re Re: ERV's in chimps and gorillas but not humans

[MadHatterTruth]

poor rtard

[demer64]

At o:13 its says chimps are the most closely related, not related.

[Ishta5]

we are all related but they are our closest relatives, the point is that this was a response to a video. It used this paper as a source for how we are not related and that there is no common ancestor

[demer64]

The only relaive thing about humans and chimps is they were both created from the soils of the Earth.

[phoenixshade3]

You may choose to remain ignorant if you wish, but it's not due to lack of evidence; only to your inability to recognize a millenia-old book of mythology for what it is, combined with a truly stunning lack of intellectual curiosity and critical thinking ability.

[Bucketses]

Neutral genetic drift promotes homozygousity and can preserve non beneficial alleles and cause them to dominate. Fixed ERV's on gorillas and chimps and not in humans is not controversial. There is absolutely no problem here. Here is an interesting paper on genetic drift:

Genetic drift at expanding frontiers promotes gene segregation.

Oskar Hallatschek, Pascal Hersen, Sharad Ramanathan, and David R. Nelson

Size fluctuations and events in the population can change what alleles get fixed.

[Bucketses]

Not all genes have the same history so fixation is not expected to happen all at the same time. If you check the Punnet square for 0i you will find that 50% are 0i's and the other 50% 00 and ii together so there is no statistical advantage to 0i, fixation will depend on random factors that affect the population. This means I would have to retract a previous statement done here I believe.

[Bucketses]

Also see the abstract of this paper:

Insertional polymorphisms of full-length endogenous retrovirusesin humans

Geoffrey Turner, Madalina Barbulescu, Mei Su, Michael I. Jensen-Seaman, Kenneth K. Kidd and Jack Lenz

[Bucketses]

See that there are two ERV's that are not present in the entire population, so they are obviously inserted, and like we know, starting though only one person. There is no evidence that it is beneficial, but there is evidence that it is potentially a causer of disease, so how can these ERV's be so widespread yet not helped through natural selection? Neutral drift. Neutral drift can fix alleles differently in different populations.

[Bucketses]

"So to show he was one creator he had to made things similar.. which btw often is a halmark among genius "creators" (of music, litterature ect.)"

Leonardo Davinci was an scientist, mathematician, engineer, inventor, anatomist, painter, sculptor, arcrhitect, botanist, musician and writer. Quite a creator huh? Yet all of these are not related mediums. This point is moot because the variety of lack thereof depends on the tastes and skills of the creator, you are claiming to know the mind of God.

[Bucketses]

"similarities is an hallmark of designers, and it is very expected. He had to give evidences that the creation was from ONE mind, and not many."

Same point of before, an artist can paint a painting, and can have different techniques, and can express himself in different media. There is no reason why he should stick to one thing.

[Bucketses]

"Thats ok for me. However this is classifications. You dont need either CA/evolution or creation to put creatures into groups based on patterns and features, simmilarities and differences."

You mean that the classification is an interpretation of what we see? Here is the thing: the similarities in animals are expressed in nested groups. If I say all mammals are similar that statement alone says nothing. I can say that they are the same in that they have hair.

[Bucketses]

Similarities mean nothing unless you specify what you are talking about. The issue here is that there are other "similar" groups within this group of mammals, this is a FACT and we can pinpoint the exact feature that makes them the same. In another example mammalian skulls are not like reptilian skulls and this is a FACT. There are similar groups within other similar groups, this is a nested hierarchy.

[Bucketses]

If the pattern did not exist you could not build the pattern. What you are is like saying that periodicity of the table of elements is just an interpretation, there is no periodicity, only similar properties. Well, we can actually measure the properties and show that they repeat the same way that we can pinpoint what are the features that define the groups within groups. Patterns in the data are properties of the data. All scientific theories are constructed from patterns in data.

[Adamtrr]

Great video. Favorited.

[Desertphile]

Thank you: I just had this explained to me in talk.origins and I'm rather ashamed to see how stupid I was not to know this. It explains why Humans, for example, do not have some ERVs that Chimps and Gorillas share (at the same insertion point) even though our common ancestor with chimps and gorillas did.

[Bucketses]

Starting a new thread, I am getting lost in the text.

[Bucketses]

There are is the fact of similarities, and there is also the fact that similarities are clumped into hierarchical groups. Do you agree that deer and dogs are both mammals, but not birds, but that the three are land tetrapods and not fish?

[Bucketses]

Also like I said in another video: All scientific theories are interpretations. The only case where you know a fact is true is when you make it true like in an experiment. If you are questioning weather a fact is true you will NEVER be able to know if its true, you will only find evidence that fits the interpretation and never a fact that says the interpretation is true. The fact-theory gap is never closed in science because you can always ask for evidence of evidence forever.

[Bucketses]

And I know that you can relate to this. For example the theory of gravity: the attractive force between two bodies is proportional to their mass, but what is mass? How can a force be exerted without matter? How can a particle that is 99% empty space even interact with something else that is 99% empty space? Does matter even touch it self when they attract?

[Bucketses]

Why don't we object to these sorts of things and call gravity an interpretation? Gravity is an invisible and untestable entity! I could say that gravity is caused by a little invisible goblin that likes to make things stick together and the bigger they are, the more he likes to stick them together, and I can go even further and say that there is also the electro magnetic goblin, and the atomic goblin etc. I can say that the universe would look like it does now if the goblin theory is true.

[Bucketses]

This is why arguing that a fact does not necessarily prove something is not a scientific argument because you never prove in science, you only give evidence. What you are actually arguing against is the methodology and philosophy of science as a tool to know truth.

[Bucketses]

However God can make and infinite kinds of creatures. Why would he only make ones that look alike and in groups that are in a nested pattern? And why do all of them appear gradually in the fossil record? why don't they all just appear suddenly? Ans why do all the creatures work with DNA, why not some other chemical or method?.Another case of evidence planted to look like evolution. The answers that the God theory gives are never contingent.

[Bucketses]

This problem is true, I will not say that it does not exist, but you are aware that it is found at the base of ENORMOUS groups, we are talking the origins of kingdoms here, basically the origin of the first unicellular "animal", "plant", "fungi" etc. And also evolution in the popularly known darwinian sense does not work here anymore because there seems to be so much horizontal transfer. Darwinian evo works with: mutation, selection and heredity.

[Bucketses]

The kind of evolution that is proposed here destroys the concept of heredity, thus making the branches a lot less discrete and more interwoven. May I ask where you got the sequences for the hemoglobin of different creatures? I am going to try to get various databases to make a comparison myself. I have seen data that shows what you seem to describe but with chimps, gorillas and human. However, it only switched the relationships amongst those three and no others. The hierarchy was conserved.

[Bucketses]

My mistake, I think that you may want to look into comparing by nucleotide composition, I think that is the one that is capable of giving you strange phylogenies as you approach the base because this method does not discriminate what the nucleotides code for or their chromosomal structure. This is why scientists prefer to use comparing the actual structure of the code for phylogenies. In the case for this ERV in question, I believe it is the only "problem", and its not really serious.

[Bucketses]

I will look into what you ask, I think I got the site, but there are too many book marks. :)

[Bucketses]

Sorry if you took offence, its just that I like to be complete as to avoid what I think are less important tangents. I have a question however:

Are the ERV's that show the nested pattern between humans chimps and gorillas built on creation or acquired? If created we have that God made it look like evolution and the data lies, if no there is a very long line of common ancestry.

[Bucketses]

The nested hierarchy is EVERYWHERE!!! some example: Except for the ERV in discussion here or any other I might not know the ERV's that are ortholongus match the pattern gorillas splitting first, then chimps then humans. Comparing the nucleotide composition we are more similar to chimps than humans or chimps are to gorillas. Highly preserved ortholongus noncoding regions have the vast majority pointing to more kinship to chimps. These are just with genetics.

[Bucketses]

The fossil record has the same pattern in its layering, but it is best seen on larger taxonomic groups or groups that are studied a lot. There are instances where you can see the nested hierarchy at a finner detail, but the record fluctuates, however things like the split of mammals,lizards, and birds can be seen.

[Bucketses]

There is also morphology like the example of primate skulls: the chimpanzee skull tends to lack the fins the gorilla has and is generally round like that of a human. The same with the crest in the back of the gorilla that is absent in chimps and humans

[Bucketses]

Your definition of "purpose" seems to be similar to that of "irreducible complexity" where every part must be present for function of the whole. However, IC is not the mark of design because evolution can produce it. check out CDK007's vid on IC. You would be surprised how old this concept is. watch?v=LZdCxk0CnN4. And again you have the case where a part can have multiple functions, making purpose, like function before it, an opportunistic happening.

[Bucketses]

"[The studies] show that KoRV is present, at variable copy number (that means that there was more than one insertion of the virus and a particular germline can be infected more than once), in

the germline of ALL koalas found in Queensland, but that

animals from SOME areas of southern Australia lack the

provirus."

[Bucketses]

Here is a map that shows Queensland:

(travelonline)(com/maps/images­/search_map_australia)(gif)

Here is one that shows the distribution of the koala population:

(theanimalfiles)(com/images/ko­ala_range)(jpg)

That is a lot of infected koalas, and there is evidence that endogenization is still occurring, so the case where the whole population has at least one ERV that survives to leave a mark is not only plausible but likely in this case.

[Bucketses]

Here you can see that the outcome is not necessarily good or bad, any fixation due to the virus is opportunistic.

[Bucketses]

"An integrated provirus can have five possible fates [2,11]: it can serve as a source for infectious virus; it can evolve to give rise to a viral genome that amplifies itself solely intracellularly;it can decay into junk DNA; it can undergo recombination

between the LTRs to leave a solo LTR; or it might contribute a gene that can have a physiological function in the host [12]. These outcomes range from potentially harmful to beneficial to the host."

[Bucketses]

Here there is evidence that the ERV was inserted and not part of the original animal.

"Most notably, KoRV appears completely absent from koalas on Kangaroo Island off the coast of South Australia. This island was stocked with koalas in the early part of the twentieth century and has remained essentially isolated since then; it appears most likely that the small founding population was entirely free of KoRV."

[Bucketses]

Also an example: If there are two kinds of creatures that are competing and they are exactly alike and the only difference is their numbers in the population, the creature with more than 50% of the population has a statistical advantage that will eventually saturate the entire population.

[Bucketses]

Also the KoRV seems to be benign, in the case that it were malicious the allele that will be at an advantage would be the allele that develops resistance to the virus. Since this is a chance event if an ERV infecting a population ends up in a germline that at some point after the infection develops resistance to the virus, the propagation of this ERV will be favored along with the resistance.

[smgharsha2110]

"since it is like impossible to know for sure when and how those ERVs entered into the genome. "

This is an enormously poor statement that highlights your lack of understanding of the subject.

As I told you even aig creationist scientists agree that ERVs are there because viruses put them there. Even they are not stupid enought o argue that point.

The only reason youre arguing it is because youve never taken any biology classes and dont know what youre talking about.

[smgharsha2110]

you get my point? Not even aig scientists agree with you. Your statement is THAT unscientific.

[smgharsha2110]

dude what you said about ERVs being genetic engineered and not put there by viruses, I challenge you to find even ONE scientist that agrees with you. NOT A SINGLE Scientist agrees with this statement because it is unscientific. Not even AIG scientists say that ERVs are not put there by viruses.

Your statement is wrong. I dont think you hvae taken any genetics classes and this is why you are talking without even having an understanding of the subject.

[Bucketses]

True, placing all those ERV's could be a prefall conditions, but now we have that the prefall conditions mimic the nested hierarchy, so it looks like evolution anyway.

[Bucketses]

You only need one surviving ERV to trace common ancestry, any will do. I am saying that virtually everybody is infected with one ERV and some of those ERV's are bound to land on a creature that already has a "fitter" genes, thus they get favored without any need for function or benefit from the ERV's part, but by piggybacking the "fitter" genes on the same chromosome. The reason I am proposing does not consider ERV function and can still be favoured.

[Bucketses]

There is this one ERV that I know, I think it was a01 that mentioned it, that has a beneficial function, it suppresses the mother's immune system in a way that the child is not rejected like a foreign object. However, similar inserted ERV's are/were pathogenic and will kill the host rather than save it if reactivated. Sending an immuno deficiency virus to design a beneficial function having a large kill count is a strange way to design. It looks no different than opportunistic infestation.

[Bucketses]

I still think more info is needed, lets see where we get to.

[Bucketses]

In the paper however it says that the virus is so propagated that you don't have AA and AiA alone, but we also have AaA, AbA, AcA etc. We can almost assume that everybody has a genotype AxA because there is so much infestation. So its more like mating AiA and AjA where 75% of the children will have at least one Ax, It does not matter what Ax survives it can leave a mark and has the potetial to wipe AA out. AA can be preserved if the viral infestation is local.

[Bucketses]

A viable mechanism to get ERV's to saturate in the population is by hitchhiking a ride on a "fitter" organism. In the paper I put koalas are getting the virus in the normal way and through germ line infections, its just spreading and getting integrated everywhere without discrimination. The "fitter" koalas with an ERV will saturate the population's independently of the ERV's function if it was a large viral infection.

[Ishta5]

that indicates evolution, the host has gotten a mutation and a new function

[Bucketses]

You would still need to characterize what is "purpose" and how it indicates design. The nylon eating bacteria's ability would have no "purpose" if there ever was any nylon, however when there is nylon said bacteria and its function would have a "purpose". Is this intentional design or opportunism? Why is "purpose" relative?

[Ishta5]

they had a function, it was to burst the cell and swarm the extracellular space with new viruses. This is what they do until they mutated and lost the original function watch?v=yju4jR4JCC8

[Bucketses]

but how does "function" equate to "purpose" or deliberate action? even an loose electron has a "function" since it has a charge, mass, maybe occupies some space, and interacts with matter. Are all these properties designed, are all of these "functions"? are these natural laws designed? I think you use your definition of "function" too broadly and maybe even haven't defined it at all nor established the connections that make "function" a mark of design.

[smgharsha2110]

also the ERVs that I am talking about have no funciton. Most ERVs dont have a function. Yet they are in the same exact spot.

I know youre not saying you know the process. Thats the problem with your argument. You have to make stuff up thats contradictory.

EVERY scientist says that ERVs are caused by viruses.

THe previous experiment I talked about ( the two human cell experiment) shows that they integrate randomly.

Your argument is bust.

[smgharsha2110]

"You observe also similarities also in the DNA, like ERVs on the same locations."

ok now we are getting to the meat of the misunderstanding pay attention carefully.

they did this experiment using two HUMAN cells and infected them with viruses. Guess what they both integrated RANDOMLY.

Are two HUMAN cells MORE similar or less similar than one chimp and one human cell?

Obvously two HUMAN cells are MORE similar.

Yet they are random

This is why your similarity argument doesnt work

[smgharsha2110]

so LOGICALLY God would use VIRUSES to insert VIRAL genes. Not only are these VIRAL genes, but they are the EXACT distance away in ERVs that they are in viruses. So this is the ONLY logical conclusion. YOUR argument makes god a liar AND it is illogical.

If God used viruses the way science says, then viruses integrate randomly. Even two cells by the SAME human are random, so ofcourse a chimp and human cell would ALSO be random.

I hope you see why your argument is wrong.

[smgharsha2110]

lostxx- read my previous comment about two SIMILAR human cells has viruses binding randomly. So similarity has NOTHING to do with it. This point is important.

Also let me say again: ERVs are CLEARLY viral DNA. EVERY scientist agrees that ERVs come from viruses. So what are VIRAL genes doing in humans?

See my question? YOU are arguing God made VIRAL genes without using viruses, using "genetic engineering". Why did he put VIRAL genes without using VIRUSES. That is illogical.

[smgharsha2110]

dude this has NOTHING to do with similarities.

If you take two cells from the SAME human being and infect it with a virus, the virus integrates RANDOMLY in the cell from the SAME HUMAN.

So viral integration is a random process. Two human cells are more similar than a chimp cell and a human cell. Still the two human cells bind randomly. So this has nothing to do with similarity.

Secondly you are right there are interpretations. But the ONLY logical interpretation supports evolution.

[Ishta5]

why do you assume that the bible is written by the supernatural and not by a human

[truthofevolution]

btw Im also smgharsha2110 sorry about confusion there.

[smgharsha2110]

If God used viruses to insert ALL ERVs, then he would need to break laws for the ERV to insert nonrandomly.

If God used genetic engineering- he did in a way that makes it seem like evolution happened.

ERVs contain VIRAL DNA, and VIRAL capsid genes. So if he put it in HUMAN dna WITHOUT using viruses, then God lied.

Also we see Viruses inserting ERVs. So again God is lying, putting it half the time himself and using viruses the other half the times.

[smgharsha2110]

so youre saying God created ERVs without using viruses. Then he created viruses which insert those EXACT same ERVs but do it randomly.

You donot have proof for this. This also contradicts logic. This is also extremely unscientific and wouldnt stand up in science for a second.

In the same way you said this I can say that tossing a coin is NOT 50/50 chance but 100% heads. Half of the time God makes it land on tails.

Both are equally unscientific and equally unsupported by proof

[truthofevolution]

just by reading your response I know for a fact that you have not taken any genetics courses. Am I right?

Youre misunderstanding the basics of genetics as well as this argument.

This has nothing to do with genetic engineering. It has to do with natural processes

There is no natural process that can insert an ERV specifically into the genome. Period.

These ERVs were not inserted by genetic engineering by humans They were discovered

So either god used natural processes or he didnt

[truthofevolution]

dude im telling you, ive done genetics for years and thats impossible. You can keep believing it if you want but that doesnt make it true.

[truthofevolution]

I thin this is the extent of our debate: basically for creation to work natural laws can be ignored. However I disagree, natural laws must be followed. If natural laws are followed evolution is the only possible answer

I hope you understand why this is.

[truthofevolution]

thats too bad that it does nothing to change creationist point of view because if you

think its not ok to break natural laws evolution is the only possible explanation for ERVs.

So if you dont think that following natural laws are important, then you can ignore ERVs as evidence for evolution and say creationism fits the model.

But theres no way ERVs can bind purposefully

1)I told you the observations do not fit. The genetic code of ERVs indicates that it integrated randomly

[truthofevolution]

so to refute your argument- the bird/ mammal ancestors were dinosaurs with SOME warmblooded capabilities. When the split off they continued to evolve this feature independently, until mammals had completely different structures from birds- birds had feathers and mammals had fur for the same purpose of warmbloodedness.

So this feature doesnt bother evolutionists at all because it doesnt violate evolution.

You have to compare structures that the ancestor doesnt have to disprove evolution

[truthofevolution]

yes we can prove that all ERVs came from outside RVs, because all ERVs contain gag, pol, and env genes that are found in outside virsuses in the exact same distance from each other.

Since laws of protein affinity state that if a structure of a protein stays the same, the function stays the same, we know that the structure of ALL ERVs is the same, so the function MUST also be the same- which is random integration.

So I just proved to you that ALL ervs are caused by RVs.

[a01011399]

I believe that ervs where created with a purpose since the begining, after all ERVs are functional proteins and are needed for reproduction ¿why wouldn´t god create a complete reproductive system? most are in the same place because proteins can only be functional in very specific places

[Ishta5]

that is called evolution, mutations in the dna can be advantageous. What about the ERV that cause tumors, diabetes, cancer. Maybe the mutation caused by this ervs was the reason we don't lay eggs any more. Mutations changes DNA that changes the protein and gives us a new ability, this is evolution

[a01011399]

maybe, but it is not a problem to explain ERVs with ID besides no one has ever seen a non functional ERV becoming functional

[Ishta5]

it was a virus, that means it made more viruses when it was functional, it mutated and lost its original function and contributed to evolution

[Ishta5]

they are viruses

[a01011399]

I fan ERV in chimps and gorillas but not in humans does not contradict evolutionary theory then why was desertphile and other evolutionists claiming that an ERV in chimps and gorillas but not in humans would falsify evolution? Why did you make a video reply to me, if I am not the one claiming that this ERV would falsify evolution?

But thanks for the video

[Ishta5]

You did do some research and that was a good job, but you didn't read it

[a01011399]

yes i REED IT, based on what do you claim that I did not? desrtphile was claiming that this ERV would falsify evolution that is why I made the video, if desertphile was wrong then tell him NOT ME

[Bucketses]

The test still works to falsify evolution, the article only talks about ONE ERV and you seem to be working with science as if it were absolute with its claims. One ERV is not a lot of leverage against the rest. In science you work with likelyhoods, not absolute truth, so falsification works as how likely it is to be false rather than an absolute false. On the flip side, if evolution only depended on one ERV then the conclusion would be that evolution is likely to be false, but not absolutely.

[Bucketses]

Your arguments seem to be more on criticizing the philosophy of science rather than where the evidence points.

[truthofevolution]

azero- I told you MANY TIMES that desertphile and others made a mistake in thinking that all the ERVs were "stuck" in the genome. However, it is clear that there was polymorphism involved.

So because the assumption is wrong, this doesnt count as potential falsification.

If you want falsification, find a bird with nipples.

[a01011399]

if this ERV is not a falsification then tell desertphile (and other evolutionists) not me.

a bird with nipples would not falsify evolution, it will simply be an example of convergent evolution, birds and mammals share common characteristics that reptiles do not have and this is not a problem for evolutionists, for example mammals and birds are warm blooded

[truthofevolution]

I did tell desertphile... its not a matter of it falsifying evolution. It would falisify evolution if it NEVER integrated in humans but it integrated in chimps and gorillas.

But that paper you showed, also tells us that it DID integrate but that it was lost. So the trait was inherited like evolution PREDICTED, but it was lost (losing it has nothing to do with evolution but genetics and environment and such).

[a01011399]

how do you know that the erv was lost? maybe it never integrated

[smgharsha2110]

1) ERVs bind randomly (this is clear from law about proteins) There are two ERVs in the exact spot which is highly unlikely but not impossible.

2) We have seen ERVs being lost in humans. Since we have seen this happen before and this is highly likely this is probably what happened.

[smgharsha2110]

also every other ERV is exactly where evolution predicted so this is probably an exception

[truthofevolution]

warmbloodedness is not that simple... because it happens in degrees. For eample there are reptiles with warmblooded characteristics such as pythons, and some mammals ahve coldblooded characteristics such as platypus.

We dont know EVERYTHING, but we know that in the earliest "step" the common ancestor of birds and mammals (a dinosaur) had some warmblooded capabilities (such as a four chambered heart). Since their earliest ancestor had some warmbloodedness, they developed it further.

[truthofevolution]

note that the essential characteristic of convergent evolution is that there are certain characteristics that are NOT shared. For example a whale's flipper "looks like" a fish's fin, but the bones are NOTHING like a fish's.

This is convergent evolution.

So having the basics of warmbloodedness in common meant that the feature was "selected" for.

Note however, that birds use feathers, and mammals use blubber and fur. This is an essential difference which characterizes convergence.

[Ishta5]

but they are viruses, that means they existed outside the cell in the air and that they inserted themselves into the cell and that means on a random spot. And any function that has come from the insertion will be new information and evolution

[Ishta5]

we know for sure that some ERV are bad they cause tumors, and in other species they are active, they actually make viruses.

[Ishta5]

some have gotten some mutations and are useful, they are in that way a part of evolution, others are silent and some are linked to cancer, diabetes and more

[Ishta5]

yes it is possible just copy the DNA this is a natural process called reproduction

[truthofevolution]

Here is the flaw in your reasoning: Yes some ERVs have some function... however this is a FACT that all ERVs are randomly integrated...

How can you square the two with creation? You cant. Thats why you say that it has purpose from the beginning.

But I keep TELLING YOU that this BREAKS NATURAL LAWS. It is impossible to get them to bind purposefully.

ALL ERVS are caused by RVs. This is a FACT.

ALL RVs Integrate RANDOMLY. This is also a fact.

Therefore creationism is wrong.

[truthofevolution]

lostxx, it is impossible. First of all, all ERVs occur naturally not by genetic engineering. Also all ERVs contain genes for making viral proteins in the exact same order that we see in real viruses. It is impossible to put them in the same spot even by genetic engineering.

You keep missing the point: if ERVs were put with purpose in the beginning, why is the genome exactly like that of viruses?

We have seen viruses inserting ERVs in experiments and they do it randomly.

[Bucketses]

Koala retrovirus: a genome invasion in real time

by Jonathan P Stoye

Might be of interest.

I disagree with smgharsha2110 on ERV's not being used for patterning the nested heirarchy because the vast majority of the ERV's are in the right pattern. Using the Bayesian argument you have one theory with 99% of the data in agreement with 1% not, but a REAL mechanism to account for it, and one theory with 1% in favor and 99% against with no saving mechanism. Which one is more likely?

[Bucketses]

Also, science doesn't PROVE in the way one does with with pure logic, it gives evidence, specially when dealing with historical events like in western judiciary systems.

[truthofevolution]

1) all ERVs come from viruses because all ERVs contain the gag, pol, and env genes. Find me a scientific source that says ERVs dont come from viruses. You cant.

2) All viruses integrate dna randomly

3) The chance of ERV in the same spot is extremely small

4) All ERVs bind randomly, if they didnt then that would break natural laws, because that would mean that affinity would change while structure remained the same which is impossible.

[truthofevolution]

dude Ive worked in a genetics lab for 2 years let me tell you that youre wrong. This has nothing to do with genetic engineering.

ERVs come from viruses, to say otherwise is wrong. You will not be able to find even a single scientific source that says that ERVs dont come from viruses.

Why? because ALL ervs contain env, pol, and gag genes which are genes that make VIRAL capsids and proteins.

These genes are found with the EXACT spacing in viruses. So all ERVs come from viruses.

[truthofevolution]

ok ill buy that having a function fits into the creationist model. however this is not a prediction. The creationists claimed this fit into the model after a search of ERVs not before.

However you made your mistake here " meaning that the ERVs was not put there randomly by RVs, but put there with PURPOSE."

If they were not placed randomly that breaks the laws of protein affinity which I detailed in the messages below.

One thing is clear, either god broke natural laws or ERVs are random

[truthofevolution]

also even if creationism COULD explain all the same evidence, (which it cant, for example only evolution explains nested hierarchy), its still not enough because evolution made millions of predictions while creationism made none.

There is a mathematical formula called bayesian inference which calculates the probability of a theory being correct based on predictions

watch?v=8Mylehb3NIU

in this video I take ONLY 8 predictions and calculate evolution probability as 99.6%

[truthofevolution]

so your statement that god made viruses "with a purpose" and bind perfectly is wrong. Since the structure is the same in ERVs and modern viruses, the function must also be the same.

It is random in the present, so it must be random in the past.

Do you follow?

For viruses to bind in the same spot in the present is 1/billion (more!). So that same chance must be the same in the past.

Yet we see 16 ERVs that bind in the same spot. So this is impossible under creationist view.

[truthofevolution]

xxlost- letme explain to you about protein affinity. It is dependent on the structure of protein. That means if the structure of the protein changes then the affinity changes, if the structure is the same then the affinity is the same

In ERVs we find genes for certain viral proteins and those are the same structurally as modern viruses. Modern viruses bind randomly as shown by lab experiments

Since the structure is the same in the past and present, viruses must also bind randomly in the past

[truthofevolution]

"If those specific (human/chimp/gorilla) ERVs has purpose(s) they could of course be explained within a creationst model. "

No it cannot. we have done lab experiments with viruses integrating in randomly. If God allowed for them to bind specifically in the past and randomly now, that means that he broke the laws of protein affinity, which is based on the structure of the protein. If the structure didnt change affinity cannot change.

Thus the creationist model cannot account for it.

[truthofevolution]

ishta- ofcourse in finding this number 99.6% I was being generous in allowing the false dichotomy of creationism vs evolution. I also allowed the initial probability of both to be 50% which is also being generous.

So even in my generosity and only 8 predictions the probability of evolution being correct is really high... which is the point I was making to xxlostxx

about god creating virsus in the human- this is an arugment that creationists use. ask them what it means. Its nonsense.

[truthofevolution]

ishta- Youre right creationism would not be .4% accurate. I was making a point to xxlostxx who says the ability of creationism to explain the phenomena is enough for creationism to be considered science.

I took 8 predictions made by evolution and plugged them into the bayesian inference equation and found that the probability of evolution being correct is 99.6%

This is according to those 8 predictions ALONE. If I we added more predictions, the probability of evolution would be higher.

[truthofevolution]

xxlost, secondly, just because creationism can explain SOME evidence doesnt mean anything if evolution PREDICTED that evidence first.

xxlost, watch this video which shows that the ability to make 8 predictions makes evolution 99.6% likely and creationism .4% according to the bayesian theorem.

watch?v=8Mylehb3NIU

So just according to the 8 predictions made in the video the number is 99.6%, but with more predictions the number is higher, and ofcourse there are millions of predictions

[Ishta5]

watch this video which shows that the ability to make 8 predictions makes evolution 99.6% likely and creationism .4% according to the bayesian theorem.

well why would it make creationism 4% accurate? it would not

[truthofevolution]

xxlost... the creationist model cannot explain the ERVs. There is no creationist mechanism that can account for ERV insertion in the exact same spot in chimps, humans and gorillas.

for God to have made "perfect" ervs in the past that "degraded" in the present, means that the laws of protein affinity are broken.

For Viruses to come from ERVs, is to go against all empirical data saying otherwise and to twist scientist's words who said that the FIRST virus came from hosts, not from ALL ERVs.

[smgharsha2110]

ishta: oh wait sorry I just read teh definiton of being "fixed"... nevermind...

[Ishta5]

I put in the description :) fixed is loss of the other alleles

[a01011399]

yes thanks I understand that but, if evolution can not be falsfied with ERVs then evolutionists should not use ERVs as prove for evolution

[smgharsha2110]

no daniel, the reason evolutionists use ERVs is unrelated to the nested hierarchy. There is NO other mechanism for ERVs to bind to the same spot in humans and chimps.

Viruses bind randomly, we have done experiments with this.

Your theory that viruses come from ERVs is WRONG. No scientist says that. Scientists say the FIRST virus came from host dna, not viruses come from ALL ervs. So you are wrong.

Also God cannot make it perfect originally because then laws of proteins are broken

[Ishta5]

why would he create viruses in he human

[smgharsha2110]

so in other words you have NO CHOICE, there is NO way for ERVs to bind the way they do.

Not only that, this particular ERV is an exception. Every other ERV is exactly where we predicted them. There are dozens in all the great apes.

So all the dozens are exactly where we expect them except for one ERV. And even that has a reasonable explanation because we have seen this "fixing" in other ERVs in humans today.

Again, you have not provided a scientific explanation for why ERVs are there

[Ishta5]

there are ways for the ERV to be lost in the genome, but it is the accumulated evidence, the big picture the unlikelihood of having all this in common. So the ERVs support common ancestor when all the data is compared

[smgharsha2110]

one more thing ishta: for this to be 100% convincable to creationists, it would be good to have some evidence of polymorphism for this ERV in modern gorillas and chimps. That is some Gorillas have the ERV and others are heterozygous for it. Is there any such evidence?

Or would the polymorphism disappear after such a long time?

[smgharsha2110]

thanks ishta that was extremely well done...