|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,902 Year: 4,159/9,624 Month: 1,030/974 Week: 357/286 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Exposing the evolution theory. Part 2 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1
|
Kleinman writes: How does a germ cell line get 203,000 retroviral infections? The same way it is happening in koalas.
I think you and the research you are quoting are mistaking host genetic sequences that control the transcription of DNA with viral DNA. Baloney. These are viral insertions in the koala genome, and they match the currently active exogenous retrovirus. More importantly, there are pockets of koalas that have not been exposed to the virus and they lack these insertions in their genome. These insertions are also found in the genomes of germline cells, and they are passed on vertically as I already showed.
Superficially the sequences may appear the same but the belief that our germ cell line has been infected 203,000 times by retroviruses ignores the fact of what these viruses do to their host. You are the only one ignoring evidence here. There is evidence that there are insertions into the koala genome from a currently active exogenous retrovirus. These are found in the germline cells. The insertions are vertically inherited. There are even koala populations that do not have these insertions which demonstrates they were not a part of the host genome before the retrovirus began infecting koala populations.
quote: The highly variable placement of endogenous copies of the virus is also a big piece of evidence, demonstrating that the insertions are nowhere close to reaching fixation. This is all evidence of a very recent invasion of the koala genome.
You are being illogical when you claim that it can happen 203,000 times without driving the lineage to extinction. The only one being illogical is you. You are the one ignoring mountains of evidence demonstrating an ongoing retroviral germline invasion of a mammalian genome.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Kleinman Member (Idle past 364 days) Posts: 2142 From: United States Joined: |
Kleinman:The same way that the koala population may go extinct? This is a fact. Kleinman:Why would you claim that koalas don't have their own DNA that controls transcription? And just because a single viral genome can be inserted into the host genome you can conclude that 203,000 viral genomes can be inserted. These viruses survive by killing their host cells. This is a fact. Why won't you accept the fact that koalas are threatened by extinction from this virus, regardless of whether the insertion of the viral genome or not? And now you claim it happens 203,000 times. You are illogical. Kleinman:I'm not ignoring anything. Retroviruses survive by killing the host cell they infect but you refuse to accept this fact. And then you claim that 203,000 retroviruses can infect a germ cell line without killing that lineage just because a virus that is driving a koala population toward extinction is being inserted into the genome. You make no sense, just like you have never made sense of descent with modification. Kleinman:You fail to recognize one little fact. A single retroviral infection can drive a population to extinction, your own reference acknowledges this and HIV kills people with this disease if untreated. This is a fact. You surprise me with your illogic considering you claim to be a virologist. You claim a lineage can get 203,000 retroviral infections and the lineage does fine when empirical evidence shows that a single retroviral infection can kill that lineage. You see only what you want to see which is not the scientific method. You revealed the same kind of logic when we discussed recombination. You want to extrapolate the results of the Desai and Peabody experiments to all examples of evolution even though these experiments are done in controlled environments. Just because a virus can be inserted one time into a genome, you want to claim it can be done 203,000 times without doing harm to that lineage. You need to think more clearly about the claims you are making.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
Kleinman writes: The same way that the koala population may go extinct? Your claim is that there shouldn't even be new koala offspring. There is.
Why would you claim that koalas don't have their own DNA that controls transcription? That's completely irrelevant. We are talking about the viral genomes that have been inserted into the koala genome.
Why won't you accept the fact that koalas are threatened by extinction from this virus, regardless of whether the insertion of the viral genome or not? Why won't you accept that these viral sequences exist in germline cells and are being passed down vertically without birth defects?
And then you claim that 203,000 retroviruses can infect a germ cell line without killing that lineage just because a virus that is driving a koala population toward extinction is being inserted into the genome. You are claiming no offspring should even be possible. That is what I am addressing. Admit that you are wrong and we can move on to the next dumb statement you are making.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Kleinman Member (Idle past 364 days) Posts: 2142 From: United States Joined: |
Kleinman:I realize that you are trying to support an irrational idea but this single retrovirus is killing koalas and MAY cause the extinction of that lineage. Why won't you acknowledge the lethality of retroviruses and that insertion of the virus into the host genome is only one part of the viruses' life cycle? And then you extrapolate this single event and claim that it can happen 203,000 times and the germ cell line does just fine. You aren't making sense. Kleinman:You are talking about a single virus with koalas and then trying to extrapolate that result to 203,000 viral infections of a germ cell lineage. Why do you refuse to see what is happening to the koala population from a single retroviral infection? Then try to consider the consequences of 203,000 infections to a lineage. What do you think happens to koala offspring born with the virus in every one of their cells but manage to survive? Don't you think it is possible for that viral infection to reactivate in some of those cells? And then what happens to the offspring? Kleinman:Are you having that much difficulty reading my posts? I've said that viral sequences can be inserted into host cells such as herpes zoster and HIV. But the virus is not deactivated when it does this as indicated by the occurrence of shingles and the fact that HIV can not be cured. And if the virus inserts into a germ cell, the offspring formed by that germ cell will have that viral disease. You want to claim that this can happen 203,000 times. That's why it surprises me that someone that claims to be a virologist would make such an assertion. Kleinman:Try reading my post again, because that is not what I'm saying. It is clear that you will not acknowledge what the life cycle of a virus is and that killing the host cell is part of that life cycle. Insertion of the virus genome into the host genome is only part of that life cycle and the reactivation of the virus and replication followed by the killing of the host cell is part of that life cycle. Now you want to claim that it can happen 203,000 times. You do not make sense.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
Kleinman writes: And if the virus inserts into a germ cell, the offspring formed by that germ cell will have that viral disease. You claimed that koala embryos could never even be formed, or that they would be born with birth defects. Neither is occurring. Admit your error and we can move on.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Kleinman Member (Idle past 364 days) Posts: 2142 From: United States Joined: |
Kleinman:Don't be silly. But I don't blame you for wanting to bail out from this discussion. It isn't difficult to explain why your concepts of nested hierarchies and retroviruses are nonsensical. We all look forward to your publication of a mathematical explanation of how drug resistance evolves and why cancer treatments fail.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 103 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
APauling666 writes:
I already have ... and many more than just one ... most of the novel Phyla that appeared in the Cambrian explosion. A Phylum that appears in the fossil record with no evolutionary history isn't part of a nested hierarchy.
show us one of these majik biological lineages that violates the nested hierarchy.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Kleinman Member (Idle past 364 days) Posts: 2142 From: United States Joined: |
AZPaul3:Dredge, don't you know that AZPaul3 is an atheist? AZPaul3 says that atheists don't believe in anything. Actually, AZPaul3 will believe anything that fits his belief system, and his belief system is quite nonsensical.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 103 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
Kleinman writes:
I understand that, as an atheist, it's very easy for APauling to believe the Darwinian bedtime story ... despite what the fossil record says.
Dredge, don't you know that AZPaul3 is an atheist? AZPaul3 says that atheists don't believe in anything. Actually, AZPaul3 will believe anything that fits his belief system
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Kleinman Member (Idle past 364 days) Posts: 2142 From: United States Joined: |
Kleinman:It is not just AZPaul3, you have a bunch of these atheists, here on this forum. They think they have the corner on science but don't understand the simplest principles. What is sad is how their kind of thinking permeates the field of biology. It is no wonder that biologists have failed to explain how drug resistance evolves and why cancer treatments fail. They are too busy pursuing their pseudo-scientific beliefs, like nested hierarchies and these weird claims about retroviruses.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9514 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.8
|
Kleinman writes: They think they have the corner on science but don't understand the simplest principles. Atheists are the minority group in science as well as society.
You fundamentalist nut jobs need to look to find a new excuse for being wrong.Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London. Olen Suomi Soy Barcelona. I am Ukraine. "Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Kleinman Member (Idle past 364 days) Posts: 2142 From: United States Joined: |
Kleinman:Have atheists come up with any rational scientific idea? They certainly don't understand the physics and mathematics of biological evolution. Otherwise, they could explain the evolution of antimicrobial drug resistance and why cancer treatments fail.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 103 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
Tangled writes:
Atheism has its fair share of fundamentalist nut jobs as well ... although I prefer to call them fruit-cakes.
You fundamentalist nut jobs need to look to find a new excuse for being wrong.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Kleinman Member (Idle past 364 days) Posts: 2142 From: United States Joined: |
Tangle:Don't you know that atheists can prove there is no God?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9514 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.8
|
Dredge writes: Atheism has its fair share of fundamentalist nut jobs as well ... although I prefer to call them fruit-cakes. Atheists tend to be rational so that's unlikely, but whatever the proportion, your comment is irrelevant. Scientists are overwhelmingly also believers, I'm afraid you can't blame scientific findings on atheists - well of course you can and you will because you're a bunch of disingenuous fruit loops - but the facts speak for themselves. Atheists are only 17% of scientists and as science progresses by consensus, you're just plain wrong about science and atheism.Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London. Olen Suomi Soy Barcelona. I am Ukraine. "Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024