Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 120 (8763 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-23-2017 2:59 PM
401 online now:
caffeine, Coyote, DrJones*, dwise1, jar, JonF, kjsimons, PaulK (8 members, 393 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: aristotle
Post Volume:
Total: 811,938 Year: 16,544/21,208 Month: 2,433/3,593 Week: 546/882 Day: 64/103 Hour: 1/8

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
676869
70
7172Next
Author Topic:   Why are there no human apes alive today?
Meddle
Member
Posts: 160
From: Scotland
Joined: 05-08-2006


(1)
Message 1036 of 1075 (626466)
07-29-2011 1:16 PM
Reply to: Message 1023 by Mazzy
07-28-2011 10:57 PM


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.

Personally, I think that skull looks more like this:

than it looks like this:


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 1039 by Mazzy, posted 07-29-2011 3:58 PM Meddle has not yet responded

Mazzy 
Suspended Member (Idle past 2030 days)
Posts: 212
From: Rural NSW, Australia
Joined: 06-09-2011


(1)
Message 1037 of 1075 (626499)
07-29-2011 3:36 PM
Reply to: Message 994 by Taq
07-27-2011 7:48 PM


Re: Repeating the Topic
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 [30]. 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'll say this though mistakes have been made HRV5 was mistaken for a human endogenous retovirus and later discredited.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC136318/

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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 994 by Taq, posted 07-27-2011 7:48 PM Taq has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1038 by Taq, posted 07-29-2011 3:56 PM Mazzy has responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 6632
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.1


(1)
Message 1038 of 1075 (626507)
07-29-2011 3:56 PM
Reply to: Message 1037 by Mazzy
07-29-2011 3:36 PM


Re: Repeating the Topic
I can see this Taq. However, this all does not explain why it bypassed Humans and orangs when we overlapped in time .

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.

There are hundreds of thousands of Human ERV's. The fact that 40 are shared with chimps is miniscule by comparison.

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.

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.

How?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Even with 1-100 members in each we are not going to arrive at 203,000.

The peer reviewed human genome paper says otherwise. Sorry, but I am going to side with the scientists who actually sequenced the genome instead of a random creationist who thinks GULO is an ERV.

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.

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.

Edited by Taq, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1037 by Mazzy, posted 07-29-2011 3:36 PM Mazzy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1042 by Mazzy, posted 07-29-2011 6:07 PM Taq has not yet responded
 Message 1043 by Mazzy, posted 07-29-2011 7:34 PM Taq has not yet responded

Mazzy 
Suspended Member (Idle past 2030 days)
Posts: 212
From: Rural NSW, Australia
Joined: 06-09-2011


(1)
Message 1039 of 1075 (626508)
07-29-2011 3:58 PM
Reply to: Message 1036 by Meddle
07-29-2011 1:16 PM


Malcolm says

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

Name your top picture and we can talk.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1036 by Meddle, posted 07-29-2011 1:16 PM Meddle has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1040 by Taq, posted 07-29-2011 4:02 PM Mazzy has not yet responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 6632
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.1


Message 1040 of 1075 (626509)
07-29-2011 4:02 PM
Reply to: Message 1039 by Mazzy
07-29-2011 3:58 PM


If the reconstruction is not biased it could just as well be LLucs descendants, not human.

So you are saying that Lluc is transitional?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1039 by Mazzy, posted 07-29-2011 3:58 PM Mazzy has not yet responded

Admin
Director
Posts: 12516
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 1041 of 1075 (626512)
07-29-2011 4:25 PM


Place Hands over Ears Before Reading
EXTINCT SPECIES ARE OFF-TOPIC

You can remove your hands now. Sorry for the shouting, but I've mentioned this several times now and its getting ignored. The classification issue should be discussed from a Linaean perspective.

I'm making the classification issue the top priority because the two sides are using two different definitions of ape when discussing what is ape and what isn't. Agreement on terms is a prerequisite for any discussion.

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.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

  
Mazzy 
Suspended Member (Idle past 2030 days)
Posts: 212
From: Rural NSW, Australia
Joined: 06-09-2011


(1)
Message 1042 of 1075 (626529)
07-29-2011 6:07 PM
Reply to: Message 1038 by Taq
07-29-2011 3:56 PM


Re: Repeating the Topic
Taq says
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.

How?

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.

"We are aware that the current normeculture scheme cannot encompass every conceivable (and sometimes known) unusual structures of ERV loci such as hybrid loci consisting of different ERV goups and ERV insertions into existing ERV loci"
http://www.mobilednajournal.com/...ent/pdf/1759-8753-2-7.pdf

There are 700,000 different loci ERVs could hit.

"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.

Your numbers are presumptive. This link says the basis for preferences is unknown.
http://www.pnas.org/content/102/5/1436.full

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.

Edited by Mazzy, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1038 by Taq, posted 07-29-2011 3:56 PM Taq has not yet responded

  
Mazzy 
Suspended Member (Idle past 2030 days)
Posts: 212
From: Rural NSW, Australia
Joined: 06-09-2011


(1)
Message 1043 of 1075 (626532)
07-29-2011 7:34 PM
Reply to: Message 1038 by Taq
07-29-2011 3:56 PM


Re: Repeating the Topic
Taq

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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1038 by Taq, posted 07-29-2011 3:56 PM Taq has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1044 by Admin, posted 07-29-2011 8:19 PM Mazzy has not yet responded

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12516
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 1044 of 1075 (626536)
07-29-2011 8:19 PM
Reply to: Message 1043 by Mazzy
07-29-2011 7:34 PM


Re: Repeating the Topic
Mazzy writes:

"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.

So just a few issues with this:

  • Are you having trouble with quote boxes? If so, please let me know and I will try to assist you.

  • The question isn't about whether humans are apes. The question is about whether humans, chimps, gorillas, gibbons and orangutans should be grouped together at some level of a classification hierarchy.

  • Extinct species are off-topic. I have said this a number of times. Are you still having trouble viewing posts? If so, please let me know and I will try to assist you.

Please do let me know whether you are having trouble viewing posts, because the next time you appear not to have seen my messages I will assume you are ignoring moderation.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1043 by Mazzy, posted 07-29-2011 7:34 PM Mazzy has not yet responded

  
ZenMonkey
Member (Idle past 1950 days)
Posts: 428
From: Portland, OR USA
Joined: 09-25-2009


Message 1045 of 1075 (626542)
07-29-2011 9:50 PM


On to classification.
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?

What would have been helpful is if you'd ever gone to the The Creationist Challenge - Can You Identify Kinds? thread I started and help us understand how kinds are determined. (I assume that there is no significant difference in meaning between "kind" and "barim." If there is, please clarify.)

I'll reproduce the quiz here. Take your time.

Can you tell me which of the following are different kinds and which are the same? What standard are you using to make these determinations?

1. A dog and a wolf.

2. A macaw and a cockatoo.

3. Vibrio cholerae and E. coli

4. A termite and a cockroach

5. A tiger and a cheetah

ABE: Just to be clear, I don't want to drag the conversation off topic into discussing any of these species per se. I just think that if Mazzy wants to assert that humans and non-human apes belong in different barims/kinds, that we should see what standards exist for making such a determination.

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


Replies to this message:
 Message 1047 by Mazzy, posted 07-29-2011 10:56 PM ZenMonkey has responded

Mazzy 
Suspended Member (Idle past 2030 days)
Posts: 212
From: Rural NSW, Australia
Joined: 06-09-2011


(1)
Message 1046 of 1075 (626546)
07-29-2011 10:31 PM
Reply to: Message 1030 by Granny Magda
07-29-2011 10:09 AM


Re: Moderator Advisory
Granny Magda says

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.

.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1030 by Granny Magda, posted 07-29-2011 10:09 AM Granny Magda has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1049 by Nuggin, posted 07-30-2011 2:05 AM Mazzy has not yet responded
 Message 1052 by Granny Magda, posted 07-30-2011 8:30 AM Mazzy has responded

  
Mazzy 
Suspended Member (Idle past 2030 days)
Posts: 212
From: Rural NSW, Australia
Joined: 06-09-2011


(1)
Message 1047 of 1075 (626549)
07-29-2011 10:56 PM
Reply to: Message 1045 by ZenMonkey
07-29-2011 9:50 PM


Re: On to classification.
ZenMonkey says

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.

GO!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1045 by ZenMonkey, posted 07-29-2011 9:50 PM ZenMonkey has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1048 by Panda, posted 07-29-2011 11:43 PM Mazzy has not yet responded
 Message 1050 by Nuggin, posted 07-30-2011 2:11 AM Mazzy has not yet responded
 Message 1054 by ZenMonkey, posted 07-30-2011 12:43 PM Mazzy has not yet responded

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 1152 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 1048 of 1075 (626557)
07-29-2011 11:43 PM
Reply to: Message 1047 by Mazzy
07-29-2011 10:56 PM


Re: On to classification.
Mazzy writes:

There has been one attempt at 'guess it if you can' and I have responded.


And you got it so fantastically wrong (you identified one cro-magnon and three human skulls as apes) that people have been forced to ask you how you are differentiating between humans and apes.
This request has repeatedly gone unanswered.
(It is a simple question, but one you are obviously unable to answer.)
You are clearly unable to tell human skeletons from ape skeletons.

Edited by Panda, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1047 by Mazzy, posted 07-29-2011 10:56 PM Mazzy has not yet responded

Nuggin
Member
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 1049 of 1075 (626573)
07-30-2011 2:05 AM
Reply to: Message 1046 by Mazzy
07-29-2011 10:31 PM


Re: Moderator Advisory
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.

Mazzy,
Do you not know the difference between an adult male and a young female? Really?

Here:


Wow! It's almost like they are two different people?!
One of them seems so old and male and with a beard, while the other one looks almost young and female and without a beard!

You TOTALLY busted us. Scientists DISTINGUISHED between adult males and adolescent females when classifying skulls.

How dare they?

After all, it's it the Bible that says:
'Lo, thou shalt not be able to tell thy men from thy girls.' Book of Mazzy 1:15


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1046 by Mazzy, posted 07-29-2011 10:31 PM Mazzy has not yet responded

  
Nuggin
Member
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


(1)
Message 1050 of 1075 (626574)
07-30-2011 2:11 AM
Reply to: Message 1047 by Mazzy
07-29-2011 10:56 PM


Re: On to classification.
If you are unable to refute the evidence I have provided then just say so and I'll graciously call it a stalemate.

Your evidence has been refuted a thousand times.

And, as THIS VERY POST of yours shows, you are absolutely unwilling to address the evidence presented by others.

He asked you an EXTREMELY straight forward question.

You are attempting to use a classification system which has NO DEFINITIONS, NO EXAMPLES and NO GUIDELINES.

Yet, when he asks you to use this system to sort even SIMPLE groups, you refuse. Why?

Because you CAN'T.

You know, as well as EVERY OTHER PERSON reading this thread, that if you TRY and answer the question about tigers/cheetahs or termites/cochroaches or various bacteria, it's going to become ABUNDANTLY apparent that your classification for humans vs apes is ENTIRELY arbitrary and based on nothing more than "Jesus hates monkeys".

So, you can spit and hiss and whine all you want, but if you aren't willing to address even this most BASIC challenge to your magical sorting system, there's really nothing to discuss.

You are dismissed with prejudice.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1047 by Mazzy, posted 07-29-2011 10:56 PM Mazzy has not yet responded

  
RewPrev1
...
676869
70
7172Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017