ERV's: Evidence of Common Ancestory

Errr... I am actually quite new to ERVs.I hear you evolutionists loud and clear - ERVs prove common ancestry between apes and human.Errr... that proves the Evolution Theory, right?But how does that prove evolution to be true? Any suggestion how did apes actually descended to be human?

I like bluescat48's comment best: Apes didn't descend, humans are apes.Dr Adequate said: "And the ERVs and the other evidence are the proof that evolution occured."
Err...I kind of disagree. ERVs might be evidence that evolution had occurred, but that does not tell you HOW evolution had occurred. I am thinking along the line that God might have used the same 'mold' to create both apes and human. I thought it'd be a silly God to have created human from scratch. Why not borrow a bit of this and a bit of that from apes? Just my wild guess. But if true, won't this be an explanation why apes and human share many common ERVs? If true, then ERVs is not even a proof that evolution had occurred.Huntard: "Are you saying evolution is just a theory with this remark?"
Actually I have always thought that evolution theory should more rightly be "The Hypothesis of Evolution".shalamabobbi: "If you are no David, then this Philistine will kill you.."
I see attacks from so many sides. I'm almost scared to death Coragyps, Thank you for the kind words. I will try sticking with ERVs until I'm slain I need to ask you all some questions, because I can't find an answer.
(1) Do all human have exactly the same ERVs?
(2) Do all apes have exactly the same ERVs, among the same species?
(3) The probability of occurrence of an ERV is very low. What is the mean period between two ERVs in the same apes?

Shalamabobbi,
Errr...Was that tongue in cheek? You really mean YES, don't you? Yes, among apes & human, they all share exactly the same ERVs.
Or, perhaps it is only safer to say NO?
Loudmouth started this thread with Message#1. Among other things, he wrote: "...What results is an organism with a partial viral sequence, called an endogenous retrovirus (ERV), present in every cell of their body including half of their eggs or sperm..."
That definitely suggests there is a chance that some human eggs/sperms are even without ERVs. So we can expect that human do not all share the same ERVs. Theoretically, some human may even be without ERVs. Therefore according to Loudmouth: No, human do not all have exactly the same ERVs. Some have more ERVs but some have less. Was Loudmouth correct in making that statement?
I also like your suggestion about 5 ERVs per year entering the human genome. It'd be a lot of fun, but I don't feel like talking about old versus young Earth right now.DrJones said: So you're saying that your god is too limited to come up with compeletly unique designs for every species he created?
No, you said that. I did not. If you do not think species are uniquely designed, why would you regarded them as different species in the first place?I'd still would like to seek a definitive answer to each of my doubts:
(1) Do all human have exactly the same ERVs?
(2) Do all apes have exactly the same ERVs, among the same species?
(3) The probability of occurrence of an ERV is very low. What is the mean period between two ERVs in the same apes?

DrAdequate said: "..."Omphalos" argument --- God might have made everything to look like the Earth was old, species evolved..."
I have no reason to believe such explanations. I do not believe God deliberately tricks his creations.DrAdequate said: "it would hardly explain why there are any ERVs in any eukaryote genome in the first place"
I believe that is part and parcel of lifeforms at such a microscopic level. There are useful ERVs and 'useless' ERVs are unavoidable.WoundedKing said: "I'm not sure I understand exactly what you mean by 'the mean period between two ERVs in the same apes',....I don't think there is any way to judge that period."
Earlier, Shalamabobbi answered my question by saying: "So 30,000 divided by 6,000 years = 5 ERVs per year entering the human genome for creationists!"
I agree with your sentiment and I shall not bother seeking an answer for now.
So it seems you agree with Taq that all human/apes do not have the same ERVs among the same species.Taq said: "There are hundreds of thousands of ERV's in the human genome. Only a handful are not fixed in the population.
I notice you repeated "hundreds of thousands". Earlier Shalamabobbi claimed there are approx 30,000 different retroviruses in the human genome. That's a lot less than "hundreds of thousands".
Only a handful of ERVs accounts for differences between all human? How about assuming just 3 ERVs, (and calling them 'a,b,c')? Assuming equal probability, theoretically it is possible to divide world population into 8 distinct ERVs grouping. Everyone within the same group have exactly the same ERVs, like so:
Group 1: lack of 'a,b,c' ERVs
Group 2: a
Group 3: a b
Group 4: a b c
Group 5: a c
Group 6: b
Group 7: b c
Group 8: cWould apes population be similar? (Bluescat48 would think so, won't he?)
This would no doubt complicate apes/human descendency, won't it? Which ERVs-group of apes might have descended into human?Please don't be mistaken. I am not being facetious. Thank you for your answer but I would like to find out if this is the current undisputed scientific finding. Anyone agrees/disagrees with what are presented so far?Also....DrAdequate, I disagree with that 'proof' word. Evidence does not equate proof.Taq said: "Theories are never proven"
Errr...I kind of disagree. DrAdequate for one claims evolution as 'proven', (but I disagree with him).
How about I say - Nothing that evolutionary biologists put forward has ever been proven, or will ever be proven Taq said:"As for ERV's, the theory of evolution predicts three things..."
I'd like to re-visit your points later.

RAZD, Thank you for the tips. ERVs that are common to humans/chimps tell important stories. I hope to find out whether non-common ERVs provide clues that are more useful.
There seems to be an assumption that if God created something it must be useful. Let's say hypothetically God created some useful retroviruses. At such a microscopic level, by their viral nature, some retroviruses are bound to eventually mutate and invade animals where they would serve no useful purpose. At an atomic level, particles are wave-like. That's the way things are, governed by law of Physics. Perhaps viruses are physic's equivalent of atoms in micro-biology. There is always unavoidable elements of unpredictability and randomness associated with organisms of that magnitude. (Just my unorganised thought). Actually I was interested in the non-fixed ERVs for a different reason, as this post will show. I merely said that evidence does not equate to proof. That is not a logical fallacy. A thinking brain is far more important than data. Data without correct thinking is useless. But accurate data are vital if a thinking brain is to arrive at a correct conclusion. Thanks for presenting solid information in easy-to-understand manner. It is so difficult to analyse the vast amount of information on related subjects. One may be totally confused and not see the wood for the trees. So I cannot do any worse by guessing, partly using information made available to me.
I'm sure Shalamabobbi scoffs at suggestion that human history is only 6,000 years old. I notice numerous articles suggesting human history is 6.3 million years old. So to compromise, let me propose for argument sake that human history is only 10,000 years old.
Why 10,000 years? Partly because I believe in creationism. But mainly because I believe humans cannot possibly take much longer than that to evolve a modern society. (Got to love the word 'evolve'). To me this is common-sense logic
Put it this way - if human existence is 6.3 million years, then I would expect 6,290,000 years ago humans were already using Internet and driving cars to get around. For it's totally inconceivable to me that intelligent human could possibly be 'apes-like' for 6.2 million years and then... Bingo! ... Some mysterious awakening caused them to start doing more with their brains.
Therefore unless/until proven wrong, my thinking is -- An old earth but very recent human existence.Now let me see if I can beat a square to fit a circle... The data suggest to me chimps did not descend to humans because I cannot reconcile why chimps have 279 more ERVs when humans only have 82 more, since the time they split, (assuming new ERVs were infused at the same rate). Perhaps an explanation is that chimps get viral insertion at a much higher rate than humans. But I suspect lifespan of chimps, being half that of human might lower the success rate of new ERVs in chimps. I also assume viral infusion might increase the death rate of animals.Another explanation is of course chimps never descended to human but merely share a common ancestor. Which leads me to a puzzle - If chimps were picking up ERVs along geological time scale then it is nearly impossible for all chimps to have exactly the same 279 'new' ERVs today. Imagine periodically spreading a new ERV among the entire chimp population, how much time will that take? It is far more likely the distribution of ERVs in chimps would follow the likes of a bell curve -- A small chimps minority only has a couple of 'new' ERVs whereas another minority possesses all 279 'new' ERVs; yet at the same time majority of chimps would have approximately 150 'new' ERVs. Granted that most are probably fixed ERVs, it is reasonable to assume that over a long time chimps population may mutually 'contaminate' through breeding and one day all chimps end up possessing the same number of ERVs, (until yet another new ERV comes along).What if all chimps have all those 279 ERVs right at the dawn of their existence? The above puzzle would not be an issue. Which is why today we can assert that all chimps have 279 ERVs not found in all humans. This is of course suggesting that ERVs were not viral insertion, but integral part of creation process. But of course we also need to account for real viral insertion. Perhaps only a handful of ERVs since existance of mankind - mostly those unfixed ERVs that Taq mentioned earlier, that accounts for very minor differences among all humans. Is the rate of 5 (ie. a handful of) new ERVs over 10,000 years of human existence a reasonable one? This works out to be 2,000 years per viral infusion.
If you refer to the diagram posted by Loudmouth in Message 1, you'd notice 16 ERVs over 70 million years for the primates!! Not that I believe 70 million years is correct. That works out to be approx 4 million years per ERVs!! At that rate, for chimps to acquire 279 new ERVs through viral infusion would take (4 x 279) million years! Now that's incredible! ( 2,000 years per viral infusion is more sensible )I think I'm getting into trouble with this post (Hopefully Goliath is not taking notice).

---

I think I'm safe because Goliath is only seeking out David...

Thank you for explaining LTR and ERV divergence.I do not speak for creationists. I don't know how God actually created the world and I cannot explain ERVs any more than suggesting God might have used the same 'mold' to create apes and human, (to avoid creating each one from scratch). Although this is not "common ancestry", there is a tangible connection.But should creationists explain ERVs in the first place?It's all very well ERVs are pointing towards "common ancestry", but I think we have merely returned to square one, to where I posted (Message 61): "But how does that prove evolution to be true? Any suggestion how did apes actually descended to be human?"I do not see ERVs contributing more credence towards the 'engines' of evolution, things like: mutation; natural selection; speciation; genetic drift.Much as ERVs is proving exciting for linking species, the mechanism of evolution is very much speculative.Addressing other comments... What you've said is that independent insertions had resulted in non-orthologous positions in each genome.
Therefore orthologous positions for ERVs between apes and human are most likely hereditary, pointing to common ancestry.
I agree with the logic. One issue I have is you credited evolution theory for a prediction came true. I didn't think there was much of a prediction, but it reads like evolution theory is proven to be true because a prediction was fulfilled. Apart from doubting that a few hundred thousand years are sufficient for many ancient branches to drop, I do have difficulties believing in (i) genetic drift; (ii) common ancestor of human existed a few hundred thousand years ago. Also, if the same argument is applied to evolution, then that would suggest there is a nature tendency to reduce diversity over time, not increase. This logic is frauded. Did common ancestry not predicted beforehand that it should have been 42 chromosomes with fusion of four chromosomes? Why not...errr...because we knew the results would contradict the prediction? I consciously try to steer away from such an attitude. I used "unpredictability and randomness" to suggest something that God does not control, such as the way matters obey The Laws of Physics, (for example Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle that relate to unpredictability). A retrovirus that is useful at all times to anything and everything that it infects? Could God even create such a retrovirus in the first place? I guess such a retrovirus is impossible, even for God, or it would not be a retrovirus. Good work. I have quickly browse it. I hope to develop some comments for discussions later.
Just so you know, I am a definite skeptic of Genetic Drift. For a start, I have problem with the fuzzy concept 'Drift'. Your observation echoes DrAdequate's comments: "I think you're a bit out of your depth here...."
I humbly agree. I do tend to make comments that show I'm quite ignorant about biology/evolution. However, I have problems accepting those figures even though they seem 'modest' figures.I have seen a graph that appears to suggest world population during Jesus time was around 300 million. Present world population has surpassed 6 billion, with the strongest J-curve growth happening in recent times. I did a calculation over 10,000 years, starting from a population of two with a low annual growth rate of 0.2%. Even with such a low growth rate, the population rises from 2 to nearly 1 billion, (951,141,887 to be exact) after 10000 years. My equation: A2 = A1 + A1 * 0.002 Could Homo Sapiens have taken 400000 years to develop modern brainy brain?
Assuming linear improvement in brain over time, then 20000 years ago the brain of Homo Sapiens should have improved to 95% of modern human brain. By then they ought to be aware of forming communities and avoid killing each other for food.
I calculated the population over 20000 years, using the same low growth rate. I got a staggering multiples of trillions, (to be exact: 452,335,444,804,760,000)There is a theory, (Toba catastrophe theory) that all humans alive today are descended from a very small population, perhaps between 1,000 to 10,000 breeding pairs about 70,000 years ago. Still, my calculation would produce an unimaginably large figures with that data.From food-chain perspectives, I can appreciate populations of various animals do not blow out over time. But I cannot appreciate the same for modern intelligent human. 70,000 years do not make sense as I would assume that population growth is often greatest where humans are least educated, as all early humans would be I have no reason to doubt human intelligence is the same throughout history of humans. So I believe if human history is to re-start, the history will repeat itself in many aspects, There may even be inventions quite similar to iPhone, thousands of years from a new beginning. I will keep this in mind. I thought bottlenecking is only very speculative. I think human nature is such that they tend to spread all over the globe. If there were only 1,000 to 10,000 breeding pairs about 70,000 years ago, they might be tiny communities far apart from each other, resulting in localised bottleneckings that should accentuate genetic differences across the globe. Africans, Europeans, Asians, natives of South Americans and Australia aborigines all have the same fixed ERVs, don't they? I don't mind being told I'm wrong. I will then think about it. But if I'm right, will anyone be swayed? I vaguely accept the idea of common ancestry. But I have difficulty believing that common ancestry means human evolved from an apes-like ancestor over hundreds of thousand of years. I have mentioned before perhaps initially God used the same 'mold' to create apes and then human. I believe in such a supernatural event partly because I can see no possiblity of a natural evolutionary process. Intelligent humans seem to have come on world stage rather abruptly. Not technological knowledge initially. But I believe the first humans were just as intelligent as we are today. It was a matter of time that they would build up technological knowledge. Thanks for your understanding.
I'm not a fundamentalist of course. I would like to find the truth. It's no good if my belief is false. Arrrh....that's where my problem lies - I believe evolution is false.
That's why I suggested God had used the same 'mold' for his creation. I also suspect that "The hypothesis of evolution" and "The hypothesis of creation" are different sides of the same coin.
But I cannot accept evolution like some Christians do. That does not work for me because I believe humans were not a result of evolution from a 'common ancestor' and evolution never even occurred. So I cannot go against my conscience.So you know someone who hit the books, learned about evolution and became a believer of evolution.
Well, I think he could be confused before he hit the books and now he is wrong after reading them Edited by pcver, : No reason given.

---

I think I'm safe because Goliath is only seeking out David...

RAZD,
How about I say whilst your logic is valid, your logical statement is frauded?
Firstly, thank you for elaborating on chromosome fusion and so forth.
But you and Dr Adequate had missed my point. What you wrote above clearly shows the fraud I meant to point out earlier.That so-called prediction was always going to be fulfilled, wasn't it?You have outlined four possible evidence of common ancestry:
1. duplication of a chromosome;
2. loss of a whole chromosome;
3. fusion of two chromosomes;
4. division of one chromosome into two.
Whichever one is true would not have made the slightest difference. It would have allowed evolutionists to fraudulently claimed a 'prediction' is proven.Well, a prediction just doesn't get better than that.I have noticed frequent and flippant use of "predictions", a bad habit of evolutionists, all too anxious to give a false impression their theories are proven Anyway, is there really such thing as "The theory of common ancestry"? I'm quite sure early humans did not consider their ability to feed their offspring before getting the women pregnant. Then it became too late. I also believe as intelligent humans, they would find ways to feed more of them. They were not like any other species. What a neat little strawman you've got there
You must think all creationists are complete idiots

Percy,
Your view is well balanced and I'm sure Dr.Adequate agrees with your comments.
Whilst I agree populations cannot expand beyond the ability of their environment to sustain them, it does not make sense to claim a lack of food. I imagine there were no laws then and no home mortgage to pay. Theoretically humans could go any where they liked without being stopped by border guards and any wild animal was potential food source, including apes on trees. It must be near complete freedom in those early days to do anything they'd liked. If human populations were to shrink due to hunger, then I'd say apes would have disappeared first -- hunted to extinction by early men as a source of food.
I can appreciate though why populations would shrink, when there were factors beyond humans control, such as earth quakes and diseases.Perdition,
I do not disagree with your points. I just wanted to add that predictions are not predictions if they are not based on something tangible, such as a formula; an equation; a trend; statistics or previous experience.
If there is no basis for a prediction, then that 'prediction' is merely a pointless speculative guesswork, not scientific.Shalamabobbi,
You are right for once - Yes, loss of a whole chromosome would fit a creation model.
But do you know fusion of two chromosomes also happen to fit a creation model better than a 'common ancestry' model? But wait, there's more - Both duplication of a chromosome and division of a chromosome would fit a creation model better than a 'common ancestry' model.You know what would fit a 'common ancestry' model better than a creation model?
If both chimps and humans have exactly the same chromosomes. Isn't this the true meaning of ancestry and descendency?BTW, you posted a lovely picture, my friend. You really shouldn't take so much trouble to have a picture taken, just to make a point. Actually with the way you're going in this forum, it's only a matter of time I prove that you were one of those fella's on the beach Actually I cannot tell you what God is really like, whether he's all powerful, all knowing and resides outside of space and time. But I can tell you if I were God, then I would most certainly re-use my earlier designs to create even more variety of things, without feeling ashame of my work. This paragraph subtly underlies my misgiving about the flippant use of common-ancestry 'predictions' to enhance the evolution theory.
As you mentioned, genomes of some primates have not been sequenced and so there are prior unknown. This unknown, when coupled with a priori knowledge of ERVs would constitute a reasonable 'prediction'. I have no problem with that. However, I put it to you that evidence of 'common ancestry' really does NOT prove the evolution theory. To make such a connection is logical fallacy and a "sleight of hand". The evolution theory must be proven by evidence of species evolving into species, no more, no less. Can you advise whether evidence of ERVs enhances the credence of evolution theory? If so, in what way? I'd like to see real evidence of Genetic Drift. Was there really a prediction of 4 possible outcomes even before scientists discovered the chromosomes difference between chimps and humans? I really doubt that.If the 'prediction' you mentioned were made only after the discovery then that was not a 'prediction' at all. On the other hand, if the prediction was made before the discovery, then on what basis could scientists had 'predicted' that there could be at least four possibilities? The use of the word 'prediction' just does not make sense and so pointless.

You contradicted yourself perfectly. If in science prediction means a logical conclusion based on a theory then your first statement "Prediction doesn't mean it rests on any specific thing" is false.Even your 'prediction' about the Sun tomorrow is based on something - A bad assumption.Here is a 'credible' prediction - Another earthquake will strike Italy in a year's time.
Supposing I have done some earthquake research to arrive at this prediction, mine is therefore not a baseless guess.
If an earthquake does strike Italy within the next year, will I then tell you -- Look, I accurately predicted an earthquake and therefore my creation theory is validated? Of course not, simply because there is no logical connection between Italy earthquake and my creation theory. Although exaggerated, such a twisted argument is used by many evolutionists to claim evolution theory is proven/validated.Whilst I do not object that ERVs support 'common ancestry' model. My points are:
(1) Some ERVs 'predictions' may not be true predictions at all.
(2) Although ERVs do not seem to contradict evolution, they do not validate evolution either.
(3) To pretend that some ERVs 'predictions' exist due to evolution theory; and then claim evolution theory is validated by the predictions, is false circular logic.The proof of evolution lies with evidence of species evolving into other species, no more, no less.I believe my points are valid unless someone proves that ERVs actually enhances credence of the 'engines' of evolution, such as mutation; natural selection; genetic drift; speciation. I have difficulty accepting that in science there is no proof.
As you mentioned earlier, genomes of some primates have not been sequenced and so there are prior unknown. It is quite alright to make predictions like saying it will be found that they share many common ERVs.
I think ERVs does not connect with evolutionary processes. Evolution is really about species evolving into other species. 'Common ancestry' is only an outcome. It's wrong to claim 'common-ancestry' validates evolution theory. Rather, it should be the other way round -- Evolution led to 'common ancestry'.Strictly speaking it'd be wrong to claim ERVs predictions as part of Evolution theory. To further assert that evolution theory is validated by ERVs would be a sleight of hand. My contention is that evolution had never even taken place. It never happened in the past, nor in the present. Therefore 'common ancestry' has another explanation that is not evolution based. These assertions need to be challenged and tested. I think this is where we should be headed in our discussions. It does not matter how long evolution take as long as an incremental evolutionary process exists within the lifetime of a species. This does means that if an animal has a short lifespan of 1 month, then within its short lifespan (of one month) something must happens to demonstrate evolution is occurring.I think it has never occurred to most evolutionists just how impossible evolution really is ! Perhaps that's what made chimps and humans precisely the way they are?
I'm not sure why you sound like there probably is deception/conspiracy on the parts of God. Good, like you I don't believe human history is over 20000 years, much less 70,000 years. I have suggested ERVs are not evidence of evolution.
Do you regard mutation and genetic drift well-tested mechanism of evolution? Evidence please? Probably so. But then probably not, because there may be a need for functional redundancy to cover the event of a biological failure. Perhaps the same 'mold' that was used to create orangutans and chimps was used to create the humans? Sorry, although I were a God, I have forgotten what I had done due to poor memory. Seriously, I really would like to know the truth myself.
Here's a suggestion for scientists - If possible, perform an experiment that selectively destroys some ERVs in egg/germ cells of an apes and see if normal baby apes can be conceived.Edited by pcver, : No reason given.

It is getting really messy.My points about ERVs really boil down to not much more than this:Supposing there are two ways to get to point C-- Either from A or B.
If a man is found at C, without further information we cannot say he must have travelled from A. The reason is obvious -- He could well have come from B instead.The evolution theory (representing point A) predicts common-ancestry (point C). That's fair enough. Afterall if species evolve into other species, then it stands to reason there must be lots of evidence of common ancestry. EVRs support common ancestry model between apes and humans and that's fair enough also. But it is false dichotomy to claim that because evolution theory had predicted 'common ancestry', therefore evolution theory is an accurate theory, and therefore evolution theory is credible. That would be a logical fallacy because:
(1) there is no observable evidence of evolution.
(2) there is another possibility - creation (representing point B)Putting it bluntly, (1) suggests that there is no visible pathway to get from A to C.To truly claim evolution theory is valid, true evidence of evolution must be found. It is pathetic to claim that evolution theory had predicted 'common ancestry', therefore evolution theory is validated and accurate. That would be a ludicrous and illogical claim.As far as I can tell, ERVs do not provide an evolutionary mechanism that enables species to EVOLVE into other species. In other words, ERVs play no part in evolution. They provide information to link species and that's all.In other words, although theoretically there are two paths to get to point C, the route from A to C is very much in doubt and ERVs evidence is not helping.To claim that ERVs; common ancestry and evolution theory are interwoven and they validate each other is to draw a long bow. There is a lack of clarity in various discussions to connect them.Addressing other comments.... Unlike "Prophesy" or "Speculation". The word 'prediction' inherently implies it must rest on something. Every prediction has a logical/scientific basis, no matter how silly that basis may be. If you disagree, then try constructing a predictive statement that is void of any logical basis. I bet you can't. In contrast, a "prophesy" does not have to be logical and it may not rest on anything..You disagree that: "The proof of evolution lies with evidence of species evolving into other species, no more, no less.".
Well, perhaps "The Theory of Evolution" has evolved and is now anything but a theory about evolution.
Evolutionists seem to have neglected that the crux of Theory of Evolution is NOT 'common ancestry'. The bread and butter of Theory of Evolution is just that -- EVOLUTION of species. Are you so surprised to hear I expect to witness evolution in action? Of course I expect to see evolution in motion when something is alive, not when they are dead. It can be a morphological change; a process; or any event that can be scientifically identified as truly evolutionary. Due to the fact that no one has ever observed an evolutionary process, we are told by evolutionists that evolution is so slow it cannot be observed. This is a lie. If evolution is true, then the force of evolution is the GREATEST FORCE of biology. In fact evolutionists do believe in a powerful 'God', known as -- Evolution.
It is inconceivable that such a powerful biological force cannot be observed around us. I expect to see new species popping up and yes, definitely some new species during my life time.
Think outside your square instead of reading books that continue the myth that evolution, if true, is impossible to be observed, (because it takes too long). Notwithstanding numerous evolution mechanisms, evolution remains elusive. Remember it does not follow that ERVs validate evolution theory, even if predictions had originated from there.Also, I said some 'predictions' may not be true predictions at all. An example is RAZD's chromosome fusion 'prediction', (a prediction that couldn't possibly be made before discovery of chromosome fusion). I guess it impresses people more when one claims a prediction is fulfilled.When you said: [/b]The theory[/b] makes specific predictions about the features and DNA sequence of ERV's, you are really referring to "the theory of common ancestry", (if there is such a thing), not the evolution theory per se. I say this because ERVs do not support evolutionary mechanism. It makes no sense to claim that evolution theory makes specific predictions about ERVs.
(Well, I could be wrong because "The Theory of Evolution" has evolved and is now anything but a theory about evolution)You claim that ERVs do enhance credence of the 'engines' of evolution because LTR divergence proves that over time mutations accumulate, at a rate consistent with many neutral genetic drift. I have no problem with this. But I think you know mutation has never led to new species and it never will. So ERVs do not enhance credence of evolution any more than mutation of any DNA. The assumption is that whatever God created must be useful, that anything useless is a proof that creation is false, right?
Suppose God created retrovirus that gave rise to ERVs that are functional. But like I suggested before, the very nature of a retrovirus is one of randomness. So over a long time some retroviruses turned into useless ERVs that were passed down as evidence of 'common ancestry'.
Although I don't know the truth, my explanation suggests that ERVs need not invalidate creation. Do you agree? The assumption here is that whatever God created must be 100% optimal and 100% compact, right?
Think about a timber beam on my roof truss which was broken more than 2 years ago. I had feared that might lead to my roof caving in and then collapse. So far that has not happened. So I think that timber beam is a piece of junk that can be removed with no noticeable effect on my house. It certainly does not need replacing.In the same vein, I really shouldn't believe in creation because I hate mosquitoes and cockroaches. I cannot see how they can be useful and God shouldn't have created them.I agree there are many things I cannot answer about God and creation. But one thing I am sure of is that evolution theory will provide no answer to the mystery of life.

Gee... words (aka bullets) are cris-crossing furiously
Dodge...bullet...duck...dodge...bullet...duck...duck...By any chance, does someone know if there is a creationist site where I can get a evolutionist-bullet-proof vest? Has it ever crossed your mind that when evolution cannot be observed let alone proven, the bar might have been lowered to get the evolution theory 'across the line'? Perhaps you can argue evolution includes "descent with modification" or better "descent with any modification" which implies I must have evolved from my parents because they don't wear glasses like I do... hence validating your version of evolution theory... albeit by definition only.I am not the one playing with words. My habit is to stick with a minimalist definition that is also accurate. To extend and apply adaptation is to risk, like you said -- playing with words.Are you suggesting as part of that definition, black mice and brown mice are evidence of evolution, that they are two different species? You can't be serious !!I put it to you that thousands of variants (or variations) within a species are just that -- members of one single species. That is NOT evidence of evolution.It's good that you confirm what I suspected: "ERV's don't "provide an evolutionary mechanism that enables species to EVOLVE into other species." They just give us one more smoking gun that lets us quantatively measure how evolution happened." So you confirm what I suspected as well. I agree that does not help. But what can I do? I turned to evolution theory but what do I see -- a theory of impossibility. I am now convinced evolution theory will never deliver the goods and evolution in fact never even happened !!BTW, I notice you're a catholic. Would you happen to be one of those confused creationists that Dr Adequate mentioned as having hit the books and ended up believing in evolution? ( Refer to Message 92 and then my response Message 94) Sure some languages do indicate common root. No problem there. However even though some languages are very different, that does not mean common root is invalid, for it is recorded in the Bible:

quote:

---

GENESIS 11:7 -- Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another's speech.

---

I understand humans developed new and different languages as a result. If evolution theory did not predict 'common ancestry', why the word 'predict' is used so many times in the name of evolution theory?
Strictly speaking, evolution theory is 'unqualified' to make a 'common ancestry' prediction because the theory cannot even salvage its credibility by predicting how species will evolve.
I think the 'theory of common ancestry', (if there is such a thing) can stand on its own without evolution theory.BTW, I am generally agreeable about natural selection. But natural selection is NOT evolution and it can never cause a species to evolve into another species. Natural selection is a very amicable argument that makes for a very acceptable facade for the frauded evolution theory. That's all. Believing mutation and selection have led to evolution of species is just that -- a belief
Your's is a 'science-based belief' but nonetheless just another 'belief'. Strangely, as someone who didn't want to add more to my plate, you're surely getting my undivided attention right now. Now you surprise me... not least is your propensity to put words in others mouth.
Actually I had already replied to your earlier post what evidence is required of evolution. It's not about lizard giving birth to non-lizard either. Actually I only told half the stories earlier. The other half is: "Evolutionists have told me evolution is happening everywhere right now". Now that's a lie too....If your objection is that the word "lie" is too heavy-sounding then I would agree. Afterall some evolutionists sincerely believe it's silly to expect to observe evolution whilst others sincerely believe evolution is happening everywhere. If people are sincere in their belief in untruth then they cannot be regarded as telling a lie, right? -- -- --
Errr.... You ask me for some evidence, but call me a liar even before I come back with evidence?
So you've never heard something like that coming from a Biologist? Do some Biologists tell you things, like calling you personally or send you emails? I guess not...perhaps no Biologist ever heard of your name.But where/when did I ever said that a Biologist had made that claim?
I only mentioned evolutionists, (but not Biologists).Did you think Evolutionists equate with Biologists?
Or worse..., you tried to concoct a lie and attribute that to me? Trying to tell lies again? Are there many talking snakes in the Bible, as well as multiple guys who are born of multiple virgins? Care to back your statement up with some evidence? Listen boy, if you think you're clever enough to call me a liar, I have an advice for you -- Go back to a primary school that may fix your behavioral issue (including pot-smoking). BTW, don't return to the same school as that one obviously didn't do much good to your demeanour.But unfortunately, no school will be able to help you improve your ability to reason.Another appropriate advice to you: Make sure to attend Bible scripture class while you're back at school. That may help. Your analogy is telling a different tale from mine. They are not the same. If you were trying to extend my metaphor then yours violates Occam's razor principle.
In my analogy, I said that [b][/i](1) suggests that there is no visible pathway to get from A to C.[/i][/b]
The same argument, when transposed to your analogy, is like saying: "There is no visible pathway to get from A to D".
So going from A to C will fail the same way as going from A to D. In which case, point E and F are redundant and irrelevant.
If we agree that in your analogy, evolution is represented by going from A to D, then I assert that the pathway actually does not exist. I don't believe junk DNA invalidate creation. Perhaps it is simply impossible not to have a bit of padding here, and wasted space there. I believe if one day scientists are capable of creating DNAs and cells from scratch, we will find that they cannot create a cell without something useless/redundant in the cell, no matter how hard they try to optimise the creation. I must say your metaphor confused me quite a bit.
So to help me understand your argument, I represented your metaphor as follow:

quote:

---

X (ancestor) --->Darwinian evolution--->Z (Present state)
Y (creation) ----->Extinction --------->Z (Present state)

---

Am I reading you correctly with above representation?However, your conclusion again confused me. You seem to be saying only going from point X to point Z would result in "footprints". This is obviously not true as going from point Y to point Z would definitely leave behind "footprints" of extinction. Bear in mind there has always been reduction of species through extinction. But I never hear increase in new species. How do you account for that using the Darwinian evolution model?But of course you have come back with a creationist link that claim new species are created and you claim the force of evolution can be observed around us. I will have to leave that later until I have time to go through the material. Hopefully after a few days. Cheers...

Sure we can roughly estimate how long it took for a mountain to erode away. The crucial difference between horse evolution and a mountain erosion is that a constant and consistent process exists for erosion of a mountain. The process is observable, (due to rain, melting snow, wind). Not least because rocks always fall downwards, not up.
You can hardly draw a parallel in horse evolution. Mutations are random, not a constant and consistent process. Natural selection does not trigger a mutations or leads to new DNA being created. Speciation, (the process of biological species formation) more or less synonymous with evolution, has never happened. I think you're referring to ERVs that are functional. Some creationists would say that such ERV's are part of God's creation design. You can count me in also. At present I'm not interested in Noah's Ark. Though I do NOT disagree with Christians who believe in a global flood and I support their faith. Mutations have been mentioned by a few posters as if that will save the theory of evolution. I do not dispute that mutations cause changes to occur. You know mutations better than I do. So I will try a different tag to evaluate mutations.
Firstly, I assert that all behaviours of any living thing (except humans) can be modelled on super-computers, assuming all the knowledge about it's behaviours is known. I am certain modelling an animal is a theoretical possibility. (But I've excluded humans because it may never be possible to correctly model a human due to existence of intelligence).
What's the significance of this? First of all it's fun -- Imagine seeing a puppy dog on your computer screen that behaves exactly as a real puppy would. It chews a bone; does a wee and poo; it drinks water; barks when a stranger approaches but stops barking when the stranger is friendly; and what's more, you can train it to jump over a hoop and to respond according to your many gestures.This is precisely what God's creation gives us, the making of living things with 'embedded-codes' within all of them. The program codes within a creature totally control how the creature behaves. A creature cannot does more that it is pre-programmed to do. "Not until mutations start to cause cumulative changes."......I almost could hear such murmuring from somewhere. As I hinted in some of my earlier posts, even God does not violate the Laws of Physics, including the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. At a microscopic levels, there are randomness; unpredictability and 'uncontrollable behaviours' that are inherent within the smallest life objects such as retrovirus, DNA & genes. Those chaotic natures manifest as mutations that lead to defective ERV fragments and altered genes.The bottomline is this, although we do not know how DNA and genes map to biological 'embedded codes', there must be such a correlation -- The computer can show us this is the case, by allowing us to model a life-form, perhaps even right down to bits and bytes within the computer memory.Now, this allows me to play God, by creating an android, albeit a rudimentary one, inaptly named Goliath. My little Goliath android can perform many simple tasks necessary for survival, such as walking around to look for food and climbing a tree if necessary. Here I just want to concentrate on snippets of embedded codes that instruct how my little Goliath get to feed and therefore (hopefully) survive.My little Goliath's meal-time algorithm01.Start-Meal-Time
02....Randomly walk on land
03....Search for small round red; brown or green object
04....If object found
05.......Put object in mouth
06.......If object is hard
07..........Spit out object
08.......Else
09..........Swallow object
10....Continue search for 1 hour or until total of 100 objects are eaten
11....If less than 100 objects swallowed
12.......Locate a tree and then climb tree
13.......Look for small red or green object on branches
14. .....If object found
15..........Pick object from branch
16.............Swallow object
17.......Continue picking for 1 hour or until total of 100 objects are eaten
18.......Climb down tree
19....If less than 100 objects eaten
20.......Repeat 'Start-Meal-Time'
21.End-Meal-TimeMy creation is complete and little Goliath is doing everything it is pre-programmed to do, including executing the 'Start-Meal-Time' function when it is 'hungry'Next I need to cause 'mutations' to occur. Let's assume that I can trigger a 'mutation' by switching an electrical power tool on/off very close to little Goliath. Due to electro-magnetic interference, there are 'spikes' within the little Goliath's system that causes 'mutations' to randomly occur. In this case, mutations are simply unpredictable changes in bits and bytes of the Goliath's embedded codes. (Talk to someone who understands computer programming if you don't know what bits and bytes mean)Those who understand computer programming know that a program code nearly always consist of (1) Data; and (2) Functions.
Functions almost always contain an action -- Some examples are: 'Searching' (for an object); 'Putting' (an object); 'Swallowing' (a food); 'Climbing' (a tree).
Data can be regarded as values or an attribute -- An example is 'red', 'green', 'hard', '100'; '1 hour'; 'tree'.
Also, a program must have a logical structure, such as use of commands 'if less than'; 'until'; 'continue'.When a 'mutation' takes place, what do you think might happen to my little Goliath?(Case #1)...One fairly harmless mutation might be a data change -- the memory location that contains 'green' is changed into 'pale green'. In which case my little Goliath will identify 'pale green' objects as food. The problem of course, is that it will no longer put 'green' food in its mouth. Only red, brown and pale green food will be accepted.(Case #2)...Another fairly harmless mutation, another data change -- the memory location that contains '100' is altered into '123'. In which case my little Goliath will try to eat more food and grow fatter more quickly.(Case #3)...Now a harmful mutation, another data change -- the memory location that contains 'hard' is altered into 'soft'. In which case my little Goliath will try to swallow hard object (probably a green stone) and spit out fruit that is softer. Obviously my little Goliath will perish rather quickly.(Case #4)...Next, supposing a mutation had caused a change that turns a function call to be skipped. For example, ('16.....Swallow object') became ('16.....NULL, NULL, NULL'). What happens is feeding on a tree will fail because my little Goliath will not be able to swallow food while on a tree. It will repeat the feeding loop and eat on the ground until 100 pieces of food have been eaten. Now, I more or less have a new sub-species of Goliath that does not eat on a tree.Some who knows computer programming might know how to manually alter a byte inside a program. Most computer experts would tell you what may happen if a random change is made to a program. Here's some hypothetical possibilities:-
(1) 99% of the time the program will crash/hang after running for some time, because a function/logic is impacted.
(2) 0.999% of the time, no problem is observed, (because the change happened in an area containing useless or redundant data)
(3) 0.001% of the time, funny things happen (such as green display turns red; the speaker does not beep properly). Count yourself very lucky. You have just got yourself a working new 'sub-species' !!What I'm trying to say is, mutations can only ever cause variations within the same species, for the simple fact that whilst it is possible to cause a DATA change (which could result in new 'sub-species'), it is impossible for mutations to cause a FUNCTION change (which could result in a totally new 'species').I am definite that mutations can never add a new function to a pre-existing 'embedded codes'. Nope, nah, nay...absolutely NOT possible. However that's precisely what you'd need for mutations to create a new species. The best that a mutation can do, apart of causing a data-related change, is merely to silent a function, meaning -- the affected organism has gone backwards and lost capability. Biologists call the tune on animals division into different species. That does not mean they are always correct.
I have considered ring species. I'm firmly of the view that all animals in a ring species are simply variants of the same species, even if some sub-species completely do not interbreed. I suspect it is the same with genus Mus. When a difficulty to classify arises due to interbreeding-related consideration, classification should be based on anatomical criteria. Do you accept as correct that genus Mus is divided up into many species? Why? Intellectually dishonest? Of course not. I am not going to guess how/why God created onions that way, am I? Your argument is on the basis that God's creations must be 'perfect' to the extent that not a single junk DNA is found, or that onions should have less junk DNAs than a mouse. Logically there is no reason why onions cannot have more junk DNAs than a mouse because the facts speak for themselves -- Irregardless of junk DNAs, onions are onions and mice are mice. If leaving too many junk DNAs in onions cause onions to grow useless black mousy hairs than that'd be a good reason why God must not leave more junk DNAs in onions.But that is really only one aspect of discussions. Perhaps you can enlighten me with a perfect evolution answer on how junk DNAs in onions had came about? Probably so. I don't know how exactly God created the world, of course. So I am open-minded about old versus young Earth arguments. Errr... seriously think about what you just said. What you said is actually IMPOSSIBLE in evolution but quite possible as part of creation. Imagine all life forms that depend on each other to exist must evolve together... Errr...well if you believe that, you'd believe in a GOD !! I believe many (if not all) 'new species' should not have been classified as new species at all. They are actually variants of the same species, (even if they do not interbreed with the original species). You do believe natural selection is not the answer to evolution. I say neither is mutation an answer. So evolution is impossible. You are funny...
I know speciation means "The process of biological species formation". The next thing I know is speciation does not result in a new species. (BTW. I have read about ring spcies and two-spined sticklebacks)
When I have more time, I will follow that creationists link you provided to see if I agree with them. Do you know that there is no logical reason why 100% of the population cannot be all wrong at the same time?
And yes, it is definitely possible that all 99.9% of evolutionary scientists are wrong about many things.
I have much more faith in physicists, mathematicians than biologists.Edited by pcver, : No reason given.

Firstly, thank you for the positive comment
Now, supposing a breeding pair of Goliath's was created thousands of years ago. Due to success in survival and breeding over many generations, today there are millions of little Goliath's roaming all over the Earth. Perhaps partly due to mutations and natural selection, there are now many enclaves of White Goliath's; Black Goliath's and Goliath's with various shades of grey; not forgetting Goliath's that do not eat on trees, of course.Unlike grey Goliath's which are mostly not fussy with a choice of sexual partners, white Goliath's and black Goliath's do not interbreed with each other. This is because within "embedded codes" of every Goliath is a piece of logic that instructs Goliath's to only have sexual relationship with another creature of similar appearance.Unfortunately, white and black are so far apart in hue that the embedded logic had caused white Goliath's to mistakenly think that black Goliath's are not suitable as sexual partners. Conversely, black Goliath's think that white Goliath's are unattractive as sex partners. Such 'perceptional' and 'behavioral' issues have led to a lack of interbreeding between white and black Goliath's, (even though biologically they are completely compatible). Unlike humans, Goliath's lack the intelligence needed to overcome such mental impediments.Notwithstanding the lack of interbreeding between white and black Goliath's, all Goliath's are actually just variants of the same species.However due to differences in interbreeding and feeding habits, some observers may be led to think that there are at least 6 distinct species of little Goliaths:
Species #1 -- White Goliaths that feed on land and trees
Species #2 -- Grey Goliaths that feed on land and trees
Species #3 -- Black Goliaths that feed on land and trees
Species #4 -- White Goliaths that feed on land but not on trees
Species #5 -- Grey Goliaths that feed on land but not on trees
Species #6 -- Black Goliaths that feed on land but not on trees Mehhh.... shocker!! That gave me a near heart-attack, and my belief in humanity almost shattered ! You do give some impressions of a mathematician.
Perhaps mathematicians ought to stick closely to mathematics, to avoid sounding like.... errr... a snake oil salesman ? Ahaa... I have visited the creationist site, a very good site actually.
A general sense of the term 'speciation' is used in there. It says "Speciation works only within a kind".

quote:

---

Is Natural Selection the Same Thing as Evolution? | Answers in Genesis
Speciation has never been observed to form an organism of a different kind, such as a dog species producing a cat. Speciation works only within a kind. Evolution requires natural selection and speciation to give rise to new kinds from a former kind (e.g., dinosaurs evolving into birds). Speciation, however, leads to a loss of information, not the gain of information required by evolution. Thus, speciation as a possible outcome of natural selection cannot be used as a mechanism for molecules-to-man evolution.

---

What happens is, I have been very strictly adhering to the definition of 'speciation'. Therefore if a new species is never created, then 'speciation process' is really not a speciation process, as that would be a contradiction. So I can safely claim 'speciation' never happened, or observed. Yes, I agree with you it would be important to understand more about ERV's.
I'm glad someone who knows the answer has come forward to explain why there is a lot of junk DNA's in onions.
( That naughty Shalamabobbi could have provided the answers, couldn't he? ) Yes, I would regard physicists finding seriously. I am aware there are explanations that although found inside old rocks, fossils themselves may not be old. At present I am not knowledgeable enough on such issues. Whilst ERVs suggest common ancestry, I cannot fathom how common ancestry can be a possibility without evolution. My disbelief in evolution certainly makes it much harder to accept common ancestry. Are all Apes not 'bio-compatible' with each other? Have attempts been made to artificially cross-inseminate different species of Apes? Perhaps the results would lead us to re-think and simply regard many Apes as variants of the original breeding pair(s). That would partly solve the 'common ancestry' mystery, as 'common ancestry' for variants of the same species is more logical. My view is that difference in DNA counts may not be a valid criteria to differentiate between two species.
Supposing in the 'beginning', a species started out with 100% of the species's original DNA's and over a long time, many variants with less than 100% of the original DNA's had come about. Can we not regard all variants as members of the same species, even though DNA counts between some variants may be very different? I guess you need to model closely if that is the only way to obtain accurate results. However if logical deduction, estimation, approximation and extrapolation can be applied to a much more relaxed model, then why waste time building a detailed model? Strange perception you've got there... I certainly did not dodge your point but directly confronted it. I simply and bluntly suggested that I disagree with 99.9% of evolutionary scientists on evolution. They are all wrong... and you included, (just in case you're as much a scientist as Dr Adequate is a mathematician ) Errr...I find that argument rather strange.
Please then provide a comprehensive list of evolutionary processes and see if one is more plausible than the other.

ZZZ...zzz... Gee...I must be getting tired... If speciation does not create a "new function", then speciation will never advance evolution. Data change will not be sufficient. Functional change will also be required. The computers tell me that. That was not what I said. I said it's impossible for speciation to create a "new function", not that a "new function" would be detrimental. That's just playing with words. Speciation within a "kind" is simply not what the word is intended. I'd disagree with anyone, (including a Creationist) who would tell me 'speciation' has been observed. If no new species is created by speciation, then speciation is just not speciation. If white and black Goliaths are capable of interbreeding but do not practise it due to a behavioral issue then they are still the same species. 'Mate selection' is suggestive of a behavioral issue and so it cannot be used to define a species.BTW, I have looked at the case of three-spined stickleback and ring species. I'd say the interbreeding issues there are similar to white and black Goliaths. Biologists are making a mistake if they think new species have been formed. I think not only that's insufficient evidence, that may actually suggest humans and gibbon are not of the same compatible kind. Besides, the reverse should also be possible -- Gibbon sperms with human egg cells.Also, how do we reconcile the fact that unlike other Apes, humans are 'intelligent'? This alone should absolutely differentiate us from the Apes kind. But the biology definition of 'species' does not even consider this fact, which is a glaring discrepancy. On the surface that's fair enough.Perhaps the flip side of "theory of evolution" is actually "theory of creation".
Discovery about ERVs may just have opened the lid to a 'secret' of creation. Do you realise those 'new species' were formed by mixing creatures that already exist?
But new species have never been observed to form as a result of evolution.
In other words, the evidence is that whilst creation is a possibility, evolution is not. My eyes beamed as I realise a possibility...As PaulK suggested he would like a sufficiently accurate model of biological life. Can I point him in your direction?
If I find out there is a slightest chance your 'genetic algorithms' may be a potential Nobel price winner, then I will hop right back! Actually I thought you could answer but wouldn't disclose the answers. So I was mistaken.
Have fun backpacking !
.
.
.
Sound's like Shalamabobbi could be on the road. Guess I should be going... Folks, thank you all for your patience and tolerance.