Thoughts on Religion vs Evolution...

Abstracts simply help people from needlessly plowing through thousands of pages for each specific subject. That's all there is to it.

Your word games are void.

 

Not in this case, no.

 

You've spit out nothing in all that ranting.

If you want to provide anything to the discussion, provide what is in the diagram. Put up what it states. Then cross reference it to ANY of the links you provided. I doubt you can because it's not there. They contradict each other. I posted this and you have yet to provide anything other than, "You didn't read the material"... I say I did and that is why I can say that they do not agree with each other. You just Google some crap up and posted everything you could find that said ERV or HERV. You can just show us what you know in all your vast knowledge on the subject and post about the material. I have and tore it apart here: http://www.politicalforum.com/4624775-post480.html

In the first and second site I tore apart – in the diagram is there an arrow pointing to LTR of ERV-K(C4)? I didn’t find it… Can you tell us where it is please? That is in your links… Also, in your diagram there is q22.3 – where is that in your links? Just tell us!! It’s not that hard. Are you a fraud? Then post the connection!

One last thing since you don’t have a clue what you are talking about. Do you know what example “most” who argue about evolution state is a good example “of” evolution? Viruses! Do you know why? Because they mutate at an alarming rate. Per this example, that you bring, there is no way of the tests that were run, to identify if the viruses found in any of these examples were the same virus. It is suggested that it could be a different type (there is another word for this, but I know you don’t know biology terms) of virus. Do you know how many types of Flu there is? Same thing. Each specimen of this, on each example could be just a different “type” of the same virus. This is and has no bearing on ERV due to, as the example you gave of the baboon virus, what the virus was and mutation rates of a virus. It may be common in baboons, but we can look at examples today and know that some viruses have been transferred over from one species to another due to mutation like the bird flu or the swine flu or even HIV.

So do you suggest that the mutation in HIV from the squirrel monkey to us means they and us have a more recent common ancestor (roughly 30 years ago)? This is a “real” observed phenomenon, and thus needs to be taken into account dealing with the scientific method. This is why, in the examples that your own links showed, that the divergence within monkeys and man are quite high. It has nothing to do with common descent. Sorry…

But, as I stated before, you can provide what is in the diagram. Put up what it states. Then cross reference it to ANY of the links you provided.

 

I like it so far!!

Still loving the post!!!

Before if I can continue, I have to make sure that I understand your post… well, this last part. I don’t want to assume.

Our physical world is far more complex than our limited five senses, thus when we “experiment” with the physical word we find out how little we know and how we view the physical world is then changed, and it’s back to the drawing board.

If that is what you are suggesting, I have been wrong before so I never want to assume, then I will tie it in with the hypothesis of evolution. What is truly sad is when people “hold on” to the old assumptions without growing. Evolution needs to grow, instead of people clutching onto old world views that just aren’t there. We need to “challenge” what evolution is and hold it to our set of rules and then tear it apart and understand that our base assumptions were wrong.

How was that?

 

And yet, you have no substantive response to any of it.

We still do not see any source for your fake claim that the baboon ERV is found in no other primate. We do not see any source for your fake claim that that the ERV-K(C4) discussed in the Dangel paper is not found in any other primates.

Both those assertions are bald faced lies, fabrications you invented on the spot with no evidence, no links, and no basis in fact.

In contrast, I have provided six peer reviewed scientific papers that prove humans and all other higher primates are not only descended from common ancestors, but in the specific pattern of descent that evolution predicted even before we were able to map the genome.

Another fabricated claim. How do we know DBS is pulling these lies out of his hat? He asserts a contradiction, but does not bother to point out a single one.

No. I have met my burden of proof and you have provided nothing beyond sputtering to challenge it. I will not do your work for you.

Here we find again that you are simply making more stuff up as you go. You don't even know whether you are coming or going, or what paper says what. The diagram is from the Lebedev paper. It is not from either of the two papers you have to this point demonstrated conclusively that you did not even understand. There is no reasonable expectation for a specific ERV discussed in one paper to necessarily be one of the ERVs discussed in a completely different paper written for a completely different reason.

Of course you didn't find it. You wouldn't have found it even had you actually looked for it. You will also not find a reference to cabbages in a paper written about carrots.

What a profoundly dumb argument.

1) An endogenous retrovirus records the specific virus that infected a specific individual animal at a specific moment in time. Scientists are not comparing two different strains of a virus separated by any amount of time. They are comparing multiple copies of the same viral DNA.l

2) The rapid evolution of viruses occurs only in specific parts of the viral genome. Other parts are conserved... else we would not even be able to identify the virus as being the same disease. Had you actually understood the first paper, you would have realized that this is why that specific baboon sequence was selected; its presence also in a chimpanzee sequence showed that it was one of those sequences that are conserved over time.

It continues to be stunning how little effort you have made to understand even the most basic science contained in the papers that have so offended you.

And once more, DBS leaps in with a comment that demonstrates a complete ignorance of the science involved in these papers... or even what the difference is between an endogenous retrovirus and an actual retrovirus.

An endogenous retrovirus is not an active infection. It is not a virus at all. It is a sequence of junk DNA left over from an infection that occurred generations ago in another animal.

The rates at which living viruses mutate have exactly nothing to do with the rates of divergence seen in a junk DNA over millions of years. They are so completely unrelated to each other that your attempt to include them as the same idea is simply sad.

DBS has proven here that he still doesn't even know what an ERV is.

I have provided six peer reviewed scientific papers proving the common ancestry of humans and the higher primates. You have yet to read a single paper, and have not even bothered to try and comment beyond two abstracts and one diagram. You have provided no counter evidence... not a link to a paper, or an article or even to a piece of creationist propaganda.

Nothing.

In the process you have made (and now appear to be running away from) two fake assertions that specific ERVs were not found in any other primates, a finding that if true would have been the most important results of the papers. Asked to prove the lies, you have suddenly clammed up completely on them.

You have demonstrated that you do not understand even the most basic purposes of the papers provided, the experiments that they conducted and why they conducted them.

And now you show that you don't even know what an ERV is, confusing it with a living virus.

What inspires you to even try?

 

I’ll make this quick…

Spin jack!!!

(In my best bad guy from Highlander voice) There shall BE ONLY ONE!!!

From the discussion as I told WKA I read it…

Follow along please: Thus, the human sequences have the structure of an integrated retrovirus. However, we have been unable to identify a LTR at 5’ end and, therefore, conclude that this provirus is incomplete… the 3’ LTR is the proper size to contain envelope genes, thus far we have been unable to recognize any substantial homology between this sequence and the Moloney virus…. (paraphrasing now – too much to write) since the virus was found in the same location, it would mean that either there is a common ancestor OR the virus just likes that spot to infect the host.

Well, a virus has been known to do that… I think Herpes is one that does that…

FAIL!

 

All that and still no cross referencing with the picture you provided and links... Sad...

 

I will address this. I don’t use Creationist Propaganda since I am not a Creationist.

Oh… and I do understand quite well, now let me continue to lay you to rest… http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3185768/?tool=pubmed

What is shared is ERV-9 LTR and it is NOT identical in Primates. What you don’t understand is that these are DNA sequences: Since ERV-9 transcription factors are highly evolutionarily conserved, ERV-9 LTR (referred to herein as globin ERV-9 LTR) driven GFP gene expression was evaluated in transgenic zebrafish and the distribution of ERV-9 initiated transcripts in zebrafish was compared to those found in humans [13]. Using a globin ERV-9 specific sequence probe for in situ hybridization analysis, ERV-9 initiated gene expression in transgenic zebrafish and in humans occurs in both oocytes and various progenitor cells but not testes [13]. The identity of the genes transcribed under the influence of this ERV-9 promoter activity in oocytes has not been determined.

 

It is not my job to do your reading for you. It's bad enough I have to keep explaining the science.

 

That has never stopped you from using their propaganda before.

Oh?

Wonderful cutting and pasting.

Are you actually going to make a point with it?

 

You don't see the problem?

Just to let you know. Since I understand the material, I am able to cut and paste things that go along with my argument. Since you suggest that you are knowledged, I have no reason to tell you what it is within my cut and paste that shows you that you are incorrect.

Or you can just read the article and take your own advise...

 

Did you not see this from your own site? Go back and read genius... I'm not even going to tell you which one to start with.

Not my job to hold your hand when the material is right there in front of you... and you alredy read it...

 

Nope.

But then again, I'm still waiting for you to point out the last three or four "problems" you supposedly identified but then kept secret.

Make an argument or don't.

 

Make an argument or don't.

 

Since DBS chose to paraphrase, rather than quote, here is what the paper actually says (p.4713):

Odd how he missed that. Of course, he didn't really miss it. He chose first to paraphrase, and then to paraphrase dishonestly.



It is also important to note that this paper is one of the first to ever identify shared ERVs between humans and chimps. It was written almost 30 years ago.

Since then, we have found more than a half dozen more examples specific to humans and chimps, and scores more that allowed us to establish the relationships all the way across all the higher primates. This was, of course, the foundation for the Lebedev paper and its wonderful ERV annotated cladogram.

By the way... Herpes is not a retrovirus.

 

No crap it's an ancient integration site! What does that have to do with common descent? I didn't miss that at all, it's in my post when I was using my own words...

 

I have pointed them all out and you have ignored them...

 

Nonsense. You have identified exactly none.

 

Really? What does it have to do with common descent? Are you seriously asking that question?

Again, this time from the abstract:

 

Since you don't understand common tongue... (Mad scientist voice) FROM THE AAAABSTRRACKT!!!

This common locus implies either that it is a highly preferred integration site or that the viral sequence was present at this site in the common ancestor of man and chimpanzee. However, it would require an extraordinary degree of preference for independent infections of man and chimpanzee to place the only closely related human viral copy at the same site as its chimpanzee homologue. Thus, we conclude that this is an ancient integration site and that this sequence has not moved in the sense of a transposable element during the last several million years.

They concluded it was like herpes... it is a highly perferred integration site... It's right there Rosco!

 

However, we have been unable to identify a LTR at 5’ end and, therefore, conclude that this provirus is incomplete… the 3’ LTR is the proper size to contain envelope genes, thus far we have been unable to recognize any substantial homology between this sequence and the Moloney virus...

 

So? Do you even know what that means? Because it has nothing to do with whether or not the sequence was inherited from a common ancestor by both humans and chimps.

Once again, you appear to have no idea what the purpose of the experiment was. It was an attempt to identify if humans carried ERVs that might contribute to cancer. Part of the shared human/chimp ERV identified in this paper was found to not be similar to a mouse/rat leukemia virus (the Maloney virus) that they had been using as a comparison.

So what?

 

Once again, you have proven to completely misunderstand the paper.

They concluded the exact opposite of what you insist here.

They offered two possibilities to explain how humans and chimps could share the same ERV. One was a preferred integration site, the other was a single ancient integration that took place prior to human chimpanzee divergence.

They concluded it was an ancient infection in the common ancestor.

And again... there is no such thing as a "preferred integration site" for Herpes. Herpes is not a retrovirus.

 

They said nothing of the sort in their conclusion... There is nothing about a common ancestor NO WHERE IN THAT!!! You are putting words in (as Darwinist usually do) where they do not belong.

I put up what it stated: This common locus implies either that it is a highly preferred integration site or that the viral sequence was present at this site in the common ancestor of man and chimpanzee. However, it would require an extraordinary degree of preference for independent infections of man and chimpanzee to place the only closely related human viral copy at the same site as its chimpanzee homologue. Thus, we conclude that this is an ancient integration site and that this sequence has not moved in the sense of a transposable element during the last several million years.

Doesn't matter how long it's been there, it never states that it was from a common ancestor now does it. But, it does say that it likes that spot...

I wish you would stop posting that since I never said herpes was a retrovirus. Do you know what a metaphor or a simily is?

 

I can't believe we are over 50 and haven't been shut down yet...