Nothing about this article goes against my statement about random insertion into the genome. Unless you're arguing there's a special mechanism hidden in primitive, RNA-based retroviruses that discriminate based on location in the genome. If you could demonstrate this mechanism, that'd be neat.
Endogenous retroviruses (ERVs) are endogenous viral elements in the genome that closely resemble and can be derived from retroviruses.
Can scientists prove that ERVs came from retroviruses?
Also, can ERVs be mutations in the genes?
To quote the wikipedia article you posted (literally the first line):
Endogenous retroviruses (ERVs) are endogenous viral elements in the genome that closely resemble and can be derived from retroviruses.
To state it more fairly, we have evidence of retroviruses that exist in the modern world, and by analyzing their methods, and analyzing the data available, we can find that retroviruses existed in the past. Unless you'd like to contest this by arguing
spontaneous emergence of retroviruses sometime in the last few thousand years, I assume you'll go along with this train of thought. By all means, if you want to make the above claim, go ahead and provide evidence.
Neatras wrote:2. An ancestor to any descendant who has their genetic code altered by ERV's will have passed on this alteration.
What ancestor is/was the original carrier?
Which decendants would have been affected?
I'm not sure I follow the question. It is grammatically valid, and has a clearly defined interrogative content, but it should be a question already answered: the ancestors to living creatures who inherited the ERV's.
Any event that causes a retrovirus to inject its genetic code into a sperm/egg cell would, as a result, create a relic of its genome that persisted throughout all generations following the original host. However, it should be argued that mutations to the genome occur regularly, and even ERV's are not exempt. Addition, subtraction, and substitution of different base chemicals and alleles can affect the ERV and provide variance among subjects. However, it only takes a cursory glance at the genome to recognize where these ERV matches are, and to note the differences due to mutation. For all intents and purposes, an ERV is as much a part of the human genome as any other gene expression, even if it was forcibly injected; evolutionary theory recognizes this entirely.
Neatras wrote:3. Individuals who are closely related to an ancestor will share more ERV's in the appropriate location with each other, than they would with individuals who are more distantly related.
Why would this be the case?
I'll let these handy images demonstrate this.
As you can clearly see, ERV's that are introduced further along any one branch will affect all progeny among those branches, while not affecting branches that are not among the ones that are produced from the common ancestor in question. If an even further ancestor that was the progenitor of more species had the ERV insertion, then they would pass it along to more species.
Neatras wrote:Therefore, for any ERV match between macaques (or other primates more distantly related) and humans, we should expect to see a similar match between human and chimpanzee, due to the reasons stated above; macaques are reportedly more distant in common ancestry to humans than chimpanzees are (to humans).
Based on my best evaluation of evidence provided, and despite my lack of full education on the matter, I'm courageous enough to make this prediction. That in order for ERV's to be discarded from the evidence for evolutionary common ancestry, a match between distantly "related" species must be found in ERV's that is not also found between closely "related" species.
What if chimps are more distant than other primates?
Would that not prove the theory false.
https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg ... ys-and-us/
http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... he-genome/
Well, see, there are lots of primates, I'm sure. I simply used chimpanzees and humans as a reference, or example. I stated, for instance, that macaques are more distantly related to humans than chimpanzees are (to humans) to make a more concrete example. The point stands.
Neatras wrote:Of the roughly 98,000 endogenous retroviruses in the human genome, I urge anyone to find evidence of a single one that is in the correct location as another primate species', without having it also appear in chimpanzees. The odds of a single ERV appearing randomly in the same location as another species' is roughly 1 in 3 billion. Finding more than that would put the nail in the coffin, if you ask me.
However, if common ancestry is true, the odds of matches appearing between related species is 1.
Another question I have is based on this item:
According to the American Journal of Tropical Medical Hygiene, the presently leading causes of death among American missionaries in Africa are motor accidents, malignancy, and atherosclerosis. Among infectious diseases, the biggest killer is viral hepatitis, followed by such diseases as malaria, rabies, typhoid, Lassa fever, and retroviral infections.
http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script= ... 3000400013
https://africacheck.org/factsheets/fact ... in-africa/
http://www.ajtmh.org/content/73/3/560.full
Given the deadly nature of these viruses, how could it now be found in one location of an organism, if passed on by a carrier ancestor over millions of years?
Shouldn't it have killed off the descendants, if not an ancestor?
This comes from a very limited and creationist view of what a virus actually is. The sheer variety of life is astounding, isn't it? Parasitic life forms don't always have to result in the death of an individual, and in fact this is usually just a byproduct to create a vector for transmission of the virus; weakening of the immune system, or triggering responses in the body that facilitate spreading of the virus will evolve as basic effects of viruses due to reproductive success, but isn't a required trait for viruses to pass on their genes. These other retroviruses are different because they use RNA-based strands of genetic code to splice into cells directly. Once they do so, they can do things such as force the nucleus of the cell to manually produce new strands of this spliced in code; like telling a factory to use one of its assembly lines to build a foreign model of car. Since everything is automated, it happens whether the original intent of the factory was to make domestic cars or not.
Neatras wrote:It's a collection of facts. Common ancestry is the single credible theory that explains the relationship between the facts of human and chimpanzee genomes. I've already outlined not only a prediction of scientific inquiry, I've laid it out in a way that it can be verified or disproven without knowing the answer in advance.
That is what makes science special, and is why creationism is faulty and useless. You can't supply any predictions based on your unscientific ideas that explain the facts available to us, for fear of having it demolished.
Those who attempt to steal the spotlight of scientific discourse without performing the rigors of the process are doomed to cowardly verbal gymnastics to disguise the failure of dismissing evidence-based reasoning.
If my prediction successfully pulls through, that's another point for the prevailing scientific theory. And you wouldn't accept it even then.
Scientific theories are special - you got that right.
The vast difference between scientific theories and creation evidence, can be seen at every turn.
The difference is like east and west, sunrise and sunset.
Oh, this is rich.
- At every turn, scientific theories are always changing - It goes like a song - "We thought this, but we were wrong. This is the way it is. No. we were wrong again. It's not as we thought."
And that at times becomes a repeat chorus.
- Scientific theories is both the evidence and the proof, so when it is wrong, it's still evidence but adjusted to fit new evidence, so it still remains proof - but never proven. If you get my drift.
1. You walk into a scientific discussion, and try to act as if the flexibility of scientific theories and processes are worth dismissing evidence? That's laughable, and I urge you to find one person who buys into your cheap attack on reason. No theory is set in stone, because nobody has perfect knowledge, least of all you.
2. False, entirely. Scientific theories explain the evidence as we see them. If evidence doesn't support a theory, the theory is either changed or discarded. This is what you're getting at in your first point, and yet you decry it as some kind of negative trait. Tell me, should we go with the idea of Lamarckian evolution simply because it was the first theory we came up with? Is there supposed to be some reverence for ancient ideas, regardless of how tenable or evidence-based they are? Ludicrous.
But if you're going to make up nonsense about how a theory will always "change" to completely new forms, then you're not worth having this discussion with. Scientific inquiry is still a fledgling process, and not only is it making leaps and bounds in terms of discoveries, it's also shedding the oppressive coat of religious indoctrination and meddling that keeps us from making the appropriate statements about the natural world around us.
Are you going to argue that germ theory has changed again and again? "We thought this, but we were wrong. This is the way it is..." Except we've successfully mapped out germ theory, using the evidence available to make a reasoned argument. It helps that we also use the
facts of evolution to make judgments about how we treat germs and viruses, otherwise medical sciences would be set back hundreds of years.
Creation evidence never change - it's constant.
Why? Because it's always based on solid evidence.
1+1=2 - never will change.
Well, I'm sorry, but no. You don't get to lay claim to evidence without a theory that explains it appropriately. Hand-waving it and saying "God did it" is no more an answer than making something up. You have not demonstrated the rigors of the scientific process, and so, as it has been expertly put: "What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence." Creationists will NEVER supplant their bogus claims with predictions, statements about how the universe is, etc. without having their falsehoods cracked wide open under peer review.
Creation evidence is demonstrated.
- We see it demonstrated that purpose requires intelect.
- For example
What is responsible for the universe, and life?
Evidence shows energy is required.
Evidence shows that energy needed to be controlled precisely (Mathematically precise) in order for it to work.
- Evidence shows that precise instructions in the DNA were needed for life to work.
- We see it demonstrated that the ability to reason requires an intelectual mind, which gives evidence of the above.
- We see it demonstrated that for laws to exist, a lawmaker is required.
- For example
How can we have laws of nature, laws of physics, laws of anything else, without an intelligent lawmaker?
- We see it demonstrated that everything produces according to their kind, nothing evolves into another organism, everything remains unchanged.
Purpose? Reasoning minds? What does that have to do with evolution? What purpose are you talking about? You're throwing a gish gallop my way because you can't actually come up with anything about creationism that evolutionary theory can't handily debunk.
Of course, there is a lot more demonstrative evidence, but one very strong evidence, is the greatest textbook ever writen - the Bible.
It provides truthful information on any subject it touches on - whether it be science, ethics, life itself...
The special thing about the Bible too is this:
It has never been proven wrong, despite it has countless enemies.
So the evidence, to me is clear.
That's why it is reasonable to go with the Bible, and creation.
I wonder if I could get away with flagging this as preaching, since that's all this post amounts to. Subversively hiding behind "axiomatic proofs" that ultimately just make the repeated claim "GOD DID IT". It's dishonest, what you're doing.
