertion sites identified in this work are indicated with numbers above the previously described sites. All sites coincide with previous ones except 8.2 and 8.1, which define a new insertion site. Transcription start sites for RNAs encoding the OvoA and OvoB proteins are indicated.
*snip*
The results demonstrate that gypsy insertions occurred in the same gypsy target sites found previously in the endogenous ovoD1 sequence (DEJ et al. 1998 ). Fig 2 shows the comparison of the gypsy target sites found previously and the six insertion sites identified in this work. Out of the six insertions, only one was found in a new site, very close to the other seven previously described. From these results we conclude that the signals necessary to determine the specificity of gypsy insertion into ovo reside within the 1.3-kb sequence present in the 5' region of this gene."


http://www.genetics.org/cgi/content/full/158/3/1101

The presence of an occasionally meaningful post in this thread has pulled me back in, sorry.

So, regarding the above, I ask the following purely as questions, not anticipating or implying any answer:

1. Is the Gypsy virus one of the ones used as an insertion-point marker to indicate common ancestry among primates?

2. If not, have the viruses used to imply common ancestry been examined for whether their insertion point is random or specific?

3. Do all viruses (virii?) exhibit this non-random insertion? (I realize not all viruses have been studied, but do all other studied viruses exhibit specific insertion points?)

4. Can/does randomness vs. specific insertion points be different for a virus depending on what kind of host the virus inserts into? (i.e., virus A hits animal 1 in a random insertion, but animal 2 in a specefic point).

I believe the above establishes very well that at least some viruses do insert at specefic points. Can it be established that some viruses insert randomly? Can it be determined which of these two properties are exhibited by viruses whose insertion points are used to try to establish common ancestry?

The presence of an occasionally meaningful post in this thread has pulled me back in, sorry.

So, regarding the above, I ask the following purely as questions, not anticipating or implying any answer:

1. Is the Gypsy virus one of the ones used as an insertion-point marker to indicate common ancestry among primates?

2. If not, have the viruses used to imply common ancestry been examined for whether their insertion point is random or specific?

3. Do all viruses (virii?) exhibit this non-random insertion? (I realize not all viruses have been studied, but do all other studied viruses exhibit specific insertion points?)

4. Can/does randomness vs. specific insertion points be different for a virus depending on what kind of host the virus inserts into? (i.e., virus A hits animal 1 in a random insertion, but animal 2 in a specefic point).

If I may add:

5. Is non-random dispersal of infection across the chromosomes the same non-random dispersal in creatures of other species?

(i.e., even if you can possibly accept that two different case of genetic spoiling by such a mechanism can occur at the same point, does this carry across the 'species barrier' and thus allow separate species to be identically 'tagged' or not... If so, I don't know if there are any ways of telling whether the 'identical tags' are due to common inheratance of susceptibility or designed-in similarities, but as Creationist thinking already has the entire genome similarities pegged for the Creator and Evolutionaries have it pegged down as a proof of Separation Of Species By Natural Selection I don't think expanding further is going to send us down a single path of Truth...)

1. Is the Gypsy virus one of the ones used as an insertion-point marker to indicate common ancestry among primates?

Based on the original post, I would guess no - as the author seemed to be referring to viruses that no longer exists.

3. Do all viruses (virii?) exhibit this non-random insertion? (I realize not all viruses have been studied, but do all other studied viruses exhibit specific insertion points?)

No. Retroviruses insert randomly - sometimes in the middle of an important gene, which is why researchers are trying so desperately to figure out how to target them.

4. Can/does randomness vs. specific insertion points be different for a virus depending on what kind of host the virus inserts into? (i.e., virus A hits animal 1 in a random insertion, but animal 2 in a specefic point).

Probably unknown, but unlikely. If a virus is targetting a specific section of DNA, it would have to be because of the chemical interactions there. Chemical interactions are the same whether you are in E. coli or human beings.

Cool, thanks. It seems like whichever side you're on, further study is warranted. I don't believe that answering these questions will provide categorical or definitive answers for anybody, but I maintain that further examination (experimentation) will benefit everybody, even if just through improved methods of gene therapy.

Maybe biologists won't solve this one. Maybe the high-energy metaphysics guys/gals will build a working time machine, and go back and check to find out what happened, like in 12 Monkeys (they were researching a plague, rather than evolution, but it was a neat idea). If there were a line on this in Vegas, I'd still probably put a few bucks on evolution.

Well!

Intelligent Designers don't need to contend that there isn't evidence for macroevolution. They merely insist that it all unravelled by design. Virus, DNA, universe, everything as an expression of God! Or, caused initially by God. Set in motion, like. So any time something is 'random' - or not - it was intended by God. You can't get away from an idea like that, it's all encompassing, and certainly won't be stopped by evidence pointing out details which, to IDers are simply narrow human viewpoints of the greater picture (God).

At least that's my take. It would be their safest position rather than closing eyes and ears and humming loudly. Maybe a little too agnostic and open minded for the hardcore IDers though. Evidence don't sway the unreasonable, and if someone is arguing something like the Bible is literal fact I'm not sure that someone is really reasonable.

Cool, thanks. It seems like whichever side you're on, further study is warranted. I don't believe that answering these questions will provide categorical or definitive answers for anybody, but I maintain that further examination (experimentation) will benefit everybody, even if just through improved methods of gene therapy.

In science, further study is *always* warranted. This is a single piece of evidence in the puzzle. We might eventually find that it fits in differently than we thought - and that would be science as well.

My only problem with Creationism and ID is that they are, by definition, not science, as they do not follow the scientific method. As such, while I have no problem with anyone holding them as beliefs, they certainly can't be taught in a science class as anything but an example of bad science.

In science, further study is *always* warranted. This is a single piece of evidence in the puzzle. We might eventually find that it fits in differently than we thought - and that would be science as well.

.

That makes sense, but I guess what I mean is, genetic research deserves a place as a priority in research. Because there is a finite amount of funding and personnel for research, I imagine sometimes hard choices have to be made as to what can be tested at any given time. I just don't want to see genetics, or stem cells, or other potentially fruitful fields of study be pushed under other things solely because of religious friction (I realize not all religious people are against genetics as a discipline.)

That makes sense, but I guess what I mean is, genetic research deserves a place as a priority in research. Because there is a finite amount of funding and personnel for research, I imagine sometimes hard choices have to be made as to what can be tested at any given time. I just don't want to see genetics, or stem cells, or other potentially fruitful fields of study be pushed under other things solely because of religious friction (I realize not all religious people are against genetics as a discipline.)

Yes, and unfortunately, the people researching something like regrowing hair on men's heads get more money than those researching a deadly disease. It all depends where the money in the industry is.

Meanwhile, there are many efforts to push some of our promising lines of research "under the rug", as it were - and we (and those who support the scientific community) are pushing back just as hard. =)

Yes, and unfortunately, the people researching something like regrowing hair on men's heads get more money than those researching a deadly disease. It all depends where the money in the industry is.


Hey, don't be hating the researchers working on cures for baldness. In twenty years you'll be thanking them for it.

Hey, don't be hating the researchers working on cures for baldness. In twenty years you'll be thanking them for it.
Somehow I doubt that Dem is going to go bald anytime even remotely soon.

Here we go again!

And we're off!

As a side note, I'd like to commend you for being the one person who is actually making any serious attempt to address the data in the original post... and doing so by referencing the peer reviewed literature no less! I'm not sure if you appreciate what a rarity that is in these discussions, it's quite refreshing.

"The ability of gypsy to integrate specifically into ovo sequences was recently analyzed by DEJ et al. 1998 . These studies concluded that gypsy integrates in at least seven different target sites localized within a 200-bp sequence present in the promoter region of the ovo gene. Close analysis of these sites reveals a very relaxed consensus sequence consisting of six alternating pyrimidines and purines. The weak conservation of the observed target sequence suggests that gypsy site-specific integration is not due to a direct interaction of the gypsy integrase with these sequences. Instead, insertional specificity is probably due to interactions with additional factors that remain so far undetermined."

etc...

http://www.genetics.org/cgi/content/full/158/3/1101

Gypsy virus is actually an errantivirus in the Metaviradae family... not quite the same as the retroviruses we're speaking of in humans and primates. In fact, up until the mid 90s gypsy wasn't even classified as a retrovirus at all. The differences between gypsy and other retroviruses is actually discussed in a little more detail in one of the papers cited by the paper you linked,

http://nar.oupjournals.org/cgi/reprint/26/17/4019 "A hotspot for the Drosophila gypsy retroelement in the ovo locus".

The Drosophila retroelement gypsy has a number of unusual features including an unusual LTR terminal sequence and an apparent target sequence preference. The ovo locus is a known hotspot for gypsy insertion. We examined the target sequence preference of gypsy within ovo by isolating 26 new insertions and sequencing the gypsy/ovo junctions. Insertions were found at multiple sites within the ovo locus. The insertions clustered within an ~150 bp region in the non-translated region of the ovob transcript, with most insertions falling within the first intron. There were seven sites of insertion within this region and these mostly conform to the consensus sequence YRYRYR (where Y = pyrimidine and R = purine). However, this target sequence is at best necessary but not sufficient to specify a hotspot, as there were several other sequences conforming to this consensus in the ovo locus that were not hit. The results indicate that gypsy may have a higher degree of target specificity than most infectious LTR retroelements.

The gypsy LTR retroelement of Drosophila melanogaster is of great interest because it represents a genetically tractable retroelement that is closely related to the non-infectious LTR retrotransposons but is infectious like retroviruses (1,2). Like retroviruses, gypsy encodes genes equivalent to gag, pol and env, whereas most retrotransposons encode only gag and pol. Moreover, the envelope protein is encoded by a subgenomic mRNA, just as is the case in retroviruses (3). The latter feature is shared with another Drosophila retroelement, Tom (4). Although this aspect of gypsy’s biology has attracted considerable attention, relatively little is known about how gypsy, like all retrotransposons and retroviruses, inserts its DNA into the host genome during the essential integration phase of its life cycle. Like these other elements, gypsy encodes an integrase (IN) protein that presumably mediates the integration reaction. Unlike the other elements, gypsy has unusual terminal sequences, and may have sequence specificity for insertion.

As you can see gypsy is certainly not typical of a retrovirus. It has attracted as much attention as it has specifically because it does appear to have some kind of site-specific insertion mechanism (even though there are multiple such sites) when this is simply not seen in retroviruses. Also, as noted, the target site composition is itself not the only factor in providing this target site specificity since other identical sequences in the genome never experience an insertion. So there's clearly some fairly unique combination of additional factors at work in this particular case that are producing this result... which was also mentioned by the paper you cited.

1. Is the Gypsy virus one of the ones used as an insertion-point marker to indicate common ancestry among primates?

Gypsy virus is an errantivirus, a family of viruses that occurs in invertebrates... insects and such. So, no.

2. If not, have the viruses used to imply common ancestry been examined for whether their insertion point is random or specific?

3. Do all viruses (virii?) exhibit this non-random insertion? (I realize not all viruses have been studied, but do all other studied viruses exhibit specific insertion points?)

There has never been a retrovirus found that can insert non-randomly in humans or other primates.

4. Can/does randomness vs. specific insertion points be different for a virus depending on what kind of host the virus inserts into? (i.e., virus A hits animal 1 in a random insertion, but animal 2 in a specefic point).

Theoretically possible I suppose.

I believe the above establishes very well that at least some viruses do insert at specefic points. Can it be established that some viruses insert randomly?

Not just some. As even the papers above pointed out gypsy is remarkable precisely because of it's apparent target site specificity which is unlike anything seen in other retroviruses. For one example, these are the mapped insertion points of over three thousand independent insertions of three different retroviruses in humans. HIV, MLV and ASLV:

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=509299&rendertype=figure&id=pbio-0020234-g001

The blue insertions points are HIV, the red are MLV, the green are ASLV. None of them occur in the same place even once.

Can it be determined which of these two properties are exhibited by viruses whose insertion points are used to try to establish common ancestry?

As mentioned earlier, gypsy is a rather unique case that has attracted considerable attention precisely because it has this apparent ability to undergo targetted insertion whereas no other retrovirus has ever been observed to do so... however gypsy has several characteristics it does not share with other retroviruses which will probably explain how it accomplishes this after further study. There has never been any retrovirus found that can insert in a target specific manner in the human or primate genome. This despite active attempts to artificially FORCE retroviruses to undergo targetted insertion in humans so that they can be of greater use in genetic therapies.

Additionally I think it may be in order to point out some of the other factors we're dealing with in this situation.

The odds of the virus integrating in identical locations in two or more independent genomes is one consideration, and a major one. However, it is not the only one. Before even considering those odds we should also evaluate the odds of a retrovirus reaching fixation in the genome of two different species at all. I alluded to this in my reply to the earlier paper that was speaking of a retroviral epidemic in the past but I think I should have gone into greater detail.

First a given individual has to encounter the virus. THEN that virus has to successfully infect that individual. THEN that infection has to be in a germline cell. If it infects a cell in the liver, or lungs, or skin, or heart, etc... the individual will still experience whatever effects may result from the infection but it won't be heritable. So if it infects a male it has to also infect a sperm cell. In females, it has to infect an ova. THEN it has to infect THE sperm cell or ova which actually gets used to create an offspring in the next generation. THEN that DNA carrying that insertion has to be successful enough that it eventually spreads it's genes, and the inserted retroviral DNA right along with it, throughout the ENTIRE species in subsequent generations. This is why the authors of the earlier paper considered that there must have been some kind of epidemic of that particular retrovirus they were studying in some of the primates, they found hundreds of sites where the same retrovirus had reached fixation in a single genome, which would have required probably hundreds of thousands or even millions of infected individuals in the past for that many to beat the odds to reach that point.

And THEN we start considering the odds of that happening multiple times... in independent species... with a retrovirus that inserted at an IDENTICAL site both times... and just happened to infect species in a nested hierarchical pattern... and then finding multiple other viruses that did the same... in not just a nested hierarchical pattern but the SAME nested hierarchical pattern... and you can start to get a handle on why these observed common ERVs are such strong evidence for common ancestry.

Reformentia: Cool, I'll need to read up on a number of terms used here, but I believe I follow well enough that it answers some of my concerns about the "Gypsy" virus.

Abroad: I hate to make you (and Reformentia) be my unpaid virology/genetics profs, but what's your view of my 5 questions about ten posts back? I'm enjoying hearing from both sides here. :)

Abroad: I hate to make you (and Reformentia) be my unpaid virology/genetics profs, but what's your view of my 5 questions about ten posts back? I'm enjoying hearing from both sides here.

It seem like Reformentia knows most genetics around here. I just consider myself a good reader and had only rudimentary knowledge before this thread. Tricky subject.
I'll try to do some more research when I can find the time...


Reformentia: Hey, thanks for the kind words! I just figured a serious challenge should be met with serious arguments.

The point I am trying to make is that there actually exists targetting mechanisms for the specific insertion of retroviruses (Although the Gypsy isn't a human retrovirus). Since the HERV's you mention seem to be extinct, how do we know that they didn't have a similar targetting mechanism?

You mention HIV and other disease-causing viruses. From a creationist/ID perspective, viruses should from the beginning have had a benign purpose. Disease-causing viruses would then have lost that purpose, perhaps through detrimental mutations.

The site-specific Gypsy virus, if I understood the article right, inserted preferably in germ-line cells and caused an infertile fruit-flie breed to become fertile.

The HIV is inserting very randomly, and is causing mortal illness.

Here's another interesting article:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6WSN-49TP1CG-5&_coverDate=10%2F17%2F2003&_alid=270827043&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_qd=1&_cdi=7051&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=dbcfec428f26908cb6e8315b46398138


Studies of integration targeting are also topical due to recent setbacks in human gene therapy. Retroviral vectors are commonly used for delivery of therapeutic sequences in patients. However, integration of retroviral sequences near protooncogenes has long been known to be capable of activating their expression, contributing to tumorigenesis in animal models (Coffin et al., 1997). Unfortunately, insertional activation has also recently been seen in two patients undergoing retrovirus-based gene therapy (Check, 2002), focusing further attention on integration site selection.

This review first covers elegant studies of integration targeting by the yeast retrotransposons, then recent genome-wide surveys of integration by retroviruses in the human genome. Unexpectedly, the studies of integration targeting by retroviruses now show possible parallels with the yeast elements. The review ends by considering some of the selective forces acting on integrating systems that may explain their observed targeting strategies.



An incisive series of experiments followed, demonstrating that the observed binding accounted for targeted integration (Zhu et al., 2003). The Sir4p carboxyl terminus was fused to the DNA binding domain of lexA, a bacterial repressor. Cells harboring the fusion protein and artificially introduced lexA binding sites showed a new hotspot for Ty5 integration at the lexA sites. Targeting was not all-or-nothing—only 14% of new integration events were at the lexA sites—but the experiment did strongly support the tethering mechanism.

These results set the stage for targeting integration by entirely new protein-protein interactions. The short targeting domain in Ty5 IN was replaced with two other short peptides that bind tightly to known proteins, either a 13 amino-acid motif from Rad9 that mediates binding to the two forkhead-associated (FHA) domains of Rad53p, or a 12 amino acid proline-rich motif from human NpwBP that binds the WW domain of Npw38. The ligand binding regions of Rad53p and Npw38 were each fused to lexA and targeting by Ty5 assessed. Impressively, new integration hotspots (10%–15% of events) were seen at lexA operators when the appropriate binding partners were present. These beautiful experiments provide the strongest evidence yet that a tethering mechanism can account for retroelement targeting in vivo.



For MLV, analysis of a whopping 903 sites of integration in Hela cells yielded a strikingly different result. Only 34% of integration events were in transcription units, significantly less than for HIV. The most surprising finding came when Burgess and coworkers checked whether promoters were favored for integration. To approximate the positions of promoters, they examined a window to either side of the start points of transcription, which are now mapped for many genes. They found that fully 16.8% of integration events took place in a two kilobase window centered on the transcription start, but the positive effect was quite localized, dropping off by about 5 kb in either direction. Integration frequency was also assessed at CpG islands, which are commonly associated with promoters in humans, revealing that 17% of integration events were within 1 kb of CpG islands, eight times higher than for random sites. A similar study of HIV sites showed no such bias in favor of promoters.




Another set of forces appears to account for the chromosomal positions of human endogenous retroviruses (HERVs), evolutionarily ancient insertions in the primate lineage, which account for about 8% of the human genome sequence. The HERVs accumulated outside of genes, the opposite of HIV (Smit, 1999). The integration targeting specificities for the HERVs are unknown, so they might have favored initial integration in intergenic regions. However, in this case, it seems likely that selection after integration played an important role. The minority of HERV sequences within genes are oriented opposite to the direction of host gene transcription fully 80% of the time. The reverse orientation of HERVs means that the element-encoded signals for RNA processing (splicing, cleavage, and polyadenylation) do not disrupt expression of the host gene, rendering the inserted HERV sequences relatively benign. Thus, integrated HERVs have apparently been selected at the cellular level after integration to minimize genetic damage to the host genome. This observation supports the idea that insertional inactivation of genes has been selected against in the lineage leading to modern humans.

Hmm, I seem to have a habit of lengthy posts...

I get the feeling this is going to be silently ignored.

But i wont let it, this guy's busted his ass righting it, and i want to see someone at least try to refute it.
i can't refute it, it's very solid, but it doesn't point either way, is the problem. until someone can prove to me that God didn't create the universe, or even just make it seem unlikely, that's what i'm going to believe.

i can't refute it, it's very solid, but it doesn't point either way, is the problem. until someone can prove to me that God didn't create the universe, or even just make it seem unlikely, that's what i'm going to believe.
If we need to make it seem unlikely, then it will never seem unlikely to you anyway.
as well as the fact that evolution can go perfectly as it is without proving the absence of a higher being at its origin.
In other words: we will never convince you, so you can go away now

they'll just say the retrovirus is an example of the complexity of life and that God put it into two different species that he was creating. Or that Satan put it there to test our faith


or that it was a mutation, thanks much

...Retroviruses

Example of a retrovirus: HIV.

...A diagram of the pattern of insertions in question, courtesy of talk.origins:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/images/retrovirus.gif
...

I think that using HIV as an example of a retrovirus is a bad one. From what i read, you're saying that eventually the HIV virus will change how the human is? because right now all it's doing is kililng people.

and if most of your "facts" and "sources" came from talkorigins.org, i can send you to other biased websites that prove creationism. such as here (http://www.creationevidence.org/cemframes.html) and here (http://www.drdino.com:8080/). (i'll admit, i didn't actually read these websites, they're just on a guys website i know who is a consipiracy theorist religious nut, so if they're wrong sue him not me ;))

I think that using HIV as an example of a retrovirus is a bad one. From what i read, you're saying that eventually the HIV virus will change how the human is? because right now all it's doing is kililng people.

and if most of your "facts" and "sources" came from talkorigins.org, i can send you to other biased websites that prove creationism. such as here (http://www.creationevidence.org/cemframes.html) and here (http://www.drdino.com:8080/). (i'll admit, i didn't actually read these websites, they're just on a guys website i know who is a consipiracy theorist religious nut, so if they're wrong sue him not me ;))

Talk origins was not written by one person. It is a collaboration of many scientists debunking (quite easily) all the known Creationist myths that are used to debunk evolution. It is evolutionists 'fighting back' so to say.

And IT SITES ITS SOURCES, and the sources are scientific. Which is better than any 'biased' creationist website I have seen.

I think that using HIV as an example of a retrovirus is a bad one. From what i read, you're saying that eventually the HIV virus will change how the human is? because right now all it's doing is kililng people.

Incorrect. Your logic is hopelessly flawed.

The statement was that a retrovirus *can* alter a species, if it happens to confer beneficial or non-detrimental effects. The statement was not that all retroviruses will ever do so.

However, HIV is the most well-known retrovirus. Thus it is the perfect example for those who aren't using poor logic.

and if most of your "facts" and "sources" came from talkorigins.org, i can send you to other biased websites that prove creationism.

So all scientific sources are biased? After all, that is what they cite. Do you really have that bad a view of science? If so, why are you using the results that come of it?

Incorrect. Your logic is hopelessly flawed.

The statement was that a retrovirus *can* alter a species, if it happens to confer beneficial or non-detrimental effects. The statement was not that all retroviruses will ever do so.

However, HIV is the most well-known retrovirus. Thus it is the perfect example for those who aren't using poor logic.



So all scientific sources are biased? After all, that is what they cite. Do you really have that bad a view of science? If so, why are you using the results that come of it?

i like how you attack me. on that note, i didn't do any research to refute the proof (or non-proof) of evolution listed, just had a question regarding his sentence. as far as the "statement was not that all retroviruses will ever do so" i didn't read that. if he typed it, sobeit, if he inferred it, he needs to not infer something like that.

i'm looking at it in laymans terms, i'm by no means a scientist and haven't studied science in over 10 years.

"However, HIV is the most well-known retrovirus. Thus it is the perfect example for those who aren't using poor logic."

it may be the most well-known retrovirus, but it's not a good example of a retrovirus that can change a species from one mode to the next.

"So all scientific sources are biased?"

i like how you put words in my mouth. i didn't say anything about scientific sources being biased, i said the website was biased. with quotes such as: huh... well, at the time i posted earlier i thought i read some biased statements, but going back to it, i can't find which statements i particularly disliked. anywhosit, how can you say it's not biased when on the front of it it only shows the "debunking" of creationism and has no supporting arguments?

i like how you attack me.

How exactly is pointing out a flaw in logic an attack? It was a clear flaw. I didn't say you were incapable of logic, just that you weren't using it.

as far as the "statement was not that all retroviruses will ever do so" i didn't read that. if he typed it, sobeit, if he inferred it, he needs to not infer something like that.

No, you took something that did not say either way and assumed that it meant that all retroviruses would - just so you could hvae a strawman to knock down. Meanwhile, it was never implied in any conversation here that all retroviruses will do this. You personally inferred it to set up your strawman.

it may be the most well-known retrovirus, but it's not a good example of a retrovirus that can change a species from one mode to the next.

So? It wasn't used as such.

i like how you put words in my mouth. i didn't say anything about scientific sources being biased, i said the website was biased.

The website is nothing more than scientific sources placed in layman's terms.

anywhosit, how can you say it's not biased when on the front of it it only shows the "debunking" of creationism and has no supporting arguments?

No supporting arguments? You mean evolutionary biology doesn't count?

I can say it is not biased because all it is doing is summarizing scientific documents and answering questions that people might ask about them.

How exactly is pointing out a flaw in logic an attack? It was a clear flaw. I didn't say you were incapable of logic, just that you weren't using it.
by the way you said i'm not using logic i percieved it as an attack.


No, you took something that did not say either way and assumed that it meant that all retroviruses would - just so you could hvae a strawman to knock down. Meanwhile, it was never implied in any conversation here that all retroviruses will do this. You personally inferred it to set up your strawman.

no, i know nothing about retroviruses, so how am i supposed to know that some don't change the hereditary line. The thread originator had the responsibility of setting that up, not me, so anything that i inferred was not entirely my fault (i admit, that if i studied up on the subject and i said the retrovirus statement, sole blame would fall on me). Again, you're saying i did something that i wasn't attempting to do.



No supporting arguments? You mean evolutionary biology doesn't count?

I can say it is not biased because all it is doing is summarizing scientific documents and answering questions that people might ask about them.
again, i didn't get into the meat of the website, so i can't tell you one way or the other, just that at first hand it seemed biased to me. Everyone's entitled to their own opinion, and on the internet, a person is not most likely to change another person's opinion.