Most convincing evidence for evolutionary theory

IaJ, it is hard to understand why your increasingly mangled verbiage and gobbledygook is being entertained by patient relies in this forum. But it’s up to the moderators to keep folks in line, not me. But as for the response to the idea of inheritance of retroviruses and transposons etc. being a good evidence for evolution, it is clear that you do not have any grasp of the basic concept but are very happy to offer a weird ad hoc rebuttal that has no grounding in any common sense let alone science. And now you are talking of life elsewhere in the universe - why? I have no idea of the point being made here.

What an odd thing to say. Then there is no excuse for the very, very strange way in which you choose to express yourself.

I'd like to request two things:

1. That participants in this and other similar threads focus their discussion on the topic and not on other participants.
   ​
2. That participants take care to conduct themselves in a manner that does not distract from discussion of the topic. Those who have a habit of diverting discussion from the topic to themselves, intentionally or not, eventually begin receiving temporary suspensions.

Please see the Forum Guidelines for more detailed information.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

Ya of course not, but your reply is nonsensical and illogical.Endogenous Retrovirus DNA is not the analog of a comma!A comma is functional grammatical element Endogenous Retrovirus DNA are usually not functional and are not typically transcribed. Endogenous Retrovirus DNA appear at the exact same pointer location in related species.But hey lets play with your comma analogy. If you were a historical researcher and you found this passage in different references...

quote:

---

Fourscore and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.

---

Would it be a stretch to conclude that these two passages are either copied from one or the other or had a common source?Actually this is a valid example as Endogenous Retrovirus DNA signatures are often found to be repeated in nonfunctional regions of the genome. It is time for you to do some homework. The specific signature is the ordering of the base-pairs not the method that the virus uses to get into the genome.I won't comment on the rest, since you are misunderstanding the essential issue. No offense, this stuff takes some time to understand, I know i had a hard time studying it. Arrogant, misguided and not support by the evidence.Science is the success story of the human species!If 'poor' logic is rampant in scientific fields, just how have we been able to put a man on the moon, cure and even eradicate numerous diseases, make air travel common place, etc.? If 'poor' logic is rampant just how has science been so successful in revealing the underlying nature of sub-atomic, atomic and astronomic reality? You must be thinking of religion.

Somehow I doubt you have actually looked at the "maths".We live on a very very very tiny planet compared the solar system, let alone the galaxy or galaxy cluster. We have not even explored some of our closest neighbors to determine the non-existence of life. Life on this planet has only developed the technology to look for other life elsewhere in the last few decades out of billions and billions of years of existence.So just how in the hell can you make the assessment that life does not exist any where else?I think you are wildly jumping to conclusions.Lets put this into perspective. Assume you live on a small island in the Pacific ocean and as you look around we do not see any signs of life anywhere. You canoed out to a small rocky island and found no life. So you conclude life only exists on your island. Reasonable assessment? Hardly.The *closest* star system something like 25,000,000,000,000 miles away. There are over 20 stars within 10 LY's and there are billions of stars in our galaxy alone.We have only explored the moon and mars to some extent. Mars is something like 50,000,000 miles. So based on this you are willing to make the sweeping statement that the universe is lifeless?

Will do!

I am really sure what light you are trying to shed here. Is there more you would like to know about the inheritance of endogenous retroviruses?

I'm happy that my thread is alive again, but I'm not happy about the topic being discussed. The implications of evolutionary theory regarding extraterrestrial life is completely off topic here.As for endogenous retroviruses, that is perfectly acceptable, and I encourage this line of discussion (provided it sticks with the science). Also, seeing as this is a thread about how to explain evolutionary theory, I would like to see explanations to be as clear and simple to understand as possible.Otherwise, someone will misunderstand, post something and then their error will be pointed out by others, and they will be made to feel like an idiot. This can't happen, or the creationists will feel threatened and not want to stay around and discuss things.

---

Help inform the masses - contribute to the EvoWiki today! Contributors needed for the following articles: Pleiotropy, Metabolism, Promoter, Invertebrate, Meiosis, DNA, Transcription, Chromosome, Tetrapod, Phenotype, Messenger RNA, Mammals, Appendix , Variation, Selection, Gene, Gametogenesis, Homo erectus and others.

​

Registration not needed, but if desired, register here!

Let me see if I can explain virology in some simple terms, using the paragraph of IaJ as a base.Viruses are parasitic DNA or RNA. They are essentially a rogue genome without a cell. Unfortunately for them, RNA and DNA are unstable, and so they require something to coat their genome to prevent it from breaking while out in the wild. This coating is called the capsid, and can be surrounded by more coatings too. In order to make a capsid, as viruses don't have any organelles to make proteins, they need to hijack some other cell. There are many ways they can do this, and integrative retroviruses use the method of inserting a DNA copy of their RNA into the host genome, so that the host cell will make capsid proteins just as it makes its own proteins. This isn't very common among viruses. The host will have an immune response to the virus (change its cell's receptors to prevent the virus from attaching, or attack the viral capsid proteins). Thus, it is unlikely that a virus could get past the immune system of more than one sort of organism with a single genome (killing two birds with one stone is really hard to do). So generally, viruses have a specific species that they attack.For example, HIV is a retrovirus that only attacks humans. It is a form of an SIV (Simian Immunodeficiency Viruses). There are others that attack other species, such as SIV_cpz which attacks chimpanzees. No ape, except for humans, can get HIV.However, viruses can mutate to attack different species, but then it is no longer the same strain of the virus. Because this adaptation will require different capsid proteins (to bypass the immune responses), it will require the genes for those proteins to be different too. This will result in a different genotype for the virus. So, what are the implications for our differing opinions. You can either show me a virus that can affect both humans and chimps, or make an appeal to a past virus that could affect both humans and chimps. However, if you make such an appeal to the past, you must provide evidence, or you will be doing the very thing that you believe evolutionists are doing - making conclusions without the evidence to support it.Edited by Doddy, : quote boxEdited by Doddy, : why didn't that quote box work?Edited by Admin, : Adjust image width.

---

Help inform the masses - contribute to the EvoWiki today! Contributors needed for the following articles: Pleiotropy, Metabolism, Promoter, Invertebrate, Meiosis, DNA, Transcription, Chromosome, Tetrapod, Phenotype, Messenger RNA, Mammals, Appendix , Variation, Selection, Gene, Gametogenesis, Homo erectus and others.

​

Registration not needed, but if desired, register here!

doddy
A great overview, thanks.

quote:

---

doddy

​

So, what are the implications for our differing opinions. You can either show me a virus that can affect both humans and chimps, or make an appeal to a past virus that could affect both humans and chimps. However, if you make such an appeal to the past, you must provide evidence, or you will be doing the very thing that you believe evolutionists are doing - making conclusions without the evidence to support it.

---

There is a third option. Disregard the term, species, at least in the method of categorising life forms, and replace it with the broader margins of 'kind' as per genesis. This allows a far greater grouping of life forms, namely speech endowed humans are seen as one 'kind', and all animals - including 'all that creapeth upon the earth' and any protoypes applied to modern humans - become one 'kind'. How does this apply? This is the categorising method seen in Genesis, which is not based on zoology or botany, but from a premise applicable to humans.This does not mean darwin's species categorising is wrong or not useful, but that it is different. It means virus from fish and vegetation, two other 'kinds', will not effect different 'kinds', (a pineapple virus will not effect a zebra), but that a virus from one kind will effect life forms within that kind (an ape virus will effect a zebra). Here, a far greater allowance is made for cross species interaction than is realised.One may ask here, what about the recent bird flu virus, which mutated to also attack humans. Here, it relates to a virus which can attack different kinds, but not that it developed millions of years ago via dna mutations as depicted in your post: bird flu was probably not around that time, and the indications it manifest itself only recently, says it is resultant from a more recent factor.

quote:

---

integrative retroviruses use the method of inserting a DNA copy of their RNA into the host genome, so that the host cell will make capsid proteins just as it makes its own proteins.

---

This says a virus can continue for millions of years via the host reproduction process, then pass on via cross-species transfer onto other life forms, or become part of a new life form when an elevation occurs. Now there is no doubt that when cross-species occurs, the host life form ends - so it is also included that certain traits of the host will continue with the newly evolved species, and certain traits will not be included. And this is due to the premise of 'adaptation' or NS, both of which signify a means to better adapt.Do you not see a contradiction here - namely that a new species can discard unwanted traits to elevate itself - yet still accept a deathremental virus? We must also assume here, that the infected life form does not seccumb from that virus for large epochs of time, yet become a dangerous virus carrying medium to other life forms: if there are any immunity factors here - it would pass on along with the dna retrovirus, thereby self-negating its alledged application - and we know that if the virus-carrying body survived for long epochs of time, this would certainly be due to an imunity factor. There are contradictions in the premise put forth.Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

You can't just dictate that viruses will behave according to your biblical kinds. The facts show that they do not. It also doesn't get around Doddy's challenge, you still need some evidence to support the existence of such 'within kind' viruses. This seems to be pure nonsense. There is no reason why a host life form needs to end for cross-species infection to occur. Nor is there any reason to assume there will be any transmission of traits from one host species to another. The only traits which need to be shared between the old and the new host species are those common ones which make them suitable hosts for the virus in the first place, which are the result of common ancestry rather than transmission with the virus.Genetic material between hosts can be transferred by retroviruses, but there is no need for it to occur. There is no contradiction. While the host species may adapt to avoid or ameliorate the viral infection the virus can just as readily adapt in ways which make it more potent or allow itt to avoid the hosts defenses. There is absolutely no reason to believe this would happen.Your contradictions seem to be wholly based on a faulty understanding of the mechanisms involved, which is strange since Doddy just explained them so nicely.TTFN,WK

Ok, you can do that if you want. But that doesn't help you, as clearly you think that humans and chimps are different kinds, and so instead of showing a cross-species retrovirus, you must show a cross-kind one. Actually, that categorizing was created by Carolus Linnaeus some 100 years before Darwin. It was also he who put humans into the primate grouping. I don't know that most of the baraminologists (those who study created kinds) would agree that an ape and a zebra are in the same kind, if that's what you are in fact saying.Also, care to give me an example of a retrovirus that affects both those animals, or any other cross-kind interaction? Never mind the fact that influenza is a Class V (-ve single-strand RNA virus) rather than a retrovirus (Class VI), so thus will not integrate into the genome. It is also key to realise that H5N1, if it does reach the ability to spread from human to human, will lose its ability to spread effectively within birds, as those viruses that spread throughout the human population will not likely be those that can spread throughout birds. Humans and birds have similar, but different, galactose receptor proteins - hence why it hasn't spread to humans already. Firstly, you may need to rephrase the word 'elevation', as you could get into the same trouble as you did with "internally derived factor" in another thread. Do you mean speciation?Also, generally the virus can't survive for that long in the genome, as it will eventually suffer a mutation that inactivates it or something similar. The genes will still be there, just turned off or broken in a key area. But you are also right that the genes introduced by the retrovirus may be incorporated into the host genome and used - there is thought now that placenta may have evolved this way. Most viruses do not kill, as that would prevent further transmission of the virus. Don't bite the hand that feeds (or reproduces) you.As for the rest of what you just say here, I'm not sure I understand it. Do you mean to say that the retrovirus is taking DNA from one organism to another? If so, let it be known that this is a rare occurrence, and not needed. I'm not sure I understand. Could you try to use the language of science, so that I can better see what you are trying to show me? I'm trying to teach, and this will be difficult if you don't understand my language and I don't understand yours.Edited by Doddy, : No reason given.Edited by Doddy, : spelling

---

Help inform the masses - contribute to the EvoWiki today! Contributors needed for the following articles: Pleiotropy, Metabolism, Promoter, Invertebrate, Meiosis, DNA, Transcription, Chromosome, Tetrapod, Phenotype, Messenger RNA, Mammals, Appendix , Variation, Selection, Gene, Gametogenesis, Homo erectus and others.

​

Registration not needed, but if desired, register here!

quote:

---

WK

​

You can't just dictate that viruses will behave according to your biblical kinds. The facts show that they do not. It also doesn't get around Doddy's challenge, you still need some evidence to support the existence of such 'within kind' viruses.

---

Perhaps I should remind you - the first recording of life form categories was introduced in Genesis. Of coz there is evidence here - more so than you can provide. 99.9% of all life form transmissions, including adaptation, natural selection and dna transmission, occur via the 'seed'; where does it fit in with your evidence? The latter is not superfluous.

quote:

---

This seems to be pure nonsense. There is no reason why a host life form needs to end for cross-species infection to occur.

---

It does. Else there is no successful cross-specie, thereby negating the principle it espouses. Are you saying, all forms of pre-h-sapians prevailed simultainiously? In any case, it is reasonable to assume the case in the conext. It is numerously stated that speciation is a perishment of a life form.

quote:

---

Nor is there any reason to assume there will be any transmission of traits from one host species to another. The only traits which need to be shared between the old and the new host species are those common ones which make them suitable hosts for the virus in the first place, which are the result of common ancestry rather than transmission with the virus.

---

If a virus is dna/rna embedded, it is heriditorial common ancestry, same as any other dna traits. It is selective to chose your traits. My point was if the virus is dna-prevalent, it is a transferable one.

quote:

---

Genetic material between hosts can be transferred by retroviruses, but there is no need for it to occur.

---

But it CAN occur - along with some consequences - so where has it been factored in?

quote:

---

There is no contradiction. While the host species may adapt to avoid or ameliorate the viral infection the virus can just as readily adapt in ways which make it more potent or allow itt to avoid the hosts defenses.

---

No impact. Equally, it can readily be transferred. Here, its consequence must be factored in.

quote:

---

if there are any immunity factors here - it would pass on along with the dna retrovirus

​

There is absolutely no reason to believe this would happen.

---

So now we have negated heriditory factors, while enumerating transmissions of traits - maybe it does not suit you! What if this was the case, and there is good reason to believe it can happen - have you not heard of gene related propencity?

quote:

---

Your contradictions seem to be wholly based on a faulty understanding of the mechanisms involved, which is strange since Doddy just explained them so nicely.

---

There was no explaination which meets the conclusion derived.

quote:

---

doddy

​

I don't know that most of the baraminologists (those who study created kinds) would agree that an ape and a zebra are in the same kind, if that's what you are in fact saying.

---

Of coz it is a legitimate means of categorising. Speech, more than skeletal or dna imprints is what differentiates modern humans. Further, 'all' the animals, categorised as a 'kind', have no such attribute despite the time advantage. Its like those tests: tick off the stand-out difference in all these 1.2 million life forms: you arrive at Genesis' 'kind' category. There is no law which says you have to be in a fixed tunnel vision and no other view is allowed!

quote:

---

Also, care to give me an example of a retrovirus that affects both those animals, or any other cross-kind interaction?

---

I did. Bird flu. Also, mad cow.

quote:

---

Never mind the fact that influenza is a Class V (-ve single-strand RNA virus) rather than a retrovirus (Class VI), so thus will not integrate into the genome.

---

Yes, never mind. It was an example based on the principle.

quote:

---

Firstly, you may need to rephrase the word 'elevation', as you could get into the same trouble as you did with "internally derived factor" in another thread. Do you mean speciation?

---

I was avoiding the specie term when replacing it with 'kind'. One does not have to impress scientific terms to be scientific. Chess players make lousy war generals.

quote:

---

Also, generally the virus can't survive for that long in the genome, as it will eventually suffer a mutation that inactivates it or something similar. The genes will still be there, just turned off or broken in a key area. But you are also right that the genes introduced by the retrovirus may be incorporated into the host genome and used - there is thought now that placenta may have evolved this way.

---

Never mind the placenta: do you agree that a virus, aside from your stated reasons, can be passed on? If yes, there has to be a filtration mechanism for rejecting this with speciation - else there will be no speciation! Its like saying life adapted - but had no adaptation mechanism - which is a contradiction.

quote:

---

Most viruses do not kill, as that would prevent further transmission of the virus. Don't bite the hand that feeds (or reproduces) you.

---

That does'nt make sense! Suddenly, the host is not in control - the virus is. Yes I realise a virus adapts to survive, and quite engeniously, but the host could not survive and effect speciation unless it had the control to survive a virus which 'could' kill it, regardless if the virus decided not to kill the host. Your view says speciation is subject to the virus decision - which is a damaging impact on this principle.

quote:

---

Do you mean to say that the retrovirus is taking DNA from one organism to another? If so, let it be known that this is a rare occurrence, and not needed.

---

Rare occurence - who's measured it - its not even factored in? But this is not what I'm sying: I believe you rested this factor to promote speciation.

quote:

---

I'm not sure I understand. Could you try to use the language of science, so that I can better see what you are trying to show me? I'm trying to teach, and this will be difficult if you don't understand my language and I don't understand yours.

---

I'm not a rocket scientist, but I have studied science - and also math, logic and history. I respect science fully - but some theories are mistakenly taken for fact. Speciation, as with the entire premise of evolution, is still classed as a theory. It is unscientific to disregard this.Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.