Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 187 (8027 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 04-24-2014 1:41 PM
211 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: tellmeverbatim
Post Volume:
Total: 724,184 Year: 10,025/28,606 Month: 1,715/2,455 Week: 433/592 Day: 78/127 Hour: 9/5


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
6768
69
707172Next
Author Topic:   Why are there no human apes alive today?
Taq
Member
Posts: 5049
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 1021 of 1075 (626373)
07-28-2011 8:26 PM
Reply to: Message 1014 by Mazzy
07-28-2011 5:53 PM


Re: Moderator Advisory
Moving on re morphological support for creationist and evolutionary claims:

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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1014 by Mazzy, posted 07-28-2011 5:53 PM Mazzy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1023 by Mazzy, posted 07-28-2011 10:57 PM Taq has responded

ZenMonkey
Member (Idle past 794 days)
Posts: 428
From: Portland, OR USA
Joined: 09-25-2009


(1)
Message 1022 of 1075 (626379)
07-28-2011 10:41 PM
Reply to: Message 1019 by Mazzy
07-28-2011 7:57 PM


Understanding ERVs by way of analogy.
Hi Mazzy,

Let's try an analogy. Imagine some monks in a monastery, copying manuscripts all day. They represent the copying and replication of DNA in reproduction, and the process of making copies of copies will represent the passing of the gene code on from one generation to the next.

Every once in a while, a monk is going to make a mistake. Let's say that in making a copy of manuscript A, a monk randomly inserts the word "terrible" in one paragraph. Let that represent the insertion of a virus somewhere in the genome.

Now we have manuscript B, identical to manuscript A except for that one mistake.

Any monk who makes a third-generation copy from manuscript B is going to leave that mistake in, since he doesn't know any better. Let that represent the preservation of the viral insertion into the gene code.

Let's say that five monks all make copies from manuscript B, the manuscript with the original error, and let's name them all C1 through C5. Each copy in the C generation will have that particular error. And there won't be any copies of A that have that error but weren't copied from B.

So say you pick up one of the many copies of copies made from the original manuscript A. If it has that one particular mistake, the insertion of a specific word in a specific place, you'll know that it's one of the C generation manuscripts or at least that ultimately it had to have manuscript B back in its ancestry. The odds are incredibly low that any other copies made from the original manuscript A would have that same particular insertion of the exact word "terrible" in exactly the same place, as I'm sure you'll have to admit.

Let's take it one step further. Imagine that in making copy C3, a monk makes another mistake, like misspelling the word "tolerable" as "tollerable" in one sentence. Now if you pick up a manuscript and it has both the insertion of the word "terrible" in one particular place, and the misspelling "tollerable" in another particular place, you know that it can be traced back to C3. In fact, any you can be certain that any copy that has the C3 mistake will also have the B mistake.

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.

Edited by ZenMonkey, : No reason given.


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 1019 by Mazzy, posted 07-28-2011 7:57 PM Mazzy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1024 by Mazzy, posted 07-28-2011 11:14 PM ZenMonkey has responded

Mazzy 
Suspended Member (Idle past 874 days)
Posts: 212
From: Rural NSW, Australia
Joined: 06-09-2011


(1)
Message 1023 of 1075 (626380)
07-28-2011 10:57 PM
Reply to: Message 1021 by Taq
07-28-2011 8:26 PM


Re: Moderator Advisory
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.

Ok, If you wish to move on, I am all for it.

Here is an image that will hopefullly show up.


http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/15000_med.jpg

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?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1021 by Taq, posted 07-28-2011 8:26 PM Taq has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1030 by Granny Magda, posted 07-29-2011 10:09 AM Mazzy has responded
 Message 1031 by Admin, posted 07-29-2011 11:19 AM Mazzy has not yet responded
 Message 1033 by Taq, posted 07-29-2011 11:40 AM Mazzy has not yet responded
 Message 1036 by Malcolm, posted 07-29-2011 1:16 PM Mazzy has responded

  
Mazzy 
Suspended Member (Idle past 874 days)
Posts: 212
From: Rural NSW, Australia
Joined: 06-09-2011


(1)
Message 1024 of 1075 (626384)
07-28-2011 11:14 PM
Reply to: Message 1022 by ZenMonkey
07-28-2011 10:41 PM


Re: Understanding ERVs by way of analogy.
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.

Edited by Mazzy, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1022 by ZenMonkey, posted 07-28-2011 10:41 PM ZenMonkey has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1025 by ZenMonkey, posted 07-28-2011 11:17 PM Mazzy has responded

  
ZenMonkey
Member (Idle past 794 days)
Posts: 428
From: Portland, OR USA
Joined: 09-25-2009


Message 1025 of 1075 (626385)
07-28-2011 11:17 PM
Reply to: Message 1024 by Mazzy
07-28-2011 11:14 PM


Re: Understanding ERVs by way of analogy.
So you don't understand the analogy. Go back and re-read it.

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 1024 by Mazzy, posted 07-28-2011 11:14 PM Mazzy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1027 by Mazzy, posted 07-29-2011 1:06 AM ZenMonkey has not yet responded

Mazzy 
Suspended Member (Idle past 874 days)
Posts: 212
From: Rural NSW, Australia
Joined: 06-09-2011


(1)
Message 1026 of 1075 (626392)
07-29-2011 1:02 AM
Reply to: Message 1006 by Malcolm
07-28-2011 8:55 AM


Re: Moderator Advisory
Malcolm says

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.

They are meant to be useless remnants. However they are being found to not be remnants but a usefull part of what used to be called junk DNA.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/...ases/2006/09/060911233630.htm

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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1006 by Malcolm, posted 07-28-2011 8:55 AM Malcolm has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1035 by Taq, posted 07-29-2011 11:57 AM Mazzy has not yet responded

  
Mazzy 
Suspended Member (Idle past 874 days)
Posts: 212
From: Rural NSW, Australia
Joined: 06-09-2011


(1)
Message 1027 of 1075 (626393)
07-29-2011 1:06 AM
Reply to: Message 1025 by ZenMonkey
07-28-2011 11:17 PM


Re: Understanding ERVs by way of analogy.
Zenmonkey says

So you don't understand the analogy. Go back and re-read it.

You doubt the research turns you and mankind into a monkey and not a chimp..go back and read it.

If you keep this line up then I will argue that ERV's demonstrate your primate classifications need to be turfed.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1025 by ZenMonkey, posted 07-28-2011 11:17 PM ZenMonkey has not yet responded

  
Mazzy 
Suspended Member (Idle past 874 days)
Posts: 212
From: Rural NSW, Australia
Joined: 06-09-2011


(1)
Message 1028 of 1075 (626395)
07-29-2011 2:56 AM
Reply to: Message 1007 by Taq
07-28-2011 10:17 AM


Re: Number of Matching ERVs Between Chimps and Humans
Taq says
Table 11:

http://www.nature.com/...409/n6822/fig_tab/409860a0_T11.html
From the 2001 human genome paper:

http://www.nature.com/...urnal/v409/n6822/full/409860a0.html
There are 112,000 class I, 8,000 class II, and 83,000 class III ERV's for a total of 203,000.

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:

http://www.nature.com/...7/n7055/fig_tab/nature04072_T2.html
Of the 2005 chimp genome paper:

http://www.nature.com/...al/v437/n7055/full/nature04072.html

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.[11]) 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.

Hopefully they did not count 5 (HRV-5) because it was a stuff up. This link speak to it.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC136318/

This is from one of your links.

• 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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1007 by Taq, posted 07-28-2011 10:17 AM Taq has not yet responded

  
Mazzy 
Suspended Member (Idle past 874 days)
Posts: 212
From: Rural NSW, Australia
Joined: 06-09-2011


(1)
Message 1029 of 1075 (626396)
07-29-2011 5:12 AM
Reply to: Message 1010 by Mr Jack
07-28-2011 12:58 PM


Re: HGT amongst vertebrates
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?

Extremely unlikely.

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.

Edited by Mazzy, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1010 by Mr Jack, posted 07-28-2011 12:58 PM Mr Jack has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1034 by Taq, posted 07-29-2011 11:47 AM Mazzy has not yet responded

  
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2283
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007


(3)
Message 1030 of 1075 (626415)
07-29-2011 10:09 AM
Reply to: Message 1023 by Mazzy
07-28-2011 10:57 PM


Re: Moderator Advisory
Hi Mazzy,

I was disappointed to read this;

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

So please, pretty please, answer Taq's eminently reasonable question.

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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1023 by Mazzy, posted 07-28-2011 10:57 PM Mazzy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1046 by Mazzy, posted 07-29-2011 10:31 PM Granny Magda has responded

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 11390
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 1.0


Message 1031 of 1075 (626429)
07-29-2011 11:19 AM
Reply to: Message 1023 by Mazzy
07-28-2011 10:57 PM


Re: Moderator Advisory
Hi Mazzy,

Please see my Message 1017 from yesterday. Extinct species are off-topic. Here's the definition of the constrained 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.

Mazzy, a lot of the moderation issues in this thread occur because it seems like you haven't read the messages, including the moderation messages from me. As I said earlier, if you really are experiencing a great deal of difficulty viewing posts then I think it might be a good idea to fix that problem before continuing the discussion. There's no hurry. Let me know if you need any help.

Edited by Admin, : Grammar.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1023 by Mazzy, posted 07-28-2011 10:57 PM Mazzy has not yet responded

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 11390
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 1.0


Message 1032 of 1075 (626431)
07-29-2011 11:28 AM


Moderator Advisory
Because so many posts have been taken up by me, the ERV discussion can continue up until around message 1050, but if no progress is being made by then then discussion will have to move on to exclusively consider morphological classification. Concerning that topic, the evolution side should explain why humans, chimps, gorillas, gibbons and orangutans are all in a single group, and the creation side should explain not just why they shouldn't be grouped, but how they should be regrouped and why.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 5049
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.9


(1)
Message 1033 of 1075 (626435)
07-29-2011 11:40 AM
Reply to: Message 1023 by Mazzy
07-28-2011 10:57 PM


Re: Moderator Advisory
The info below states plainly and clearly in lay mans terms......NO connection between chimp and man.

Here is a quote from the abstract:

quote:
Overall, 61% of the human elements compared to 21% of the chimpanzee and 47% of rhesus elements had estimated integration times less than 4.5 million years before present (MYBP), with an average integration times of 7.8 MYBP, 13.4 MYBP and 10.3 MYBP for HERV-K, CERV-K and RhERV-K, respectively. By excluding those ERV-K sequences generated by chromosomal duplication, we used 63 of the 106 elements to compare the population dynamics of ERV-K among species. This analysis indicated that both HERV-K and RhERV-K had similar demographic histories, including markedly smaller effective population sizes, compared to CERV-K. We propose that these differing ERV-K dynamics reflect underlying differences in the evolutionary ecology of the host species, such that host ecology and demography represent important determinants of ERV-K dynamics.
oi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0001026] -->source

Can you explain how this falsifies ERV's as a reliable indicator of common ancestry? These insertions are non-orthologous. Again, pointing to non-orthologous ERV's does not refute orthologous ERV's. All this study shows is that HERV-K was more active in the human and rhesus populations than it was in the chimp populations. This in no way refutes the point that orthologous HERV-K insertions shared by chimps and humans are due to a single insertion in the common ancestor of humans and chimps.

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.

How does this refute orthologous ERV's as indicators of common ancestry? You have not explained this.

Inconsistency means exactly what it says.

How is this an inconsistency? Nowhere in the theory of evolution or common descent does it say that ERV's should have equal stability and equal infectivity for all species.

On the morphology front, I am still waiting for YOUR description of what a transitional fossil should look like. Where is it? Until you supply this description you can not claim that there are or are not transitionals.

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?

Do whatever it takes in order for you to list a set of features that a transitional fossil should have. You have stated that H. erectus does not have the features you are looking for. I am asking for the list of features you ARE looking for.

Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

Edited by Taq, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1023 by Mazzy, posted 07-28-2011 10:57 PM Mazzy has not yet responded

Taq
Member
Posts: 5049
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.9


(2)
Message 1034 of 1075 (626437)
07-29-2011 11:47 AM
Reply to: Message 1029 by Mazzy
07-29-2011 5:12 AM


Re: HGT amongst vertebrates
and you should already know about preferences and hot spots.

So should you, and yet you keep insisting that orthologous ERV's can be explained by independent insertions.

So how many hotspots are there? How many bases make up these hot spots? Until you answer these questions you can not claim that orthologous ERV's are due to independent insertions.

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.

ERV's that are inhereted vertically are at orthologous positions. That is how you and your relatives share the same ERV's at the same locations in your genomes. If humans and chimps share a common ancestor then we too should have ERV's at the same locations in our genomes, plus non-orthologous ERV's that have entered each of the lineages since common ancestry. That is exactly what we see. We see over 200,000 orthologous ERV's shared by chimps and humans. Chimps and orangutans share fewer orthologous ERV's. This puts humans within the ape baramin.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1029 by Mazzy, posted 07-29-2011 5:12 AM Mazzy has not yet responded

Taq
Member
Posts: 5049
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.9


(2)
Message 1035 of 1075 (626440)
07-29-2011 11:57 AM
Reply to: Message 1026 by Mazzy
07-29-2011 1:02 AM


Re: Moderator Advisory
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.

Yes, the orthologous ERV-K insertions do. So why are you focusing on the non-orthologous ERV-K insertions that were inhereted horizontally? If humans and apes do not share a common ancestor then none of the ERV-K insertions should be orthologous, and yet we can find thousands of orthologous ERV-K insertions. Pointing to non-orthologous ERV-K insertions does not make this evidence go away.

If HERV-K aligns humans with Rhesus monkeys then that is what it does.

It doesn't. The paper you cited is using non-orthologous insertions which points to horizontal inheritance, not vertical. All the paper is talking about is the rate of integration into the the three species AFTER THE LINEAGES HAD SPLIT FROM THEIR COMMON ANCESTOR. You are making the same mistake with this HERV-K argument that you made with the PTERV1 argument.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1026 by Mazzy, posted 07-29-2011 1:02 AM Mazzy has not yet responded

RewPrev1
...
6768
69
707172Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2014 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2014