Hi Percy. I read your message and guess there is no point putting up the rest of the response to Taq, as I do not want to waste post space. I'll post the rest at your request if you deem it appropriate to do so.
I did not see the suspension, so thanks for the info.
There are inconsistencies in ERV research and this alone is suficient to provide my basis for refuting ERV's as a consistent and reliable method to determine the common descent of man and chimp. This does not disprove evolution but opens the back door to other possible explanations re ERV's being what they are and where they are in the genome.
Moving on re morphological support for creationist and evolutionary claims:
Well I suppose to move on I will repost my basis for refuting Homo Erectus as an ancestor of mankind.
I have posted side views of Turkana boy and comparisons for Turkana Boy to Eragaster, Rulolfensis and reconstructions. I am suggesting that their skull morphology alone exludes them as being human or even on the road to humanity. I have cited 'Lluc' that is proposed by researchers as being a flat faced ape.
I have used homobaramins, however taxonomic classifications is not what is on trial here.
This being the case, as well as other flat faced pimates being around, that reduced facial morphology is not necessarily a sign of becoming human. Indeed Lluc cannot be a human ancestor as he is 12myo and is classed as just an ape.
I have concerns with fossils that may be representative of various individuals found and reconsituted as one.
I am aware that both creationists and evolutionists do not know what the first apes looked like, whether or not they had been created or evolved. Hence the length of arms and limbs are not necessarily proof of the rise to humanity as arm and leg proportions may have lengthened or reduced in response to adaptation and future knucklewalking capability that 'evolved' independently.
I suggest that assertions in relation to possibility of bipedalism as being demonstrating the rise of ape to humanity has been shown to be unrelaible, and inconsistent.
I found this as a starting point:
The exact criteria for membership in the Homininae are not clear, but the subfamily generally includes those species which share more than 97% of their DNA with the modern human genome, and exhibit a capacity for language or for simple cultures beyond the family or band. http://www.sciencedaily.com/articles/h/hominidae.htm
The above article cites 97% makes a creature a memeber of homonidae. Initial findings cited somelike 99.2% similarity between hmans and chimps.
The article below cites 95%.
Biologist Roy Britten said that human and chimp genomes are only 95 percent similar, a slight drop from the 98.5-percent similarity previously reported. Britten based his estimate on a computer program he wrote that compared approximately 780,000 base pairs of chimp and human DNA found in GenBank. http://www.genomeweb.com/...mp-may-not-be-so-close-after-all
Taq discussing ERV's further is proving to be pointless.
I have provided HERV-K. The info below states plainly and clearly in lay mans terms......NO connection between chimp and man.
The study by Romano and colleagues being published this week on PLoS Onerevealed that human ERV-K had a similar demographic signature to that of the rhesus monkey, both differing greatly from that of the chimpanzee. The data suggested that the humans and rhesus have been purging ERV-K copies from their genomes while the chimpanzee ERV-K population kept the signature of increasing numbers of ERV-K amplification in the genome of ancestral primates during the last 20 million years. http://www.sciencedaily.com/...ases/2007/10/071009212538.htm
This research says that humans have the demographic signature to that of a rgesus monkey and both these 'differ greatly' from the chimpanzee. The excuse...they were perged.
It is a wonderful science that makes predictions and when the predictions fall short more theories are invented to save the initial one..and no matter what you find it all proves TOE. It is the historical theme throughout TOE generally.
Inconsistency means exactly what it says. This research demonstrates inconsistency. It is not theorised inconsistency, it is simply inconsistency. So if you believe in these models at all
On that front, I am still waiting for your description of what a real transitional fossil would look like. Until you supply this description you can not claim that any fossil is or is not transitional.
A cat can look like a dog. However a cat is clearly a cat in real life and so its DNA not to be confused with a dog. Hence simplistic morphological descriptors is problematic and get you guys into dilemmas often.
There is great variety in any species of human or ape as regards skulls and body.
It looks more like an ape than a human. Given that reduced facial morpholy is puroprted in the ape, Lluc, I suggest and reduction you thing you see is no more than the variation within the ape kind and is outside the variation of any race of human today.
It is a silly request to ask a creationist what a transitional fossil would like like as there aren't any. Apes are apes and mankind is mankind. This is an evolutionary dilemma. However to portray what looks like an ape to be some rise to humanity 1.5mya is rather incredible.
Your fossils are all found in pieces, including Turkana Boy despite the rhetoric that it is a complete fossil. Huge reconstructions have been complete re Homo Rulofensis from 1.9mya.
Here are other credentialed researchers, Wood and Harrison, that are suggesting many of your supposed human ancestors are nothing more that apes.
"We are not saying that these fossils are definitively not early human ancestors," said co-author Terry Harrison, a professor in NYU's Department of Anthropology and director of its Center for the Study of Human Origins. "But their status has been presumed rather than adequately demonstrated, and there are a number of alternative interpretations that are possible. We believe that it is just as likely or more likely that they are fossil apes situated close to the ancestry of the living great ape and humans." http://www.sciencedaily.com/...ases/2011/02/110216132034.htm
I am not asiding with these researchers rather trying to point out that your researchers have little clarity, and these ancestors could just be varieties of apes. Neither of us know what the first apes look like regardless of them being created or evolved.
Whatever you guys think one should like, Turkana Boy looks like an ape and bears no resemblence to mankind, despite the remainder of his skeleton. His skull is pieced together from fragments and who really knows how accurate it is after the folley presented by some researchers.
So shall you have me choose a mythical creature from Planet of the Apes, perhaps, to supply you with one of these mythical intermediates, that you can guess the bone and skull structure of, so we can move on?
Even if all the old manuscripts were thrown out one day, leaving only the most recently made copies, you could still confidently put them into groups according to their ancestry. This grouping will be a nested hierarchy, the only organization possible for naturally branching descent from a common ancestor.
I hope that you can see the applicability of the analogy to the way that the insertion of ERVs into the genome works. Please think about it if it doesn't make sense at first. Once you do see how it works, you'll see why ERV insertion is such a powerful piece of evidence supporting common ancestry.
I welcome any additions or corrections to this analogy from those who know this stuff far better than I do.
Thanks, but I think I understannd well enough.
Are you or anyone refuting the findings of the research re HERV-K. If not, my point stands. If so, provide your refute. Either your ERV's are rubbish or your primate phylogy is rubbish. Which do you choose? It appears you cannot have it both ways. This is no problem for evolutionists because, as usual, they will invent some theory to explain it...
Excuses hypothesised to explain contradictions in your own theories that are meant to be predictive is the history of your science. It has actually been falsified many times a far as creationists are concerned.
I do know what these researchers think they are seeing, but it is proving to be an important part of non coding regions that you lot not so long ago thought was junk.
I still remember the rhetoric.."why would God invent junk DNA...just to provide evidence against creation for evolutionists,..bla bla". Now we have been vindicated with more research.
As science progressed and more work is done into ERV's, HGT and epigenetic inheritance the face of your science will will dramatically change. Much of what you provide today as theoretical support for your positions will be thrown out soon enough, if not already.
Thanks though for the explanation. If something isn't where it is expected to be..then it just ain't. We are apparently not close to chimps, but are closer to the rhesus monkey...and out goes the consistency according to your current phylogeny. That is it. ERV's dont work or your primate phylogeny is a nonsense.
You need to keep up with your own argument. You originally brought up the ptERV sequence as evidence against common ancestry as it was an ERV found in disparate old world (specifically African) monkeys and apes but not humans. If ptERV was transmitted vertically transmitted to these species through inheritance it would completely contradict our understanding of the relationships between primate species, including ourselves. But of course if they were transmitted they would be found in the same places of the genomes of all those species i.e. the sequences would be orthologous as Taq has repeatedly pointed out. Instead the ptErv sequences are inserted randomly inserted, as expected if these were separate infection events after the species had separated, so the sequences were NOT spread through inheritance. This is why ptERV is not used for evidence of common ancestry, because it did not originate in a common ancestor.
However, HERV-K does inform ancestry and it also falsified your current primate phylogeny. It is therefore not consistent and I do not know how many times or in how many ways I need to say it.
All this research is based on convoluted models that presume ancesty. The speak to bottlenecks for explanation of what is not aligned, when I can produce research that stated TOBA and KT were not as bad as initially believed. They turn the complexity of the genome into a mathematical equation and then use probabilities and complicated.
These researchers are not seeing anything really. What it looks like to me is evos are not only turning mankind into an ape. hey are also turning them into an evolved disease, as I beleive Lynn Margulis, implies.
Now ptERV is only one example of an ERV sequence. Many other ERVs do exist which can be used for evidence of common ancestry because they have been inherited from a common ancestor. We know this because the insertion points are shared across species. Your argument for this has been that separate infection events in different species have inserted in exactly the same position. But here ptERV can be used as an example of what to expect if your conjecture was true, but the pattern from infection as seen in ptERV is different from the pattern seen in inheritance. It also stands to reason that species with greater sequence divergence between species will also affect retroviral insertion sites. Of course Taq has also posted that excellent article on HIV insertions which shows the relative randomness in insertions.
I have given and example of research that contradicts this.
Orthologous genes from distant eukaryotic species, e.g. animals and plants, share up to 25–30% intron positions. However, the relative contributions of evolutionary conservation and parallel gain of new introns into this pattern remain unknown. Here, the extent of independent insertion of introns in the same sites (parallel gain) in orthologous genes from phylogenetically distant eukaryotes is assessed within the framework of the protosplice site model. It is shown that protosplice sites are no more conserved during evolution of eukaryotic gene sequences than random sites. Simulation of intron insertion into protosplice sites with the observed protosplice site frequencies and intron densities shows that parallel gain can account but for a small fraction (5–10%) of shared intron positions in distantly related species. Thus, the presence of numerous introns in the same positions in orthologous genes from distant eukaryotes, such as animals, fungi and plants, appears to reflect mostly bona fide evolutionary conservation." http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1069513/
it does not matter if I slip up, here and there the GULO stuff was a good example of your genetic mess generally, not erv's.
If HERV-K aligns humans with Rhesus monkeys then that is what it does. It is a nonsense to say that because some ghost relic that is materialised with the use of complicated models that try to reflect the complexity of the genome is an over simplification, means what.. we all had schitzophrenia etc. It is absolutely ridiculous. Even to say that 8% of the human genome is based on disease also sounds as ridiculous as suggesting a chimp is more than 99% human.
This research into HERV-K presumes this retorvirus being present is vertically transmitted and places humans with rhesus monkeys. So on this alone I may allege there is no chimp and human intermediate, or your ERV's that depict direct ancestry is false. Of course I think being both contradictory I propose a third option...Neither of them are correct as the presumption it is all based on is shared ancestry. So you have provided the end result, common ancestry, as a boot strap, and then suggest the result proves something.
What you do know, without too much complicatrd modelling, is that a human is not a direct descendent of the chimpanzee species today. You require a common ancestor to evoke TOE and it is reflected as a base line in all your research including ERV's.
In the 2005 chimp genome paper they only found ~300 ERV's in chimps that were not found in humans at an orthologous position, and ~100 ERV's in humans that were not found at an orthologous position in chimps. That is found in table 2:
Well, I'll take your word for it. However I found this also
"There are many thousands of endogenous retroviruses within human DNA, with HERVs comprising nearly 8% of the human genome and composed with 98,000 elements and fragments.) According to one study published in 2005, no HERVs capable of replication had been identified; all appeared to be defective, containing major deletions or nonsense mutations. This is because most are just long-lasting traces of the original virus, having first integrated many millions of years ago. " http://uk.ask.com/wiki/Human_endogenous_retroviruses
This just shows this is straw grabbing. These ghosts you think you have found contain major deletions and nonsense mutations. How on earth can you expect anyone to believe this? It appears to me that a better ananysis of this information should lead one to conclude that in actual fact ERV's in the various species are most often nothing like human ones and there has benn alot of what I call gobble going on to link them to common ancestry.
Once you find these things you presume ancestry then go from there. The one ERV that remains active is HERV-K. And when you did your magic on it humans were more closely related to rhesus monkeys.
If 400 ERV's in total that don't line up then there is 400 opportunities to suggest that this stuff is contradictory. I think these relics you are seeing are nothing more than ghosts.
• Hundreds of human genes appear likely to have resulted from horizontal transfer from bacteria at some point in the vertebrate lineage. Dozens of genes appear to have been derived from transposable elements.
(Note the 'appear likely', 'at some point' 'appear to have been' this is the language of 'we don't know' 'it doesn't fit' 'it overturns our current theory) added by Mazzy
The entire data set was filtered uniformly to eliminate contamination from nonhuman sequences and other artefacts that had not already been removed by the individual centres. (Information about contamination was also sent back to the centres, which are updating the individual entries in the public databases.) We also identified instances in which the sequence data from one BAC clone was substantially contaminated with sequence data from another (human or nonhuman) clone. The problems were resolved in most instances; 231 clones remained unresolved, and these were eliminated from the assembly reported here. Instances of lower levels of cross-contamination (for example, a single 96-well microplate misassigned to the wrong BAC) are more difficult to detect; some undoubtedly remain and may give rise to small spurious sequence contigs in the draft genome sequence. Such issues are readily resolved as the clones progress towards finished sequence, but they necessitate some caution in certain applications of the current data http://www.nature.com/...urnal/v409/n6822/full/409860a0.html
Hundreds of genes horizontally transfered LIKELY in the verterbrae lineage mean...confirms that is happens..
Contamination hey! So that means the initial results spooked them and they had to go do it again and get the results they require.
Thanks for the links.
OK so if we are only speaking about 203,000 genes and you are trying to tell me they researched all these and found them to be whatever. I am skeptical.
I think nonsense mutations and major deletions means you see nothing at all but nonsense and need to explain it with more theory.
1. Is there any mechanism that would allow HGT to take place between relatively complex species without the action of an intermediary, as you describe?
Not that I know of.
2. What happens to those gene fragments in translation? Do they end up in the same place in the genome of the last species in this chain as they were in the first?
3. Could this happen with anything like the frequency necessary to account for all the exact ERV correspondences we see between, say, humans and chimps?
Extremely unlikely. And as noted in 2, even if they occurred with sufficient regularity they'd be in the wrong places.
Perhaps this may assist with your No.1.
The human genome is littered by endogenous retrovirus sequences (HERVs), which constitute up to 8% of the total genomic sequence. The sequencing of the human (Homo sapiens) and chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes) genomes has facilitated the evolutionary study of ERVs and related sequences. We screened both the human genome (version hg16) and the chimpanzee genome (version PanTro1) for ERVs and conducted a phylogenetic analysis of recent integrations. We found a number of recent integrations within both genomes. They segregated into four groups. Two larger gammaretrovirus-like groups (PtG1 and PtG2) occurred in chimpanzees but not in humans. The PtG sequences were most similar to two baboon ERVs and a macaque sequence but neither to other chimpanzee ERVs nor to any human gammaretrovirus-like ERVs. The pattern was consistent with cross-species transfer via predation. This appears to be an example of horizontal transfer of retroviruses with occasional fixation in the germ line. http://jvi.asm.org/cgi/content/full/80/3/1367
So it appears there is no need for an intermediate and you appear to be incorrect.
The there is your comment in No2 re gene fragments in translation. It appears you may be incorrect about this also.
Retroviruses normally infect the somatic cells of their host and are transmitted horizontally, i.e., in an exogenous way. Occasionally, however, some retroviruses can also infect and integrate into the genome of germ cells, which may allow for their vertical inheritance and fixation in a given species; a process known as endogenization. Lentiviruses, a group of mammalian retroviruses that includes HIV, are known to infect primates, ruminants, horses, and cats. Unlike many other retroviruses, these viruses have not been demonstrably successful at germline infiltration. Here, we report on the discovery of endogenous lentiviral insertions in seven species of Malagasy lemurs from two different genera—Cheirogaleus and Microcebus. Combining molecular clock analyses and cross-species screening of orthologous insertions, we show that the presence of this endogenous lentivirus in six species of Microcebus is the result of one endogenization event that occurred about 4.2 million years ago. http://www.plosgenetics.org/...0.1371%2Fjournal.pgen.1000425
So here you see parallel/horizontal transmission reaching the germ line..and you should already know about preferences and hot spots. It seems the only way researchers can determine if it HGT is if it doesn't fit the paradigm. Then it suddenly must be HGT as the only explanation as I have pointed out previously.
As for No.3. I believe, this is all relatively new, so researhers do not know could guess at best. However, look at this...
"The present results indicate that there are highly specific integration patterns for each endogenous retrovirus that do not readily relate to their sequence or particle classification. Each host genome may utilize these elements for contrary, and possibly beneficial functions." http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1790730
My best guess is that soon they will find out there is no difference and they cannot tell ultimately if the ERV was horizontally or vertically acquired and non endogenous or whatever. What will make the call is if it fits in. If it does't then researchers will say it was HGT to explain it, If this won't work it will be about major deletions and nonsense.
The answer to No3 is they do not know and based on the info above you most certainly cannot discount ERVs being found in the 'right places', through HGT. This likely explains and ERV connection, if indeed there is any at all.
No, it is about your inability to understand the difference between non-orthologous and orthologous ERV's. Do you understand what the difference is, and what each one indicates? It has everything to do with the calcuations I have been showing you.
BTW, PTERV1 insertions are all non-orthologous as is consistent with the virus infecting the chimp and gorilla ancestors after they split from the ancestor we share with them.
I can see this Taq. However, this all does not explain why it bypassed Humans and orangs when we overlapped in time . It is about numbers as you say. There are hundreds of thousands of Human ERV's. The fact that 40 are shared with chimps is miniscule by comparison. PTERV1 is only seen as being non orthologous because it has been dated to after the split. There is nothing special that you see here. If the dating had of come in at 8mya it would have beeen classed as an orthologous ERV just like the rest regardless of the fact that it was horizontally acquired. There is no difference in what your researchers see.
"When a retrovirus reproduces, identical copies of LTR sequences are created on either side of the retroviral element; the divergence of LTR sequences within a species can be used to estimate the age of an initial infection. Eichler and colleagues estimate that gorillas and chimps were infected about 3-4 million years ago, and baboon and macaque about 1.5 million years ago. The disconnect between the evolutionary history of the retrovirus and the primates, the authors conclude, could be explained if the Old World monkeys were infected by "several diverged viruses" while gorilla and chimpanzee were infected by a single, though unknown, source." http://www.sciencedaily.com/...ases/2005/03/050328174826.htm
The explanation 'several diverged virus' this time with gorilla and chimp infected by a single unknown source sound great but explains nothing.
I have always said that much of this is about interpretation of the data. This information could also be used to suggest no human or so called human intermediate was around 1.5mya because if they were they should have been infected.
That's a complete *** that your source is feeding you.
I am not entirely sure I believe the 203,000 ERV's either, that you quoted in another reply, have been detected as endogenous retrovirus between human and chimps. For a start these researchers could not have possibly sequenced that many ERV's.
I found this article that states there are 42 families, and 2 families of 42 are not found in humans. With more than 100 members, CERV 1/PTERV1 is one of the most abundant families of endogenous retroviruses in the chimpanzee genome. The second family is CERV 2.
I think that if common descent were true these 2 families should show up in humans
Here is a snip The estimated ages of the two subfamilies are 5 MY and 7.8 MY, respectively, suggesting that at least one subfamily was present in the lineage prior to the time chimpanzees and humans diverged from a common ancestor (about 6 MYA). This conclusion, however, is inconsistent with the fact that no CERV 1/PTERV1 orthologues were detected in the sequenced human genome. Moreover, we were able to detect pre-integration sites at those regions in the human genome orthologous to the CERV 1/PTERV1 insertion sites in chimpanzees, effectively eliminating the possibility that the elements were once present in humans but subsequently excised. Consistent with our findings, the results of a previously published Southern hybridization survey indicated that sequences orthologous to CERV 1/PTERV1 elements are present in the African great apes and old world monkeys but not in Asian apes or humans . These results suggest that some members of the CERV 1/PTERV1 subfamily entered the chimpanzee genome after the split from humans through exogenous infections from closely related species and subsequently increased in copy number by retrotransposition" http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1779541/
Please notice that the reasoning is based on timing. They were not found in humans which then leads to the assertion that they were gained non vertically because if TOE is true this is what has to be the case according to the underlying presumption. These 2 families were classed as endogenoius retrovirus within chimps that are NOT shared with humans.
If humans and all primates did get horizontally infected with these virus and these families were present, your researchers could not tell the difference and they would all be classed as endogenous and shared. The worst that would happen is that it if it threw out your phylogeny like HERV did then they would say it must be horizontally transfered or other complicated explanations.
CERV 2 was also inconsistent with dating.
So it is not about the 40 families that were found in both chimp and human because these could have got there horizontally between 'kinds'. Predation, cross infection etc give many avenues for horizontal transfer. You cannot tell the difference once a virus hits the germ line and is transcribed. With research identifying ERV and non coding region function, these ERV's you are seeing may not even be the ghosts of virus past at all.
It is about the differences and these 2 demonstrate that mankind are not related to chimps. It also appears that chimps were here before mankind as they should be and there was cross infection just as is apparent nowadays excpet that now we can control and isolate which was not the case 6,000 years ago.
I believe HIV is another, yet this research below speaks to an infection 300 years ago and The authors note that unaccounted-for biases could be masking a deeper age of SIV. They suggest that if these biases do exist, their causes need to be investigated because they might also affect the ability to properly estimate the age of HIV and other viruses. http://www.sciencedaily.com/...ases/2009/05/090501091024.htm
So the research states 40 ERV families are shared between chimp and human. Even with 1-100 members in each we are not going to arrive at 203,000.
I would say that in the course of the 6000 years mankind has been on the earth there has been ample opportunity for cross infection and horizontal tranfer of co located species. The 2 families of ERVs that are not found in Mankind but are in chimps demonstrates that mankind do not share a common ancestor with a chimp. The ones that are shared support mankind living closely with primates for some time and that is all.
Personally, I think that skull looks more like this:
than it looks like this:
It would be great if we stopped playing guess it if you can. Please name the skulls or fossils. So many have been discredited in their initial representations. The top skull looks suspiciously like a skull I posted previously that has been reconstructed to look like an ape.
Malcolm, please name them and we can talk.
The second picture is typical of the ploy that evos usually use by taking the most extreme example they can find as a comparison. The very rounded head is compared to a chimp skull, while many primated do not have the same feature. There are many variations of primate skulls. Here are a few to demonstrate in the link below. I have already provided info on Lluc, the flat faced ape from 12mya. If the reconstruction is not biased it could just as well be LLucs descendants, not human. http://www.boneroom.com/bone/primateskulls.htm
The top picture you posted looks like the reconstruction in the link below of Rulolfensis. I am happy for you to paste it up if you are able. As you can see it was initally made to look human, however now it is obviously just another variety of ape. http://www.sciencedaily.com/...ases/2007/03/070324133018.htm
It doesn't matter what the explanation is. The facts are that the retrovirus did not infect the human lineage or orangutan lineage, nor their common ancestor as evidence by the non-orthologous nature of chimp and gorilla PTERV1 insertions. How does species specificity of a relatively recent virus negate the more ancient orthologous ERV's that have been inherited vertically by both humans and chimps through common ancestry? You have not explained this.
I do not have to explain the common ancestry bit as there is no common ancetor between chimp and human. PTERV was found in old world monkeys now as an endogenous retrovirus. Therefore it SHOULD be found in humans as an endogenous retrovirus, BUT IT ISN'T. You do not have DNA from ancient creatures so basically this is all presumptive queswork anyway.
This bit highlights the initial expectation of the researchers that did NOT eventuate.
"That these non-human primates typically remain unaffected after virus exposure has led to the hypothesis that there had been millions of years of coevolution between SIVs and their primate hosts."
So off these researchers go and turn complex systems into numbers with predetermined assumptions and whallahh... the new dating saves the day with an excuse. The dating is based on presumptions and probabilities as well as population sizes. Don't get me started on that. Anything apart from you can observe now is theoretical and made of theories to support theories, that are often found the erraneous in hindsight.
The excuse is .....The disconnect between the evolutionary history of the retrovirus and the primates, the authors conclude, could be explained if the Old World monkeys were infected by "several diverged viruses" while gorilla and chimpanzee were infected by a single, though unknown, source.
This is an excuse of 'maybe' and 'could be' to keep this ERV thing going. Really they do not know.
You numbers are way off again. Humans and chimps share over 200,000 orthologous ERV's with only a handful (100 to 300) that are non-orthologous. On top of that, chimps and humans share orthologous ERV's that are not found in an orthologous position in orangutans. This places humans within the ape baramin, not outside of it.
My baramins get to reflect my presumptions and not yours. Shared ERVs, if they are ERVs at all, are there due to HGT and kinds are boader than species back to your family rank in many cases. So endogenization can be on board but how it came to be in the genome in the first place is based on my assumptions. Hence my baramins are fine as far as ERVs go.
My numbers were from an article speaking to CURRENT research and it stated 42 families of which 2 are not present in mankind. I could not find any mention of the 203,000 ERVs in your article. Are you suggesting the research spoken to in my article was misrepresentative? How could your researcher have possibly sequenced for over 200,000 ERV's? Even the suggestion sounds ridiculous and no more than presumptive. None the less 400 inconsistencies or examples of HGT works for me in so many other ways.
It should have been inherited endogenously according to you lot for millions of years. The only reason it has been dated to 4ya is because it was not found in mankind, and insertion dates applied to reflect same. If it is only 4myo it should have infected mankind just like the rest of the ERVs anyway, but it didn't and this remains unexplained.
So what we have by your own words is a virus that just created itself or appeared out of nowhere 4my ago or so, and infected every primate apart from man and orang to the point that it became endogenous today in these other species. This is evidence that mankind, or the so called intermediates, were not around 4mya and that is the most parinomous explanation for it, when another assumption is taken for granted.
Shared ERVs are explained through HGT, ones that aren't shared show we have no familial connection.
Those figures came from the human and chimp genome papers. Not only did they sequence all of the ERV's, they also sequenced the ENTIRE GENOME. If you are going to turn a blind eye to the peer reviewed genome papers then you might as well admit that the evidence doesn't matter with regards to baramins.
Well you appear to be turning a blind eye to the article I posted that speaks to 42 families It is recent, how old was yours.
Your link proposed a total of 400 ERVs not shared, and that is even better than my speaking to only 2. I suppose all these 400 discrepancies will be explained away by HGT or mystical means.
PTERV1 is the most abundant family with regard to size, not number. Due to their recent insertion they are mostly full sized. Older ERV's tend to be solo LTR's due to the fact that the repeat sequences lend themselves to recombination. This loops out the retroviral genes and leaves a single copy of the repeat region. The fact that there are so many intact PTERV1 copies also indicates that they were a recent addition to the genome. This is even more evidence for the recent horizontal and independent transfer of PTERV1 into the chimp and gorilla genomes. As far as number, PTERV1 has very few insertions compared to the overall number of insertions.
Well you seem convinced of what you are saying. Too bad these researchers are not sure. They seem to think there are some short comings in the information these models can capture. I would expect this when turning complex systems into comparativly simplistic numbers.
"Abstract Endogenous retroviruses (ERVs) most likely are remnants of ancient retroviral infections. ERVs preserve functions of exogenous retroviruses to a varying extent, and can be parasites, symbionts or more or less neutral genetic 'junk'.Their evolution has two facets, pre- and post-endogenization. Although the two are not clearly separated, the first pertains to retroviral evolution in general and the second to the fate of repetitive DNA and the evolution of the host organism and its genome. The study of ERVs provides much material for the understanding of retroviral evolution. This sequence archive reflects the history of successes and shortcomings of antiviral resistance, but also of strategic evolutionary decisions regarding genome organization and new gene acquisition. This review discusses retroviral evolution illustrated through HERVs, bioinformatic prerequisites for ERV studies, the endogenization process and HERV evolution post-endogenization, including relation to disease. (Part of a multi-author review)." http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez/18818874?dopt=Ab...
The research says pre and post-endogenization are not clearly separated. I do not think this is as clear as you are making out. Evos often simplify answers that do not reflect inconsistencies and make out something is simple and clear, when it is not..and sometimes far from it.
Additionally I have seen research that shows these so called ERVs to be functional. The research below speaks to one example. There are plenty more and you will find more and more as time goes on. There is no junk DNA and there are no remnants or ghosts from a bygone era when we were apes.
"In our previous studies, we demonstrated that burn-elicited stress signals altered the expression of MuERVs in distant organs of mice in a tissue-specific manner [20-22]. These MuERVs had unique U3 promoter sequences suggesting different profiles of transcription regulatory elements in each of these sequences. Interestingly, some of these MuERVs are very similar in viral genome structure to the murine acquired immune deficiency syndrome (MAIDS) virus, which is known to cause immune disorders in infected mice [20,23]. These findings led to the hypothesis that burn-elicited stress signals are responsible, at least in part, for the genome-wide response of specific MuERVs. In addition, they may play causative roles in post-burn pathogenesis as well as in other stress-related disease processes. In this study, we identified putative MuERVs whose expression was altered in response to burn-elicited stress signals. Subsequently, the biological properties (coding potentials for retroviral polypeptides, primer binding sites (PBSs), viral tropism, branching ages, recombination events, and neighboring host genes) of these MuERVs were analyzed, and their roles in post-burn pathogenesis are discussed." http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2164/8/440
These things you have found appear to be perfectly functional unless you are suggesting at one time in our past the so called common ancestor of humans and mice had no post-burn pathogenesis. Responses to being burned (as they did to these poor little mice, I feel like swearing) I am sure was around long before mice evolved. This so called ERV is a perfectly functional part of the genome that you lot have turned into somethin it isn't. Let's see if in a few years I am shown to be right. This would not be the first time some glamorous theory like LUCA has been flushed.
This is supported by the FACT that chimp and gorilla PTERV1 insertions are not found at orthologous positions. Non-orthology indicates horizontal transfer given the random nature of retroviral insertion and the billions of hot spots in any given genome.
That means that's what suits you because really once it hits the germ line, which HGT does, you cannot tell.
Then let's test your theory. If this scenario is true then I shouldn't find more than a handful of ERV's at orthologous positions between humans and chimps. Instead of a handful, I find over 200,000 at orthologous positions. Your theory is falsified.
If these ERV's are functional, be they virally related or not, they should have a preference for being where they are meant to be to provide a function.
ERV's as evidence for common descent has been falsified as there are ERVs that could have arisen via HGT that showed function preference alongside 400 genes (apparently) that are not shared by chimps and mankind today. This means, according to your theory, there are 400 cases of HGT in just chimps and humans. What on earth makes you think that hasn't gone on forever.
A squirrel like creature, the so called ancestor to all apes and man, could have horizontally picked up an ERV that hit the germ line and past on an apparent connectedness to some other creature totally non related. They would all have 'relics and ghosts and likely in preferential loci. That is sensible and despite what anyone says one can have common sense at the table when we discuss the evidence in light of creation.
There are 400 reasons why your ERV theory has been falsified. The evidence speaks for creation and there being no intermediates.
I want to put an end to this as you are going around in circles.
By your article there have been over 203,000 ERV's that chimps and humans have in common. They are classified as ERV's because they meet the criteria of looking like and being in the loci that ERV's end up in. All the duplications etc is not what demonstrates them as being non endogenous at all. If this were the case they would not be called endogenous retrovirus. The 400 exceptions are deeed only endogenous for x amount of years as they were inserted horizontally by reaching the germ line. So they are endogenous and are where they need to be.
To say that there are 400 ERVs that are not shared between human and chimp is akin to saying there 400 ERVs that look like ERVs and are where ERVs should be yet 400 of these that look like ERVs are not shared between man and chimp. These are seen as being horizontally transfered because there is no other evolutionary answer.
They are seen as being horizontally transfered because although they appear to be endogenous retrovirus that should have been passed down forever, they are not. This conclusion is not based on them not being in the right loci, It is based on the fact that certain species that are deemed to ancestral offshoots do not have them.
If it was just a matter of the loci and non endogenous ERVs being in the wrong loci, these ERVs would not have met the criteria of endogenous retrovirus and there would be no need to evoke the theoretical explanation of horizontal gene transfer.
Hence I state plainly that that you are unable to tell. What you do need to do is rig the data with insertion values that give more recent dates to again provide a theory to back an inconsistency in thoery.
You Taq, have spoken to 400 exceptions that further speak to, at least, 400 horizontal gene transfers over the past 5 million years or so, and we are just talking about 2 species. How much more can one crunch numbers to predict the amount of HGT that has occured throught all species over the millenia since the beginning of life.
Your researchers cannot identify an endogenous from a non-indogenous ERV once it hits the germ line. The very fact that these 400 exceptions are termed exogenous retrovirus proved that they meet all criteria for being classed as ERVs including loci found at. Evolutionists have no more than theoretical presumptive assertions to put forward about it all in support for common descent. All the shared ones could be a result of HGT and we can see it is common place in nature.
"The evolution side should explain why humans, chimps, gorillas, gibbons and orangutans are placed within a single group, and the creation side should explain not just why they shouldn't be grouped together, but how they should be regrouped and why."
As far as ERV's are concerned they are not a measure of common descent and therefore have no basis for groupings.
Where as the fossils you have that are meant to be intermediates are all apes as they can be distingiushed by a variety of factors most importantly human variation is skull and the ability to engage in sophisticated language. eg ape headed Ruldolphensis and Turkana Boy whose skulsl look the same comparatively, are apes as they meet my criteria for apes.
I have produced pictures and info previously suggesting evo intermediates do not fit this criteria and therefore should not be placed in the same group as apes.
No. It is an entirely reasonable request. How do you know that there are no transitional fossils if you can't define what a transitional fossil would look like if it did exist? If you have no idea of what a transitional form would look like, you might walk right past one and not realise it. Taq is asking you an entirely reasonable and actually quite important question. He is asking you to imagine, as a hypothetical exercise, what a transitional fossil would look like if one existed. Only when you have defined terms in that way will you be able to say whether transitional fossils exist or not. If you refuse to define what a transitional fossil is, you're going to be unable to say whether they exist or not.
Hi there, nice to meet you.
I think the question is akin to asking me what any mythical creature may or may not look like for example a gorgon. This is only relating to the fossil evidence and the representations with flesh are based on even more theoretical assumptions. As I see it, and have posted material to speak to it, your reasearchers have great difficulty themselves in asigning criteria to differentiate one species from the next. This is of course because you require transition and hope to show it in a gradual manner.
I most certainly do not have to describe a mythical being any more than you need to describe what a Nephalim may look like if you were refuting their existence.
In taking this attitude, you are performing the debate equivalent of putting your fingers in your ears, shutting your eyes and shouting la-la-la. You are discounting any and all potential evidence without even giving it a chance. You are basically declaring that you refuse to even consider that your opponent might have any evidence that disagrees with your position. This is bull-headed, unhelpful and appallingly rude.
Let's take an example. Imagine a sceptic being asked an example of what kind of evidence might him believe in the historicity of Jesus (just for example). He might answer "A contemporaneous account of Jesus' execution", or "A Roman record of Jesus' activities". These would serve as acceptable evidence for the reality of the person of Jesus. The conversation could then continue in a reasonable fashion, by looking at the actual evidence available and seeing if it met those standards or not.
This is a nonsense Granny. You and others are requesting a differentiation of fossil evidence, not a desription of a person an entire dating system is based on. My previous example of your describing what the fossil of a Nephalim may look like before proceeding to debate their being Neanderthal, is more an apt comparison. Would you be put off if I demanded such a thing, then called you rude because you could see no sense it it? Indeed, I'd say you would.
But this isn't what you're doing. What you're doing is equivalent to our sceptic, upon being asked what evidence would convince him of the historicity of Jesus, saying "It doesn't matter. There couldn't be any evidence because there isn't any. I have already made up my mind. There was no such person as Jesus and nothing you say can persuade me otherwise. Not only is there no evidence that can convince me otherwise, it is impossible to even conceive of any evidence that might persuade me."
Would you accept that argument? I hope not. It is deeply unreasonable.
No I think evolutionists like to dance around with silly requests and never ending straining of mute points to avoid having to answer the important issues, like why call Turkana Boy a rise to humanity when it is clearly an ape.
This is what I call rude!
Basically, this attitude is a big single digit pointed at your opponent. In debate of this nature, you need to treat each other's arguments with respect. In refusing to even consider, even as a hypothetical possibility, what any potential evidence against your position might look like, you are refusing to engage in honest debate.
This is called straining a useless point and avoiding the real comparisons that we are meant to be discussing. Potential evidence to refute me may look like actually coming up with some skull, rather than fragment, that looks intermediate, which you cannot do. If you have none, this is hardly my fault. It just means you have no evidence to support your position against mine...and that is still not my fault.
So please, pretty please, answer Taq's eminently reasonable question.
Whatever I come up with past a mix of human and apes, I really would have no clue. With homology and traits showing up in distantly relates species, according to your research, I am glad this is your headache to deal with. I do not have this headache. The distinction should be readily clear if these fossils were living beings. They are not, and there is great variety in apes and mankind today and neither of us know what the first apes, evolved or created, look like. As I have said a dog can look like a dog but clearly they are very different species. You are trying to force me into the folley of your own taxonomic system and I will resist.
And say I guessed and guessed inacurrately that would be the end of it if I changed my mind. So basically I think you are trying to bait me and I am not falling for it hook line and sinker and this displeases you...Again not my fault.
If a transitional form/fossil did exist, what would it look like? If you cannot answer this question, then you can't claim that none exist.
Mutate and Survive
I am surviving just fine thanks. You are trying to turn a mole hill into a mountain, not I.
You must be wrong on this, because I have not guessed what an intermediate would look like and I am most certainly claiming they do not exist.
Let me say this Granny Magda, your own representations changed enormously without additional fossil evidence. It was DNA that morphed, as if overnight, an ape man into a human being
This is your folley and not mine. If you guys cannot work out from fossil evidence what neanderthal looked like you have no hope with fossils that are older...and you demand I guess when your own credentialed researchers have no clue. Ha!
Same fossil, pronounced ape features in one, yet a lovely human in the next, both representations of the same fosil evidence. This is a nonsense and yet you want me to hazzard a guess at what a mythical Erectus creature may look like. I think not.
I have stated what I say separates an ape from a human. As we do not know what the first ape looked like, whether or not it had long arms or if this adaptation came in time or with knucklewalking. Hence it is folley to speculate on the unknown.
What we do know is that mankind is superiorly intelligent, has superior reasoning and perceptive capability (can think of God), and has complex and sophisticated language that requires certain skeletal traits to be apparent. Beast does not. Therefore I need to focus on skull morphology and neural traits that fall within human variation today as we know them, as these are more solid than guesswork.
Now the way I see it. I have put up links and pictures to Turkana Boy, the reconstruction of Rudolfensis and I say they are the same species. Further to that I have posted an article that speaks to some researchers saying the same thing and also speaking to huge sexual dimorphism in homo erectus.
I have shown side views and the 'out of human variation' I am talking about is apparent. I have substantiated my views and I am sick to death of having to repost the same information.
It is about time you evolutionists stopped pussy footing around and showed me how this famous Turkana Boy represents some stage between ape and human, given you have no idea what the fist ape-like species looked like.
I have defended my position. It is your turn to actualy put something up finally to support yours and refute me, before we run out of time.
Mazzy, Could you please give us some examples of barims and explain what the standards are for determining whether something belongs in a barim or not?
Yes I can give you some idea...
Do you know what off topic refer to? We could spend the next month discussing this alone. So unless you think these organisms are Homo erectus or something close to them, you are what is called straining a useless point and playing "make one mistake and you're gone", as well as going off topic....Sorry I am not a child anymore.
ACTUALLY how about a novel idea....and start to defend your position and refute mine..instead of pussy footing around.
There has been one attempt at 'guess it if you can' and I have responded. Since then all I have had is ridiculous demands and constant avoidance and going off topic in desperation searching for one unanswerable question as your final grand refute.
Let me make this clear right now to save your bother..It is a loosing argument given the state of your current taxonomy and the many unanswered questions in your evolutionary science.
Please stay on topic.
If you are unable to refute the evidence I have provided then just say so and I'll graciously call it a stalemate.
Any evidence such as metatarsels and human footprints is evidence that mankind coexisted with apes. Also apes with curved fingers are unlikely to leave human footprints because they are apes. Dating is another topic.
You have yet to say what makes Turkana Boy a homo erectus given that just about anything you mention like bipedalism, facial morphology has arisen many times and still keeps him in the grouping of ape and beast.
I can see what makes Erectus an ape for me. Now you say what makes him an intermediate and how you differentiate features from others around him given you need to deal with convergent evolutions and homoplasys style theories etc and why you think I am wrong.