Understanding through Discussion

Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 66 (9078 total)
85 online now:
nwr, PaulK, Percy (Admin), Tangle (4 members, 81 visitors)
Newest Member: harveyspecter
Post Volume: Total: 895,088 Year: 6,200/6,534 Month: 393/650 Week: 163/278 Day: 3/28 Hour: 1/0

Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Author Topic:   Smoking-Gun Evidence of Man-Monkey Kindred: Episode I - endogenous retrovirus
Member (Idle past 2959 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005

Message 20 of 20 (627214)
08-01-2011 12:15 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by Taq
08-01-2011 11:46 AM

The sad part is that even after you explain this to creationists they refuse to understand it. They refuse to even consider that retroviruses continued to invade the genomes of many species after speciation events. Don't ask me why, but somehow the creationist mind can not accept this fact.

You're not kidding... just look at this comment:

Mazzy writes:

Well, I'll take your word for it. However I found this also

"There are many thousands of endogenous retroviruses within human DNA, with HERVs comprising nearly 8% of the human genome and composed with 98,000 elements and fragments.[11]) According to one study published in 2005, no HERVs capable of replication had been identified; all appeared to be defective, containing major deletions or nonsense mutations. This is because most are just long-lasting traces of the original virus, having first integrated many millions of years ago. "

This just shows this is straw grabbing. These ghosts you think you have found contain major deletions and nonsense mutations. How on earth can you expect anyone to believe this? It appears to me that a better ananysis of this information should lead one to conclude that in actual fact ERV's in the various species are most often nothing like human ones and there has benn alot of what I call gobble going on to link them to common ancestry.

It's just insane. Mazzy has either no clue about this, which I find hard to believe, or he is deliberately playing dumb and desperately trying to obfuscate the whole issue. I don't like accusing people of such dishonesty, but I don't know what other conclusion to draw.

The one half-coherent argument I have seen used against the orthologous ERVs is that they are not ERVs at all, but original coding regions that are a necessary part of the origanisms, and their explanation is thus simple re-use of code by the designer.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Taq, posted 08-01-2011 11:46 AM Taq has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:

Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022