|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Transposons & Shared Endogenous Retrovirus's | |||||||||||||||||||
derwood Member (Idle past 1906 days) Posts: 1457 Joined: |
Perused the paper, found it wanting.
Just another 'what are the chances of cytochrome c forming spontaneously in its extant amino acid order... blah ... blah...' Works wonders on the masses, I'm sure...
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Tranquility Base Inactive Member |
SLPx, on the creationist paper I'm a structural biologist so I'm quite cautious about attempts to identify the chances of coming up with a protein for a specific job. There might be 10 different protein folds which could equally well act as scaffolds, not to mention billions of possible seqeunces. We actually just don't know the answers to these questons. I felt these creationists (who I think are PhDed molecular biologists) did a good job tackling a difficult problem but I'll reserve judgment until I profesionally study it again.
Like I said earlier I'm yet to find a good mainstream paper which addresses this important issue (I'm sure some attempt has been made). Because evolutionists 'know' that it happened your side sometimes doesn't worry about the fact that some of the things you propose might actually be impossible! And guess what - we do the same! But I'll readily admit I don't know whether or not acclerated decay can account in detail for the radioisostopic data or rapid continental drift. PS - tell me about the CRSQ baraminology papers by Robinson and Cavanaugh. [This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 06-11-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||
peter borger Member (Idle past 7695 days) Posts: 965 From: australia Joined: |
You say that
"I thought I would get some discussion on this topic of genetic evidence for ancestry. Tranquility and Taz I believe are in this type of field, or would know alot about It I would think. Basically the claim for shared Retrovirus's is that because they are only passed on by inheritance. So if two organisms have the exact same ERV, in the exact same place, it's evidence they had a common ancestor. And chimps and people have five of them (or is it seven?)." In the evolutionary community the shared retroviruses are commonly regarded as evidence of common descent. However, this may only be superficial.First there is the claim that they do not serve any purpose. That should be scientifically proven. Maybe their function cannot be deduced from knocking them out, but that does not say anything about their function, since you can knock out genes with an open reading frame without any effect on the organism (genetic redundancies). Secondly, I would like to see the complete DNA sequences within the species and between the species before jumping to conclusions. I checked one claim about the GLO gene (the gene that catalyses the final step in vitamin c synthesis) that has been inactivated in the same spot in primates and is taken as proof for common ancestry. And, indeed a superficial look would immediately convince any evolutionist. However, if you have a careful look at the sequence you will discover that the replacement of nucleotides is not at random between the distinct species. Secondly, you will discover that it does not make a difference for the mutation rate of this gene whether it is functional or not, in contrast to what evolution theory would predict. Thirdly, it violated population genetics: why would the inactivated gene become fixed in the entire population, while the active gene conveys longivity. In addition, evolution never compensated for vitamin C uptake in the gut, and, finally, the gene is redundant anyway since the third step in vit c synthesis already yields vitamin C by spontenaous oxidation. Also not unimportant, at least 2 primates are able to synthesise vitamin c in the liver, indicating the presence of an intact GLO gene (I once had a discussion about this gene with Dr D. Theobald (Talk Origin) so I know a bit about pseudogenes. However, at this level it is mostly speculation since we do not know a lot about it, yet). In analogy to vestiges (appendix, tonsils) that shouldn't have a function according to evolution theory, it is far too early to say that this is proof for common descent. Show me the DNA sequences of these retroviruses in chimp and man, and I will respond in more detail. Retrotransposons may have a function in epigenic regulation of gene expression (actually there is some proof for that. See: Dr. E. Max's website Talk Origin. Another one regulates the aghouti colour of fur in mice). It is thought that they may also play a role in eye colour (human), and some diseases like schizophrenia, and B.-W.-syndrome. Evolutionists are free to claim these genes as evidence for common descent (as they did -- and still do -- for genetic redundancies, but which has actually contributed to the fall of natural selection as I will substantiate with scientific evidence in my posting as soon as Mark and Peter reply to my challenge). I foresee that ultimately there will be an unforeseen solution to these "vestiges". Furthermore, read Spetner's book carefully on what he has to say on transposons. It makes sense. It will pay off to read opposite opinions. In summary, it is not an argument to take DNA sequences of which we do not know the function of as evidence for evolution. Our lack of knowledge ascribed 98% of the DNA in the genome as "junk". This vision is increasingly proven to be wrong.Best Wishes peter [This message has been edited by peter borger, 07-11-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||
blitz77 Inactive Member |
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Dr_Tazimus_maximus:
Please explain to me or give me a reference how a global flood could deposit the species in a temporal fashion, ie no trilobites with sabertooth tigers; OK, bad example but I think you know what I mean. How about giant sloths and corytheosaurus, or mastadons and Allosaurus, ect. [/B][/QUOTE] What do you think paraconformities are? A paraconformity is what a evolutionary geologist calls for fossil systems out of order, but with no evidence of erosion or overthrusting. Paraconformities and other unconformities are what you learn about in geology in university. [This message has been edited by blitz77, 07-11-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||
gene90 Member (Idle past 3853 days) Posts: 1610 Joined: |
[QUOTE][b]What do you think paraconformities are?[/QUOTE]
[/b] Unconformities due to non-deposition...
[QUOTE][b]A paraconformity is what a evolutionary geologist calls for fossil systems out of order[/QUOTE] [/b] Dr_Taz was asking for trilobites and saber-toothed cats in the same beds, not in two nearby beds. You are also incorrect on another point, paraconformities are not regions of fossils out of order, they are systems in which a bed is missing. [This message has been edited by gene90, 07-11-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5225 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
quote: 1/ What does ERVs having function have to do with them not being evidence of common descent? 2/ The complete genome doesn't need to be known for humans & chimps, for it to be known that there are 5 homologue ERVs common to them. Mark ------------------Occam's razor is not for shaving with.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
peter borger Member (Idle past 7695 days) Posts: 965 From: australia Joined: |
Dear Quetzal,
In the evolutionary community the shared retroviruses are commonly regarded as evidence of common descent. However, this may only be superficial. First there is the claim that they do not serve any purpose. That should be scientifically proven. Maybe their function cannot be deduced from knocking them out, but that does not say anything about their function, since you can knock out genes with an open reading frame without any effect on the organism (genetic redundancies). Secondly, I would like to see the complete DNA sequences within the species and between the species before jumping to conclusions.I checked one claim about the GLO gene (the gene that catalyses the final step in vitamin c synthesis) that has been inactivated in the same spot in primates and is taken as proof for common ancestry. And, indeed a superficial look would immediately convince any evolutionist. However, if you have a careful look at the sequence you will discover that the replacement of nucleotides is not at random between the distinct species. Secondly, you will discover that it does not make a difference for the mutation rate of this gene whether it is functional or not, in contrast to what evolution theory would predict. Thirdly, it violates population genetics: why would the inactivated gene become fixed in the entire population, while the active gene conveys longivity. In addition, evolution never compensated for vitamin C uptake in the gut, and, finally, the gene is redundant anyway since the third step in vit c synthesis already yields vitamin C by spontenaous oxidation. Also not unimportant, at least 2 primates are able to synthesise vitamin c in the liver, indicating the presence of an intact GLO gene (I once had a discussion about this gene with Dr D. Theobald (Talk Origin) so I know a bit about pseudogenes. However, at this level it is mostly speculation since we do not know a lot about it, yet). In analogy to vestiges (appendix, tonsils) that shouldn't have a function according to evolution theory, it is far too early to say that this is proof for common descent. Show me the DNA sequences of these retroviruses in chimp and man, and I will respond in more detail. Retrotransposons may have a function in epigenic regulation of gene expression (actually there is some proof for that. See: Dr. E. Max's website Talk Origin. Another one regulates the aghouti colour of fur in mice). It is thought that they may also play a role in eye colour (human), and some diseases like schizophrenia, and B.-W.-syndrome. Evolutionists are free to claim these genes as evidence for common descent (as they did -- and still do -- for genetic redundancies, but which has actually contributed to the fall of natural selection as I will substantiate with scientific evidence in my posting as soon as Mark and Peter reply to my challenge). I foresee that ultimately there will be an unforeseen solution to these "vestiges". Furthermore, read Spetner's book carefully on what he has to say on transposons. It makes sense. It will pay off to read opposite opinions. In summary, it is not an argument to take DNA sequences of which we do not know the function of as evidence for evolution. Our lack of knowledge ascribed 98% of the DNA in the genome as "junk". This vision is increasingly proven to be wrong.Best Wishes peter
|
|||||||||||||||||||
peter borger Member (Idle past 7695 days) Posts: 965 From: australia Joined: |
Dear Mark,
In the evolutionary community the shared retroviruses are commonly regarded as evidence of common descent. However, this may only be superficial. First there is the claim that they do not serve any purpose. That should be scientifically proven. Maybe their function cannot be deduced from knocking them out, but that does not say anything about their function, since you can knock out genes with an open reading frame without any effect on the organism (genetic redundancies). Secondly, I would like to see the complete DNA sequences within the species and between the species before jumping to conclusions. I checked one claim about the GLO pseudogene (the gene that catalyses the final step in vitamin c synthesis) that has been inactivated in the same spot in primates and is taken as proof for common ancestry. And, indeed a superficial look would immediately convince any evolutionist. However, if you have a careful look at the presented sequences you will discover that the replacement of nucleotides is not at random between the distinct species. Secondly, you will discover that it does not make a difference for the mutation rate of this gene whether it is functional or not, in contrast to what evolution theory would predict. Thirdly, it violates population genetics: why would the inactivated gene become fixed in the entire population, while the active gene conveys longivity. In addition, evolution never compensated for vitamin C uptake in the gut, and, finally, the gene is redundant anyway since the third step in vit c synthesis already yields vitamin C by spontenaous oxidation and is sufficient to avoid vit c deficiency. Also not unimportant, at least 2 primates are able to synthesise vitamin c in the liver, indicating the presence of an intact GLO gene (I once had a discussion about this gene with Dr D. Theobald (Talk Origin) so I know a bit about pseudogenes).However, at this level it is mostly speculation since we do not know a lot about it, yet. In analogy to vestiges (appendix, tonsils) that shouldn't have a function according to evolution theory, it is far too early to say that this is proof for common descent. Show me the DNA sequences of these retroviruses in chimp and man, and I will respond in more detail. Retrotransposons may have a function in epigenic regulation of gene expression (actually there is some proof for that. See: Dr. E. Max's website Talk Origin. Another one regulates the aghouti colour of fur in mice). It is thought that they may also play a role in eye colour (human), and some diseases like schizophrenia, and B.-W.-syndrome.Evolutionists are free to claim these genes as evidence for common descent (as they did -- and still do -- for genetic redundancies, but which has actually contributed to the fall of natural selection as I will substantiate with scientific evidence in my forthcoming posting on genetic redundancy). I foresee that ultimately there will be an unexpected (regulatory or stabilizing) function for these "vestiges". Furthermore, read Spetner's book carefully on what he has to say on transposons. It makes sense. It will pay off to read opposite opinions. In summary, it is not an argument to take DNA sequences of which we do not know the function of as evidence for evolution. Our lack of knowledge described 98% of the DNA in the genome as "junk". This vision is increasingly proven to be wrong.Best Wishes peter
|
|||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5225 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
Perter B,
Message 36 please. I'm not claiming pseudogenes & transposons have no function. Mark ------------------Occam's razor is not for shaving with.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
peter borger Member (Idle past 7695 days) Posts: 965 From: australia Joined: |
Dear mark,
Maybe these EVR's played a role in speciation, genome stability or regulation of species specific traits. I would turn it upside down. It is more likely that the EVR's we see today have been derived from the EVR's present in the human and chimp. Where do you think viruses have their origin (since they do not spontaneously drop out of the sky)? In the genome, of course! There are plenty of viruses that have genes in there info-carriers that can be immediately traced back into human or other genomes. Peter
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024