Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Genetic evidence of primate evolution
John Paul
Inactive Member


Message 3 of 29 (3264)
02-01-2002 2:51 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by lbhandli
01-31-2002 4:27 PM


quote:
Originally posted by lbhandli:
Since genetic evidence is JP's standard, I thought I'd add an abstract to another article in the Aug 31, 1999 Proceedings of the National Academy of Science. Perhaps JP would like to get the article and discuss it in detail?
The genomes of modern humans are riddled with thousands of endogenous retroviruses (HERVs), the proviral remnants of ancient viral infections of the primate lineage. Most HERVs are nonfunctional, selectively neutral loci. This fact, coupled with their sheer abundance in primate genomes, makes HERVs ideal for exploitation as Constructing primate phylogenies from ancient retrovirus sequences
Welkin E. Johnson and John M. Coffin
phylogenetic markers. Endogenous retroviruses (ERVs) provide phylogenetic information in two ways: (i) by comparison of integration site polymorphism and (ii) by orthologous comparison of evolving, proviral, nucleotide sequence. In this study, trees are constructed with the noncoding long terminal repeats (LTRs) of several ERV loci. Because the two LTRs of an ERV are identical at the time of integration but evolve independently, each ERV locus can provide two estimates of species phylogeny based on molecular evolution of the same ancestral sequence. Moreover, tree topology is highly sensitive to conversion events, allowing for easy detection of sequences involved in recombination as well as correction for such events. Although other animal species are rich in ERV sequences, the specific use of HERVs in this study allows comparison of trees to a well established phylogenetic standard, that of the Old World primates. HERVs, and by extension the ERVs of other species, constitute a unique and plentiful resource for studying the evolutionary history of the Retroviridae and their animal hosts.
Since I have university access I've already downloaded the paper. When do you think you can get a copy and comment JP?
Cheers,
Larry

John Paul:
I would like to know why this can't be used as evidence for a Common Creator with the Common Mechanism Brown talks about here:
Pseudogenes
Of course the difference being that Brown can test his hypothesis in a lab whereas Father Time and someunknown natural process prevent that with the alleged evolutionary scenario.
So I take it I should look for this paper- Constructing primate phylogenies from ancient retrovirus sequences
Welkin E. Johnson and John M. Coffin NAS 8-31-99.
Just so we understand each other- phylogeny, as conducted by the so called 'mainstream', assumes the ToE is indicative of reality and its conclusions are biased accordingly.
Do we even know what was the common ancestor of primates?
------------------
John Paul

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by lbhandli, posted 01-31-2002 4:27 PM lbhandli has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by Quetzal, posted 02-01-2002 3:18 PM John Paul has replied
 Message 5 by mark24, posted 02-01-2002 3:40 PM John Paul has replied
 Message 6 by lbhandli, posted 02-01-2002 9:23 PM John Paul has not replied
 Message 15 by derwood, posted 02-19-2002 11:51 AM John Paul has replied

  
John Paul
Inactive Member


Message 7 of 29 (3388)
02-04-2002 3:40 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by Quetzal
02-01-2002 3:18 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Quetzal:
JP: A point of correction, the article discusses retroviral insertions, not pseudogenes. You really should take a peek inside a biology textbook at some point in your refutations of biology. Just a suggestion.
Ilbhandi: Interesting reference. It goes nicely with my last post (message 221) on the "Why creation "science" isn't science" thread. Thanks.

John Paul:
I know what the article discusses, thank you. The link I posted also discusses retroviral insertions. If you would have read the link you would have known that. You should really read the links if you are going to comment on them. Just a suggestion.
------------------
John Paul

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Quetzal, posted 02-01-2002 3:18 PM Quetzal has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by lbhandli, posted 02-04-2002 5:49 PM John Paul has replied

  
John Paul
Inactive Member


Message 8 of 29 (3389)
02-04-2002 3:51 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by mark24
02-01-2002 3:40 PM


quote:
Originally posted by mark24:
The old complaint that ToE is assumed & everything is bent to fit. Did it occur to you that it actually provides evidence of the ToE without assuming it. If not, explain what retroviral gene insertion hereditability does provide evidence for........
Mark

John Paul:
It's not a complaint, just an observation. Materialistic naturalism is the prevailing bias. That is just the way it is.
Science, fundamentally, is a game. It is a game with one overriding and defining rule:
Rule No. 1: Let us see how far and to what extent we can explain the behavior of the physical and material world in terms of purely physical and material causes, without invoking the supernatural.
So according to Richard Dickerson, it doesn't matter if what we call the supernatural is responsible for reality, it ain't science. However, I could not find any supporting literature for his rule. I am surely glad that Newton, Kepler, Mendell, Pasteur et al. didn't have to listen to that silliness. They might have pursued different venues of study.
The point is you can't take this stuff into a lab and verify it.
And as my link states- This evidence can be viewed as Common Creator with Common Mechanism.
------------------
John Paul

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by mark24, posted 02-01-2002 3:40 PM mark24 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by mark24, posted 02-04-2002 6:51 PM John Paul has not replied

  
John Paul
Inactive Member


Message 10 of 29 (3401)
02-04-2002 6:47 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by lbhandli
02-04-2002 5:49 PM


quote:
Originally posted by lbhandli:
I have a suggestion. Why don't you read the articles cited to you? You have not bothered to read either the whale article or this one. How do you make assertions about them if you don't read?
I expect you to either respond in detail to the articles, or admit you have no response. You "article" simply asserts that such things are consistent with creationism without ever explaining how such non-functional evidence would occur in identical locations in the genome in different populations over a 6000 year history which is necessary given they are caused by retroviruses. Provide how creationism accounts for this.
A retrovirus wouldn't be placed in the same portion for any rational reason. The assertion is ludicrous and baseless.. Or can you provide a specific example of how this would happen--not a similar mechanism as is so often cited, but NEVER identified.
Just curious,
Larry
[This message has been edited by lbhandli, 02-04-2002]

John Paul:
Um, I read the article you cited- I found it here:
Constructing primate phylogenies from ancient retrovirus sequences
That should take care of that silly accusation.
As for the article I linked to, this snippet is relevant:
"So I think there is a mechanistic process that has produced many of the Pseudogenes that we have, rather than a random process. If the Pseudogene is truly defective and if the mutations are truly found in patterns (not random), then the idea that it's a common mechanism is possible. Viruses have enzymes that, under the same conditions, do repeatable reactions.
If the DNA in Humans, Chimps, Monkeys, etc., are very similar, then if they are all infected by the same virus, would we expect the virus to do the same thing in the different species? I think so.
The "dreaded endogenous retroviral sequence common to both chimp and human DNA" is probably the major example of Common Mechanism. Viral enzymes (proteins) react with specific DNA sequences. If both chimp and human DNA have the same active sites, I would expect the viral proteins to react in the same exact way to both human and chimp.
Common descent or common Ancestor is not the only answer."
That should take care of silly accusation 2.
Like I said before- this hypothesis can be tested in a lab by taking 2 different (but similar) species and infecting them with the same virus. The evolutionary hypothesis has no such test.
------------------
John Paul

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by lbhandli, posted 02-04-2002 5:49 PM lbhandli has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by lbhandli, posted 02-04-2002 8:57 PM John Paul has not replied

  
John Paul
Inactive Member


Message 16 of 29 (10331)
05-24-2002 2:08 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by derwood
02-19-2002 11:51 AM


Yes SLP you do have a selective memory- or do you have the genome deciphered yet? BTW, you only think you rebutted Mike Brown's premise.
Creationists see the difference in chromosomes as a tell-tale indication primates and humans did not share a common ancestor. Primates have 48 chromosomes and humans have 46.
Evolutionists like to claim the difference is due to chromosomal fussion. If this was the case then with our knowledge of genetic engineering we should be able to effect this change and test the hypothesis.
As it stands today there is no way to objectively test the premise that humans and primates shared a common ancestor. If you want to believe humans and primates did share a common ancestor that's fine. Just don't call it science unless you are ready to call the Common Creator hypothesis science, also.
------------------
John Paul

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by derwood, posted 02-19-2002 11:51 AM derwood has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by Jeff, posted 05-24-2002 7:45 PM John Paul has not replied
 Message 18 by Peter, posted 05-27-2002 7:04 AM John Paul has replied
 Message 23 by ebabinski, posted 07-16-2002 9:36 PM John Paul has not replied
 Message 28 by derwood, posted 08-01-2002 2:04 PM John Paul has not replied

  
John Paul
Inactive Member


Message 19 of 29 (10517)
05-28-2002 7:21 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by Peter
05-27-2002 7:04 AM


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by John Paul:
Yes SLP you do have a selective memory- or do you have the genome deciphered yet? BTW, you only think you rebutted Mike Brown's premise.
Creationists see the difference in chromosomes as a tell-tale indication primates and humans did not share a common ancestor. Primates have 48 chromosomes and humans have 46.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Peter:
And people with Down's Syndrome have 47 chromosomes ... they
DO share ancestry with the rest of us don't they ????
John Paul:
Not all people with Down's have 47 chromosomes. Are you saying ape-like organisms evolved from humans? Or are Down's people intermediates? Rudiments from our past?
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by John Paul:
Evolutionists like to claim the difference is due to chromosomal fussion. If this was the case then with our knowledge of genetic engineering we should be able to effect this change and test the hypothesis.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Peter:
I think you'll find there are groups pressuring on ethical
grounds against such things ... christians perhaps ? I
dont' know.
John Paul:
I for one care very little to what Christians say about ethical grounds. It has been my experience that most "Christians" are so in name only. (BTW, I'm not a Christian)
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by John Paul:
As it stands today there is no way to objectively test the premise that humans and primates shared a common ancestor. If you want to believe humans and primates did share a common ancestor that's fine. Just don't call it science unless you are ready to call the Common Creator hypothesis science, also.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Peter:
Show me how the common creator hypothesis can be tested AT ALL
please.
John Paul:
The same way today's ToE is tested- inference of the evidence.
Peter:
Evolutionary theory came about BECAUSE of observations in
the natural world. It was not put forward, and then evidence
sought. It was put forward as an explanation of observations
already made.
John Paul:
But it was put forward before we knew what life was made of. Now that we know the ToE does not follow observations. Also ID was put forward about 200 years ago based on the observed evidence. Go figure.
Peter:
The common creator hypothesis comes from the stated common
creator in the Bible, and then data has been interpreted to
fit (although I'm not sure what data + interpretations there
are in relation to this).
John Paul:
Science is basically the search for truth through our never-ending quest for knowledge. If the Bible is indicative of reality science should be able to help us make that determination. BTW, evidence doesn't talk, it has to be interpretted.
Peter:
That is why evolution is scientific and common creatorism
isn't.
John Paul:
The Creation model of biological evolution is as scientific as the ToE.
Peter:
Evolution is a theory created to explain observed facts.
John Paul:
It fails to do so. Explaining someting and being able to demonstrate it are two different elements. If explanations counted for something I would have aced all of my scholastic tests.
Peter:
Common creatorism is a belief, founded in the judeo-christian
religions, for which evidence is sought.
John Paul:
Same evidence, different conclusions based on one's worldview.
------------------
John Paul

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Peter, posted 05-27-2002 7:04 AM Peter has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by Jeff, posted 05-28-2002 8:37 PM John Paul has not replied
 Message 21 by Peter, posted 05-29-2002 6:51 AM John Paul has not replied
 Message 22 by Peter, posted 05-29-2002 7:32 AM John Paul has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024