Most convincing evidence for evolutionary theory

I am replying to this post on the Endogenous retroviral elements as proof of common descent thread.TTFN,WK

One again this is popycock. Before I move on to better things to do with my time, 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. What the virus itself did was "harmless" but the unique section of DNA was forever after copied, generation after generation. Eventually, as different populations in differing environments became distinct enough from each other to no longer be able to breed, they became two separate species, B and C. But the section of their DNA strand replaced with the retrovirus remained intact in both species. Much later, one animal in species C is infected by another virus, in another unique location on the DNA strand. Countless generations of copying later, the population becomes species D and E.
Now, species D and E both have retrovirus 1 and 2. Species C and B share virus 1. The decendants of species B will have virus 1. The descendants of species D and E will have both virus 1 and 2. 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 for evolution.
My explanation is relatively clumsy and non technical but it’s the way I would probably argue the point to a creationist

quote:

---

One again this is popycock. Before I move on to better things to do with my time, 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. What the virus itself did was "harmless" but the unique section of DNA was forever after copied, generation after generation. Eventually, as different populations in differing environments became distinct enough from each other to no longer be able to breed, they became two separate species, B and C. But the section of their DNA strand replaced with the retrovirus remained intact in both species. Much later, one animal in species C is infected by another virus, in another unique location on the DNA strand. Countless generations of copying later, the population becomes species D and E.
Now, species D and E both have retrovirus 1 and 2. Species C and B share virus 1. The decendants of species B will have virus 1. The descendants of species D and E will have both virus 1 and 2. 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 for evolution.
My explanation is relatively clumsy and non technical but it’s the way I would probably argue the point to a creationist

---

Its not clumsy in the sense any fine tuning will enhance it. So apes become human because of a viral indent in its dna - a unique event? And that imprint was embedded in all life forms, and Eureka! Why don't we worship this viruas then - at least it will be a religion with some reality cadence.Apes had no immune system - yet they can adapt and survive. Or if they did have one, they carefully took on only that part of the retrovirus which would allow them to survive - they prevailed over the virus's attack.Your problem is much further back: you have forgotten that a virus is also a life, and this one would have survived only because it prevailed over its precedent life forms' immunity defenses. There goes your Ape prevailing this virus premise! And also your 'unique' once only event - this one would be old as the hills!Reading this stuff and gulping it down without playing devil's advocate is very robotic.Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

How you can read that into PeterMc's very clear description is beyond me. You have an uncanny ability to distort other people's words. If that is true then you don't have an immune system either, because you are an ape yourself. I don't mean this as an insult, it's simple taxonomy. You mean your premise I think? It was you who brought this up just now, remember?

---

"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.

quote:

---

para

​

IamJoseph writes:
So apes become human because of a viral indent in its dna - a unique event?

​

How you can read that into PeterMc's very clear description is beyond me. You have an uncanny ability to distort other people's words.

---

When the thread is followed, it says all life forms incurred the same imprint of a retro, then became a generic syndrome in all life forms, pursuent to speciation:

quote:

---

What the virus itself did was "harmless" but the unique section of
DNA was forever after copied, generation after generation. Eventually, as different populations in differing environments became distinct enough from each other to no longer be able to breed, they became two separate species, B and C. But the section of their DNA strand replaced with the retrovirus remained intact in both species. Much later, one animal in species C is infected by another virus, in another unique location on the DNA strand. Countless generations of copying later, the population becomes species D and E.

---

The population becomes D and E. So are you rejecting my interpretation, while accepting that apes and humans emrged by a unique event of a viral attack? And does this account for life - or speciation?

quote:

---

para
Apes had no immune system

​

If that is true then you don't have an immune system either, because you are an ape yourself. I don't mean this as an insult, it's simple taxonomy.

---

That apes would have no immune system is inferred not by me. The premise the ape was not able to dislodge or reject the virus, says that. It does not matter the virus was harmless - this is probably not the apes' doing in any case. It means that a harmful virus could also have been accepted by the ape - which makes the apes' survival very doubtful!

I am not accepting anything of the kind, because that is not what Peter says. Where in the above quote of Peter's message does he say that the speciation of humans and other apes from a common ancestor was caused by the viral intrusion? Nowhere. The viral intrusion and the speciation event - if you can call it an "event" - are completely unrelated. In the scenario described, the latter took place long after the former.

---

"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.

The fact that the ape was not able to get rid of the virus does not mean that it didn't have an immune system, it simply means that its immune system had no defense against that particular virus. Other viruses may have posed no problem.You must realize that without an immune system as part of their basic biochemistry, the apes (including us) would not exist at all. An immune system is something that has evolved very, very long ago, long before mammals even existed, let alone apes.

---

"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.

quote:

---

para
I am not accepting anything of the kind, because that is not what Peter says. Where in the above quote of Peter's message does he say that the speciation of humans and other apes from a common ancestor was caused by the viral intrusion? Nowhere. The viral intrusion and the speciation event - if you can call it an "event" - are completely unrelated. In the scenario described, the latter took place long after the former.

---

The time factor between the two events is irrelevent here. That they are critically aligned to the conclusion made is the operative factor. 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.

---

and 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

---

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.

quote:

---

The fact that the ape was not able to get rid of the virus does not mean that it didn't have an immune system, it simply means that its immune system had no defense against that particular virus. Other viruses may have posed no problem.

---

Agreed.

quote:

---

You must realize that without an immune system as part of their basic biochemistry, the apes (including us) would not exist at all. An immune system is something that has evolved very, very long ago, long before mammals even existed, let alone apes.

---

Agreed.But the above is not the issue. What is being added here is, the ape was infected by a virus which embeds in its dna - which inheriting was outside of the ape's control, while the viral attack was successfully defended via its immunity defense mechanism; and further, that this was one unique event which set a chain reaction for all apes, then with other animals and then with humans. Now the extent of this chain is not the issue here, namely if it applies to a select few apes or animals; also whether this is an inference which signifies humans are ape derived pursuent to this event - is also not the basis of my arguement in this instant.With regard the virus, aside from its lodgement in dna, would not be alive for large epochs of time; with a lesser period its surviving would cause either death or degeneration of the host; culminating either way in a scenario which says either the ape has to defend itself or perish if the virus remains active. Here what is also said, is that the virus was rendered harmless - this is possible only via the ape's successfull immunity mechanism, or the virus perishing of itself. This results in two possible outcomes, respectively:If the virus perished of its own, not by the ape's immunity factor, the issue of a virus becomes muted; except that this is qualified there was a viral imprint embedded in the ape's acquired dna - which the virus performed to survive the ape's defenses, and here the virus was successful: or was it? The virus being harmless says its survival mechanism was ineffective - it perished; yet its dna lodgement was still effective. This is like hiv positive without acquiring aids, but in such a case the virus is still active, only potentially dangerous - which affirms it being alive; further, that virus can activate to 'harming' mode at anytime: the ape would ecome either weakened, or perish in time, pursuent to a virus which attack at any time. Here, the premise of the retro and the ape scenario conflicts with the known process.If the virus perished by the ape's defenses, rendering it harmless - this says also, that the virus' defense of embedding in the dna was a failed effort - because this was the only means it could survive - destroying the virus by making it harmless - destroys its action in the dna!Further, the virus being active itself is a result of its previous successful encounter with another life form - its predessessor. So this is not a unique event, but potentially one of many, and a clear example the precedent life form perishes with speciation. But the ape did not perish - it should have if a human evolved it - in emulation of this constant. That speciation occurs, and the precedent host does not perish - is not possible, and more a selective position taken to validate an end position. It does not pass the reality test.

Well I give up. I will follow the theme on the other specific threads. IaJ, meet Karl Pilkington.

HEY! STOP TALKING ABOUT RETROVIRAL INSERTIONS!This thread is not for a detailed discussion on the validity of a certain evidence, but merely to discuss the efficacy of certain evidences in debate, and ways to increase that efficacy. If you want to continue, please do so hereSo, to try get back on track, I recently listened to a interview with Australian Professor Ian Plimer, a noted anti-creationist (focussing on geologic aspects, such as the Noachian Flood), and he advocates the Socratic Method - to pretend you know little about what the creationist is saying and ask them to explain what they mean, then bring up well-placed questions to show how their explanation falls down.How do you think that would work? Anyone tried it?

---

Help inform the masses - contribute to the EvoWiki today! Contributors needed for the following articles: Pleiotropy, Metabolism, Promoter, Invertebrate, Meiosis, DNA, Transcription, Chromosome, Tetrapod, Phenotype, Messenger RNA, Mammals, Appendix , Variation, Selection, Gene, Gametogenesis, Homo erectus and others.

​

Registration not needed, but if desired, register here!

I think it would work beautifully.Next time I run into some YEC who is unfamiliar with my background or employment, should that ever happen, I think I will use that very method.Thanks for the suggestion.

It's not surprising tho when an interesting topic arises that it sparks off an animated to and fro.As for the socratic method I have tried after a fashion on another creationist forum. What I did was try to get other members to build a "model" of what the creationist story was for a particular set of conditions. In this case it was involving the noachian flood, continental drift and the unique flora and fauna found on New Zealand. Now, lets not get into that as a topic!
I made it plain that I was not out to refute anything but to just build a picture, to see if they had a consistent story of why things are the way they are etc.
It soon became obvious no one was comfortable with this approach. It was very hard for them to break out of the mould of wanting to have a "tit for tat" on standard points. Perhaps they found it frustrating that they couldn't link up the various threads of creationism for themselves. In the end they were making comments like "I don't care about New Zealand" and "Get over yourself" so it all fell apart.
But I still think its good to expect a creationist to explain his story because in most cases they will never have gone through the exercise.