Endogenous Retroviral Functionality: 2nd argument refuted

[DarkEmergence]

It's so strange that creationists will explain away so much evidence, but apparently "everything looks like it was designed" is evidence enough for creationism. I honestly can't get a single shred of scientific evidence in favor of creationism from ANYONE who supports creationism. And I've asked people who claimed to have studied both sides.

[evoTARDSareINSANE]

Such ignorance its mind boggling

The ERV argument has been refuted by numerous Biologists (Dr Jonanthan Wells for example)

Evolutionism = straw man after straw man argument

[SecularAstronomer]

@evoTARDSareINSANE

Really? Because I’ve seen a lot of counter arguments, and none of them held up to scrutiny. What lines of argumentation does Mr. Wells use? Perhaps you could read the page I wrote on the ERV evidence for common ancestry and point out the flaws (pay special attention to the “Common creationist responses” section):

evolutionarymodel(DOT)com/ervs­(DOT)htm

[CammieSpectrum]

but how can anything like this emerge or replicate itself, by virtue of a rigid electric law; I am not a creationist, but seriously. the daily routine of the cell is more complex than the daily activities of a very large, very busy supermarket

[types10000]

"the daily routine of the cell is more complex than the daily activities of a very large, very busy supermarket " - lol, no not really, although if you think so i'd really like you to mention what some of these daily activities are

[CammieSpectrum]

@types10000 the Splicing, transcription, folding, shipping, to be combined into huge combinations of folded proteins to make, for instance, ribosomal enzymes that splice introns away from exons and put them back together likesyncrhonized surgeons; and thisrequires also a multi protein ATP Motor affixed to it as well; this crudelly described process alone is happenign 1000's of times a day per cell; can you simulate that on a macroscopic scale?

[types10000]

"macroscopic scale?" - depends what you mean by macroscopic; in terms of evolution macro is simply the continuation and accumulation of micro events across successive generations.

[types10000]

also i would like to know what your trying to allude to.

if your attempting to say that the mere existence of these complex processes is evidence for a God, then i would simply point out that an argument of that nature is a logical fallacy (argument from ignorance)

also, if i was for some reason unable to demonstrate it on a 'macroscopic scale' (lol) what would that prove? my inability to explain it does not automatically make another answer valid, that would be a false dichotomy (fallacy)

[CodeSculptor]

@CammieSpectrum, it's not simple electric law, but that sort of does have to do with it.

The charges and shapes of the molecules do assert a huge influence on what can and cannot happen -- making most generic probability claims absurd. It's like saying what are the odds of throwing 1000 quarters and having more than 888 of them lands heads up on the first toss -- when you don't factor in that the quarters are magnetic and the table has a charge like the tails-side.

[CodeSculptor]

It becomes increasingly apparent, when one studies molecular biology, how these processes and structures could evolve. If something arises, by mutation, which engenders a benefit, then that will probably be the most likely to remain and continue.

Invariably there are countless botched mutational variants which had existed, didn't work as well and were outcompeted, and their remains were often scavenged by competitors or others.

[CammieSpectrum]

@CodeSculptor How do ATP Motors assemble from already folded proteins, and then affix themselves to, for example, a ribosomal enzyme; How did the ribosomal enzyme assemble itself from already folded proteins. where are the instructions? this is not a matter of the components evolving, but how are they put together by virtue of primarilly the electric law bringing them together at all, and not not in any other way? Again, their could be no evolutionary or chemical basis for this.

[CodeSculptor]

@CammieSpectrum, wonderful question.

It's not an electric law -- it's the expression of proteins from the genes that determine or control this.

It's all in the timing, and shape and charges. First, you have monomers binding ("self-associating") to form shapes-ish.Then there's a hydrolysis and a destabilization which leads to the production of a catalyst which causes nearby molcules to start binding at/near the right positions. So you have something like the chassis of a car being formed by

[CodeSculptor]

@CammieSpectrum, layers of wax... it hardens, but certain exposed bits on the inside or top are shaped so they get mushy and rust, attracting chunks of molecules like window-handles, which attract more window handles.

After a while, the nearby bits of wax in the center leak forward, helped by ATP-cofilin forming the car antenna.

The order is determined by expression of proteins - which does go wrong, on ocassion, like birth defects -- but many proteins are functional online around coregulator

[CammieSpectrum]

@CodeSculptor in your entire description you entirelly left out Function; The Teleological Complexity of all these proccesses, meaning their are an extrordinary amount of details about a Ribosomal Enzyme & It's ATP Motor, that need to be the case and not otherwise, just so that it has the neccessary features to do It's job in the cell; in addition to everything else doing it's job simultaneouslly, and getting where they need to go, at the right times; It's more complex than a busy supermarket

[CodeSculptor]

@CammieSpectrum, sorry. it's hard to fit much in 500 characters. :)

[dracentsparkle]

Thanks for the kind sharing

[Darkfoster22]

hmmmm

[dom214]

I heard this in AP Biology, but does this "junk dna" protect the coding dna? because of how when DNA is replicated, some information is lost and so when the DNA that codes for stuff is lost we age? Thats what i was told anyway.

[peartreeven]

Not disputing are ERV insertions, only that viruses arose from them initially and thus have the mechanism to carry on inserting themselves. Active viruses being transposons gone bad. Many ERVs have specific functions. I also believe transposons mediate epigenetic mechanism for phenotypic variations. I believe where a jumping gene gets inserted is not by chance but by response to internal/external factors, directing chromatin remodelling and determines which gene is exposed to be transcribed.

[types10000]

"Many ERVs have specific functions" - which has only come about because of genetic shuffling, this is what evolution does, it finds new uses for old things.

[soulinite]

Attention creationists. Junk DNA is indeed junk. How do we know? Because scientist took most of the junk DNA out of a mouse embro and it still grew a perfectly healthy mouse.

[peartreeven]

"scientist took most of the junk DNA out"

Not true. Non-coding DNA forms the majority of organisms' genome. Also know that many attempts resulted in the deaths of the knockout mice. An instance where the lab animal survived a particular sequence being taken out does not mean non-functionality of so-called junk genes. It just means that particular sequence is not vital for life like a gene that regulates the fur for eg.

[soulinite]

Care to site a source.

[types10000]

also the fact that ERV's have the potential for functionality does not change how they got there. they are incredible evidence in favor of common ancestery.

[peartreeven]

@types10000

What about ervs found in chimps but not humans that predated C-H split?

[types10000]

refer to

MolecularBioVids

[soulinite]

great video! 5/5 and favorite.

[peartreeven]

ERVs occur in all vertebrates, also whole animal kingdom and in plants where they are often dominating genetic components. Yet retroviruses do not cause diseases in plants. We also know viruses are cell-type specific. Xenotropic ERVs found in cells with no receptor for them even. There is no value for viruses to infect germcell as they cant seem to propagate in descendants with ERVs. In fact endogenization of exogenous retrovirus rarely observed in nature. why then 8% human genome of ERVs?

[peartreeven]

Many provirus DNA are biologically functional and integral part of an organism. How can they be remnants of past viral infections? It's been established exposure to radiation and/or chemicals cause the ERVs to become active viruses. What if ERVs are inherent DNA that reverse transcribe to function and that it is damage to cells that give rise to the birth/formation of viruses in the first place? It also follows that mutations in the ERVs can cause diseases, including hereditary ones.

[peartreeven]

Morgan, W. Non-targeted and Delayed Effects of Exposure to Ionizing Radiation: I. Radiation-Induced Genomic Instability and Bystander Effects In Vitro. Radiat. Res. 159, 567--580 (2003).

A long-standing dogma in the radiation sciences is that energy from radiation must be deposited in the cell nucleus to elicit a biological effect. A number of non-targeted, delayed effects of ionizing radiation have been described that challenge this dogma and pose new challenges ...

cont..

[peartreeven]

cont..

.. and pose new challenges

to evaluating potential hazards associated with radiation exposure. These effects include induced genomic instability and non-targeted bystander effects. The in vitro evidence for non-targeted effects in radiation biology will be reviewed, but the question as to how one extrapolates from these in vitro observations to the risk of radiation-induced adverse health effects such as cancer remains open.

[types10001]

"There is no value for viruses to infect germcell as they cant seem to propagate in descendants with ERVs" - it is not the intention of the virus to fail to replicate inside a cell, however it happens. normally it would simply destroy the cell and use it to replicate.

ERVs becomming active is not against evolutionary theory, nore is their code gaining a new purpose that benefits the organism.

"8% human genome of ERVs" - we've had a while

[peartreeven]

Nalini Polavarapu et al. Genome Biol. 2006; 7(6)R51.

CERV2 (inserted 28 MYA) found in chimp, gorilla,bonobo with no human orthologues.

Paper listed 97 insertions in chimps not in man include CERV1/2/3. Whilst authors suggest explanation for CERV1 and CERV3 that contradicted phylogeny tree, they're only proposals not proof. CERV2 comprises 10 solo LTRs and 8 fulllength ERVs: here no explanation given for subfamilies that preexisted human-chimp divergence found in chimp,gorilla,bonobo,but not man

[types10001]

are you trying to say that there are some ERVs that chimps have in common with species that diverged prior to humans?

also quotemine that study supports evolution.

[peartreeven]

The said paper indicated results that are not consistent with the established phylogeny tree.

There are also theories that viruses arose from cellular components and not vice versa; also suggestions that similarity of ERVs to counterpart exogenous viruses may be a case of molecular mimicry that viral products mimic host proteins to escape detection. Have come across some literature suggesting exogenous retroviruses seeming to arise from endogenous retrotransposons by acquiring env genes.

[types10001]

also, don't even the most ignorant of creationists still accept microevolution (and invoking the magical definition of kind), cause horses, donkeys and zebras don't have the same number of chromosomes...just chucking that out there

[peartreeven]

I can't speak for creationists or other people. I speak from my own observations. Cheers.

[Angel3080]

real good video!

[thechessstick]

Sounds like the commentator on this video has sucked too many d*cks... I wonder?..The Stick

[Aresthanas]

Evolutionists assume we came from nocturnal to diurnal primates to ManKIND. One CANNOT deny that we all have a 24hr biological clock as the lietral sense of the word DAY in Genesis. Secondly, that most/all life have an evening to morning or vice versa time clock too. There is also the perfect sequence to the 'ERVs' ASSUMED ancestry...that is the first primates were made in the evening of 'the 6th Day'(nocturnal) followed by the diurnal FIRST monkeys and FIRST apes and last by the FIRST manKIND:)

[LaingGod]

LOL most animals and even plants have a 24 hour biological clock. yet another fail.

[Aresthanas]

Hi friend, tell me, is it necessary or not that ERVs have CORRELATION to for example ASPM, brain c.c's, bipedalism and gestation= the next OFFSPRING? If the chimp is the closest relative supposely by ERVs alone the gorilla overrules it in all other traits except bipedalism...not that I believe in neither of them as ancestors. I read Kilik11's comments of months ago. He is quite right in many things stated. There is another sequence that I can provide that Genesis gives an accurate account first.

[Xorinite]

Oh awesome. This is great, just what I was looking for.

[jtyranus]

I agree Xorinite.

[CousinoMacul]

FYI,

Abbie Smith and ERV have moved to

scienceblogs [DOT] com [SLASH] erv

[norasweetcakes]

jon u should make educational videos for kids or something

i could see u making something that would keep like gr nines interested

maybe this is just cause peer tutoring sucks wen they wont watch the vids, lol

[SecularAstronomer]

Educational videos are always fun to make! :D

[norasweetcakes]

you could save my sanity and many others sanity in the class room

educational creativity FTW

[gmh1206]

Sorry I'm a bit new to this but...

1) How can we be certain that ERV's are correctly identified as such and not a normal component of an animals DNA?

2) If ERV's are incorrectly assumed then couldn't the cancer examples you stated be caused by a loss of function in the cell's regulatory processes?

3) If the ERV cancer link is true then shouldn't cancer's be contagious? i.e. blood transfusions?

[SecularAstronomer]

1. The process of ERV insertion and the presents of the retroviral genomes they insert are directly examined.

2. "In some cases, the virus is thought to induce cancer directly; in other cases, indirect effects of the virus (e.g., immunodeficiency) predispose to malignancy. The major classes of viruses that are linked to cancer are retroviruses, herpes viruses, papilloma viruses, hepadnaviruses (hepatitis B), and flavaviruses (hepatitis C) (Evans and Mueller, 1990)."

-- William A. Blattner, M.D

[SecularAstronomer]

"The HTLV-I virus also causes a pediatric immunodeficiency syndrome called infective dermatitis and adult autoimmune diseases such as polymyositis and arthritis. Because of these immunologic effects of HTLV-I, it has been hypothesized that some more common cancers might be enhanced by HTLV-I infection through indirect mechanisms such as immunodeficiency."

-- William A. Blattner, M.D

[gmh1206]

Hey thanks for the reply!

In (1) presents=presence? Not sure you really answered my question. That is, by what means can they be absolutely 100% sure that they have correctly identified an endogenous retrovirus within the human genome?

Take the following example -

Lets assume that a common section of dna shared between humans and chimps is identified as a retrovirus, thus proving they had a common ancestor.

[gmh1206]

Lets also assume that what you said is true - activation of a retrovirus will trigger some fatal cancer or render the animal unfit to pass on its genes.

Natural selection cannot work on the genotype when it isn't expressed in the phenotype. If the region is a retrovirus, how has it remained conserved between the two species, human and chimp?

Surely mutations would be a good thing because chances are they would reduce the overall fitness of the virus, increasing the fitness of the animal.

[gmh1206]

-> Last line I meant mutations within the retrovirus sequence :) Over time these mutations will accumulate without natural selection to operate.

But if the hypothetical region has been conserved, natural selection is operating on it and it therefore must be functional!

BTW Creationists aren't saying that ERV's have a useful function, rather that pseudogenes have use. Evolutionists use retrovirus' to explain the presence of some pseudogenes.

Cheers :)

[gmh1206]

If there is a virus cancer link then perhaps certain virus' have a perference for certain parts of the DNA, i.e. regulatory sections thereby triggering cancers.

I acknowledge this possibility but if there is a virus cancer link shouldn't cancers be contagious?

[SecularAstronomer]

"Activation of a retrovirus will trigger some fatal cancer or render the animal unfit to pass on its genes."

The retroviruses in individuals usually don't regain functionality, so genetic code with a given retrovirus in it usually isn't selected against.

[SecularAstronomer]

"Surely mutations would be a good thing because chances are they would reduce the overall fitness of the virus, increasing the fitness of the animal."

Yes, mutations are definitely a good thing, as they keep the retrovirus incapable of activating.

[SecularAstronomer]

"But if the hypothetical region has been conserved, natural selection is operating on it and it therefore must be functional!"

Because the retrovirus usually has no affect on the phenotype, it can neither be selected for or against, so if genetic material with one in it is introduced into a gene pool, there is nothing to sop it from remaining there and mixing around.

[gmh1206]

I agree with all three of your points but look at the assumptions again.

1) Sequence is observed in two species (fact)

2) Sequence must be endogenous retrovirus (assumption)

3) Sequence is conserved across species (fact)

Assuming the sequence is an ERV, we agree that natural selection cannot act upon it if it isn't activated. Then why is the sequence conserved across the two species enough so that it is readily identifiable?

[gmh1206]

Assume that apes and humans shared a common ancestor 3 million years ago. Assume also a 2% difference between apes and humans (though some studies are saying as much as 6%). If apes and humans have equally diverged then 1% of the genome has been changed via mutation and natural selection i.e. 30 million single point mutations given a human genome is 3 billion base pairs.

Remember also that we only have mutation, not natural selection to explain differences in the alleged ERV.

[gmh1206]

Therefore without natural selection constantly keeping the sequence within tight limits every possible mutation will be accumulated. Natural selection is natures quality control. Right?

So if we observe that the alleged ERV is conserved across the two species for three million years then the sequence must be under the influence of natural selection and must therefore be functional.

Therefore is it an ERV?

Could it be a pseudogene or regulatory gene?

[SecularAstronomer]

Wow, sorry about taking so long to respond. I forgot all about your question after putting off responding immediately. Anyway:

[SecularAstronomer]

Since this video is Abigail Smith's argument, I think I should quote her, rather than say the same thing myself: "The LTRs of ERVs are distinctive enough that we can sometimes determine what kind of retrovirus the ERV used to be (alpha, beta, etc). We can even find families of related ERVs and reconstruct an infectious retrovirus from their leftover bits. There is no other way to 'interpret' this data, other than stating that ERVs are ERVs." --Abigail Smith

[SecularAstronomer]

"Therefore without natural selection constantly keeping the sequence within tight limits every possible mutation will be accumulated."

Natural selection doesn't work on them and, yes, they do acquire mutations. By studying the amount of mutations accumulated, as well as the amount of LTR recombination, a rough time of insertion can even be estimated.

[SecularAstronomer]

"So if we observe that the alleged ERV is conserved across the two species for three million years then the sequence must be under the influence of natural selection and must therefore be functional."

No, they are not conserved, and are not subject to natural selection. The reason they remain (while accumulating mutations) is because that means that they are not selected against, either.

[LotusGreenX]

I find it funny, and kind of sick, how there are so many retroviruses waiting to kill people when activated and yet Creationists comfortably say they must be functional and have a purpose by their Creator. Don't they realize their God implanted some deadly crap or would they say that similar animals get similar retroviruses in similar spots?

[AltaMirage]

Superb.

[Kilik11]

And the chachapoya people, caucasian mummies in south america, kennewick man...bearing straight land bridge and clovis theories are all down the toilet....the Iriqous and Sioux people contain DNA only found in the Gobi desert and the Pyranees mountains, and many skeletons of giants have been covered up and hidden by organizations like the smithsonian and rockefeller, giants found where the mound builders in north america built the mounds, and prehistoric cities 2000 feet underwater off Cuba

[SecularAstronomer]

If you have thinks to say that are unrelated to this video, then send them via PM.

[Kilik11]

What the red people in fact are is a combination of all the other 4 races and did not evolve out of yellow people. They do contain all the haplogroups from the yellow people, but also brown asians like haplogroup B i believe, and they contain the caucasian haplogroup X. This is from caucasians who originated in carpathia not africa, like the berbers and basques.The pyranees mountain and french fescoes were not done by ape men.When man became material he modeled himself off the apes,not evolution

[SecularAstronomer]

If you have thinks to say that are unrelated to this video, then send them via PM.

[Kilik11]

they also found 600,000 year old homo erectuses in China...in fact there originally, when man became fully material, there appeared in different locations the 5 races, black, brown, white, yellow and red. Most people believe the red people evolved out of yellow people and crossed a "bearing straight" land bridge even though it was frozen and no tools ever were found here and humans have never migrated like that ever before. MOnte Verde and 40,000 year old footprints in mexico disporve this

[Kilik11]

Even when external illusions all point to one conclusion but your inner being and consceince knows it's wrong, you can bet the inner being is correct. The biggest illusion of all is to think the limitations and illusions of the human mind can be overcome through scientific protocols, only through the death of the self, through a Near Death experience, can the true nature of something be known. As long as you are still in your body you have a human mind, which can't percieve the truth of anything

[Kilik11]

yeah but they found ones aquired with the same infection in gorillas and chimps, but not humans or orangutangs, plus all through the mammalian genomes are all sorts of independantly aquired viruses in all different animals

[SecularAstronomer]

Kilik11, I think I know which paper you are referring to, but could you cite it, just so I can be sure? If it the one I am thinking of, I can show you your mistake in thinking that this is a problem.

[Kilik11]

I will definitely give you an opportunity to explain it if you can...i will try to find the article i read....ok, I read an article about a study done by a man named Evan Eichler on the erv called PTERV1

[SecularAstronomer]

That's what I thought. And it's not called "PtERV1"; it's called "Lineage-Specific Expansions of Retroviral Insertions within the Genomes of African Great Apes but Not Humans and Orangutans" John et al., PLoS Biol. 2005 Apr;3(4):e110. Epub 2005 Mar 1.

(it was actually by Chris T Yohn, Zhaoshi Jiang, Sean D McGrath, Karen E Hayden, Philipp Khaitovich, Matthew E Johnson, Marla Y Eichler, John D McPherson, Shaying Zhao, Svante Pääbo, and Evan E Eichler)

[SecularAstronomer]

But it seems that you never read the publication, though. Those PtERVs were non-orthologous. (not found in the same genomic location) This quote from the paper that confirms that:

[SecularAstronomer]

"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. 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.

[SecularAstronomer]

[quote continuation]

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. 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."

[SecularAstronomer]

The insertions clearly occurred independently and after divergence. Here is a quote from the paper that confirms that: (and the text in the parentheses is part of the quote -- I didn't add it)

[SecularAstronomer]

"Based on an analysis of 1,467 large-insert clones, we mapped 299 retroviral insertion sites among the four species. A total of 275 of the insertion sites mapped unambiguously to non-orthologous locations, indicating that the vast majority of elements were lineage-specific (i.e., they emerged after the divergence of gorilla/chimpanzee and macaque/baboon from their common ancestor)."

[SecularAstronomer]

Look for loopholes all you want, Kilik11. Search for reasons not to see ERVs as they are: overwhelming evidence for common ancestry. But keep in mind that your own desires are never going to rewrite history.

[Kilik11]

there are 2 billion possible locations and tons of sites, sites are and will be found which sctrew up the whole tree

[Kilik11]

"most" sites, is not "all" sites....Gorrillas and chimps were infected by a single source, here's a quote

"The disconnect between the evolutionary history of the retrovirus and the primates, the authors conclude, could be explained if the Old World monkeys were infected by "several diverged viruses" while gorilla and chimpanzee were infected by a single, though unknown, source."

[Kilik11]

Yeah the chimp comparison to macaques isn't that relevant here, the comparison to gorrillas though, says alot more

[Kilik11]

"As for how this retroviral infection bypassed orangutans and humans, the authors offer a number of possible scenarios but dismiss geographic isolation: even though Asian and African apes were mostly isolated during the Miocene era (spanning 24 to 5 million years ago), humans and African apes did overlap. It could be that African apes evolved a susceptibility to infection, for example, or that humans and Asian apes evolved resistance.

[Kilik11]

A better understanding of the evolutionary history and population genetics of great apes will help identify the most likely scenarios. And knowing how these retroviral elements infiltrated some apes while sparing others could provide valuable insights into the process of evolution itself."

[SecularAstronomer]

Everything you have just posed is irrelevant to your point. As you said, "that pretty much throws out the idea that humans came from or are related to apes." The PtERVs in question merely mean that they independently infected some apes after divergence. Now, the authors of the paper I quoted had some ideas as to how that could have happened, and the author of the paper you quoted throws another idea into the pot.

[SecularAstronomer]

Namely that "it could be that African apes evolved a susceptibility to infection, for example, or that humans and Asian apes evolved resistance." The author you quoted even went on to say that "a better understanding of the evolutionary history and population genetics of great apes will help identify the most likely scenarios."

[SecularAstronomer]

Clearly, this is no problem for the theory of evolution -- it is, on the other hand, a compilation of evidence that will be interesting to find out exactly what scenario caused it to form. I thank you for posting a fresh take on the evidence that wholly supports my position of ERVs.

[Kilik11]

A much better and more likely explanation is that humans are seperate from animals

[SecularAstronomer]

What a joke. Did you even read the paper you just quoted? (let alone the one I did) ERVs are overwhelming evidence for common ancestry. Even the paper you quoted demonstrates that, as it provides yet another evolutionarily consistent explanation for the observations of the PtERVs in question.

[Kilik11]

that's why evolution isn't good science, the data can always be re-worked and the theory can always be modified and shoe-horned to fit the data. No matter what evolutionists find, they will never abandon evolutionary theory.

[SecularAstronomer]

That is not true, Kilik11. ERV evidence is overwhelming. You can deny that all you want. Only when you ignore the mountain of other ERV evidence that shows that we share a common ancestor, and allow your bias to cause you to assume that this one piece of PtERV evidence points where you want it to, are these PtERVs even a slight problem.

[Kilik11]

there are allegendly 7 in similar areas of the gene among humans and apes....this does not seem enough to come to the conclusion that evolution is true and really happened like scientists imagine, this is the problem with humans trying to develop theories from their collected data, human minds are too limited to figure things out due to their limited 5 senses....the improbable can happen, we just have to figure out how is all

[SecularAstronomer]

Of course the evidence will never be enough for you; no matter how conclusive it is.

[negromonicom480i]

right on, man, just like infinite series and elliptic functions all sorts of things can be virtually, seamlessly emulated. numbers don't lie but statistics can be miss used, interpreted or construed. physics; likewise gravity, growth and decay, gompertz. sorry to be rambly, but the character count..

[Kilik11]

they found ERV's in gorrillas and chimps, but not present in humans and orangutangs, that pretty much throws out the idea that humans came from or are related to apes

[SecularAstronomer]

That is not true, Kilik11. Here is a quote from someone that can explain it better than I:

"What happens when two different SPECIES share the same ERV at the same letter of

The first species to branch off were orangutans, the second were gorillas, the third were chimps, and the final branch resulted in humans. This allows us to make very precise predictions.

[SecularAstronomer]

[quote continuation]

If humans and orangutans share a common ERV at the same letter of DNA, then chimps and gorillas should also have that same ERV at the same letter of DNA because all of these species share one common ancestor. Since orangutans branched off before the other three, we should see ERVs occurring after this branching. That is, there should be ERVs common between gorillas, chimps, and humans that orangutans do not have.

[SecularAstronomer]

[quote continuation]

Since gorillas split off next, we should see ERVs shared between chimps and humans that are not seen in gorillas or orangutans. In fact, there are seven ERVs between humans and chimps that can only be explained by common ancestry, as well as the other ERVs shared by humans and other apes."

[SecularAstronomer]

These maps show ERV insertion sites in human and ape evolution:

talkorigins. org/ faqs/ comdesc/ images/ retrovirus. gif

Source citation: Lebedev, Y. B., Belonovitch, O. S., Zybrova, N. V, Khil, P. P., Kurdyukov, S. G., Vinogradova, T. V., Hunsmann, G., and Sverdlov, E. D. (2000) "Differences in HERV-K LTR insertions in orthologous loci of humans and great apes." Gene 247: 265-277.

[SecularAstronomer]

~and~

vir. sgmjournals. org/ content/ vol80/ issue10/ images/ medium/ 0802613005. gif

Source citation: Isolation and phylogeny of endogenous retrovirus sequences belonging to the HERV-W family in primates. Kim HS, Takenaka O, Crow TJ. J Gen Virol. 1999 Oct;80 ( Pt 10):2613-9.

[mattb521]

EXCELLENT! 5 STARS

[migkillertwo]

wow. 46 5-star ratings

[migkillertwo]

the link in your description box doesn't work

[SecularAstronomer]

Well, one of five didn't work, but anyway, thanks - I just fixed it.

[hellohummingbird]

Yes, that's a fascinating proposition. Very credible. secularastronomer's starting one revolutionary conversation. Who made that video???? Can't find it or any mention of it in Boehringer Ingelheim. Anybody know where to get this video? I need it for an extremely worthwhile project that will help a lot (a lot) of people.

[ALogicalConstruct]

Fantastic video 5 stars.

Your my new favorite youtuber

[anamasteos]

Science will free us one day. I will never lose hope in that. I just found you and I do not need to view all your videos to want to subscribe.

I will watch the rest of your work since you have taken your time to spread knowledge. Thanks and forgive my low profile if you look.

[FunkyJogaBonito]

I have followed the Abigail/Behe nonsense. His sexist attacks about her 'only' being a researcher were pretty disgusting.

Yes, Abagail actually works in HIV research, unlike Behe who hasn't done anything except line his own pockets for over a decade.

Abigail's blog is extremely interesting. I did enjoy seeing a few biologists take apart most of his arguments, as well as those who chose to defend him, on his Amazon blog.

[CadicusTheDamned]

You do a good job of boiling down a complex matter very simply. However, I wish you would have told me more.

[SecularAstronomer]

Remember, I am taking posts by Abigail Smith and turning them into videos, so all credit here goes to her. Also, this is just the basics. She goes into ERV arguments in far, FAR more detail in other posts. (like her 'ID vs ERVs' series)

[CadicusTheDamned]

Ok, I'll check her out.

[CorndogMaker]

those diseases are very scary looking.*shudder*

[RonnieOfTheEarth]

great video, nicely informative.

Peace

[CousinoMacul]

One reason that ERV researchers have made comments that creationists like to take out of context is that they don't see their work as a refutation of creationism. That argument was settled over a hundred years ago. Instead, they see their work as (A) furthering the understanding of evolution, and (B) helping to explain (and eventually cure) disease.

[AtheistAtLARGE]

wow

Its hard to keep track of what you're saying, how do you expect the faithful to understand wtf you're talking about, they're genetically stupid after all :(

[stagism]

Plus 1.

[ReligionIsACrutch]

One example of so-called "functional ERV" actually supports Darwinian evolution!

A placental female mammal's immune system fails to recognize its own embryos. Our genome is infected with ERVs that are immunosuppressive. Scientists think that this is what allowed the first viviparous mammals to exist.

Creationists have managed only to cite yet another example of evidence for evolution and at the same time, fail to support their own argument.

[Scyfersythe]

Nice.