IamJoseph writes:
What is said, is that speciation is tracked to the unique once only retro event decribed, and this is here:
quote:
I must try to simply explain the significance of the retroviral elements in the great apes for evolution. They prove that we share our inheritance for the simple reason that long ago, a one-off, random event occured in species A. That event replaced a section of the DNA strand in one animal. That section occurred in a distinct, unique location along the DNA strand.
You have misinterpreted what was said there, but I understand where that misunderstanding stems from now. It's the first sentence that led you astray: you interpreted that as saying that the retroviral intrusion was significant for the evolutionary development of the great apes, that it is presented as the cause of the speciation. But what was actually meant is that these retroviral intrusions offer a perfect way of proving common ancestry in general as an important element of evolution
as a theory.
The conclusion:
quote:
There is now clear evidence of where the species branched from each other. All due to the unique “mark” one random viral infection on one cell on one animal made. This is why this research is so significant and so compelling as evidence
could have been clearer, it must be admitted. The "clear evidence" mentioned shows which species share a more recent common ancestor and which don't. Maybe the following illustration helps.
Species A acquires a retrovirus V1. After that,
but not because of it, a speciation takes place: B and C are the result. Because B and C are descendants of A they both have the retrovirus V1. Species C then acquires retrovirus V2, another speciation occurs (again, no causal relationship), and D and E appear. Because they are descendants of C, they both have retrovirus V2. But because they are also descendants of A, they also have retrovirus V1. At the same point in time that D and E live, there is also a species F. Because F descended from A, via B, it has inherited retrovirus V1. But since it did not descend from A via C, it does not have retrovirus V2.
If the only evidence you have is DNA from specimens of D, E and F (because A, B and C are long extinct and their DNA is no longer directly available), then, looking at the molecular evidence (the presence of the retroviruses in the DNA), you conclude that D, E, and F are related, and that D and E are more closely related to one another than both of them are related to F. You can in fact draw the picture above from this evidence alone.
Hope this helps.
Edited by Parasomnium, : No reason given.
Edited by Parasomnium, : No reason given.
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin.