Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 156 (8144 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 10-22-2014 11:00 PM
55 online now:
GDR, Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus) (2 members, 53 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: MikeManea
Upcoming Birthdays: purpledawn
Post Volume:
Total: 738,351 Year: 24,192/28,606 Month: 1,493/1,786 Week: 355/423 Day: 115/77 Hour: 0/4

Announcements: Emails Restored


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
6364
65
6667
...
72Next
Author Topic:   Why are there no human apes alive today?
Mazzy 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1055 days)
Posts: 212
From: Rural NSW, Australia
Joined: 06-09-2011


Message 961 of 1075 (625937)
07-26-2011 1:34 PM
Reply to: Message 955 by Taq
07-24-2011 10:53 PM


Re: Moderator Advisory
Taq says
How is this a problem? The authors explain that this is expected if the "time span between speciations evens is small". Overall, the chimp genome is still more similar to the human genome than it is to any other ape. How can this be if chimps, bonobos, gorillas, and orangutans all share a common ancestor but humans do not?

This is a long post. I'll try to address what I can. The similarites, both morphological and genomic between human and orangutan just demonstrate that researchers can use the findings that support their theory and disregard the rest with other theories and explanations. Morpholigically we are closer to orangutans. The DNA says otherwise. The link below speaks to the human similarities with ornags being more than chimps.

"John Grehan, of the Buffalo Museum of Science in New York State, and Jeffrey Schwartz, of the University of Pittsburgh in Pennsylvania, say that the DNA evidence cited by many scientists only looks at a small percentage of the human and chimp genomes.

What's more, the genetic similarities likely include many ancient DNA traits that are shared across a much broader group of animals.

By contrast, humans share at least 28 unique physical characteristics with orangutans but only 2 with chimps and 7 with gorillas, the authors say. "
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/...ns-chimps-related.html

You shoud be aware that genomics disagrees with morphology sometimes. The same happened when a hippo was morphologically closer to a pig instead of a whale.

Some creature is bound to be more similar to mankind than another. It happens to be chimps genomically and orangs morphologically. This does not establish common descent. Your research has only found a species more similar to mankind than another.

Yeah, there is. H. erectus has a short, squat pelvis with femurs that bend towards the midline just as in humans and unlike other apes. This means that H. erectus has modern human features not found in other apes making it transitional between humans and other apes.

You are assuming you know what the initial common ancestor looked like. Indeed you do not. You now think the common ancestor was not a knucklewalker and knucklewalking evolved independently. Indeed it appears from my previous link that bipedalism has been around for 6my. I can produce research that put the human/chimp split at 4mya. Meaning the ancestor to chips and mankind was bipedal and indeed bipedalism is not a human trait just the same as a bird is bipedal and is not our direct ancestor.

You have no feet for your erectus, and the fossils were found in pieces. One cannot say for sure that any fossil skeleton is made up from the same individual. Regardless, I have posted many times the illustration that Turkana Boy is an ape and has an ape head like eragaster and rudolfensis. It looks like an ape. You have spoke to the similarities but not the differences. As I do not need common ancestors I am free to say that they are just what they look like, a species of ape with the apparent sexual dimorphism seen in apes today.

It's not obvious at all. Please explain, keeping in mind that chimps, bonobos, gorillas, and orangutans share a common ancestor within your baramin model. That common ancestor would need to also be close to humans. As the different ape lineages branch off from that common ancestor they should all acquire lineage specific mutations, none of which should make any of those lineages any closer to humans than the common ancestor was. If your model is true then humans should be genetically equidistant to ALL APE SPECIES, but they are not. Therefore, your model is falsified.

I'll explain if you wish to hear. The initial creation of the ape kind may have been the creation of one breeding pair or a number of them. They may have been the same or very different to each other. The fact that one or a few apes were created that adapted to become gorillas and chimps is no concern to me. That is adaptation within kind where they all form a holobaramin connected by a common ancestor. Although evolutionists cannot see it, I can see a clear distinction between beast and mankind so I have no problems thinking of apes as a holobaramin. As science progresses there may be good enough reason the put some varieties of apes into their own holobaramin as an initial kind.

You need to pay attention as well. None of those insertions are orthologous which indicates insertion after common ancestry. The ERV's in the paper I discussed ARE ORTHOLOGOUS. Due to the random nature of ERV insertion, independent insertions will not occur at the same position in each genome, which is exactly what we see with PTERV-1 which invaded ape genomes after all modern lineages branched off from one another. Therefore, finding the same ERV in the same location in multiple species indicates that the insertion occurred in a common ancestor. This can be double checked by comparing LTR divergence within the orthologous ERV's as discussed in the paper I already cited.

You also do a fine job of twisting the context of the quote. The author was indicating that the species distribution falsifed the idea that PTERV-1 infected the common ancestor. You will notice that the author was not talking about HERV-K.

In fact, PTERV-1 actually strengthens my argument. Due to the fact that PTERV-1 is found in chimps and other apes but not in humans it offers a test of common ancestry. Given the species distribution of PTERV-1, evolution would PREDICT that none of these insertions should be found in orthologous positions, AND THEY ARE NOT. PTERV-1 actually supports my argument, not yours.

IOW, pointing to non-orthologous ERV's does not refute the evidence of orthologous ERV's.

The point I think I was making mostly is that these ERV's are assertained by convoluted algorithms that can be constructed to show basically anything you want. If its not there another theory ensues. If its not in the right place more theories are invented to explain this away also. If it is there this is meant to be evidence for common ancestry. If not too bad another theory ensues.

"Seeing that HERV-Ks integrated into primate genome after the separation of Old and New World monkeys and before the separation of hominids and OWM (+-30-45mya) it should be reasonable to expect to find not only homologous, but also orthologous ERV-K sequences between homonids and OWM. However, Romano et al (2007) screened the genomes of Pan troglodytes (build 2 v.1) and the Macaca mulatta draft assembly (v.1) by BLAT search for ERV-K genomes -->[6]. They found 19 complete RhERV-K proviruses, and 12 new elements in Pan troglodytes (CERV-K). 55 previously reported human HERV-K and 20 previously reported CERV-K were also included in the analysis. Romano et al (2007) found that no RhERV-K orthologue was closely related to those in either the chimpanzee or human genomes and concluded that all RhERV-K proviruses appear to have arisen by active transposition rather than chromosomal duplication and the lack of orthologous sequences may be the result of host driven excision and purging [6]. No reasonable, testable evidence was provided to support this.
http://telic-meme.blogspot.com/...troviruses-ervs-as_29.html

What I am saying is that ERV's ultimtely show nothing as far as ancestry goes. An ape can be exposed to virus such as HIV as can a human, maybe even at the same time in history. Both will show the exposure in their genomics somewhere and sometimes it may show in a similar place to other species. This does not necesarily mean the connection is via descent unless one needs it to be.

Some people have claimed that there are viruses inserted into the genomes of all apes, including humans, that got into their genome long before any of the apes of today or humans existed. Probably so far back that it was when they were all still more like monkeys, the so called "Old World" monkeys. Since all these animals have the same viral infections, it has been claimed by some evolutionists that they must have a common ancestor.

Viruses can be uncannily acquired independently and arrive in the same places of the genome depending on the virus. Certain viruses prefer certain places in the genome and certain chromosomes. An example would be HIV, it infects humans and chimps in the exact same location of the chromosome. Also the Adenovirus does the same. Having the same retrovirus in different species shows nothing about common ancestory, all it proves is that different species share similar homogeny.

However, in 2007 Retroviruses were found in Chimpanzees, Old world monkeys, and African apes that are not found in Humans or Asian Apes. One of them is called PTERV1. There are theroies as to why this is the case and why the total deletion. You may accept the excuses if you wish.

So if you want to believe this kind of thing is proof of common ancestry that is fine. However I do not believe the science behind it is robust enough to change my faith. In fact I do not think ERV's say anything about distant ancestry at all and I have explained why.

If you can't demonstrate that humans do not share a common ancestor with other apes then don't assert that it is true.

Indeed I can show that all your intermediates are more likely to be apes beci=use they look like apes than apes becoming human and controlling fires. Hence there are no common ape ancetors to find which likely explains why you haven't found any. This is also the dilineation between fact and fiction.

Yes, I am.

So you are a self professed expert on evolutionary science, creationism and holo baramins. Forgive my skepticism.

Yes, I do. Shared ancestry has very real repercussions in the genetic data. There are markers that should be there if two species share a common ancestor, and markers that should NOT be there. Those are the facts. If you want to claim that humans and other apes do not share a common ancestor, then all I have to do is point to evidence that indicates just the opposite. ERV's are one small example of that data set which falsifies separate baramins for humans and other apes.

First you have to take the probabilities and assumptions out of your algorithms. As indicated previously hit and miss and explaining the unexpected is not a robust science.

Wouldn't a transitional be more chimp-like than modern humans? Yes or no.

Chimp like may be represemted by evolutionists initial depiction of Neanderthal, the hairy ape man. However the ape headed erectus would have sufficiently caused a stir if seen at the local shopping centre.

Why is that? According to you, each baramin was created separately by an all knowing and all powerful being who has unlimited resources and time. Why shouldn't all life have completely different mtDNA? Or completely different tRNA's for that matter?

Because most creatures breathe and are alive so there is something in common for a start. I have already mounted the point that according to the new models re HGT multiple life arose. These primitive cells were all so similar that they were able to transfer genes. This demostrates there is one design for life and God know it. Not even your naturalistic processes evolved life so vastly different from each other that genetic material could not pass the species barrier. They were the same. MyDNA is the cells power house of course one may expect many similarities here.

Don't forget humans and chimps are at least 30% overall. Your researchers should have known they were on the wrong track as soon as they came up with the initial 2% difference which sounded ridiculous at its inception.

Common recycled plans appear to suggest the hallmark of a designer rather than lucky stumbling, given the two choices. Maybe God planned to confuse evolutionary researchers, and if so He did very well eg homoplasy both genetic and morphological. So far your researchers have bunch of theories re abiogenesis as opposed to God who knows how to do it.

Below are more refutes to ERV's. In the end it is theory faced off against other theories.
http://swordandshield.biz/endogenous_retroviruses.pdf
http://www.aidstruth.org/...bunked-hiv-endogenous-retrovirus

How do chimp like features in H. erectus disqualify it from being related to humans? How do brow ridges and a prognathus eliminate H. erectus as a potential human relative? What disqualifies chimps and other apes from being human relatives? You haven't answered any of this, other than to state that your religious beliefs will not allow it.

I just hope you are kidding. It is the heavy brow ridges and prognathism that demonstrates these are apes. Humans show some adaptation that have pruduced variations However no human has the feature of that of say Turkana Boy.

With supposed flat faced apes like Lluc one can see huge variety in both apes and humans. The biggest and most obvious distinction is in human reasoning and perceptive ablity and sophisticated language. I therefore use these as the most stable basis for my take on holobaramins. Fortunatey with the Turkana Boy find researchers see that he was unlikely to be capable of sophisticated speech. This therefore forms a line of discontinuity between Turkana Boy and other Erectus, and mankind.

For the purposes of a forum as oppposed to a scientific review panel, that distinction should suffice. It is a distinction I have made not unlike the distinctions thought up for your own classifications.

If you want to think these are apes becoming human that is fine. However, I do not.

Your post had too many points to address any compehensively at 3am. Now if you wish you can focus on one or two related points. This will aid in my giving full refutes to your points.

Edited by Mazzy, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 955 by Taq, posted 07-24-2011 10:53 PM Taq has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 962 by Nuggin, posted 07-26-2011 1:48 PM Mazzy has responded
 Message 969 by Taq, posted 07-26-2011 7:12 PM Mazzy has responded

  
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 777 days)
Posts: 2962
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


(2)
Message 962 of 1075 (625940)
07-26-2011 1:48 PM
Reply to: Message 961 by Mazzy
07-26-2011 1:34 PM


wrong again
What I am saying is that ERV's ultimtely show nothing as far as ancestry goes. An ape can be exposed to virus such as HIV as can a human, maybe even at the same time in history. Both will show the exposure in their genomics somewhere and sometimes it may show in a similar place to other species. This does not necesarily mean the connection is via descent unless one needs it to be.

FAIL. Again.

First of all, if this claim of yours were true, then the ERV trees would NOT match the morphological trees or trees of descent.

You are claiming that the exposure to these viruses is essentially random. Then why do humans and chimps share MORE ERVs than humans and gorillas? Why do humans and gorillas share more than humans and baboons?

If what you were claiming were true (and I think you and I both know it's not) we'd expect roughly the same number of ERVS to be shared by humans and chimps as ERVs shared by gorillas and humans with no correlation between the three.

That's NOT the case.

Further, you have REPEATED your false claim that these things are inserted in "similar" places. Not similar. The SAME.

The genome is EXTREMELY long. The odds of two independent organisms being exposed to the EXACT SAME STRAIN of the EXACT SAME VIRUS and having it show up in the hereditary genome in the EXACT SAME PLACE are ASTRONOMICAL. And that's for ONE ERV. We're talking MANY MANY MANY ERVs.

I know you are a big proponent of "Jesus Magic" as far as answers go, but unless you can demonstrate that this magic is being used to work out virus position, your claim holds no water whatsoever.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 961 by Mazzy, posted 07-26-2011 1:34 PM Mazzy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 965 by Mazzy, posted 07-26-2011 5:34 PM Nuggin has responded

  
Mazzy 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1055 days)
Posts: 212
From: Rural NSW, Australia
Joined: 06-09-2011


Message 963 of 1075 (625993)
07-26-2011 4:51 PM
Reply to: Message 954 by Panda
07-24-2011 8:48 PM


Panda says

Rickets and arthritis are not evidence of being human.
Kittens can get rickets; dogs can get arthritis.
Also, Rudolf Virchow died in 1902. He was not (for example) able to do a genetic comparison.
He also thought that the flattened skull was due to a powerful blow to the head.
It seems that most of his theories about neanderthals have been disproved by further discoveries.

Erik Trinkaus also thinks that neanderthals are not human.
So, despite your quote suggesting that neanderthals are fully human, the person you quoted does not think they are.

I think Neanderthal may be Nephilim. There were plenty of them so why not expect to find some fossil evidence for them.

I believe what you have found is DNA evidence of a human foxp2 gene and a 99.5% similarity to modern humans which is in the usual human variation range. There is still inconclusive proof as to whether or not mating accured at all, the latest being none or little interbreeding.

Now we are talking around about 30,000 years ago and the findings cannot clarify this with certaintly. Let me point out that the very evidence I use from your researchers to support my points is the same research I believe has no validity. I have spoken to my thoughts on algorithms, assumptions and probabilities. If your research is unable to provide definitive proof of whether or not mankind bred with Neanderthal what hope has it got of best guessing accurately anything past that time? Anyway, I will refer to your evolutionary research.

Neanderthal supposedly has the human variation of the FOXp2 gene. Now we all know that is not all there is to language and intelligence. Genes work in families. However, based on this being an accurate assumption and the models have best guessed and assumed correctly then Neanderthal has this FOXp2 gene. He is human, but something is still very different about him. Neanderthal could have become this way due to environmental factors and deviated from an already modern human look and simply be a human. Neanderthals appearance in the record, genetic differences, physicall differences and strength, and sudden demise can be explained by Nephalim and flood.

Because of the huge variation and homology between species anyway, and not knowing what the initial ape kind looked like, using morphology alone is problematic. The human variation of the Foxp2, for the moment and depending on the veracity of any of these comparisons, Neanderthal appears to be perfectly human.

Turkan boy with his small (compared to modern humans) thoracic spinal canal diameter, was unlikely to have sophisticated speech. I support this further with side views of the skull showing his ape face as being unable to speak and hold conversations also.

It does not matter what these researchers used to think. The point is that now even your own researchers put Neanderthal along side Homo Sapiens in physical and genomic comparisons.

The article below speaks to the 99.5% similarity.
http://www.livescience.com/...erthal-99-5-percent-human.html

These articles shows human variation being 99.5%
http://www.genome.gov/10001551
http://www.sciencedaily.com/...ases/2007/09/070904072204.htm

Now to bring this back to the topic base of homo erectus and its classifications. The side view of Turkana Boys skull shown in the link below clearly demonstrates this best example you have of an erectus ape becoming human but looks nothing like a human of any race. It is nothing like Neanderthal or mankind. It does not matter how much you highlight less of this or that, it simply does not look anything like a human. The picture also demonstrates Turkana Boy is similar to other reconstructions and fossils of other non human primates.

We do not have DNA from erectus, so morphology has to do. To me the morphology of Neanderthal is well within human range today as always and your researchers are saying he is human. I am happy to accept him as human based on your data, for now.

http://www.detectingdesign.com/earlyman.html

Homo Erectus is not anywhere near looking human, regardless of the similarities of this and that, the front view of the skeleton, or arms or bipedalism or anything else. This along with flat faces being around for over 12my in primates anyway, like Lluc, means Homo Erectus is more like an ape than a human or Neanderthal by far.

I may not have a robust complicated classification system, but regardless this appears clear to me. It is a matter of interpretation of the information at hand. You have theories as to why intermediates did not survive and I say there never were any because your intermediates are apes.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 954 by Panda, posted 07-24-2011 8:48 PM Panda has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 964 by Panda, posted 07-26-2011 5:13 PM Mazzy has responded

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 178 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 964 of 1075 (626003)
07-26-2011 5:13 PM
Reply to: Message 963 by Mazzy
07-26-2011 4:51 PM


Mazzy writes:

I believe what you have found is DNA evidence of a human foxp2 gene and a 99.5% similarity to modern humans which is in the usual human variation range.


Since your reply is completely unconnected to my post, I am left thinking that you simply love the 'sound of your own voice' and will therefore post reams of text while showing little interest in other people's posts.

You have apparently failed to change your modus operandi.
Good luck with that.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 963 by Mazzy, posted 07-26-2011 4:51 PM Mazzy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 966 by Mazzy, posted 07-26-2011 5:49 PM Panda has responded

Mazzy 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1055 days)
Posts: 212
From: Rural NSW, Australia
Joined: 06-09-2011


(1)
Message 965 of 1075 (626005)
07-26-2011 5:34 PM
Reply to: Message 962 by Nuggin
07-26-2011 1:48 PM


Re: wrong again
Nuggin says

FAIL. Again.

First of all, if this claim of yours were true, then the ERV trees would NOT match the morphological trees or trees of descent.

You are claiming that the exposure to these viruses is essentially random. Then why do humans and chimps share MORE ERVs than humans and gorillas? Why do humans and gorillas share more than humans and baboons?

If what you were claiming were true (and I think you and I both know it's not) we'd expect roughly the same number of ERVS to be shared by humans and chimps as ERVs shared by gorillas and humans with no correlation between the three.

That's NOT the case.

Further, you have REPEATED your false claim that these things are inserted in "similar" places. Not similar. The SAME.

The genome is EXTREMELY long. The odds of two independent organisms being exposed to the EXACT SAME STRAIN of the EXACT SAME VIRUS and having it show up in the hereditary genome in the EXACT SAME PLACE are ASTRONOMICAL. And that's for ONE ERV. We're talking MANY MANY MANY ERVs.

I know you are a big proponent of "Jesus Magic" as far as answers go, but unless you can demonstrate that this magic is being used to work out virus position, your claim holds no water whatsoever.

Nuggin, I am not sure if ERV's fits in with the topic parameter set by admin.

If it is OK to go there I will provide a more robust refute.

I will make these comments until then ..Read the papers I put up which will better clarify whom exactly believes in magic.

I will say if ERV's in every species demonstrates a dilineation of ancestral lineage then predictively the not finding of same would disprove the connection. You have found such ERV's not present in humans and only present in non humans. Therefore the basis for the theory is falsified and you need to get some more theories in to save the whole concept. That is how I see it.

Therefore, it appears, ERV's are not a reliable nor predictive method in themselves to difinitively speak to ancestry.

Let's not forget it was not that long ago reseachers considered non coding DNA junk as spoken to in the link below, and what you actually find as evidence are ghosts and remnants based on complicated models that have many confounding variables and assumptions within..
http://www.sciencedaily.com/...ases/2002/08/020802075138.htm

Some ERV's can be anywhere in human genome
http://genomebiology.com/2006/7/9/R86

Reinfection cannot be ruled out
http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/19/4/526.full.pdf

And really researchers are not clear on what they are looking at...

"Our analyses indicated that the HERV-F LTRs and HERV-K (C4) LTRs have the same degree of divergence, indicating that these HERVs were integrated at about the same time. This calculation contradicts the interpretation of the Southern blot analysis, as this indicates that the HERV-Fs were integrated before the split between the New World and Old World primates. However, it should be remembered that there is an inevitable degree of uncertainty when calculating rates of divergence, particularly over such short genetic regions, and that there are no guarantees of equal mutational rates in the different HERV elements. There is of course also the possibility of cross-hybridization between conserved pol regions of different retrovirus origin in Southern blot analysis"
http://vir.sgmjournals.org/content/80/9/2383.full

I will refute further and expand, if allowed.

Edited by Mazzy, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 962 by Nuggin, posted 07-26-2011 1:48 PM Nuggin has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 972 by Nuggin, posted 07-26-2011 7:46 PM Mazzy has not yet responded

  
Mazzy 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1055 days)
Posts: 212
From: Rural NSW, Australia
Joined: 06-09-2011


(1)
Message 966 of 1075 (626009)
07-26-2011 5:49 PM
Reply to: Message 964 by Panda
07-26-2011 5:13 PM


Panda says

Since your reply is completely unconnected to my post, I am left thinking that you simply love the 'sound of your own voice' and will therefore post reams of text while showing little interest in other people's posts.
You have apparently failed to change your modus operandi.
Good luck with that.

I disagree. You appeared confused as to whether or not you were supporting Neanderthal as being human, not human, or in the middle somewhere.

I thought my post, with appropriate links, clarified the point that Neanderthal is human, which is what I am asserting. Nothing more or less. Being Nephalim means he is still human as angels bred with humans and not apes, as far as I know anyway.

It appears to be evolutionists that are having difficulty explaining why Neanderthal is classed as a different species to Homo Sapiens given current research and comparative similarities. However the recent research only backs up Neanderthal being more human than he ever was, that is if it is valid research. So you and I should have no problems with Neanderthal.

You do not clarify it's separation from Sapiens yourself yet you accuse me of not responding appropriately.

Sometimes we dance on the same page on a couple of things, so I do not understand what further clarity you require from me, while staying within topic guidelines set out. Perhaps you just want to disagree for the sake of it.

Feel free to clarify with me exactly what it is you are requesting clarification of re Nenaderthal if you feel it is appropriate to the thread and furthering the discussion!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 964 by Panda, posted 07-26-2011 5:13 PM Panda has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 967 by Panda, posted 07-26-2011 6:00 PM Mazzy has not yet responded
 Message 975 by ZenMonkey, posted 07-26-2011 11:04 PM Mazzy has not yet responded

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 178 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


(1)
Message 967 of 1075 (626012)
07-26-2011 6:00 PM
Reply to: Message 966 by Mazzy
07-26-2011 5:49 PM


blah blah blah
Mazzy writes:

blah blah blah


Unlike you, I do not love the sound of your voice.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 966 by Mazzy, posted 07-26-2011 5:49 PM Mazzy has not yet responded

Mazzy 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1055 days)
Posts: 212
From: Rural NSW, Australia
Joined: 06-09-2011


Message 968 of 1075 (626016)
07-26-2011 6:59 PM
Reply to: Message 957 by Taq
07-24-2011 11:01 PM


Taq says
Nice double standard you have there. That 99.5% similarity was a result of single base pair comparisons, not the 30 base pair comparisons that you use to say that chimps and humans are 30% different.

Again I ask, what is this all about? Are you disagreeing with your own researchers in saying Neanderthal is perfectly human? Are you disagreeing that the holistic comparison is 30%, if not, then I would suggest that by your own research chimps are not as similar to us as once thought. No matter if any comparison was 2%, 30% or 80% difference it would all 'prove' evolution. Is that what you are suggesting?

I am more to the point suggesting it is your researchers that provide biased misrepresetations of DNA comparisons. Right fromn the start when they first came up with the 98% hit I'd say a reasonabe creationists prediction may have been that this is ridiculous given the difference between man and beast. With further research a more holistic comparison has been done that cites 30%. It is more a matter of picking and choosing to focus on the one genomic region that will provide such high comparisons rather that viewing the genome holistically.

The same goes for junk DNA that creationists have always asserted cannot be junk DNA have now been vindicated in that junk DNA is very important.

Look at this article

"PTERV1 contains three structural genes -- gag, pol, and env -- and regulatory sequences called long terminal repeats (LTRs). To further explore the evolutionary history of the retroviral elements, the authors compared the sequences of gag and pol, as well as the LTR sequences, for each infected primate species. The sequence history, they discovered, did not comport with the established evolutionary history of the primates themselves. Divergence between macaque and baboon was significantly greater than between gorilla and chimp -- even though slightly more evolutionary time separates gorilla and chimp than macaque and baboon."
http://www.sciencedaily.com/...ases/2005/03/050328174826.htm

Did not comport with established primate history means to me that you may pick and choose what you use as evidence and disregard anything that is uncomfortable, and propose more theories to explain the unpredicted and contradictory.

ERV's do not prove to me that there is an ancestral connection to apes. Neither is the fossil evidence convincing and really I do not know what else I can say. If it is not observed it is theoretical. If it is theoretical it is a matter of faith. Theories have theories and assumptions to back them. My assumptions are different to yours but not necessarily wrong.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 957 by Taq, posted 07-24-2011 11:01 PM Taq has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 970 by Taq, posted 07-26-2011 7:17 PM Mazzy has not yet responded
 Message 971 by Taq, posted 07-26-2011 7:19 PM Mazzy has responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 5260
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 2.2


(2)
Message 969 of 1075 (626018)
07-26-2011 7:12 PM
Reply to: Message 961 by Mazzy
07-26-2011 1:34 PM


Re: Moderator Advisory
Your post had too many points to address any compehensively at 3am. Now if you wish you can focus on one or two related points. This will aid in my giving full refutes to your points.

Sounds good with me. All I ask is that the admin's be patient as we move through each topic. I have every intention of combining our separate discussions into a whole picture which directly relates to the relatedness of humans and other apes.

First, I want to focus on retroviral integration itself. It seems that you have been pulling a lot of "facts" out of thin air, such as this one:

Mazzy: Certain viruses prefer certain places in the genome and certain chromosomes. An example would be HIV, it infects humans and chimps in the exact same location of the chromosome.

Since you have already cited PTERV-1 as solid evidence, then I will be referencing that as well.

There just so happens to be a paper that looked at the insertion of multiple HIV infections into the human genome, along with ASLV and MLV. You can read the whole paper here.

I would like to direct your attention to Fig. 1 which is pictured below:

See those light blue lollipop looking things? Guess what those are? Places in the genome where HIV inserted. HIV inserted into the entire length of every chromosome. Not one place in one chromosome. In multiple places in multiple chromosomes. IOW, you are completely wrong. Furthermore, the paper found that HIV does have preferential insertion sites, but it really doesn't help you much. From the paper:

quote:
For HIV the frequency of integration in transcription units ranged from 75% to 80%, while the frequency for MLV was 61% and for ASLV was 57%. For comparison, about 45% of the human genome is composed of transcription units (using the Acembly gene definition).

So 80% of the time, HIV inserted into features that make up nearly half of the human genome which is calculates out to 1.5 billion bases. That's a big number, a lot larger than the single base that you are claiming. On top of that, MLV and ASLV show weak to non-existent preferences for transcriptional units.

So HIV is a big swing-and-a-miss for you. Let's see how PTERV-1 works out. I will be pulling information from this paper.

First, some background on the techniques that they used. In order to determine where in the genome that PTERV-1 ERV's were found they digested the genomes of 4 different species into large chunks, about 160,000 base pairs on average. They then used probes to determine which of these big chunks of genomic DNA contained a PTERV-1 ERV. Once this was determined they sequenced the ends of the chunks to see where it fit into the larger genome. So what did they find?

quote:
Based on an analysis of 1,467 large-insert clones, we mapped 299 retroviral insertion sites among the four species (Figure 3; Table S2). A total of 275 of the insertion sites mapped unambiguously to non-orthologous locations (Table 2), indicating that the vast majority of elements were lineage-specific (i.e., they emerged after the divergence of gorilla/chimpanzee and macaque/baboon from their common ancestor).

So they found 299 PTERV-1 ERV's and only 22 of them were within 160,000 base pairs of each other. Due to some overlap, they concluded that 24 out of the 299 could be within 160,000 base pairs of each other. Not looking so good for you. It get's worse. Next, they sequenced out from the ERV insertion itself so that they could determine the exact locus for the PTERV-1 that were within 160,000 base pairs of each other. 24 separate ERV's would be 12 orthologous pairs. So were they able to find a single unambiguous example of an orthologous PTERV-1 insertion? Nope. Not a single one.

So even your poster child PTERV-1 insertions are not found at the same position in each genome. HIV does not insert into the same position each time it inserts. Your argument is a complete failure at this point.

If you can not find a single example of a virus that inserts into the same position each and every time it inserts then the evidence above stands. You can not claim that the orthologous insertions can best be explained by independent insertions.

I would ask that your response to this post should focus on retroviral insertion alone, and not anything else. In this way we can move in a straighter path towards the topic and keep the admins happy.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 961 by Mazzy, posted 07-26-2011 1:34 PM Mazzy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 976 by Mazzy, posted 07-27-2011 3:21 AM Taq has responded

Taq
Member
Posts: 5260
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 970 of 1075 (626019)
07-26-2011 7:17 PM
Reply to: Message 968 by Mazzy
07-26-2011 6:59 PM


Again I ask, what is this all about?

Your double standard when comparing DNA homologies. When you compare human and chimp genomes you use 30 base pair segments. When you compare human and neanderthal genomes you use single base pair comparisons.

Let's say that there is a 30 base pair segment that differs by one base between humans and chimps. Using a 30 base pair comparison there is 0% homology between the species. Using a single base pair comparison there is 97% homology. For the chimp-human comparison you are using the 30 base pair comparison. For human-neanderthal comparisons you are using the single base pair comparisons. All I am asking for is some consistency.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 968 by Mazzy, posted 07-26-2011 6:59 PM Mazzy has not yet responded

Taq
Member
Posts: 5260
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 971 of 1075 (626020)
07-26-2011 7:19 PM
Reply to: Message 968 by Mazzy
07-26-2011 6:59 PM


Did not comport with established primate history means to me that you may pick and choose what you use as evidence and disregard anything that is uncomfortable, and propose more theories to explain the unpredicted and contradictory.

It does comport. In fact, it comports quite nicely. None of the PTERV-1 insertions are orthologous as one would expect if the consensus phylogenies are accurate. That you fail to understand this only highlights your ignorance.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 968 by Mazzy, posted 07-26-2011 6:59 PM Mazzy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 980 by Mazzy, posted 07-27-2011 1:13 PM Taq has responded

Nuggin
Member (Idle past 777 days)
Posts: 2962
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


(1)
Message 972 of 1075 (626028)
07-26-2011 7:46 PM
Reply to: Message 965 by Mazzy
07-26-2011 5:34 PM


Re: wrong again
Nuggin, I am not sure if ERV's fits in with the topic parameter set by admin.

The topic is about evidence that humans are apes. ERV is evidence.

I admit it's not needed, since this is basically a question of the definition of the word "Ape" and that was settled in the first response.

At this point, my team is just beating a dead horse going over and over and over the thousands of ways you are continuing to use the word incorrectly.

ERVs are just one of those ways.

I will say if ERV's in every species demonstrates a dilineation of ancestral lineage then predictively the not finding of same would disprove the connection. You have found such ERV's not present in humans and only present in non humans. Therefore the basis for the theory is falsified and you need to get some more theories in to save the whole concept. That is how I see it.

Nope. You're wrong. Again.

You are trying to say that humans can not get ERVS and have not obtained ERVs since separating from chimps. False. OBVIOUSLY.

Even you should know better than to try and pull this kind of an argument.

Some ERV's can be anywhere in human genome
http://genomebiology.com/2006/7/9/R86p

Not what that link says. Did you not read the link? Or did you read it and just not understand it? Or were you just trying to throw up some crap hoping we wouldn't catch the ***?

Reinfection cannot be ruled out
http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/19/4/526.full.pdf

This link also does not support your claim. Nice try though. Actually, no, not even a nice try. Just another ***.

And really researchers are not clear on what they are looking at...

LOL. Are you even reading what you are posting? Seriously?

You are taking the fact that the researches are acknowledging differing rates of change within inserts to mean that inserts didn't happen.

Further, you are pointing to a report about ONE insert as if it explained the THOUSANDS of inserts which make up the evidence.

I know the admins like to pretend that Creationists are trying to be honest, but come on. YOu aren't fooling anyone with this shit.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 965 by Mazzy, posted 07-26-2011 5:34 PM Mazzy has not yet responded

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 11443
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002


Message 973 of 1075 (626047)
07-26-2011 8:31 PM


Repeating the Topic
The recent discussion has been a great improvement, but I think it would be helpful if someone could make it clear how the genetic side of the discussion fits into the constrained version of the topic I've defined, which I'm further clarifying now to exclude extinct species. I understand they play a role, but let's reach an understanding first about the modern classification of human beings. Here's my modified topic:

  • The details and validity of the classification system that places Homo sapiens in the Hominidae family (popularly known as the "great apes") along with chimps, gorillas, gibbins and orangutans. Extinct species should not be part of the discussion.

Nuggin, I know we disagree about whether people we feel are lying should be called out on it, but if you want to mix it up in that way then you will have to do that at another forum. I think the fact that Mazzy isn't conceding any points is preventing you from realizing how effectively you *are* making your points. Sometimes it helps to think of the impact on the lurkers. Also think how Mazzy must feel going it alone against several evolutionists with none of them conceding any of her points. You're not the only one experiencing feelings of frustration.

Edited by Admin, : Grammar.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

Replies to this message:
 Message 974 by Taq, posted 07-26-2011 8:37 PM Admin has acknowledged this reply
 Message 978 by Portillo, posted 07-27-2011 5:16 AM Admin has acknowledged this reply

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 5260
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 2.2


(1)
Message 974 of 1075 (626048)
07-26-2011 8:37 PM
Reply to: Message 973 by Admin
07-26-2011 8:31 PM


Re: Repeating the Topic
The recent discussion has been a great improvement, but I think it would be helpful if someone could make it clear how the genetic side of the discussion fits into the constrained version of the topic I've defined, which I'm further clarifying now to exclude extinct species.

I am only replying to clarify my own posts and how it relates to the topic. I plan to show that ERV's do group humans with the rest of the apes. To do this, we first have to establish a working knowledge of how ERV's insert into genomes. Mazzy has made claims about retroviral insertion that are just plain wrong. If I am to show that ERV's do group humans with other apes I have to clear up the misinformation concerning ERV insertion. If that part of the discussion does drag on I will be happy to move the discussion to a different thread.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 973 by Admin, posted 07-26-2011 8:31 PM Admin has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 984 by Mazzy, posted 07-27-2011 3:36 PM Taq has responded

ZenMonkey
Member (Idle past 976 days)
Posts: 428
From: Portland, OR USA
Joined: 09-25-2009


(1)
Message 975 of 1075 (626064)
07-26-2011 11:04 PM
Reply to: Message 966 by Mazzy
07-26-2011 5:49 PM


Mazzy writes:

I thought my post, with appropriate links, clarified the point that Neanderthal is human, which is what I am asserting. Nothing more or less. Being Nephalim means he is still human as angels bred with humans and not apes, as far as I know anyway.

Since Nephilim are unevidenced and quite probably imaginary, I believe that you should stop referring to Neanderthals as such. Deal with their morphology and genetics when you're deciding how to classify them.

Here's Genesis 6:4 in the King James Version:

quote:
There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.

Giants being the word that KJV uses for Nephilim.

From Wikipedia:

quote:
Neanderthals were generally only 1214 cm (56 in) shorter than 21st century humans, contrary to a common view of them as "very short" or "just over 5 feet". Based on 45 long bones from (at most) 14 males and 7 females, Neanderthal males averaged 164168 cm (6566 in) and females 152156 cm (6061 in) tall.

Unless you want to argue that human beings were only 2 feet tall in the days of Noah, Neanderthals are not Nephilim.

You can call a poodle a dragon, but that doesn't make it so.

ABE: I realize that this has nothing to do with the current discussion of the meaning of ERV evidence, as well as the fact that I said that I was dropping out of this conversation. But since there's no reasonable way to give imaginary creatures taxonomic classifications, I thought that it would help to remove them from the conversation.

Edited by ZenMonkey, : No reason given.

Edited by ZenMonkey, : Not on topic enough, although a valid point.


Your beliefs do not effect reality and evidently reality does not effect your beliefs.
-Theodoric

Reality has a well-known liberal bias.
-Steven Colbert

I never meant to say that the Conservatives are generally stupid. I meant to say that stupid people are generally Conservative. I believe that is so obviously and universally admitted a principle that I hardly think any gentleman will deny it.
- John Stuart Mill


This message is a reply to:
 Message 966 by Mazzy, posted 07-26-2011 5:49 PM Mazzy has not yet responded

RewPrev1
...
6364
65
6667
...
72Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2014 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2014