Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 108 (8806 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 12-17-2017 1:20 AM
277 online now:
foreveryoung, Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus), PaulK, Phat (AdminPhat) (4 members, 273 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: jaufre
Post Volume:
Total: 824,407 Year: 29,013/21,208 Month: 1,079/1,847 Week: 2/452 Day: 2/115 Hour: 0/2

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
6566
67
6869
...
72Next
Author Topic:   Why are there no human apes alive today?
Taq
Member
Posts: 7282
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.9


Message 991 of 1075 (626220)
07-27-2011 7:06 PM
Reply to: Message 988 by Mazzy
07-27-2011 6:36 PM


Re: Repeating the Topic
No we don't.

So what is wrong with the calculation? For HIV, there are about 1.5 billion bases amongst all of the insertion sites that it can insert into. Therefore, the odds of an HIV virus inserting into the same base in two different insertions is 1 in 1.5 billion, is it not?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 988 by Mazzy, posted 07-27-2011 6:36 PM Mazzy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 993 by Mazzy, posted 07-27-2011 7:28 PM Taq has responded

Nuggin
Member (Idle past 109 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


(1)
Message 992 of 1075 (626221)
07-27-2011 7:07 PM
Reply to: Message 987 by Mazzy
07-27-2011 6:23 PM


Re: Moderator Advisory
1. Can explain why PTERV-1 is not found at an ancestral point in humans and orangs?

Because the human orang line split before the human chimp line

2. Why guinea pigs have the same ERV in the same genomic region as humans?

Guinea pigs and humans are both mammals, an ERV in the same place in both would have been present in the ancestor mammal to both groups.

The number of ERVs shared between GPs and Humans is much less than those shared by closer ancestors.

3. How can researchers tell if an ERV has been transmited via HGT, epigentic inheritance etc, as opposed to ancestry?

Because it's present in the same place in ALL cells. That can only occur if the infection takes place at the SINGLE cell stage.

Could it happen ONCE that by happenstance a fertilized egg happened to get and ERV just before it split into 2? Sure. ONCE. Not hundreds of thousands of times.

If you cannot explain the inconsistencies and contradictions to a theory ...

Just ONCE I would love it if one of you Creationists held yourself to ANY SORT of standard.

You've failed to explain the inconsistancies in your claims for 1000 posts in this thread, yet here you are bitching about other people who ARE explaining.

It's ASTONISHING.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 987 by Mazzy, posted 07-27-2011 6:23 PM Mazzy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 997 by Mazzy, posted 07-28-2011 12:40 AM Nuggin has responded

  
Mazzy 
Suspended Member (Idle past 2206 days)
Posts: 212
From: Rural NSW, Australia
Joined: 06-09-2011


Message 993 of 1075 (626223)
07-27-2011 7:28 PM
Reply to: Message 991 by Taq
07-27-2011 7:06 PM


Re: Repeating the Topic
Taq says
So what is wrong with the calculation? For HIV, there are about 1.5 billion bases amongst all of the insertion sites that it can insert into. Therefore, the odds of an HIV virus inserting into the same base in two different insertions is 1 in 1.5 billion, is it not?

It is not about the calculation it is about the fact that PTERV1 is NOT found at an ancestral site in the human and orang. No amount of number crunching is gong to put it there.

In fact if you want to crunch numbers you should take a look at this...

In this light it is interesting to note that over 30,000 different ERVs are known within human genome. 37,43 The range of the total human genome occupied by ERV sequences is anywhere from 1% to 8% - depending upon the reference (with more recent references favoring 8% or greater). The same range is true for the chimp genome as well.41 In fact, more recent work suggests a 45% ERV origin for the human genome at large (Mindell and Meyer 2001) and 50% for mammalian species in general ( Link ). In any case, of these tens of thousands of recognizable ERVs, only seven are currently known to infect both humans and chimps at identical locations within the separate genomes ( Link ). Isn't it interesting that out of 30,000 ERVs only 7 of them are known to have inserted at the same site in humans and chimps? - What are the odds given the known preference of many ERVs for fairly specific hot spot insertions? Yet, this is the argument for ERVs being evidence of common descent as per Talk.Origins:
http://www.detectingdesign.com/pseudogenes.html

If you want to crunch numbers cruch out how many tens of thousands of ERV's there are, how may sites are regarded as ancestral sites and the probability of infection due to random chance, statistically of infecting such sites.

Only 7 or so of hundreds of thousands have actually been shown to do so. I would hardly call this convincing.

Evos go on and on about testable theories supported by validation and observation. ERV's as a method of demonstrating ancestry has exceptions, inconsistency and contradictions.

How are these anomolies validating this ERV theory by evidence and observation? They do not. It is falsified on more than one basis.

If something is falsified you can crunch numbers all you like, and I can agree all I like, and they still will mean nothing more than wishful thinking.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 991 by Taq, posted 07-27-2011 7:06 PM Taq has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 994 by Taq, posted 07-27-2011 7:48 PM Mazzy has responded
 Message 995 by Nuggin, posted 07-27-2011 10:21 PM Mazzy has responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 7282
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.9


(1)
Message 994 of 1075 (626224)
07-27-2011 7:48 PM
Reply to: Message 993 by Mazzy
07-27-2011 7:28 PM


Re: Repeating the Topic
It is not about the calculation it is about the fact that PTERV1 is NOT found at an ancestral site in the human and orang.

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.

Isn't it interesting that out of 30,000 ERVs only 7 of them are known to have inserted at the same site in humans and chimps?

That's a complete lie that your source is feeding you.

quote:
In 2005, the available sequence of the Chimpanzee genome was aligned with that of the human genome, and an extensive comparison analysis was performed. As part of this analysis, the researchers looked at every available solo LTR and full-length ERV in the chimpanzee genome, and checked to see if there was also one at each corresponding locus. Just as with the examination of indels, the results were that less than 100 ERVs are human-specific and less than 300 ERVs are chimpanzee-specific (Chimpanzee Sequencing and Analysis Consortium, 2005; R. Waterston, personal communication, April 22, 2010).
http://www.evolutionarymodel.com/ervs.htm

So there are only 100 human specific and 300 chimp specific ERV's out of hundreds of thousands. The rest of the nearly 200,000 are orthologous. Sorry, but you have completely failed in this line of reasoning.

Evos go on and on about testable theories supported by validation and observation. ERV's as a method of demonstrating ancestry has exceptions, inconsistency and contradictions.

Non-orthologous ERV's are not inconsistent with the model. Or did you think that after a speciation event neither of the two new lineages could be infected by viruses anymore?

How are these anomolies validating this ERV theory by evidence and observation?

You haven't pointed to any anomalies yet. Species acquiring ERV's after a speciation event is not anamolous.

Edited by Taq, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 993 by Mazzy, posted 07-27-2011 7:28 PM Mazzy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1037 by Mazzy, posted 07-29-2011 3:36 PM Taq has responded

Nuggin
Member (Idle past 109 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 995 of 1075 (626233)
07-27-2011 10:21 PM
Reply to: Message 993 by Mazzy
07-27-2011 7:28 PM


Re: Repeating the Topic
In this light it is interesting to note that over 30,000 different ERVs are known within human genome. 37,43 The range of the total human genome occupied by ERV sequences is anywhere from 1% to 8% - depending upon the reference (with more recent references favoring 8% or greater). The same range is true for the chimp genome as well.41 In fact, more recent work suggests a 45% ERV origin for the human genome at large (Mindell and Meyer 2001) and 50% for mammalian species in general ( Link ). In any case, of these tens of thousands of recognizable ERVs, only seven are currently known to infect both humans and chimps at identical locations within the separate genomes ( Link ). Isn't it interesting that out of 30,000 ERVs only 7 of them are known to have inserted at the same site in humans and chimps? - What are the odds given the known preference of many ERVs for fairly specific hot spot insertions? Yet, this is the argument for ERVs being evidence of common descent as per Talk.Origins:

Mazzy, I'm trying very hard to pretend you aren't intentionally being dishonest.

But then you come along and make a claim like ther eare "only 7 of them which are shared between chimps and humans".

Come on.

EVEN YOU know that that's bullsh1t.

When you deliberately *** in a fashion where you can't help but get caught it just shows us that you have absolutely no intention to argue in good faith. It shows us that you KNOW you are wrong but are just arguing because "Jesus loves ***".

It's _CHILDISH_.

You need to stop.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 993 by Mazzy, posted 07-27-2011 7:28 PM Mazzy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1003 by Admin, posted 07-28-2011 6:39 AM Nuggin has not yet responded
 Message 1011 by Mazzy, posted 07-28-2011 3:59 PM Nuggin has not yet responded

  
ZenMonkey
Member (Idle past 2127 days)
Posts: 428
From: Portland, OR USA
Joined: 09-25-2009


(1)
Message 996 of 1075 (626235)
07-27-2011 10:46 PM
Reply to: Message 987 by Mazzy
07-27-2011 6:23 PM


Re: Moderator Advisory
Mazzy writes:

3. How can researchers tell if an ERV has been transmited via HGT, epigentic inheritance etc, as opposed to ancestry?

You can rule out horizontal gene transfer as a possible route for ERVs to make their way from chimp to human, or from any primate to another, which is what you seem to be implying. As far as I know, HGT almost always happens between single cell organisms, very rarely between multi-cellular organisms, and never between vertebrates.

Note that word, never.


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 987 by Mazzy, posted 07-27-2011 6:23 PM Mazzy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 998 by Mazzy, posted 07-28-2011 12:51 AM ZenMonkey has responded

Mazzy 
Suspended Member (Idle past 2206 days)
Posts: 212
From: Rural NSW, Australia
Joined: 06-09-2011


Message 997 of 1075 (626247)
07-28-2011 12:40 AM
Reply to: Message 992 by Nuggin
07-27-2011 7:07 PM


Re: Moderator Advisory
1. Can explain why PTERV-1 is not found at an ancestral point in humans and orangs?

Because the human orang line split before the human chimp line

If my friends gave me this reply I would know they were evading the question. If some I don't know gives such a simplistic reply they are either avoiding the question or do not know any better.

The question relates to why PTERV1 is not found in an ancestral point in humans in the same point it is in chimps?

2. Why guinea pigs have the same ERV in the same genomic region as humans?

Guinea pigs and humans are both mammals, an ERV in the same place in both would have been present in the ancestor mammal to both groups.

The number of ERVs shared between GPs and Humans is much less than those shared by closer ancestors.

This is also avoiding the point to the question. If guinea pigs and humans share a retrovirus then for this to show the ancestry of all mammals to humans it should be in all mammals It isn't.

"A retrovirus endogenous to guinea pig cells was earlier shown to be morphologically similar to type B and type D prototype retroviruses. Molecular hybridization techniques were used to show that guinea pig virus nucleotide sequences are endogenous to both domestic (Cavia porcellus) and indigenous (Cavia aperea) guinea pigs, but cannot be detected in the DNA of either other hystricomorph rodents or other mammals tested. "
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC288566/

3. How can researchers tell if an ERV has been transmited via HGT, epigentic inheritance etc, as opposed to ancestry?

Because it's present in the same place in ALL cells. That can only occur if the infection takes place at the SINGLE cell stage.

Could it happen ONCE that by happenstance a fertilized egg happened to get and ERV just before it split into 2? Sure. ONCE. Not hundreds of thousands of times.

This is also avoiding the question. Once a horizontally transmitted ERV reaches the germ line, which they sometimes do, how do you differentiate this ERV was transmitted horizontally rather than vertically if it is dated back past 1my or more. I say that you cannot differentiate.

In other words when you find this so called remnant of some virus in the so called same spot in a chimp and human, how can you tell that one was not horizontally tranfered, hit the germ line and ended up in the same spot as one verticaly inherited through preference of randomness?

You may have read this from the cited article

"ERV Summary:

To summarize, evolutionists usually gloss over at least a few important facts when discussing the topic of ERVs. Many retroviruses can infect both humans and apes. The most notable of these is HIV, which is widely believed to have originated as SIV in chimpanzees, but can also infect humans, apes, and monkeys. It is entirely possible, therefore, that humans and apes were independently infected with the same virus given so many different ERVs and the similarity of the human and ape genomes.

Also, some retroviruses have been shown to have highly targeted insertion points, meaning that the virus selects very specific segments of the genome for insertion. Consequently, it is entirely possible that the same virus infected both humans and apes, and targeted the same location. This seems especially plausible in light of the fact that humans and apes have tens of thousands of endogenous retroviruses in their respective genomes. In other words, given so many thousands of different types of ERVs all targeting fairly specific locations, it is actually likely that at least a few of these retroviruses will infect both humans and apes at the very same location within the respective genomes without any need to invoke the common descent hypothesis.

To add to this, the theory that retroviral insertions are conclusive phylogenetic markers has been falsified by studies that have shown that, "Although independent insertions at the same locus may be rare [viral] insertions are not homoplasty-free phylogenetic markers".9 This would seem to be especially true given so many known ERV insertions that are at least generally targeted.

Additionally, some endogenous retroviruses are now known to be functionally indispensable - i.e., they are actually functionally beneficial and even vital to species' survival. If a particular retrovirus is functionally advantageous, that would only add to the plausibility of how a retrovirus can spread to the entire species without the need for common descent or dramatic population bottlenecks. It also presents the possibility that retroviruses were used as part of the original creative process; as retroviruses are often used in genetic engineering today, to introduce new genetic material to cells or aid in the transportation of genetic information (see Link - last accessed 3/10/09). "
http://www.detectingdesign.com/pseudogenes.html

Once anhorizontally transmitted ERV hits the germ line it may well show its preference by ending up at the exact ame place in both species, anyway, and through vertical transmision. HGT in prokaryotes is much more common than initially thought.

Just ONCE I would love it if one of you Creationists held yourself to ANY SORT of standard.

You've failed to explain the inconsistancies in your claims for 1000 posts in this thread, yet here you are bitching about other people who ARE explaining.

It's ASTONISHING.

No, actually what is astonishing is your trying to show how an ERV ends up in the 'right place' in two species while using an ERV that does not link humans and chimps as an example to demonstrate it.

What is even more astonishing is your inability to answer questions in more than a simplistic and misrepresentative way, after all the disparraging remarks you have aimed at me.

Unfortunately for you what we are discussing is not the creationist standards that you evos like to pick to pieces. At the moment it is about ERV's and their veracity in being used to establish common ancestry. This is not about a little inconsistency I am picking on here. This is about many inconsistencies and huge contradictions that totally falsify the entire concept.

I am saying, and have given many examples of where ERV's show inconsistent results that do not link close species together and rather link very distantly related species together.

If a theory is bolstered by the continual verification of data observed then your ERV's, as support, let alone proof, of common descent, is sadly lacking. Rather current data falsifies it time and time again.

Of tens of thousands of ERV's only about 7 have been shown to demonstrate this magic in humans Have you crunched the numbers yet to see the statistical inherant possibility that of all these EVR's a few of these retroviruses will infect both humans and apes at the very same location within the respective genomes without any need to invoke the common descent hypothesis?

I'd say the answer will be around 7.

So you have avoided the strong points within my questions. For an evolutionist of your calibre and apparent knowledge it is inexcuseable.

Why on earth would evolutionists claim this is good evidence for common descent? I have cited near as many examples of this all being nonsense as your reserchers have actual examples of this occuring.

For you to continue to use ERV's to demonstrate mankind must have had ancestors leading back to an ape you must have much faith because you do not have science behind it.

In actual facts my 1000 posts have made an ape out of your Homo Erectus and put the rise of humanity from apes into the realm of faith. I have also shown that ERV's as a support for common descent has been falsified and is only kept alive by the plethora of excuses and theories made up to address the contradictions.

So the remaining question to give a simplistic answer to is "Why are ERV's used to show common descent re humans and apes when there are more examples that falsify it available then there is actual evidence for it?"

Please explain, if you are going to pusue ERV's in this discussion.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 992 by Nuggin, posted 07-27-2011 7:07 PM Nuggin has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 999 by ZenMonkey, posted 07-28-2011 12:56 AM Mazzy has not yet responded
 Message 1001 by Nuggin, posted 07-28-2011 2:55 AM Mazzy has not yet responded
 Message 1006 by Meddle, posted 07-28-2011 8:55 AM Mazzy has responded
 Message 1008 by Taq, posted 07-28-2011 10:25 AM Mazzy has responded

  
Mazzy 
Suspended Member (Idle past 2206 days)
Posts: 212
From: Rural NSW, Australia
Joined: 06-09-2011


Message 998 of 1075 (626252)
07-28-2011 12:51 AM
Reply to: Message 996 by ZenMonkey
07-27-2011 10:46 PM


Re: Moderator Advisory
ZenMonkey says

You can rule out horizontal gene transfer as a possible route for ERVs to make their way from chimp to human, or from any primate to another, which is what you seem to be implying. As far as I know, HGT almost always happens between single cell organisms, very rarely between multi-cellular organisms, and never between vertebrates.

Note that word, never.

The let me state very simply that you are very wrong.

http://en.citizendium.org/...al_gene_transfer_in_prokaryotes

NOTE the words...'YOU ARE WRONG'...big time!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 996 by ZenMonkey, posted 07-27-2011 10:46 PM ZenMonkey has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1000 by ZenMonkey, posted 07-28-2011 1:03 AM Mazzy has not yet responded

  
ZenMonkey
Member (Idle past 2127 days)
Posts: 428
From: Portland, OR USA
Joined: 09-25-2009


(1)
Message 999 of 1075 (626254)
07-28-2011 12:56 AM
Reply to: Message 997 by Mazzy
07-28-2011 12:40 AM


Re: Moderator Advisory
Mazzy writes:

This is also avoiding the question. Once a horizontally transmitted ERV reaches the germ line, which they sometimes do, how do you differentiate this ERV was transmitted horizontally rather than vertically if it is dated back past 1my or more. I say that you cannot differentiate.

Because HGT doesn't happen between vertebrates.


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 997 by Mazzy, posted 07-28-2011 12:40 AM Mazzy has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1005 by Dr Jack, posted 07-28-2011 6:50 AM ZenMonkey has responded

ZenMonkey
Member (Idle past 2127 days)
Posts: 428
From: Portland, OR USA
Joined: 09-25-2009


(1)
Message 1000 of 1075 (626256)
07-28-2011 1:03 AM
Reply to: Message 998 by Mazzy
07-28-2011 12:51 AM


Re: Moderator Advisory
Mazzy writes:

The let me state very simply that you are very wrong.

http://en.citizendium.org/...al_gene_transfer_in_prokaryotes
NOTE the words...'YOU ARE WRONG'...big time!

I fail to see how an article on HGT between bacteria supports the assertion that it can take place between chimps and humans.

Do you not know what prokaryotes are, or did you just not read the article you cited?


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 998 by Mazzy, posted 07-28-2011 12:51 AM Mazzy has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1002 by Panda, posted 07-28-2011 6:05 AM ZenMonkey has not yet responded

Nuggin
Member (Idle past 109 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


(1)
Message 1001 of 1075 (626263)
07-28-2011 2:55 AM
Reply to: Message 997 by Mazzy
07-28-2011 12:40 AM


Re: Moderator Advisory
If my friends gave me this reply I would know they were evading the question. If some I don't know gives such a simplistic reply they are either avoiding the question or do not know any better.

Or they simply think that you don't have the intelligence to bother giving you a complicated answer.

You've proven that talking to you as an equal gets people nowhere.

Hell, we're 1000 posts into a thread about how you don't know what the word "ape" means.

You must learn to crawl before you can walk, and walk before you can run.

I say that you cannot differentiate.

Yes, you do say a lot of things. None of which are even close to rational.

It's a good thing the scientific community is not forced to take you at your word, isn't it?

I am saying, and have given many examples of where ERV's show inconsistent results that do not link close species together and rather link very distantly related species together.

No, Mazzy, what you've done is taken the fact that there are some 200,000 identical ERVs between chimps and humans and claimed that instead there were 7.

You're only off by 199,993.

You keep expecting us to treat you with some respect while simultaneously handing us steaming handfuls of feces and pretending it's evidence.

It's laughable.

So the remaining question to give a simplistic answer to is "Why are ERV's used to show common descent re humans and apes when there are more examples that falsify it available then there is actual evidence for it?"

Because scientists deal in the reality of the evidence, not in the made up bullsh1t that you pretend is real.

Just because YOU claim that the evidence doesn't exist doesn't make the evidence go away.
Just because YOU claim that 7 is more than 200,000 doesn't make it so.
Just because YOU claim that YOU ALONE should be allowed to classify fossils doesn't make that true either.
Just because YOU claim that the word "ape" has a special meaning known only to you and the other 7 BILLION people on the planet don't use it right, doesn't make that true either.

You aren't special. You aren't magic. You're just another boring Creationist who has gotten it wedged in what you call a brain that Jesus loves ***.

It's BORING.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 997 by Mazzy, posted 07-28-2011 12:40 AM Mazzy has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1004 by Admin, posted 07-28-2011 6:47 AM Nuggin has not yet responded

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 1329 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 1002 of 1075 (626275)
07-28-2011 6:05 AM
Reply to: Message 1000 by ZenMonkey
07-28-2011 1:03 AM


Re: Moderator Advisory
ZenMonkey writes:

Do you not know what prokaryotes are



This message is a reply to:
 Message 1000 by ZenMonkey, posted 07-28-2011 1:03 AM ZenMonkey has not yet responded

Admin
Director
Posts: 12536
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.0


Message 1003 of 1075 (626283)
07-28-2011 6:39 AM
Reply to: Message 995 by Nuggin
07-27-2011 10:21 PM


Nuggin Suspended 24 Hours
Hi Nuggin,

I know we disagree about this, but as moderator it is my responsibility to enforce the Forum Guidelines as I interpret them, and given that I wrote them I think my interpretation is fairly accurate. Because of your persistence in making the debate personal I am suspending you for 24 hours. See you tomorrow.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 995 by Nuggin, posted 07-27-2011 10:21 PM Nuggin has not yet responded

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12536
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.0


Message 1004 of 1075 (626284)
07-28-2011 6:47 AM
Reply to: Message 1001 by Nuggin
07-28-2011 2:55 AM


Number of Matching ERVs Between Chimps and Humans
Nuggin writes:

No, Mazzy, what you've done is taken the fact that there are some 200,000 identical ERVs between chimps and humans and claimed that instead there were 7.

Taq has said something very similar about there being 200,000 matching ERVs between chimps and humans. I've been following many of the links to technical articles that have been provided and have not been able to track down a source for this claim. Could someone please supply it?

--Percy

Edited by Admin, : Clarify.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1001 by Nuggin, posted 07-28-2011 2:55 AM Nuggin has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1007 by Taq, posted 07-28-2011 10:17 AM Admin has acknowledged this reply

  
Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3506
From: Leicester, England
Joined: 07-14-2003


Message 1005 of 1075 (626285)
07-28-2011 6:50 AM
Reply to: Message 999 by ZenMonkey
07-28-2011 12:56 AM


Re: Moderator Advisory
Because HGT doesn't happen between vertebrates.

This is not strictly true.

Gene fragments from one species can become incorporated into viruses, or bacteria, get transferred to other species with the infective agent and then incorporated into the genome of the host.

It's radically less common than in prokaryotes but it can happen and has happened.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 999 by ZenMonkey, posted 07-28-2011 12:56 AM ZenMonkey has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1009 by ZenMonkey, posted 07-28-2011 12:23 PM Dr Jack has responded

RewPrev1
...
6566
67
6869
...
72Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017