Exposing the evolution theory. Part 2

All of them do. Read the papers you fucking moron.

They weren't only trying to detect the presence of ERV's, and they were widespread amongst vertebrates. Apparently, nothing. There are koalas with over 50 recently inserted ERVs and they are having offspring without a hitch. Already answered multiple times. LTRs are by definition from retroviral insertions. The same way you can identify a partial fingerprint. The same way we know a partial fingerprint is from a finger. Can a murder weapon have its own fingerprints?All you are trying to do is used the Omphalos argument. Arguing that the human genome was created with genetic scars from retroviral insertion is nonsense. It's like saying the universe was created last Thursday, complete with a false history and false memories.

LTRs are ERVs, you fucking moron. You would deny that those are tires. Instead, they are round pieces of rubber that were created with the Earth 6,000 years ago. They never came from a tire factory, nor did they ever reside on a car. I can tell you they are tires. In the same way, LTRs are the tires of the ERV vehicle. Your argument seems to be that the Earth was created with those tires already in place. You fucking moron. You don't even understand the papers you claim to reference. You don't even understand that modeling asexual reproduction does not accurately model the evolution of sexual species. You can't even understand that the mutation rate is different in humans and in bacteria.

You don't need mathematics to explain how antibiotic resistance evolves, you fucking moron. Prove it. Show me every paper in existence on antibiotic resistance and show me that none of them have the requisite math. You wouldn't recognize correct math if it was right in front of you, you fucking moron.

Everyone in biology claims that, you fucking moron. Which has nothing to do with what you asked. Any remnant of a retroviral insertion is an ERV. Solo LTR's are what is left over after homologous recombination of a full length ERV. Solo LTR's are the result of mutations in full length ERVs. They do exist in many ERVs, you fucking moron. Most of them are altered, you fucking moron.How do we tell that both mice and humans have a cytochrome c gene? How do you think that works? The two gene sequences differ by quite a bit, so how can they tell these are the same gene? No, you fucking moron. I have never said that. As shown by genes shared by many different vertebrates, it's possible to identify homologous sequence even when the sequence differs. These are basic, basic concepts, and you can't seem to understand them. So how do you think the authors of the human genome paper were able to distinguish between LTRs from retroviruses and LTRs from retrotransposons? Wrong question. What are the LTR sequences?

So says the person who accepts the irrational belief that DNA was magically poofed into being.

I already did multiple times, and here we are again. You fucking moron. And they have, you fucking moron. None of which actually matches reality. For example, the rate of appearance for antibiotic resistance in the Lenski paper differs based on the genetic background of the bacteria. Where is that in your math?Genomic evolution of antibiotic resistance is contingent on genetic background following a long-term experiment with Escherichia coli - PubMedNot only that, but the appearance of antibiotic resistance can differ by 1,000 fold depending on the antibiotic. Where is that in your math?REPLICA PLATING AND INDIRECT SELECTION OF BACTERIAL MUTANTS - PMCOn top of everything else, your math is completely irrelevant to the vast majority of adaptation in biology.

For the purposes of this thread, let's grant that abiogenesis is impossible. Instead, God created the first life on Earth as a simple prokaryote with the basic genetics and metabolism that is shared by all the life we see now.So exactly what is your objection to the life we see today evolving from that created ancestor? Gospel? Projection much?If you don't think natural selection occurs in biology, we can certainly start there.

How is that a problem? Yes, it is. All life uses the same codons and transcription machinery, and many metabolic pathways are shared. How is that a problem?

Where did you show that titin requires a precise sequence? In fact, it is difficult to detect disease causing mutations in titin because of its high variability in the human population."However, not all TTN variants detected in cardiomyopathy cohorts can be assumed to be disease-causing. The interpretation of TTN variants remains challenging due to high background population variation."
Exploring TTN variants as genetic insights into cardiomyopathy pathogenesis and potential emerging clues to molecular mechanisms in cardiomyopathies | Scientific ReportsThe following page contains a database of over 15,000 known human titin variants:https://databases.lovd.nl/shared/transcripts/00001778 That's not how evolution works. Recombination can add thousands of amino acids in one fell swoop. Titin itself is known for being the product of recombination. A comparison of titin across different species reveals its evolutionary past:

quote:

---

The protein titin plays a key role in vertebrate muscle where it acts like a giant molecular spring. Despite its importance and conservation over vertebrate evolution, a lack of high quality annotations in non-model species makes comparative evolutionary studies of titin challenging. The PEVK region of titin—named for its high proportion of Pro-Glu-Val-Lys amino acids—is particularly difficult to annotate due to its abundance of alternatively spliced isoforms and short, highly repetitive exons. To understand PEVK evolution across mammals, we developed a bioinformatics tool, PEVK_Finder, to annotate PEVK exons from genomic sequences of titin and applied it to a diverse set of mammals. PEVK_Finder consistently outperforms standard annotation tools across a broad range of conditions and improves annotations of the PEVK region in non-model mammalian species. We find that the PEVK region can be divided into two subregions (PEVK-N, PEVK-C) with distinct patterns of evolutionary constraint and divergence. The bipartite nature of the PEVK region has implications for titin diversification. In the PEVK-N region, certain exons are conserved and may be essential, but natural selection also acts on particular codons. In the PEVK-C, exons are more homogenous and length variation of the PEVK region may provide the raw material for evolutionary adaptation in titin function. The PEVK-C region can be further divided into a highly repetitive region (PEVK-CA) and one that is more variable (PEVK-CB). Taken together, we find that the very complexity that makes titin a challenge for annotation tools may also promote evolutionary adaptation.
Evolution of the Highly Repetitive PEVK Region of Titin Across Mammals - PMC

---

Apparently, you don't understand how RNA transcription and protein translation work. Perhaps you could start there. Ribosomes make proteins in cells. Proteins don't form from random connection of individual amino acids. Only L-amino acids are charged on transfer RNA's, so that isn't an issue.Translation: DNA to mRNA to Protein | Learn Science at Scitable Apparently you aren't aware of neutral theory either. The vast majority of variation in the human genome is due to neutral drift, not natural selection.Also, are you saying that none of the DNA differences between humans and chimps are beneficial in humans? If so, could you please explain?

If I went onto a religious discussion forum and told everyone that none of the 7 gospels can be true since Jesus could not have been resurrected 95 days after being hanged I would not expect anyone to take me seriously.Creationists consistently describe biology in a similar wrong way. It is obvious they don't have a working knowledge of how biology works, and that is not a knock against them because they know about as much about biology as any random non-scientist. The problem is that they don't think their ignorance of biology in any way hampers their ability to tell all of the biologists they are wrong. I'm sure car mechanics have to put up with the same type of people all of the time.In this thread we have someone who thinks new proteins have to evolve by random amino acids joining up and creating a new protein. No DNA involved at all. They don't even seem to know that proteins are translated from RNA which is transcribed from DNA. Does that stop them from telling all biologists they are wrong? Nope.I don't fault ID/creationist internet warrior for lacking this knowledge. The problem is that they lack the humility and self awareness to understand why they need this knowledge in order to challenge the science.

It's pigeon chess."Debating creationists on the topic of evolution is rather like trying to play chess with a pigeon — it knocks the pieces over, craps on the board, and flies back to its flock to claim victory."--Scott D. WeitzenhofferCreationists are there to look like they went up against the meany atheists. They aren't interested in actually understanding biology or furthering our knowledge.