ERV's: Evidence of Common Ancestory

Guessing you meant to say "while the *animal* is alive?" Or "while the *individual* is alive?"--Percy

There is absolutely no reason for species separate from each other w/o common ancestry to have ERVs that coincide in location in the genome. ERVs do indeed contradict creationism as the source of ERVs is known and are due to viruses. They are damage to the genome. To suggest that ERVs are created in place is not even logic, circuler or otherwise. You adopt that view of necessity because otherwise there is no way to account for the huge amount of ERVs in the genome. What sort of logic is that? Apologetics.. You don't even recognize when your logic works against you. If ERVs are never functional then that refutes ERVs being created.
If they are functional sometimes that supports evolution and refutes creationism as not all are functional, but are part of 'junk' DNA. If ERVs were created they'd ALL need to be functional, especially the ones that exist in the same location in different species.If you will argue against junk DNA then consider this. Onions have 5 times more DNA than humans. Amphiuma has 25 times more and a unicellular amoeba dubia has 200 times more DNA than humans.A total of 2.3 million letters of DNA code of mouse junk DNA was removed with no noticeable effect on the organism.
reference Amphiuma, which has around 25 times more DNA than humans.

quote:

---

The onion test is a simple reality check for anyone who thinks they have come up with a universal function for non-coding DNA. Whatever your proposed function, ask yourself this question: Can I explain why an onion needs about five times more non-coding DNA for this function than a human?

---

reference

quote:

---

the genome of the unicellular Amoeba dubia has been reported to contain more than 200 times the amount of DNA in humans

---

reference Really? Would suggesting that ERVs which are damage to the genome due to viruses are really created in place be 'slight of mind'? Is your avatar a self portrait?Edited by shalamabobbi, : minor punctuationEdited by shalamabobbi, : No reason given.

I did, and thanks for catching that, Percy. Early morning posts are always a bit foggy. Late night drinking may be the cause. - lolI have corrected it.- Oni

---

"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

What mechanisms are you basing this prediction on?What you have to remember is that the predictions pertaining to ERV's are not wild ass guesses. These predictions are based on our observations of the mechanisms of evolution in action. From these observations scientists are able to predict what we should see in genomes if these same evolutionary mechanisms were active in the past. The loci, LTR divergence, and interspecies divergence are part of those predictions. Why not? Yes, they do. The theory makes specific predictions about the features and DNA sequence of ERV's. The ERV's are then sequenced. Those predictions are found to be accurate. This is EXACTLY how one validates a theory, but testing the predictions that the theory makes. That is not what we are doing. The mere existence of predictions is not what validates the theory of evolution. It is the existence of ACCURATE AND TESTED predictions which validates the theory.Do you honestly think that because scientists claim that an ERV shared by orangutans and humans should also be found in chimps at the same spot in the genome will make an ERV magically appear in that exact position? Are you saying that making a prediction somehow makes the data appear? But that is exactly what we do see in ERV's. That is why I explained LTR divergence. The LTR's in an ERV are identical at the time of insertion. Over time mutations accumulate in each of the LTR's leading to LTR's that are no longer identical. The rate at which these mutations accumulate is consistent with neutral genetic drift in the vast majority of cases. They are perfect examples of how evolution occurs, and how speciation results in sequence divergence. That would be your difficulty, not mine. Quantum mechanics is difficult to accept when you first learn of it, but that doesn't stop Quantum mechanics from being an accurate theory. The orthologous nature of ERV's demonstrates common ancestry even if the ERV is in two individuals from the same population. You and your siblings (or cousins for that matter) share ERV's in the same spots in your genome. This is due to common ancestry.As for evolution, the [i]differences[/] in the sequence of ERV's is explained by evolutionary mechanisms, including the divergence of ERV sequences in different lineages. Evolution explains both the similarities and the differences. Read that last sentence over and over until it sinks in. It is a very important to understand how this is. Why would it be wrong when the theory is able to accurately predict the placement and sequence divergence of ERV's? That doesn't change the fact that the theory of evolution accuratley predicts the features of ERV's. You claim it isn't evolution, and yet all of the evidence is consistent with evolution. What do you think I have been talking about? The comparison of ERV's in different species is just that test. This is off topic so I will only point you in this direction. Compare the cephalopod eye to the human eye. They are designed different yet perform the same function.

I would be more careful in the terminology I use around these IDers. Next thing you know you will see this quoted with your name on it, claiming you support ID.

Design does not imply intelligence. There are stars that produce the shape of a dipper (or plow for our British friends). However, this does not mean that someone placed the stars in the sky so that they would form the shape of a dipper (or plow).

By all means, we are agreed. I was simply pointing out that your opinion on the matter is of no consequence to creationist activists, and they would have no qualm quoting that out of context. Ya know what I mean?

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.

You're just playing with words, Pcver. Evolution is "descent with modification." And, as long ago as 1859, it was hypothesized that all life came from a common ancestor. Everywhere we look we see organisms - let's say the thousand species of mice and rats - that are 1) apparently, even to the eye of a five-year-old, descended from a common ancestor and 2) not all identical - "modified."ERV evidence is just one of the several lines that show us that groups like mice are, indeed, cousins, how closely members of this group are related to each other, and even when two members, now in different species, shared a Grandma Mouse in common.And no, 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.

---

"The wretched world lies now under the tyranny of foolishness; things are believed by Christians of such absurdity as no one ever could aforetime induce the heathen to believe." - Agobard of Lyons, ca. 830 AD

I have not read this entire thread....The title is: "ERV's: Evidence of Common Ancestoy" ERV's all on their own do not prove evolution. BFDThey are, however, evidence for common decent (which you agree to).But now you saying: "Well, it still could have been created."Of course it could have, that's the problem with unfalsifiable claims. ERV's still fit within Last Thursdayism too.Saying it still could have been created does nothing for us at all.Can you even propose a mechanism by which ERV's would have been created?If animals did commonly decend, then we would expect to see things like ERV's. That we do see them suggests that common decent did happen. It is evidence supporting evolution regardless that it could still have been created I guess evolution was how god created it then, no?

Let's use a different analogy. Let's look at languages. The word for the number one in French, Spanish, and Italian are une, uno, and uno respectively. For Spanish and Italian the same spelling is pronounced a little bit differently. Now what are the chances that three languages independently all arrived at similar words for the same thing? Pretty low, right? Why would groups of people that do not speak each others language all come around to using very similar words? The answer is that they didn't. These languages share a common root language, Latin. These languages diverged from this common ancestor. Over time these populations were isolated and small changes accumulated in each. Over time the resulted in languages that were modified to the point that the different populations have a tough time understanding each other, but it is obvious from an analysis of the languages that they share a common root language. This is how the determination of common ancestry works, shared features that can only be explained by common ancestry plus modifications in each lineage that are not seen in the other lineages. For ERV's, these DNA sequences are obviously derived from a common source and when we compare different species we see differences in the sequence that are caused by lineage specific changes. Common ancestry is not the prediction. Common ancestry is the conclusion drawn from the evidence. In science, hypotheses are IF - THEN propositions. If A then B. If common ancestry is true then we should find a specific pattern of orthologous ERV's, LTR divergence, and ERV divergence. We then sequence the DNA and see if the hypothesis is supported, and it is. That is how science works. What ERV's do show us is:1) Divergent species share a common ancestor.
2) Lineage specific mutations accumulate over time.
3) The rates at which mutations accumulate in different genes differs due to natural selection. Mutations in ERV's tend to accumulate at a rate consistent with neutral drift. That is, mutations in ERV's tend not to affect fitness. When we compare the number of mutations in ERV's to coding regions we see more mutations in ERV's than in coding regions. This points to natural selection.For evolution to work you need divergence. That is the biggy. ERV's show that this does occur. This is exactly what ERV's show. They demonstrate descent with modification, as the poster above discusses. The ERV's descend from a common ancestor, and they are modified in each lineage through mutation and selection. The evidence for all of these mechanisms are seen in the ERV's. We have the results of that process right here and right now. For chimps and humans, by comparing their genomes you can observe the results of 5-7 million years of evolution. Our differing morphology is due to our differences in DNA. Those differences are the result of mutation and selection, as demonstrated by ERV's.

Not really. Most creationist expect the same thing because they have such a gross misunderstanding of what "evolution" means that within 2 post I was able to realize exactly where your misunderstanding was.Thanks for proving my original point. Let's just clarify your position. You expect to witness, for example, a lizard give birth to an animal that, within the course of it's actual life time, changes into another species that's not a lizard?Is this your understanding of evolution? You are told by which evolutionist that evolution cannot be observed? Where did you get that from?Be honest, have you taken any post-high school Biology classes that delve into evolution? Since you made the statement, and I've never heard anything like that coming from a Biologist, you, sir, are the liar. - Unless you care to back that statement up with some evidence? Yes, yes, books with talking snakes, guys who are born of virgins and are known to walk on water are much less mythical than biology. - Oni

---

"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

A much better analogy would be this:There are two starting points, A and B and one ending point, C. If you follow the path from A to C, you would expected to hit points D, E and F. You look through your travelogue and indeed, you see points D, E and F.Now, the path from B is not set, and could go through any point in the world before ending up at C, so seeing any point in your travelogue doesn't disprove the starting point of B, but neither does it give much evidence to point to that as being your starting point. The only thing you can say is that seeing points D, E and F, there is a pretty good reason to believe you started at A and the best way to prove that you didn't start at A would be to find some point not on that path.The problem is that you're not showing anything that's off that path, you're essentially saying that you started at B, but decided to follow the path from A to C on a whim. Your proof? You don't have any.

No. You are not thinking about the random nature of ERVs and the fact that they show up in the same location in different species. Maybe God does not have to create 100% functional DNA but is it necessary to place the ERVs in the same locations that fit a pattern that agrees with common ancestry?? You are forgetting the mouse. It had some junk DNA removed with no ill effect, so the analogy fails.

Yes. The ERVs correspond to the footprints he left.Though that's a really ghastly metaphor you've got going there.Try this one. Point Z represents the present state of fauna and flora. Point X represents a single common ancestor. Biologists claim that life progressed from point X to point Z by a method which they call, or which for the purposes of this analogy I shall call, Darwinian evolution. Fiat creationists maintain that life started at point Y, a point similar to point Z in including modern biota, but also containing dinosaurs and trilobites and the Small Shelly Fauna of the Tomotian and what-have-you, and that the history of life involves going from point Y to point Z by a process involving only extinction.To travel from point X to point Z by Darwinian evolution (rather than by some other method) will, biologists know, leave certain very specific traces, "footprints" if you will, upon the world. Therefore, the proposition that X was the starting point and Darwinian evolution the method of travel predicts the presence, nature and location of the footprints. Which turn out to be there. No.Common ancestry and the theory of evolution predict the ERVs (and, of course, lot of other things too).The starting point and the method of travel predict the footprints. Of course not. Darwinian evolution is the mechanism. ERVs are the evidence.Walking is the mechanism. Footprints are the evidence.---Sheesh.You seem to have no grasp whatsoever of what is being claimed. This is not true. No. It can.By the way, fiat creationists actually believe in a powerful God who is the "GREATEST FORCE" in biology. Yet, somehow we don't observe him doing his special god-magic all around us. Speciation has been observed. As a consequence, while 50% of creationists still go around pretending that it doesn't happen and is impossible, the other half go about saying stuff like this: Creationism evolves ...Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.