|
|
|
kytheskeptic
New Member
USA
25 Posts |
 Posted - 10/06/2011 : 16:27:50
|
Through a heated facebook battle between a creationist, he brought up a retrovirus found in "A HERV-K provirus in chimpanzees, bonobos and gorillas, but not humans". Haven't heard much about this one... Do any of you hear a good reason for this publication? Also you can dissect the bad argument he threw out, per his last comment below...
| Hi Ky, two examples of shared ERVs that don't align with the phylogenetic tree are: a herv-k provirus that is shared by chimpanzees, bonobos, and gorillas but not humans (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11378389), and PTERV1 which is shared by African great apes and old world monkey, but not by humans and Asian apes (http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pbio.0030110). As far as your mousetrap analogy, it doesn't make sense to say that I'm using ERVs as a paper weight rather than a mousetrap considering the important roles some ERVs play at fixed locations such as the reproduction of species. Who is determining the purpose of ERVs here? Species sharing ERVs or similarities in the genome doesn't prove evolution or common ancestry, it is interpreted to support evolution. Evolution is a materialist/reductionist philosophy that seeks to reduce the complexity of the biological and physical world to the sum of its parts in order to explain a non-spiritual origin of the material world. Yet, despite all the reduction, the evolutionist/athiest is left with the same problems: How did life begin from non-life? And where did the materials of the physical world come from? Were they ever existent? The modern evolutionary theory is rooted in historical philosophical ideas of the 19th century that emphasized progress, racism, and reductionism. These ideas continue today but both progress and racism have proven to be false ideas. Commonalities in genomes just as easily speak to a common creator as to a common origin. |
[Moved to the Creation/Evolution folder - Dave W.]
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 10/06/2011 : 20:22:50 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by kytheskeptic
Through a heated facebook battle between a creationist, he brought up a retrovirus found in "A HERV-K provirus in chimpanzees, bonobos and gorillas, but not humans". Haven't heard much about this one... Do any of you hear a good reason for this publication? Also you can dissect the bad argument he threw out, per his last comment below...
| Hi Ky, two examples of shared ERVs that don't align with the phylogenetic tree are: a herv-k provirus that is shared by chimpanzees, bonobos, and gorillas but not humans (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11378389)... |
|
Reading the whole paper indicates that the claim is a wildly oversimplified summary of the actual findings. The authors state that the viruses were live and active during the time that speciation was occurring, reinfecting germ lines of ancestors while these genera were splitting, and so shouldn't be thought of as an ERV that should be common to all three genera anyway. The authors also point out that the "preintegration site allele" for HERV-K-GC1 is present in humans, orangutans and macaques, but missing in chimps and gorillas. Obviously, the details of what happened are complex indeed, and the paper offers several possible scenarios and shows how some are more plausible than others. In no case does this paper discredit human evolution from a common ancestor with modern apes.The creationist apparently didn't read even the whole abstract, which says:Our data are consistent with a retroviral infection that bombarded the genomes of chimpanzees and gorillas independently and concurrently, 3–4 million years ago. In other words, the creationist is simply wrong to suggest that this is evidence against human evolution.
To continue:| As far as your mousetrap analogy, it doesn't make sense to say that I'm using ERVs as a paper weight rather than a mousetrap considering the important roles some ERVs play at fixed locations such as the reproduction of species. Who is determining the purpose of ERVs here? Species sharing ERVs or similarities in the genome doesn't prove evolution or common ancestry, it is interpreted to support evolution. |
That ERVs so often match up with other genetic and morphological trees is explained by evolutionary theory. It cannot be explained by creationism, other than to throw one's hands up and say, "I dunno why god inserted ERVs that look just like they would if we all evolved."| Evolution is a materialist/reductionist philosophy that seeks to reduce the complexity of the biological and physical world to the sum of its parts in order to explain a non-spiritual origin of the material world. |
That's a bunch of nonsense that seeks to reduce the process of science to an anti-god conspiracy.| Yet, despite all the reduction, the evolutionist/athiest is left with the same problems: How did life begin from non-life? |
Where is the dividing line between the two?| And where did the materials of the physical world come from? |
Cooled-down energy.If so, would that be a problem?| The modern evolutionary theory is rooted in historical philosophical ideas of the 19th century that emphasized progress, racism, and reductionism. |
This is an attempt at guilt by association.| These ideas continue today but both progress and racism have proven to be false ideas. |
"Progress" is a false idea?!| Commonalities in genomes just as easily speak to a common creator as to a common origin. |
Only if the creator were stoned. Any examination of human creations shows that most created things don't use the exact same pieces over and over again. Instead, those "common" parts are actually redesigned quite often depending on need (like better performance or cheaper price). For example, spark plugs today look quite a bit different from those made 80 years ago. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
 |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 10/06/2011 : 20:32:49 [Permalink]
|
| ky, go ahead and invite the creationist to come here to SFN. Facebook isn't well suited to have open discussions about anything, since readership is typically limited to "friends." |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
justintime
BANNED
382 Posts |
Posted - 10/07/2011 : 10:11:49 [Permalink]
|
That should be an interesting meeting of minds. There are wide speculation blacks are closer to gorillas, whites to chimpanzees and Asians to Orangutans. This was an attempt to explain the morphological/phenotype difference in the races and their possible branching in he evolutionary tree.
Reading your link and the fact that Orangutans are found only in Asia makes such connections plausible. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 10/07/2011 : 10:29:29 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by justintime
That should be an interesting meeting of minds. There are wide speculation blacks are closer to gorillas, whites to chimpanzees and Asians to Orangutans. This was an attempt to explain the morphological/phenotype difference in the races and their possible branching in he evolutionary tree.
Reading your link and the fact that Orangutans are found only in Asia makes such connections plausible. |
No, they don't. They just make racism more justifiable in the eyes of racists. The "wide speculation" is actually wild speculation. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 10/07/2011 : 10:54:41 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by justintime
That should be an interesting meeting of minds. There are wide speculation blacks are closer to gorillas, whites to chimpanzees and Asians to Orangutans. This was an attempt to explain the morphological/phenotype difference in the races and their possible branching in he evolutionary tree.
Reading your link and the fact that Orangutans are found only in Asia makes such connections plausible.
|
So. Do you really believe this shit or are you just trying to get a rise? I'm am really wondering if you are just throwing out bait now. You know. Trolling.
 |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
justintime
BANNED
382 Posts |
Posted - 10/07/2011 : 11:05:59 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Kil
Originally posted by justintime
That should be an interesting meeting of minds. There are wide speculation blacks are closer to gorillas, whites to chimpanzees and Asians to Orangutans. This was an attempt to explain the morphological/phenotype difference in the races and their possible branching in he evolutionary tree.
Reading your link and the fact that Orangutans are found only in Asia makes such connections plausible.
|
So. Do you really believe this shit or are you just trying to get a rise? I'm am really wondering if you are just throwing out bait now. You know. Trolling.
|
The link mentioned orangutans so I am expanding the idea based on other science journals. But the problem is our phylogeny primate charts exclude orangutans from the grouping humans, chimps, gorillas.
The link provided challenges that humans are close to chimpanzees and puts orangutans in the same group as humans.
Now tie that with an earlier post of mine that challenged the out of Africa theory about early primate migration.
It does muddy the water. But that is where the science is. We are all trying to connect the dots.........
It has been said " You can choose your friends but you cannot chose your relatives." |
| Edited by - justintime on 10/07/2011 11:08:42 |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 10/07/2011 : 11:13:56 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by justintime
Originally posted by Kil
Originally posted by justintime
That should be an interesting meeting of minds. There are wide speculation blacks are closer to gorillas, whites to chimpanzees and Asians to Orangutans. This was an attempt to explain the morphological/phenotype difference in the races and their possible branching in he evolutionary tree.
Reading your link and the fact that Orangutans are found only in Asia makes such connections plausible.
|
So. Do you really believe this shit or are you just trying to get a rise? I'm am really wondering if you are just throwing out bait now. You know. Trolling.
|
The link mentioned orangutans so I am expanding the idea based on other science journals. But the problem is our phylogeny primate charts exclude orangutans from the grouping humans, chimps, gorillas.
The link provided challenges that humans are close to chimpanzees and puts orangutans in the same group as humans.
Now tie that with an earlier post of mine that challenged the out of Africa theory about early primate migration.
It does muddy the water. But that is where the science is. We are all trying to connect the dots.........
|
Sure. Well look. We are closer to Chimpanzees than chimps are to Orangutans. We share a common ancestor to chimps and more specifically to bonobo chimpanzees. There is no muddying of the water here. It's a fact Jack. You just can't get around the genetics.
And again, I don't think you believe what you are saying. If you do it's time for you to get some education in evolutionary biology before further making a fool of yourself.
That early primates evolved in Asia has nothing to do with any of this. Nothing at all. |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
justintime
BANNED
382 Posts |
Posted - 10/07/2011 : 11:30:17 [Permalink]
|
But that is exactly the opposite of what is being proposed by new scientific evidence. We are not closer to chimpanzees we are closer to orangutans.
In fact the 2nd link by KY demonstrated Retroviral Insertions found "These observations provide very strong evidence that, for some fraction of the genome, chimpanzees, bonobos, and gorillas are more closely related to each other than they are to humans."
And again "Lineage-Specific Expansions of Retroviral Insertions within the Genomes of African Great Apes but Not Humans and Orangutans."
This is genetics we are trying to work with. |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 10/07/2011 : 11:59:18 [Permalink]
|
Genetic Archaeology Finds Parts of Human Genome More Closely Related to Orangutans Than Chimps
But here's the thing:
...When a population "splits," the genetic variation they each inherit from the common ancestor will change over time as the populations diverge, possibly giving rise to two different species. Because humans, chimps, and orangutans all have a common ancestor, it is possible that humans and orangutans may still share genetic variants that were later lost in more closely related primates.
Mailund and colleagues employed a mathematical framework to find regions of the orangutan genome where humans and orangutans are more closely related than humans and chimpanzees as a result of a phenomenon called incomplete lineage sorting (ILS). ILS can reveal information about the time of speciation events, as well as the genetic diversity of the ancestral species.
The study found ILS with orangutan and chimp in approximately 1% of the human genome. "[I]n about 0.5% of our genome, we are closer related to orangutans than we are to chimpanzees," Mailund said, "and in about 0.5%, chimpanzees are closer related to orangutans than us."
Schierup explained that because humans and orangutans split millions of years prior to the human/chimp split, the presence of ILS suggests that the ancestral species of human and chimps maintained high genetic diversity, in contrast to the genetic bottleneck humans are believed to have experienced following divergence from chimps.
As primates along the human lineage diverged, the genetic variation of the common ancestors disappeared long ago and was replaced by new variation. Schierup noted that studies such as this are critical for understanding genetic variation in common ancestors that would be missed by examining population genetics of present day species... |
While all of this is interesting, what can't be waved away is that we share 99 percent of our DNA with chimps and 97 percent with orangutans. I have no problem with orang ancestors being an earlier split and common ancestor of both chimps and humans. But you just can't say that an ape with the 97% shared DNA is the most recent common ancestor with humans when we share 99% of our DNA with chimps. |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9687 Posts |
 Posted - 10/07/2011 : 12:35:25 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Kil
Originally posted by justintime
Reading your link and the fact that Orangutans are found only in Asia makes such connections plausible.
|
So. Do you really believe this shit or are you just trying to get a rise? I'm am really wondering if you are just throwing out bait now. You know. Trolling.
|
Now that CRUX has self-destructed, I believe his alter-ego justintime is also looking to self-destruct as a troll after he lost his purpose for being here. This human-race-vs-great-apes-mapping is precisely the racist bullshit one would expect a moron to pull if he's fishing for a ban. 
|
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 10/07/2011 : 14:21:56 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by justintime
But that is exactly the opposite of what is being proposed by new scientific evidence. We are not closer to chimpanzees we are closer to orangutans. |
Baloney.| In fact the 2nd link by KY demonstrated Retroviral Insertions found "These observations provide very strong evidence that, for some fraction of the genome, chimpanzees, bonobos, and gorillas are more closely related to each other than they are to humans." |
Read it again: "some fraction of the genome." Not the whole thing. Read the damn paper, in which the authors leave no doubt that looking at the whole genome, we are more closely related to chimps and bonobos than to anything else. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
kytheskeptic
New Member
USA
25 Posts |
Posted - 10/08/2011 : 00:35:02 [Permalink]
|
Thanks everyone, I replied back to him advising him on his bad arguments and etc. If he replies back to me, then I'll send him a link to the site for a forum conversation.
As of now, I responded with all the stuff you provided Dave, with extras. I sent him this youtube clip http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xnFr85VAYfk which is an oversimplification of how some ERVs are found in one and not the other.
justintime Posted - 10/07/2011 : 10:11:49 That should be an interesting meeting of minds. There are wide speculation blacks are closer to gorillas, whites to chimpanzees and Asians to Orangutans. This was an attempt to explain the morphological/phenotype difference in the races and their possible branching in he evolutionary tree.
Reading your link and the fact that Orangutans are found only in Asia makes such connections plausible. |
No biologist believes this justintime. Biologist see human DNA as the same human species, and they see different races as cultural constructs from areas formed from beliefs/prejudices. |
| Edited by - kytheskeptic on 10/08/2011 00:35:54 |
|
|
|
justintime
BANNED
382 Posts |
Posted - 10/08/2011 : 06:31:10 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by justintime
But that is exactly the opposite of what is being proposed by new scientific evidence. We are not closer to chimpanzees we are closer to orangutans. |
Baloney.| In fact the 2nd link by KY demonstrated Retroviral Insertions found "These observations provide very strong evidence that, for some fraction of the genome, chimpanzees, bonobos, and gorillas are more closely related to each other than they are to humans." |
Read it again: "some fraction of the genome." Not the whole thing. Read the damn paper, in which the authors leave no doubt that looking at the whole genome, we are more closely related to chimps and bonobos than to anything else.
|
OK, then try explaining this.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/06/090618084304.htm
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 10/08/2011 : 07:28:09 [Permalink]
|
| It's not my job to explain it. Go find the criticisms that you know exist of that paper, and see if the research has held up over the last two years. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
justintime
BANNED
382 Posts |
Posted - 10/08/2011 : 08:36:02 [Permalink]
|
In this very thread several links have been provided to challenge humans are closer to chimpanzees when new study suggest humans are closer to orangutans.
There are growing discrepancies and contradictions even in the evolutionist camps. One would assume the topic is ripe for skeptics and should not be so easily dismissed. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Evolution Questions
