Shermana
Heretic
You did? I must have missed where you actually showed something that went undefeated.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
The Strange Thing about Creationism
- Thread starter Many Sages One Truth
- Start date
You did? I must have missed where you actually showed something that went undefeated.
Storm
ThrUU the Looking Glass
Shermana
Heretic
You get credit for actually presenting something that I can pick apart, I don't see how that video shows that bears came from the same ancestor or how that fossil proves a common ancestor specifically, but I will return to this later.
Gunfingers
Happiness Incarnate
And trolls don't even look like that. They look like this!
(Frubals for anyone who knows what that's from)
(Frubals for anyone who knows what that's from)
McBell
Unbound
Oh, well, carry on then.
Storm
ThrUU the Looking Glass
Willow?And trolls don't even look like that. They look like this!
(Frubals for anyone who knows what that's from)
waitasec
Veteran Member
And trolls don't even look like that. They look like this!
(Frubals for anyone who knows what that's from)
chaka from land of the lost?
camanintx
Well-Known Member
Do you know what an endogenous retrovirus is?
I would just like to take a moment and get some clarification about the claim you are making here. Are you claiming that the reason that biologists like Ken Miller accept the theory of evolution as fact is not because of the evidence, but because it differs from the literal biblical account? Are you saying that these biologists looked at the theory and said to themselves “ah, this is unbiblical, therefore it must be true”? Is this the claim you are making?
Last edited:
Shermana
Heretic
fantôme profane;2505816 said:
That is exactly the claim I am making, and it is a rebuttal to the OP.
I am saying that in any other situation, such a theory filled with such gaping holes and inexplainable phenomena wouldn't be given a single credence of respect, but since it supports their agenda, they rally to it like it one of those Pakistani trains covered with people.
Shermana
Heretic
Ancient viruses retained in the genome? Sure, what about them, and what do they have to do with species turning into completely different species? If anything there's some Lamarckian "retained memory" going on within the species.
(Once again, for those claiming that Macro-evolution involves fruit fly speciation, I refer to this as "Micro-speciation" because its not a complete radical change to a completely different form that Macro-theory relies upon.)
Jose Fly
Fisker of men
Ah, so not only have you deemed yourself the ultimate authority in evolutionary biology, you've also granted yourself the power to make up terminology at your convenience.
It is indeed humbling to be in the presence of such an exalted figure. :bow:
Jose Fly
Fisker of men
Retroviral insertions are remnants of a virus that uses RNA to copy its genetic material into the genome of its host. Basically, retroviruses have RNA genomes and they use reverse transcription to transform its genome into DNA, which is then inserted into host genome. And as with transposons, the location where the genetic material is inserted is random.
On rare occasions, a retrovirus will manage to insert its genetic material into a sperm or egg cell, at which point it becomes an endogenous retrovirus. Even more rarely, that sperm or egg cell will be one that produces offspring that survives. When that happens, all the subsequent offspring will inherit the same retroviral sequences in the same locations. Therefore, when we find two species with retroviral sequences in the exact same locations, its extremely compelling evidence that they shared a common ancestor.
Retroviral sequences are extremely easy to spot, as they generally consist of three genes (one for structural proteins, one for the enzymes that allow reverse transcription, and one for the coat proteins).
Given all of this, if humans and other primates evolved from a common ancestor, if that common ancestor had any endogenous retroviruses, we would expect to find the same retroviral sequences in the same locations in all of them. Further, we would predict that as different primate groups branched off and acquired their own endogenous retroviruses, we should be able to construct a phylogenetic tree using these sequences that would agree with previously constructed trees derived from other data.
Is this what we see?
Yep! The human genome is about 8% endogenous retroviral material. Currently, geneticists have documented seven instances of common insertions of retrogenes in humans and chimps. They have also used these insertions to construct phylogenetic trees.
Differences in HERV-K LTR insertions in orthologou... [Gene. 2000] - PubMed result
Shermana
Heretic
Well if you have a problem with the terminology, it might have something to do with the fact that these folks using fruit flies and bacteria as proof that fish can turn into bats eventually....kind of incorrect. I use "Micro-speciation" instead of saying "Micro-evolution Speciation" which are the same thing. It's not my fault that the word "Evolution" and "Speciation" Have been muddied so badly as to try to sneak "Macro-theory" as the conclusion by observed "Micro-evolutionary Speciation".
There is indeed a noticeable attempt by many people to use "Evolution" as more than just the word itself. The word "Evolution" should technically only apply to MICRO-evolution, in a Lamarckian sense. Anything Darwinian should be referred to as "Darwinism" instead of "Evolution" since the concept is PURE THEORY. Whereas, the observed instances of "Evolution" are purely on the "Micro" level, Darwinian "Science" is more a prediction which casually ignores HUGE GAPS such as the many I've mentioned which you don't seem too intent on actually discussing the specifics of, (Though I just noticed your description of the Retroviral RNA, congrats, I will get to that on next post!!) but its rare to find someone who actually is willing to accept the fact that there are gaps. Did you see the guy who posted "There's no gaps!"
No need to bow to me, if you can prove how fruit fly speciation and bacteria formation has anything to do with how fish developing lungs, go for it. Ol' Lungfish is stuck in the middle with his swim bladder, has to breathe air or he drowns, but never developed a blowhole or legs. Poor little lungfish, I guess all his friends developed lungs and legs and did a good job avoiding leaving any traces.
Last edited:
Jose Fly
Fisker of men
Oh, and about transposons...
Transposons are a type of genetic parasite that replicates only in the genetic material of their host. However, unlike viruses, they don’t have genes for viral coat proteins and can’t cross cellular boundaries. Also, transposons come in two general categories: retrotransposons and DNA transposons. Retrotransposons replicate via “copy-n-paste” (they use RNA to make a copy of themselves, which is inserted elsewhere in the genome). DNA transposons move about via “cut-n-paste” (they use an enzyme to cut themselves out of the genome and then reinsert themselves somewhere else in the genome). In both cases the location of the insertion/reinsertion is random. This has been directly observed to have happened to many organisms (e.g. yeast, humans, bacterial, flies).
If the genetic material of the transposon is inserted directly into the host’s genome in a germ line cell (an egg or sperm), all the descendants of the host will inherit this material. Additionally, because the insertion is random, the only way two organisms would share the same transposons in the exact same locations is if they shared a common ancestor. Therefore, if common descent is accurate, we should be able to predict, based on the phylogenetic tree, which organisms will share transposons and their genetic locations.
So, is this what we see?
Was there ever any doubt?! A common class of retrotransposon are SINEs (short interspersed elements). One important SINE is the Alu element. Alu elements are around 300 base pairs long, and are commonly used in paternity testing and in criminal forensics to identify individuals and establish relatedness. They are reliable identifiers because of what I discussed above, namely that the only reason two individuals would share the exact same particular Alu sequence insertion is if they share a common ancestor.
About 2,000 Alu insertions are specific to humans, and an even larger number are shared with other primates. But more specifically, in the human alpha-globin cluster there are seven Alu elements, and each one is shared with chimpanzees in the exact same seven locations!
Evolution of Alu family repeats since the divergen... [J Mol Evol. 1985] - PubMed result
Thus, the same methodology that allows us to determine paternity and relatedness in courts of law also allows us to show that humans, chimpanzees, and other primates share a common ancestry. I suppose one can argue that this bit of evidence “proves” human/primate shared ancestry in the same way the same evidence “proves” paternity in courts of law.
Transposons are a type of genetic parasite that replicates only in the genetic material of their host. However, unlike viruses, they don’t have genes for viral coat proteins and can’t cross cellular boundaries. Also, transposons come in two general categories: retrotransposons and DNA transposons. Retrotransposons replicate via “copy-n-paste” (they use RNA to make a copy of themselves, which is inserted elsewhere in the genome). DNA transposons move about via “cut-n-paste” (they use an enzyme to cut themselves out of the genome and then reinsert themselves somewhere else in the genome). In both cases the location of the insertion/reinsertion is random. This has been directly observed to have happened to many organisms (e.g. yeast, humans, bacterial, flies).
If the genetic material of the transposon is inserted directly into the host’s genome in a germ line cell (an egg or sperm), all the descendants of the host will inherit this material. Additionally, because the insertion is random, the only way two organisms would share the same transposons in the exact same locations is if they shared a common ancestor. Therefore, if common descent is accurate, we should be able to predict, based on the phylogenetic tree, which organisms will share transposons and their genetic locations.
So, is this what we see?
Was there ever any doubt?! A common class of retrotransposon are SINEs (short interspersed elements). One important SINE is the Alu element. Alu elements are around 300 base pairs long, and are commonly used in paternity testing and in criminal forensics to identify individuals and establish relatedness. They are reliable identifiers because of what I discussed above, namely that the only reason two individuals would share the exact same particular Alu sequence insertion is if they share a common ancestor.
About 2,000 Alu insertions are specific to humans, and an even larger number are shared with other primates. But more specifically, in the human alpha-globin cluster there are seven Alu elements, and each one is shared with chimpanzees in the exact same seven locations!
Evolution of Alu family repeats since the divergen... [J Mol Evol. 1985] - PubMed result
Thus, the same methodology that allows us to determine paternity and relatedness in courts of law also allows us to show that humans, chimpanzees, and other primates share a common ancestry. I suppose one can argue that this bit of evidence “proves” human/primate shared ancestry in the same way the same evidence “proves” paternity in courts of law.
Jose Fly
Fisker of men
Yet I'd bet $100 you can't give an example of anyone pointing to speciation in fruit flies and saying "Therefore, fish turn into bats". Heck, I'd bet another $100 you won't even try.
So tell me then, how else do new species and traits arise, if not via evolution?
Shermana
Heretic
There are strangely no ERVS to indicate common descent with anything pre-mammalian, and interestingly, gorillas and chimps share an ERV that humans don't have. At what point do ERVs disappear and appear, and do they necessarily demonstrate a shared commonality with a previous ancestor or just a previous specimen?
Then you are in dire need of getting better information.