ERV's: Evidence of Common Ancestory

Why would an all powerful and all knowing supernatural deity who resides outside of space and time need to reuse designs in order to save time? For an all powerful and all knowing deity it would stand to reason that starting from scratch would take just as much effort as copying other designs.Even more, this still doesn't explain the pattern produced by locus, LTR divergence, and interspecies ERV divergence. There is no reason that a designer who reuses designs would slightly tweak DNA sequence so that it falls into a nested hierarchy through three independent analyses. When humans design things they don't produce designs that fall into a nested hierarchy, and yet this is exactly what we see in life, a nested hierarchy.The only consistent and testable explanation is common ancestry coupled with evolutionary mechanisms. Since they are trying to explain why nature is the way it is, yes. Proof is for math and alcohol. You can't prove that all of your memories before last Thursday are real memories. Keep in mind that it is possible that a devious deity could have created the universe last Thursday, complete with a false history and false memories.The fact of the matter is that we observe the only pattern of homology in life that the mechanisms of evolution can produce. All of the evidence is consistent with evolution, and there is no reason that it should be other than evolutionary mechanisms being active in the past. There is no physical law that requires chimps and humans to share orthologous ERV's. None. And yet there they are. The mechanisms of evolution have been directly observed both in the lab and in the wild. They are no more speculative than gravity or electromagnetism. The gorilla, orangutan, gibbon, and other primate genomes have not been done. As new DNA sequences are determined in primate species this group of evidence is continually testing the theory of evolution. The theory predicts that specific ERV's should be found in the genomes of these species PRIOR to their genomes being sequenced. If creationists want to truly challenge the theory of evolution here is their chance. They can start sequencing primate genomes and find sequences that do not line up with the predictions of the theory. I think we all know why creationists are not doing this, because they know deep down that the theory is correct. Why else would they pass up such an obvious chance to prove the theory false? Why do you have difficulties believing this?

If a nested hierarchy is not the pattern of homology predicted by the theory of evolution for primates then please tell us what pattern of homology the theory does predict. Please show how the mechanisms of evolution can produce anything other than a nested hierarchy with reference to ERV locus, ERV LTR divergence, and interspecies ERV sequence divergence.

Curiously, not one of those four predicted outcomes of common descent had to occur in reality, they are only necessary to occur IF common descent is a valid theory.The mixture of chromosomes between chimps and humans could have been completely mixed up and fulfilled none of these conditions. This is what a lack of common descent would predict. You're just trying to shoehorn denial of reality into your argument. The fact remains that these four results are not the only possible results necessary, they are only necessary if common descent is a valid theory. Whining about anyone of them validating common descent does not mean that it is a fraudulent position, rather it is missing the fact that only 4 out of a possibly infinite number of DNA strand combinations that would allow humans and chimps to exist as organisms, and any one of them could have been ture ... if they did NOT have a common ancestor. Correct - because the prediction is that one of these four results, out of an infinite variety, would be true if the theory of common descent was a valid theory.These four different predictions do not cover all the possibilities, and if not one of them had occurred then the theory would have been invalidated. As noted, there is no reason for any one of those 4 predicted outcome to occur UNLESS common descent were true. Predictions is how science is done. Get used to it. Proof is another matter -- not one scientific theory is ever proven. What we get is validation and invalidation. Validation leaves us with tentative confidence in the value of a theory to explain reality, invalidation leaves us with one more theory to discard. Why yes. It is one of the results of observing evolution and speciation in action as they occur -- we see branching of species into subpopulations, and then we theorize that this has been going on since the dawn of time ... what do you think that might predict?Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : spling

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

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.

There was no claim that food was lacking. There was just a statement of the Malthusian principle stated in terms of the primary constraint, which is food, but Malthus more generally stated his principle in terms of available resources. Your point is that the population size of ancient man would not be subject to Malthusian limits in terms of food, but the limit is not an on/off type of thing. It's a continuum. The more closely limits are approached the more severely the effects are felt, so ancient man was most certainly subject to Malthusian constraints.You provided the example of ancient man being able to go wherever he liked in pursuit of food, and while this isn't a complete picture given the constraints of geography, climate and potentially hostile other groups of ancient men, it was certainly much more true in ancient times than it is today, but one of the motivating factors for ancient man to change location is due to reaching Malthusian limits in his current one.--Percy

Not that it will do any good against the present display of logic, but I'd like to learn some more and lurkers will benefit. Maybe even pcver will attend as he swears the picture in my last post is not of him with his buddies. But if he were willing to follow the evidence he'd have to admit the attire is aussie..

Incorrect. I could say that tomorrow the sun will explode into a thousand bits of star matter and when they hit the Earth's atmosphere, they will be transformed into a rainbow made of Skittles. My reason for believeing this is the Skittles commercial I saw last night. I think the producers of that commercial were in communion with the spirit world and thus had foreknowledge of the event. That is a prediction. When it doesn't come to pass, it means my prediction is wrong.Prediction doesn't mean it rests on any specific thing. In science, prediction means a logical conclusion based on the theory and the starting conditions. The theory says if A is true, then B,C,or D have to be true as well. If we find B, C, or D, that means A is validated, if we don't, that means A is invalidated. A predicted B, C or D, whether or not B, C, or D is known to be true or flase.

So if I can find a feature that performs the same function but is designed differently then this would be inconsistent with creationism/ID?Also, why would you re-use designs so that they fall into a nested hierarchy? Staying on topic with respect to ERV's, let's say you have created chimps and orangutans, and now you have decided to make humans using a "similar mold". Why would you only use ERV's that orangutans and chimps share, but not ERV's only found in orangutans? What reason is there for this pattern of re-use? Couldn't you just as easily throw in a few hundred orangutan specific ERV's? As the old saw goes, proof is for math and alcohol. In science there is no proof. There is only evidence. Theories are never proven, they are only tested. The theory of evolution predicts what pattern of homology we should see in the placement, LTR divergence, and interspecies ERV homology for ERV's. We then look to see if this pattern is present. It is. A theory that is capable of making very accurate predictions is a good theory, wouldn't you agree? If the theory of evolution is false, why is it able to make such accurate predictions? It would seem to me that only accurate theories make accurate predictions, wouldn't you agree? How is this sleight of hand?What your argument boils down to is this. All the evidence certainly makes it look like humans and chimps share a common ancestor, and all of the evidence is consistent with evolutionary mechanisms being active in the past, but this doesn't mean that humans and chimps share a common ancestor nor does it point to evolution. That's it in a nutshell, is it not?As to species evolving into new species, this is the evidence of just that. Humans and chimps are separate ape species. The evidence clearly shows that they share a common ancestor. The DNA differences seen in the two genomes is consistent with the evolutionary mechanisms of mutation, selection, and divergence. ERV's are evidence of just what you ask for, species evolving into new species. It is the placement and sequence of ERV's that gives the theory of evolution credence. It is not ERV's themselves which add credence, it is the pattern of homology that adds credence. It is this pattern that creationists must explain, and they fail miserably every time. You have not even dealt with the pattern of homology other than to say humans were made from the same mold. This, in no way, tells us why we see a nested hierarchy. However, a nested hierarchy is EXACTLY what we should see if evolution and common ancestry is true.

I don't want to add more to your plate, however this caught my eye and could be the root of the issue. Are you under the assumtion that evolution is a species(fish) evolving in a single generation into another species(lizard)?Do you know what descent with slight modification is?

---

"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

No. Did you read the article I linked to? It does not just say: "Since the chromosome number is smaller, two chromosomes must have fused". It says: "Since the chromosome number is smaller, if we look at the chromosomes it will look like two chromosomes have fused". This is a testable prediction. It was accurate.Why should a Creator make it look as though the reason for different chromosome numbers in chimps and humans was the fusion of two ape chromosomes. Why supply humans with a vestigial centromere and vestigial pre-telomeric sequences? What are they doing there --- except convincing biologists that they're right about evolution?Why should it look like they fused rather than like God made them that way ab initio? You wrote, and I quote: Now, do you seriously believe that if the population had got that big, we would still be able to supply ourselves with all the food and water we need? Even after numerous advances in agriculture, there are still places where food and water is in desperately short supply. Heck, if the population got that big we'd also be short of oxygen and places to stand.Do you really believe that people who thought that the Earth was flat, that thunder was caused by God shouting, and that rain came in through the holes in the sky could nonetheless have summoned up the technological nous to feed a population even a millionth of that size? We couldn't. That's not a strawman, that's an analogy. And it's rather accurate.What you are doing is attributing to miraculous activity phenomena which are explicable in terms of a well-tested theory founded in the laws of nature. Moreover, the miraculous explanation would explain any other set of observations that we might make, whereas the non-miraculous theory places restrictions of what we should and should not be able to observe, and so has predictive power. You are then left with the awkward question of why God should have chosen to perform his miracles in such a way as to always fulfill the predictions of the theory.If you are to attribute the genomes of living creatures to an act of fiat creation, why did God always create them in such a way as to fulfill the predictions of the theory of evolution? If you were going to attribute gravitational phenomena to angels pushing things, why should God command them always to push things in such a way as to fulfill the predictions of the theory of gravity?You see the parallel? Perish the thought.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

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 difficult to fathom the confusion of ideas that led you to make that post. However, your response as follows ... ... suggests that you are deliberately trying as hard as possible not to understand a word that's being said to you. Either that or you are naturally talented in halfwitted incomprehension.Whichever it is, it would seem to be a waste of my time to try to explain basic biology to you. If I cannot even convey to you the fact that I think that the human race is over 20,000 years old, how shall I convey my reasons for thinking that ... or anything else?

I had the same reaction. I wonder if anyone remembers the I, Mudd episode of the original Star Trek, where they overcome the androids by presenting them logical contradictions that cause computational lock up. Attempts at rational analysis of Pcver's post might present the same dangers. He's impervious to both data and logic because he rejects one and is a stranger to the other. I haven't a clue how to respond.--Percy

Reading comprehension, there are clauses that can clarify things for you. "Prediction" on its own doesn't mean it rests on anything. However, when you bring the word prediction into a SCIENTIFIC structure, it does rest on something. The word "science" adds a more stringent definition to the word, indeed to many words, than the way we use them in everyday life. That's false.Scientific theories, if they are robust, make many predictions and offer many ways for them to be contradicted or invalidated. Often, the logical conclusions of a theory in a specific instance are not known or even considered until that instance is discovered. The theory leads to a logical end where, if common descent is true, then we will see ERVs shared between related species, with fewer homologs as the most recent common ancestor is farther in the past. If this is what we find, then the theory is validated (not proven, but supported, ie validated) if this is not what we find, the theory is invalidated and either needs to be scrapped or adjusted.Whether we know the way the world really is or not, the theory has consequences that either match the real world or do not. SO far, all the consequences we can test have been shown to correlate with the real world, thus granting a large degree of certainty in the validity of the theory. What someone who wants to destroy the theory of evolution, or the theory of common descent, you need to find something in the world that contradicts the consequences of the theory. Just be sure you're accurately describing a consequence of the theory and not a straw man you've concocted.

So you are expecting to see actual morphological changes while the individual animal is alive? That's what you expect evolution to be? That's what you require as evidence?I suggest before you continue in this thread you take a minute, or a few years, and realy open a few books on the subject. You would really gain a lot by actually learning what it is you're trying to debate.- OniEdited by onifre, : changed "species" to "animal"...

---

"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky