- Status
bambu;4668328 said:
Bambu you miss the point of debate altogether. Nothing I can post will convince you the accuracy of evolutionary theory, however this thread has many lurkers and that is the audience I am trying to convince. I have posted a half dozen transitional forms between humans and earlier ape like ancestors. The evidence is solid and convincing when examined honestly. Perhaps everyone that reads this thread is as rigid and you and I but if not I am arguing to convince those still on the fence.
As am I......
It should be understood that the fossil record is pretty much a dead end because there is no "holy grail" and has yet to provide definite answers......
Which is why I focused on DNA evidence.....
You argued you side well. However, you are right, I remain unconvinced.......
Perhaps we can switch to the crux of the issue....
Does evolution apply to the races "mankind?"....
1. If not..... "we are all the same" then evolution has failed or there is a "divine" intervention in the theory.....
2. If so do you agree with this shit.....
On the fence????
It should be understood that the fossil record is pretty much a dead end because there is no "holy grail" and has yet to provide definite answers......
Which is why I focused on DNA evidence.....
You argued you side well. However, you are right, I remain unconvinced.......
Perhaps we can switch to the crux of the issue....
Does evolution apply to the races "mankind?"....
1. If not..... "we are all the same" then evolution has failed or there is a "divine" intervention in the theory.....
2. If so do you agree with this shit.....
On the fence????
I can accept that the variation we see in humans across the globe is based on slight adaptions to the various environments they occupy without believing that Tasmanian tribesmen evolved into Roman marble statues.
The fossil record quite strongly supports evolution as shown by the evidence I have posted. You just claim it does not without providing any evidence to support your position.
But if you want to talk DNA then endogenous retroviruses (ERV) support evolution.
A retrovirus insert itself into the DNA of a cell. In rare instances the cell is a germ cell (sperm or egg). In this case any resulting offspring would have the retrovirus at a specific location of his or her genome in every cell. Humans have about 1% of their genome taken up by retroviruses (about 30,000 different species of viruses).
We have found 7 retroviruses we share with chimps. Now it is not simply the same species of virus but the same virus at the same location in our gene code. This means that at the same spot in a multi billion word novel the same set of phrases have been cut and pasted in. When we look at other genomes like cats for instance we do not find these retrovirus in these locations.
Further when we find a ERV in shared by gorillas and chimps it also exists in humans. If Gorillas and Orangutangs share one it is shared by chimps and humans.
The fossil record quite strongly supports evolution as shown by the evidence I have posted. You just claim it does not without providing any evidence to support your position.
But if you want to talk DNA then endogenous retroviruses (ERV) support evolution.
A retrovirus insert itself into the DNA of a cell. In rare instances the cell is a germ cell (sperm or egg). In this case any resulting offspring would have the retrovirus at a specific location of his or her genome in every cell. Humans have about 1% of their genome taken up by retroviruses (about 30,000 different species of viruses).
We have found 7 retroviruses we share with chimps. Now it is not simply the same species of virus but the same virus at the same location in our gene code. This means that at the same spot in a multi billion word novel the same set of phrases have been cut and pasted in. When we look at other genomes like cats for instance we do not find these retrovirus in these locations.
Further when we find a ERV in shared by gorillas and chimps it also exists in humans. If Gorillas and Orangutangs share one it is shared by chimps and humans.
whar;4678089 said:
LOL....
pseudo-scientific racism.....That is a "FACT"....... and should not be questioned????
You can find a few cats that will cosign this bullshit, but real brothers will not fall for such fuckery......
I provided evidence against all your fossil claims of "proof" of evolution.....
The problem with ERV's are the same that emerge from other flaws in European science.....
The presumption behind your argument is that endogenous retroviruses (ERVs) are functionless stretches of "junk" DNA that persist because they are "selfish"--but they have no function for the organism.
Darwinists who labeled ERVs as a form of "selfish" and "junk" DNA have been chasing explanations down a blind alley. It should be stated that the authors do not deviate from the neo-Darwinian paradigm, putting the obligatory evolutionary spin on the data. They claim that it's a possibility that some of the transcribed ERVs are "not functionally significantl," exposing that even in the face of this compelling contrary data, it is difficult for many Darwinists to let go of their seductive but science-stopping "junk-DNA" paradigm.
This appears to be the typical Darwinist modus operandi.....
If it does not work into the theory then it is "Junk" or all to often a "vestigial remnant."
Time and time again from Piltdown, to the pineal gland, and now ERV's.
Retroviral promoters in the human genome.
Conley AB, Piriyapongsa J, Jordan IK.
Source
School of Biology, Georgia Institute of Technology, 310 Ferst Drive, Atlanta, GA 30306, USA.
Abstract
MOTIVATION: Endogenous retrovirus (ERV) elements have been shown to contribute promoter sequences that can initiate transcription of adjacent human genes.
RESULTS: We report the existence of 51,197 ERV-derived promoter sequences that initiate transcription within the human genome, including 1743 cases where transcription is initiated from ERV sequences that are located in gene proximal promoter or 5' untranslated regions (UTRs). A total of 114 of the ERV-derived transcription start sites can be demonstrated to drive transcription of 97 human genes, producing chimeric transcripts that are initiated within ERV long terminal repeat (LTR) sequences and read-through into known gene sequences
Silly Europeans.....
Last edited:
waterproof
New member
Lol, my nigga. U can't hide who u are D jax...boy I tell ya they will come from different angles
ERV do not rely on junk DNA Bambu. A retrovirus is a living organism that reproduces by inserting its DNA into that of a host cell. The vast majority of retroviruses are harmless but their DNA is very specific.
Why not quote the paper you cite as an example of ERVs supporting evolution.
"In fact, most of the ERV sequences in the human genome are primate-specific (Sverdlov, 2000), while most human genes are far more ancient and share orthologs with distantly related species (Lander et al. , 2001)."
"The abundance of these so-called endogenous retrovirus sequenes (ERVS) testifies to the extent that human evolution has been shaped by successive waves of viral invasion (Sverdlov, 2000)."
Bambu unless the paper you cite comes from one of the creationist web site it is often going to contradict you.
The whole paper is at
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...svB-1m4gfIoKiCWww&sig2=q-IgknWklJplOBb6edwEKw
Why not quote the paper you cite as an example of ERVs supporting evolution.
"In fact, most of the ERV sequences in the human genome are primate-specific (Sverdlov, 2000), while most human genes are far more ancient and share orthologs with distantly related species (Lander et al. , 2001)."
"The abundance of these so-called endogenous retrovirus sequenes (ERVS) testifies to the extent that human evolution has been shaped by successive waves of viral invasion (Sverdlov, 2000)."
Bambu unless the paper you cite comes from one of the creationist web site it is often going to contradict you.
The whole paper is at
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...svB-1m4gfIoKiCWww&sig2=q-IgknWklJplOBb6edwEKw
Again....
I appreciate your sincerity, but you missed it.....
Your argument that ERV's are "proof" of evolution comes from this, which states that ERV's are "functionless" as required by the theory of evolution....http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
Your quotes are references in the paper that I quoted....
The paper that I cited comes from theSchool of Biology, Georgia Institute of Technology and provides evidence that ERV's "may regulate human transcription on a large scale"....
"Our analysis revealed that retroviral sequences in the human genome encode tens-of-thousands of active promoters; transcribed ERV sequences correspond to 1.16% of the human genome sequence and PET tags that capture transcripts initiated from ERVs cover 22.4% of the genome. These data suggest that ERVs may regulate human transcription on a large scale."
Shattering the Darwinist notion of the "junk" or "functionless" role of ERV's.....
Let's stay focused sir.....
I appreciate your sincerity, but you missed it.....
Your argument that ERV's are "proof" of evolution comes from this, which states that ERV's are "functionless" as required by the theory of evolution....http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
Your quotes are references in the paper that I quoted....
The paper that I cited comes from theSchool of Biology, Georgia Institute of Technology and provides evidence that ERV's "may regulate human transcription on a large scale"....
"Our analysis revealed that retroviral sequences in the human genome encode tens-of-thousands of active promoters; transcribed ERV sequences correspond to 1.16% of the human genome sequence and PET tags that capture transcripts initiated from ERVs cover 22.4% of the genome. These data suggest that ERVs may regulate human transcription on a large scale."
Shattering the Darwinist notion of the "junk" or "functionless" role of ERV's.....
Let's stay focused sir.....
Last edited:
From the comdesc link
" Endogenous retroviruses provide yet another example of molecular sequence evidence for universal common descent. Endogenous retroviruses are molecular remnants of a past parasitic viral infection. Occasionally, copies of a retrovirus genome are found in its host's genome, and these retroviral gene copies are called endogenous retroviral sequences. Retroviruses (like the AIDS virus or HTLV1, which causes a form of leukemia) make a DNA copy of their own viral genome and insert it into their host's genome. If this happens to a germ line cell (i.e. the sperm or egg cells) the retroviral DNA will be inherited by descendants of the host. Again, this process is rare and fairly random, so finding retrogenes in identical chromosomal positions of two different species indicates common ancestry.
Confirmation:
In humans, endogenous retroviruses occupy about 1% of the genome, in total constituting ~30,000 different retroviruses embedded in each person's genomic DNA (Sverdlov 2000). There are at least seven different known instances of common retrogene insertions between chimps and humans, and this number is sure to grow as both these organism's genomes are sequenced (Bonner et al. 1982; Dangel et al. 1995; Svensson et al. 1995; Kjellman et al. 1999; Lebedev et al. 2000; Sverdlov 2000). Figure 4.4.1 shows a phylogenetic tree of several primates, including humans, from a recent study which identified numerous shared endogenous retroviruses in the genomes of these primates (Lebedev et al. 2000). The arrows designate the relative insertion times of the viral DNA into the host genome. All branches after the insertion point (to the right) carry that retroviral DNA - a reflection of the fact that once a retrovirus has inserted into the germ-line DNA of a given organism, it will be inherited by all descendents of that organism.
The Felidae (i.e. cats) provide another example. The standard phylogenetic tree has small cats diverging later than large cats. The small cats (e.g. the jungle cat, European wildcat, African wildcat, blackfooted cat, and domestic cat) share a specific retroviral gene insertion. In contrast, all other carnivores which have been tested lack this retrogene (Futuyma 1998, pp. 293-294; Todaro et al. 1975).
Potential Falsification:
It would make no sense, macroevolutionarily, if certain other mammals (e.g. dogs, cows, platypi, etc.), had these same retrogenes in the exact same chromosomal locations. For instance, it would be incredibly unlikely for dogs to also carry the three HERV-K insertions that are unique to humans, as shown in the upper right of Figure 4.4.1, since none of the other primates have these retroviral sequences. "
The junk DNA is a red herring. The code is a very specific piece of a DNA introduced to the genome by a third party (a virus). Human and chimps share the same inserted DNA at the same sequence markers. It makes no difference if the DNA has function or not. The only reasonable conclusion is chimps and human shared a common ancestor which had this ERV insert once.
Do you believe the ERV sequences were inserted by retrovirus?
If not why does there exist viruses in nature with the exact same DNA as positions in our genome?
Why do these virus reproduce by inserting their genome into the DNA of organisms?
IF you accept that retroviruses exists why do Chimps and Humans share the same ERVs at the same location in their DNA?
If it is a random accident why do we not share such random accidents with pigeons or dogs?
whar;4679073 said:
Here we go again with the "remnants" shit again.....
Why deluge this thread with the long copy and paste from your supporting article, which I happened to provide......
"genetic similarity "alone does not, of course, prove a common ancestor" because a designer could have "used successful design principles over and over again."......
Please address my comment directly before hitting me with a ton of copy & pasted questions that I have already seen and acknowledged by posting the link.....
D-Jack;4679087 said:
And you seem slow, just because I cite a paper that uses your supporting articles as references does not mean that it agrees with your theory......
Stupid square-head....
Then @Whar silly ass suggests that I shouldn't use his science to disprove his theory.....
I expected a little more out of you agents......
The only papers that will really support your position are those that take a prejudiced stand against evolution. Biology papers outside that circle even those that assail evolutionary idea do so bounded by evidence.
The A afarensis paper you cited to show there were no missing links was based on A ramidus being a missing link of man kind. (an ancestral transitional form) I claimed this to be intellectually disingenuous (not straightforward or candid).
The paper you cited against ERVs supporting evolution actually explicitly states ERVs support evolution. You then engage in intellectual hand waving regarding junk DNA and some more around the designer likes good designs. But the interesting thing about ERVs is the designer could have done it anyway he wanted, however could have done it no other way that what we see in nature. And if they find an ERV in a sequence position in a lion and a human that is not in a chimp then evolution just got shot in the gut.
That is the basic rational reason to accept evolution. An all powerful designer could have designed any world he wanted, but the world we are in presents us a case that matches one that has evolved.
You can have the last word Bambu and I believe the posts in this thread speak for themselves.
The A afarensis paper you cited to show there were no missing links was based on A ramidus being a missing link of man kind. (an ancestral transitional form) I claimed this to be intellectually disingenuous (not straightforward or candid).
The paper you cited against ERVs supporting evolution actually explicitly states ERVs support evolution. You then engage in intellectual hand waving regarding junk DNA and some more around the designer likes good designs. But the interesting thing about ERVs is the designer could have done it anyway he wanted, however could have done it no other way that what we see in nature. And if they find an ERV in a sequence position in a lion and a human that is not in a chimp then evolution just got shot in the gut.
That is the basic rational reason to accept evolution. An all powerful designer could have designed any world he wanted, but the world we are in presents us a case that matches one that has evolved.
You can have the last word Bambu and I believe the posts in this thread speak for themselves.
- Status
Members online
No members online now.