|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: New name for evolution, "The Bacteria Diet" | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10033 Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
I would like to add this paper to the mix:
quote: In this paper they demonstrate that ERV's establish shared ancestry between humans and other apes by testing this hypothesis: "Given the size of vertebrate genomes (>1 109 bp) and the random nature of retroviral integration (22, 23), multiple integrations (and subsequent fixation) of ERV loci at precisely the same location are highly unlikely (24). Therefore, an ERV locus shared by two or more species is descended from a single integration event and is proof that the species share a common ancestor into whose germ line the original integration took place (14). " So they look at the ERV placement in genomes and look at the species distribution of these ERV's. They find that they are found in the species and genomic positions that the theory of evolution predicts they should be in. So this paper first demonstrates shared ancestry. It then goes on to demonstrate the accumulation of random mutations in these ERV's by two different methods. First, it shows the divergence of the overall ERV sequence: "as with other sequence-based phylogenetic analyses, mutations in a provirus that have accumulated since the divergence of the species provide an estimate of the genetic distance between the species." As expected, the divergence of provirus sequence matches the pattern of species distribution as the theory predicts. They then look at LTR divergence. Each provirus contains two repeat regions at either end of the genome. When the virus inserts it copies one of these repeat regions which results in two tandem repeat regions that are identical. The theory predicts that these two repeat regions will diverge over time within the same ERV, with the divergence dependent on the time spent in the genome. As stated in the paper: "Third, sequence divergence between the LTRs at the ends of a given provirus provides an important and unique source of phylogenetic information. The LTRs are created during reverse transcription to regenerate cis-acting elements required for integration and transcription. Because of the mechanism of reverse transcription, the two LTRs must be identical at the time of integration, even if they differed in the precursor provirus (Fig. (Fig.11A). Over time, they will diverge in sequence because of substitutions, insertions, and deletions acquired during cellular DNA replication." So this paper has some very nice pieces of evidence pointing to both common ancestry and the process of accumulating mutations over time. Oh, and no bacteria involved.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10033 Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
Fossils can tell you that RM and NS took place? Talk about a canard. Fossils can tell you that RM and NS took place? Talk about a canard. Other way around. Mutations can tell us how the fossils changed.
quote: A mutation in our MYH gene results in a weaker jaw muscle. A weaker jaw muscle requires less bone as an anchor. This allowed for both the gracilization of the human lower jaw and the expansion of the cranium. But just on a more general note, perhaps you could answer this question. Why are humans and chimps different? What explains this difference? Edited by Taq, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10033 Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
Since I already knew you had absolutely no evidence whatsoever for the claims Darwinian evolution makes (crashfrog says so is not evidence, remember?), it was hardly necessary for you to waste four paragraphs claiming you can provide "abundance of evidence" proceeded by none. I provided that info in my earlier post on ERV's. These ancient retroviral insertions provide information on the accumulation of mutations and common ancestry.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10033 Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
I appreciate very much that you would like the data to be about Rm mutations and natural selection, but unfortunately instead of talking about what you would like the data to be about, I am forced to talk about what the data actually is talking about-which is about constructing phylogenies from retroviruses. Those phylogenies demonstrate the accumulation of random mutations over time, common ancestry, and sequence divergence. This is the very evidence you have been asking for.
Yea, sure, in an ideal world, collecting data about phylogenies through retroviruses would be exactly the same thing as demonstrating the mechanisms for evolutionary change through natural selection, or in an even more ideal world it would be exactly the same thing as winning the power-ball lottery twice in one day, or in an even more ideal world it would be exactly the same thing as having sex with Paris Hilton on a cocaine fueled all night binge, while finding out that you just won two power-ball lotteries while Nicole Richie is filming it all from on top of the headboard-but alas we live in a compromised world-where we have to just stick with boring reality shows. I don't see anthing in this paragraph to indicate that my conclusions are wrong. Care to explain?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10033 Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
Bolderdash,
Why are humans different than chimps? Simple question.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10033 Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
Taq, there is big difference, a huge difference a cavernous difference between saying that we can look at retro-viruses to see that over time random mutations have occurred to some bits of DNA, and saying that those RM actually formed the structure of anything. Why? I am going to need more than your say so. We have clear cut evidence that mutations accumulate over time, and has done so amongst our ape family. We directly observe that differences between apes, including humans, is due to differences in DNA. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to put these two together. We observe that the accumulation of mutations in genes such as ERV's differs greatly than the accumulation of mutations in coding genes which is clear cut evidence for selection. All of the evidence you want is right there.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10033 Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
Chimps rarely, if ever, tip the cart girl after buying beers during a round of golf. Playing it coy, are we? Why is human and chimp morphology different?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10033 Joined: Member Rating: 5.3
|
But the point of this thread is not just what evolutionists BELIEVE these mechanisms can do, the point is what they can actually show with evidence what these mechanisms can do. And so far, despite all of the repeated contentions that there is lots of evidence aside from the bacteria diet kind, there seems to only be talk of this evidence, not evidence of this evidence. The evidence of what these mechanisms HAVE DONE is in our genomes, and in the genomes of other living species. I have already shown that shared ERV's in humans and other apes demonstrates a common ancestor. I have also shown that these same ERV's demonstrate the accumulation of random mutations over time. I have also shown that the rate of this accumulation differs between ERV's and coding genes, which demonstrates selection. We can even show a difference between exons and introns within a gene which also demonstrates selection of mutations within exons (the coding portion of a gene). We can also show a difference in the accumulation of mutations between coding genes and pseudogenes between species that are known to share a common ancestor (through such evidence as shared ERV's). Genomes are a record of random mutation and selection.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024