ERV's: Evidence of Common Ancestory

One of the predictions of common ancestry with chimps was that the 46 chromosomes in chimps would match up to the 44 chromosomes in humans with one human chromosome formed from the fusion of two chromosomes in chimps - and this has proven true.One of the predictions of common ancestry with chimps is that common ERV's would be in the same locations on genes in both genomes.Prediction: the ERV's on the combined chromosome will also match for another degree of correlation - ie they were there before combination occurred in humans.Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

I don't really understand your thinking.Look, if you were a Biblical fundamentalist pointing at the Bible and saying ... "Look! it says right there!" then I would understand your thinking. I'd disagree, but I'd understand.But apparently you're willing to chuck fundamentalism away and go with the Earth being old, which it is.Then why not go with evolution, too? It's as true as the old Earth. And if you're willing to concede that the geological record shows an old Earth, then you have to concede evolution too. As someone once said --- "We have the fossils. We win."Unless you're a staunch literalist, which you aren't, why bother holding out? Why not just say, along with all the other Christians who accept evolution: "Wow, evolution is probably the cleverest bit of God's plan. No wonder it took a genius like Darwin to figure it out."Now your point in fighting (I'm guessing here) seems to me to be that you belong to a church that is anti-evolution and that you just don't get it.Well, get it.Someone once said to a guy I know: "You have many misconceptions about evolution". And as he said, these are his words: Well, hit the books. You're wrong.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Very well. In addition to the locus (the spot at which the ERV is found), there are two other sources of phylogenetic information.The first is LTR divergence. LTR stands for long tandem repeats, and these repeat regions flank the viral genes in the middle like the two pieces of bread in a sandwich. These are often labeled 5' and 3' which relates to the beginning and end of the viral genome respectively (remember that DNA is copied in the 5' to 3' direction). When these viruses insert into the host genome the LTR's have identical or nearly identical sequence. This offers a unique source of information due to the fact that mutations will accrue in each of the LTR's after insertion into the host genome. One can determine when a mutation has occurred in one LTR by comparing it to the other LTR in the same ERV.If you want to put in some extra effort you can compare them yourself. You can find the sequence for HERV-KC4 here. You can click on the relevant LTR's and get the following links:5' LTR: link3' LTR: linkYou can then cut and paste these sequences into the LALIGN program. As you will see, they align quite well except for a few substitutions and a couple deletions/insertions. The divergence of these sequences is due to accumulated mutations since insertion. The more time that has passed since insertion the more the two LTR's will diverge. Using this information, one can estimate the time since insertion. This source of information MATCHES the time of insertion established by the locus, just as the theory of evolution predicts.The second source of phylogenetic information is the divergence of the same ERV in two different species. This one is similar to the the LTR divergence, but instead of comparing changes within the ERV itself one can compare the differences seen between orthologous ERV's in different species. The more distant the common ancestor the more divergent the orthologous ERV's will be. The phylogenies constructed from this information MATCHES (again) the phylogeny established by the locus of the ERV.Any creationist attempting to explain ERV's must explain all three sources of phylogenetic information: locus, LTR divergence, and orthologous ERV divergence between species. Any explanation that does not do all three has failed to explain ERV's.Edited by Taq, : No reason given.Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

Thank you for explaining LTR and ERV divergence.I do not speak for creationists. I don't know how God actually created the world and I cannot explain ERVs any more than suggesting God might have used the same 'mold' to create apes and human, (to avoid creating each one from scratch). Although this is not "common ancestry", there is a tangible connection.But should creationists explain ERVs in the first place?It's all very well ERVs are pointing towards "common ancestry", but I think we have merely returned to square one, to where I posted (Message 61): "But how does that prove evolution to be true? Any suggestion how did apes actually descended to be human?"I do not see ERVs contributing more credence towards the 'engines' of evolution, things like: mutation; natural selection; speciation; genetic drift.Much as ERVs is proving exciting for linking species, the mechanism of evolution is very much speculative.Addressing other comments... What you've said is that independent insertions had resulted in non-orthologous positions in each genome.
Therefore orthologous positions for ERVs between apes and human are most likely hereditary, pointing to common ancestry.
I agree with the logic. One issue I have is you credited evolution theory for a prediction came true. I didn't think there was much of a prediction, but it reads like evolution theory is proven to be true because a prediction was fulfilled. Apart from doubting that a few hundred thousand years are sufficient for many ancient branches to drop, I do have difficulties believing in (i) genetic drift; (ii) common ancestor of human existed a few hundred thousand years ago. Also, if the same argument is applied to evolution, then that would suggest there is a nature tendency to reduce diversity over time, not increase. This logic is frauded. Did common ancestry not predicted beforehand that it should have been 42 chromosomes with fusion of four chromosomes? Why not...errr...because we knew the results would contradict the prediction? I consciously try to steer away from such an attitude. I used "unpredictability and randomness" to suggest something that God does not control, such as the way matters obey The Laws of Physics, (for example Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle that relate to unpredictability). A retrovirus that is useful at all times to anything and everything that it infects? Could God even create such a retrovirus in the first place? I guess such a retrovirus is impossible, even for God, or it would not be a retrovirus. Good work. I have quickly browse it. I hope to develop some comments for discussions later.
Just so you know, I am a definite skeptic of Genetic Drift. For a start, I have problem with the fuzzy concept 'Drift'. Your observation echoes DrAdequate's comments: "I think you're a bit out of your depth here...."
I humbly agree. I do tend to make comments that show I'm quite ignorant about biology/evolution. However, I have problems accepting those figures even though they seem 'modest' figures.I have seen a graph that appears to suggest world population during Jesus time was around 300 million. Present world population has surpassed 6 billion, with the strongest J-curve growth happening in recent times. I did a calculation over 10,000 years, starting from a population of two with a low annual growth rate of 0.2%. Even with such a low growth rate, the population rises from 2 to nearly 1 billion, (951,141,887 to be exact) after 10000 years. My equation: A2 = A1 + A1 * 0.002 Could Homo Sapiens have taken 400000 years to develop modern brainy brain?
Assuming linear improvement in brain over time, then 20000 years ago the brain of Homo Sapiens should have improved to 95% of modern human brain. By then they ought to be aware of forming communities and avoid killing each other for food.
I calculated the population over 20000 years, using the same low growth rate. I got a staggering multiples of trillions, (to be exact: 452,335,444,804,760,000)There is a theory, (Toba catastrophe theory) that all humans alive today are descended from a very small population, perhaps between 1,000 to 10,000 breeding pairs about 70,000 years ago. Still, my calculation would produce an unimaginably large figures with that data.From food-chain perspectives, I can appreciate populations of various animals do not blow out over time. But I cannot appreciate the same for modern intelligent human. 70,000 years do not make sense as I would assume that population growth is often greatest where humans are least educated, as all early humans would be I have no reason to doubt human intelligence is the same throughout history of humans. So I believe if human history is to re-start, the history will repeat itself in many aspects, There may even be inventions quite similar to iPhone, thousands of years from a new beginning. I will keep this in mind. I thought bottlenecking is only very speculative. I think human nature is such that they tend to spread all over the globe. If there were only 1,000 to 10,000 breeding pairs about 70,000 years ago, they might be tiny communities far apart from each other, resulting in localised bottleneckings that should accentuate genetic differences across the globe. Africans, Europeans, Asians, natives of South Americans and Australia aborigines all have the same fixed ERVs, don't they? I don't mind being told I'm wrong. I will then think about it. But if I'm right, will anyone be swayed? I vaguely accept the idea of common ancestry. But I have difficulty believing that common ancestry means human evolved from an apes-like ancestor over hundreds of thousand of years. I have mentioned before perhaps initially God used the same 'mold' to create apes and then human. I believe in such a supernatural event partly because I can see no possiblity of a natural evolutionary process. Intelligent humans seem to have come on world stage rather abruptly. Not technological knowledge initially. But I believe the first humans were just as intelligent as we are today. It was a matter of time that they would build up technological knowledge. Thanks for your understanding.
I'm not a fundamentalist of course. I would like to find the truth. It's no good if my belief is false. Arrrh....that's where my problem lies - I believe evolution is false.
That's why I suggested God had used the same 'mold' for his creation. I also suspect that "The hypothesis of evolution" and "The hypothesis of creation" are different sides of the same coin.
But I cannot accept evolution like some Christians do. That does not work for me because I believe humans were not a result of evolution from a 'common ancestor' and evolution never even occurred. So I cannot go against my conscience.So you know someone who hit the books, learned about evolution and became a believer of evolution.
Well, I think he could be confused before he hit the books and now he is wrong after reading them Edited by pcver, : No reason given.

---

I think I'm safe because Goliath is only seeking out David...

There's the problem - we know that human population growth has been nonuniform, even probably going negative for a while during the Black Plague. And the sort of population growth that happened before the explosion of last century wasn't remotely possible until agriculture reached societies - I'll bet that pre-European Australia had a very low population density.And once again: ERV's are just one little piece of the evidence for a common ancestry of humans and the other great apes. We likely need a thread just to explore that broader topic.

Yes.Look, evolution predicts the patterns we see in ERVs just as the theory of gravity predicts that planets move in ellipses of which one focus is the sun.The only way you can ignore this is to show how a creationist hypothesis works just as well.If you wanted to say: "There is no gravity, it's just that angels push the planets around" ... then you would have a problem.The angel hypothesis gives us no reason why the angels should push the planets around in such a way that it looks like the theory of gravity is correct.But the theory of gravity predicts that the planets should move in that way.Whereas under the "angel hypothesis" the planets could move in squares or triangles and you could still explain it with angels. The angel hypothesis predicts nothing. Whereas the theory of gravity predicts what we see.That makes the theory of gravity better. How would you put a satellite into geosynchronous orbit based on the "angels pushing" hypothesis?Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

You are very confused. The claim is not that the theory predicts the chromosome number, but that, given the chromosome number as data, the theory predicts the chromosome structure.Try reading this article on chromosome 2 for further details.We are not normally allowed to post links on this forum rather than explaining the matter in our own words, but as I wrote that article, those are my own words.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

And that should show you what is wrong with your calculation.Like any other species, we are unable to expand our numbers beyond our capacity to feed ourselves. Why would you expect that?I would expect the population to grow along with our ability to feed ourselves.

Population growth is NOT the topic here. Thanks.

It is possible to know that the evidence shows that evolution happened even though every last detail of "how" is not known. Yes, the fact that they are in the same locations has no other explanation than common ancestry. If you feel that God created them with the same ERV patterns, there is no reason for that except to make it look as though evolution were the method by which life came about. Genetic mutation rates are known and measured in the present. You have some mutations that make you different from the DNA obtained from your parents. This is proof in the present that genetic drift occurs. It is populations becoming separated that account for diverging paths leading to diversity. The fact that dead ends outnumber positive adaptations is a mute point as the best adaptation only needs to satisfy two conditions, viability and being the best available competitor.I am not sure how to react to your posts. You admit the arguments against you make sense, yet you do not seem to understand them. You make some counter arguments that are no counter at all really, but rather an indication that you are missing the point. Your view that God made us with ERVs is a last Thursdayism argument and is not evidenced at all. It is merely a religious assertion, and not a very good one at that. This is a science forum and is for discussion/debate backed up with evidence on both sides. Claiming God made the ERVs in place is akin to claiming Adam was created with a few scabs from wrestling with a bear a few days before he was created.

Hi pcver, long post, lots of denial. First off logic is not "frauded" or even fraudulent - it is either valid or invalid. To show that it is invalid you need to show that either a logical fallacy was made in the construction of the argument or that one of the premises is false. Curiously you have not done that, only claimed that there is some nefarious purpose (fraud) being committed.Second your prediction is not what common ancestry predicts. What common ancestry predicts is that offspring populations (like chimps and humans) would have the same genetic pattern as their parent population (the common ancestor population), and usually (but not always) arranged in the same basic set of chromosomes. The theory of common ancestry further predicts that when there is a difference in the number of chromosomes, that there will be evidence of either duplication of a chromosome, loss of a whole chromosome, the fusion of two chromosomes into one or the division of one chromosome into two.We can eliminate the duplication by looking at what the chromosomes carry as genes and see if a whole set of genes is duplicated in the population with more chromosomes (chimps). It isn't, therefore duplication did not occur.We can eliminate loss by looking at the overall similarity of the genomes and see if one has a whole lot of genes that are missing in the population with fewer chromosomes (human). The genomes are some 95 to 98% similar, so no this did not happen either.That leaves fusion as a prediction for the difference in number of chromosomes between chimps and humans.Chromosomes come with a curious pattern, they all have telomeres at the ends and centromeres somewhere in the middle.Thus, if division of a chromosome occurred there should a new centromere in one chromosome in the population with more chromosomes (chimps) that does not exist in the human genome. This is not the case, as every centromere found in the chimp genome is also present in the human genome.This leaves fusion, which predicts that (a) one chromosome with be found in the population with fewer chromosomes (human) with two centromere, and that (b) one of the centromeres will be deactivated to prevent confusion during cell division, and finally that (c) the fusion point will be where telomeres have combined. Shockingly all three of these predictions is exactly what we find.The theory of common ancestry also predicts that the pattern of ERV and LTR insertions will be carried from parent population to daughter populations, and that when we have a difference in the number of chromosomes, that the pattern of ERV and LTR will also show what happened.We can eliminate the duplication by looking at what the chromosomes carry as ERVs and LTRs and see if a whole set of ERVs and LTRs is duplicated in the population with more chromosomes (chimps). It isn't, therefore duplication did not occur.We can eliminate loss by looking at the overall similarity of the genomes and see if one has a whole lot of ERVs and LTRs that are missing in the population with fewer chromosomes (human). This also did not happen, so loss did not occur.This leaves us with division or fusion, which predict that the pattern of ERVs and LTRs will be the same, but will be in one group for one chromosome in the population with fewer chromosomes (human), and in two groups in the population with more chromosomes (chimps). Surprisingly this to is exactly what we see.We also find the same pattern with gene sequences along the chromosomes.There is absolutely no logical reason for these repeated and repeated and repeated patterns to exist without common ancestry, as genes could function in any pattern in a population of organisms. You can believe what you want. Interestingly, belief does not change reality. And, curiously, neither your acceptance, nor your conscience, have absolutely no effect on nature, the law of gravity, biology in general or evolution in specific. Life is like that.Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

RAZD,
How about I say whilst your logic is valid, your logical statement is frauded?
Firstly, thank you for elaborating on chromosome fusion and so forth.
But you and Dr Adequate had missed my point. What you wrote above clearly shows the fraud I meant to point out earlier.That so-called prediction was always going to be fulfilled, wasn't it?You have outlined four possible evidence of common ancestry:
1. duplication of a chromosome;
2. loss of a whole chromosome;
3. fusion of two chromosomes;
4. division of one chromosome into two.
Whichever one is true would not have made the slightest difference. It would have allowed evolutionists to fraudulently claimed a 'prediction' is proven.Well, a prediction just doesn't get better than that.I have noticed frequent and flippant use of "predictions", a bad habit of evolutionists, all too anxious to give a false impression their theories are proven Anyway, is there really such thing as "The theory of common ancestry"? I'm quite sure early humans did not consider their ability to feed their offspring before getting the women pregnant. Then it became too late. I also believe as intelligent humans, they would find ways to feed more of them. They were not like any other species. What a neat little strawman you've got there
You must think all creationists are complete idiots

Dr. Adequate was not referring to any a priori recognition by species of the inadequacy of the food supply, though humans certainly have more potential for making such estimates than other creatures.While you're correct to note that humans exercise a great degree of control over their own food supply, ultimately Dr. Adequate was just making a simple and straightforward reference to Malthus, who introduced the principle that populations cannot expand beyond the ability of their environment to sustain them. Correspondingly, of course, during periods of unfavorable environmental change (drought, flood, disease, etc.) populations will decline, as has been our consistent experience.--Percy

That's how science works. Theories have to do two things to be considered valid:
1) They must accomodate all currently known evidence.
2) They must (or should) create novel predictions that can be looked for.If we know fact A, and we have two theories, one of which is not contradicted by A and one which, if true, requires A, then the scientist would say either could be true, but that the second theory predicts A whereas the first only allows it.

It could have been loss of a whole chromosome, which would also fit a creation model, instead of fusion which does not. Are you arguing that telomeres in the center are what makes us distinct from apes?Does creationism have any predictions? Why not ERV patterns in humans in similar positions with kangaroos instead of apes. That would disprove evolution. Why not more ERVs shared with more distantly related species rather than what is found? That would disprove evolution.Why did God choose to create things to look like evolution occurred? And then to the degree we can manipulate organisms make the theory actually work as well?Is this all of your argument? Have fun with your friends at the beach..