|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,908 Year: 4,165/9,624 Month: 1,036/974 Week: 363/286 Day: 6/13 Hour: 1/2 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 5939 days) Posts: 563 From: Brisbane, Australia Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Most convincing evidence for evolutionary theory | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Wounded King Member Posts: 4149 From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA Joined: |
In your first paragraph you appear to have decided to make your reply in Unwinese. I can't make out what you are trying to say. Of the three things you mention only the transmission of DNA is a form of transmission, natural selection and adaptation clearly are not. As far as I can see all this paragraph really says is that heredity is gentic, which I have no quibble with. If you want to specify that all life falls into the 'genetic kind' then that is fine by me.
Be that as it may.
Else there is no successful cross-specie, thereby negating the principle it espouses. Are you saying, all forms of pre-h-sapians prevailed simultainiously? What you are describing is not cross-species. You are describing the persistence of a virus in a population undergoing anagenesis. Just look at your avian flu example, it is not neccessary for birds to die out in order for the virus to spread to humans, only for the virus to change so it is infective to humans.
But it CAN occur - along with some consequences - so where has it been factored in? Lots of places where it is relevant, which is not in a discussion of retroviral insertions as evidence of evolution.
Equally, it can readily be transferred. This is a claim with no basis. If you are talking about this pseudo cross-species infection withion a population undergoing anagenesis then of course the immunological complement will be inherited. But in the normal non-crazy sense of cross species infection which the rest of the world uses the chances would be very remote that a virus picks up by chance from one host genome a genetic sequence related to the operation of the immune system which would operate in the genome of another species, although admittedly the chances would be better the more closely related the species were.
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? OK, so you are clearly discussing anagenesis here, one has to wonder why since none of the scenarios outlined so far have concerned anagenesis. Doddy proposed two possibilities on involving infection and subsequent cladogenesis as the human and chimp lineages split and the other involved two independently created lineages and a virus capable of infecting both of those lineages. Your supposed other option just seems to have been the same as number two but with a whole lot of accessory garbage about kinds thrown in. As long as you are supposing that humans and chimps are from distinct specially created lineages then you require a virus capable of infecting both lineages to even begin to explain the retroviral insertions. TTFN, WK P.S. We are fairly off topic and getting RAZD's back up. Maybe we should set up a new thread on which to discuss the nature of retroviral insertions. *ooops* This was actually in a different thread, never mind. Although this still seems to be verging on the derailly. Edited by Wounded King, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Doddy Member (Idle past 5939 days) Posts: 563 From: Brisbane, Australia Joined: |
IamJoseph writes:
As I said above, bird flu isn't a retrovirus. It is a negative-sense single stranded RNA virus. And mad cow isn't even a virus, but a prion (rogue protein rather than a rogue genome). Bird flu. Also, mad cow. But let me pretend that you did just tell me a cross-kind retrovirus. Now we can move on. The other difference between your view and mine is that you require two viral infections, one in one species/kindone in another. On the other hand, I require only one that is passed on to the two descendant species. To go back to the analogy that iceage brought up, we see this in two different documents.
quote: If you had shown me a cross-kind retrovirus, you would have shown, in this example, that both authors of these documents have a sticky comma button on their keyboard. Now you have to give an explanation as to why it got stuck in the same spot in such a big document. PS: It's ok WK. I don't mind this topic. But if it keeps going, maybe we take it out to another thread. Edited by Doddy, : No reason given. 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!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PeterMc Junior Member (Idle past 6120 days) Posts: 25 From: New Zealand Joined: |
Mmmm, what did I start here?
The whole topic of retroviral insertions and heredity deserves (and no doubt has) topic threads of its own. I am only begining to understand it myself but it is entertaining to observe the twisted knots IaJ has made of it. I introduced it as one of the "most convincing evidence for evolution theory" which I think most would agree, it is near the top of the list. Any others.....? I would add though, that as an example of evidence that would possibly convince a creationist, this is very usefull. The research is up to date, it avoids most of the fall-back "rote" answers, and it gets people thinking. As we have seen it is very hard to refute. Edited by PeterMc, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Doddy Member (Idle past 5939 days) Posts: 563 From: Brisbane, Australia Joined: |
That's true. I wonder why more evolutionists don't use this as proof. Also, I have to work out a way to explain it simply. Perhaps I should have a picture of a human chromosome and a chimp chromosome and highlight the retroviral elements?
Any ideas? What was helpful for you to understand it, what wasn't and what do you still need to know? As for now though, I'd appreciate all talk on retroviruses move to another thread. If nobody has started one in a few hours, maybe I will. 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!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3698 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: This was expressed as relating to evolution.
quote: That's a deflection. The point is, one can create categories based on any of numerous factors, depending on the application - eg: speed, beauty, brain, biology, etc. It is correct that addressing the issue of fulcrum differences, covering all generations, that speech should be highlighted for humans - I'd prefer you acknowledged this, as opposed to inferring this is too naive - it is not. I put it to you, any other answer would get you an 'F' in a test of name the difference between animals and humans!
quote: Incorrect. My reference to virus was to say that with cross-species occuring, a dna-embedded virus can be transmitted also.
quote: The relevence depends on the application. The point it related to is, if a virus can be transmitted, deathremental to the host, either there is a filtering system - or the premise of adaptation suffers. Accepting deathremental baggage is not a good means of survival. It seems there is a selection process here - not regarding the host and virus, but on your own preferred basis. Else relevent and impacting factors should be considered.
quote: Again, this is a selective view - it is not very remote when considering the odds contained in evolution, nor does 'remote' odds negate the principle it can happen. As I said, this is not even factored it, so remote becomes mute. You should consider what situation results when a host takes on board a fatal virus - because it can happen - and the host can die - and speciation will fail.
quote: I did. And these infections are recent - not millions of years old. Recently, AIDS is also seen as such a possibility. But what is it you are saying - if a new virus can effect animals and humans - does your premise become dented? - I am trying to avoid a cyclical debate here.
quote: A reason should be given if its off topic: the debate concerns most convincing arguement for evolution - I don't see any veerings here.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3698 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: I think you 'must' - but not for my arguement's sake. The rna distinction is contrived to suit a particular, narror research factor encountered - IOW, you are positing a specific instance, not a generic premise here. Virus' are engenius in manourvering their mode of survival (cancer, AIDS, Diabetes have resisted all cures), nor does an attacking virus have to be retro. Basically, if I'm correct, you are saying if a virus or other form of attacking entity, can attack both an animal and human - the theory of speciation suffers? My point here is that if a virus becomes embedded in the rna or dna, it is not a proof of speciation per se - because it negatively impacts on speciation being a viable guarantee. The other point is that speciation is indeed a perishment of one life form to usher in another. The issue of an ape evolving to a modern human cannot be proven by the factors tended.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DrJones* Member Posts: 2290 From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 6.9 |
Virus' are engenius in manourvering their mode of survival (cancer, AIDS, Diabetes have resisted all cures)
Diabetes is not caused by a virus, and while some cancers are linked to viruses (ex. HPV and cervical cancer) not all of them are, there are also gentic and enviromental factors.
The other point is that speciation is indeed a perishment of one life form to usher in another.
And that is a blatantly false statement. If it was correct we'd only have one species of bears, one species of whale, etc. Just a monkey in a long line of kings. If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist! *not an actual doctor
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Doddy Member (Idle past 5939 days) Posts: 563 From: Brisbane, Australia Joined: |
IamJoseph writes: nor does an attacking virus have to be retro. Well, not it doesn't, but it does have to be able to integrate into the genome. If it can't, then the virus will never leave any trace in the next organism, as it can't enter the genome of the sperm/ova. Also of note, and to bear in mind with the future discussion, is that viral elements are not thought to be involved in the divergence of apes and humans. Anyway, any further discussion on this topic can go to my new thread when it gets promoted: Endogenous retroviral elements as proof of common descent 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!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3698 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: No impact.
quote: But the bear is said to have evolved from another bear - which does not survive when the new bear has evolved. We don't see Mamoths anymore - we see elephants. The grammatical rule is, one must take the logical path of what it means.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3698 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: The point was that a retrovirus transmigration via dna/rna would negatively impact speciation. The obvious answer is YES. Whether this negates speciation per se was not the issue, but that the virus is not a deciding factor here.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DrJones* Member Posts: 2290 From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 6.9 |
No impact.
other than exposing your lack of fundamental knowledge of biology?
But the bear is said to have evolved from another bear - which does not survive when the new bear has evolved
except that we have multiple species of bears, if the "first" bear produced the next and then promptly died why do we have many different bear species currently living? Just a monkey in a long line of kings. If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist! *not an actual doctor
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
iceage  Suspended Member (Idle past 5944 days) Posts: 1024 From: Pacific Northwest Joined: |
IAJ you signal to noise ratio is very low. In this thread alone your past few posts are shear nonsense.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3698 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: The many species does not impact, because the particular bear in that species is perished. That speciation is the deathknell of its precedence is not disputable. If a protoype is nominated for modern humans - it also says one is abolete and extinct. The categorising does not impact here. Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Doddy Member (Idle past 5939 days) Posts: 563 From: Brisbane, Australia Joined: |
IamJoseph writes:
Rubbish! That speciation is the deathknell of its precedence is not disputable. Consider an example. Say some toads (maybe just 102 individual toads, certainly not all of the toads in existence) of a certain toad species is transported from a pacific archipelago to a large continent, such as Australia. On that new continent, it faces large distances, drought, new predators and different food sources, and adapts accordingly (long legs, smaller body size and larger poison glands). So much adaptation may occur that it could become a different species to the original on the island (so if these mainland toads were brought back to their island, they wouldn't breed with the island toads). Will that cause the previous species, those still living on that island atoll, to die? Edited by Doddy, : clarify 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!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3698 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: Yes - that's a deathknel at ground zero. The execptions of a toad adapting elsewhere does not alter the paradigm. Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024