Endogenous Retroviral Insertions Demonstrate Evolution Beyond a Reasonable Doubt

I need a little help convincing a self proclaimed "scientist" at another discussion group that Evolution has not been proven, I dont mind one idiot, but this "scientist" is trying to convince everyone, his handle is WinAceand if you follow this link...
http://www.totse.com/bbs/Forum15/HTML/001700.html.... you will find him, as much as I love debating with "evolutionist" and fellow "creationist" I an not niave enought to contend that Creationism has been proven " nor would any sane "evolutionist" that evolution has been "proven, and I'd like to invite you to join me to chat with this young hero. I have invited him to join us here, but he is either scared or shy.
I have done research on his point and find it without any bearing on evolution either way, pro or con, please read it and post here your opinion, and please feel free to post there.

Not really interested in your main point, but I do want to comment on one of your assertions, namely: Whether this is true or not depends on what exactly you mean by 'proven' and what exactly you mean by 'evolution'. Under the strictest definition of prove (provable beyond any possibly doubt) it is, of course, impossible to prove anything. Under the level of logical proof required in (say) maths it is impossible to prove anything about the real world. Clearly neither of these levels of proof are appropriate when discussing scientific theories.Science then considers something proven (although some prefer to avoid the term and simply talk about 'supported by the evidence') when all available evidence supports it, it is not contradicted by other well-supported theories, it makes meaningful predictions and there is no other theory that explains the evidence equally well or better. (One would not consider Kepler's laws to be proven, although they are very good, since we now have Newton's laws to explain them, and Einstein's theories to explain Newton's laws).Evolution, as a general theory, is undoubtably proven to the standards of scientific enquiry. Fossil evidence, DNA evidence, theoretical theory and computer modelling all emphatically support evolution. No other theory even comes close to explaining the evidence.Evolution, as a specific theory, i.e. following decent through precise genera, or species, is not proven and probably never will be. Too much of the necessary evidence has been erased by the passage of time. With luck though we will be able to accurately establish many particular lines beyond any doubt, we are already very close to this in many animal lines (horses, and whales spring to mind).

Heh heh, I know WinAce from a few other boards...Fact is, he has a good point. Evolution, in the basest sense, has been proven, and is proven again every day of our lives. To get around this, creationists generally write this off as "microevolution" (small changes within a species or "kind"). This generally includes small changes in appearance (e.g., peppered moths) or in single genes or gene clusters that may be acquired by a population within a species, promoting its survival (such as antibiotic-resistant bacteria).ERVs are a bit different, since the same ERV are often present in different species; e.g., in chimps and humans. Very convincing evidence of "macro" evolution, IMO. Thus, I'd agree with the topic line: " Endogenous Retroviral Insertions Demonstrate Evolution Beyond a Reasonable Doubt" (especially when you combine ERVs with other evidence supporting evolution). Is this "proof" of macroevolution? That's all about semantics--"overwhelming evidence" of it is good enough for me.

Hello there again, jester461. As you can see, I've been a member here for quite a while, although not particularly prolific at posting. I was informed of this topic via a private message.This forum has quite a number of Ph.D. biologists who regularly rip the creationists a new one, so my efforts would quite frankly be superfluous here.To be honest, I generally prefer to debate this subject on theology-oriented forums with a large percentage of creationists but few supporters of evolution, as that's much more challenging. A friend recently gave me a link to the Totse board, and I was so amazed at the rampant misinformation, ignorant assertions and scientific errors that I couldn't help but comment.Additionally, I never claimed to be a 'scientist'. I did point out that 'laymen' generally hold many common misconceptions about evolution, which might be the source of this confusion, but that's actually true. I'm merely an interested and (I prefer to think) educated layman myself. Although, I generally recognize my limitations and don't comment on politics, cosmology, or other fields where I have little of the prerequisite knowledge necessary to avoid making an ass of myself.In a nutshell, your problem is that you've either, contrary to your assertions, never studied evolution in any depth at all, studied it from uniquely creationist sources, or studied it and forgotten everything you've learned. This is easily demonstrable by some of the comments you made on the thread in question.Here are a few of jester461's highlights from our 'debate', which can be found in this thread on the Totse board:

quote:

---

"I am not the one that has based my beliefs on the writtings of a madman [Darwin], you and your people are the one that made him' the Father of Evolution' not me. To me he is the father of one of the biggest travesties of history. And again yes he stole his ideas, and took credit for them..."

---

quote:

---

"The therory of evolution IS based on Darwins written therories, and yes motive is ALWAYS a factor when someone says or writes some... If you hate God and you set out to prove he doesn't exist, yes your motives color you findings. For you to say other wise is a feeble attempt at getting away of the facts."

---

quote:

---

"Darwin, was the same, his beliefs and writting were also clouded by his beliefs , in his sick mind and his intense hatred for God, and yes he had a intense hatred for God stated by him,both publicly and in writting, and it makes no sense to hate something that doesnt exist, so he must have known God existed."

---

quote:

---

"He didn't provide a 'mechanism' for anything, he hated God, and he set out to dis prove God... He stole ideas from others and twisted them into a therory that has no scienticfic proof, and is just another branch of religion, weither you worship tree elves, God, the starts or the big bang..."

---

quote:

---

"You can do your drugs and cheat people and lie and steal and kill,(not you personnely) and do what ever you like because we are only a product of an accident, with no future. Dis-belief in God is a perfect compliment to a Hedonistic lifestyle, and you will grasp at any proof to keep God and morality away.It makes perfect sense."

---

quote:

---

"I think you mean erroneous thinking, not fallacious, (stop using big words you dont know what they mean)..."

---

quote:

---

"If you actully believe the theory is close to the facts, tell me, is it monkeys, rats, or 'sea apes',( yes people, 'sea apes' are the latest creatures now being proposed [as our ancestors] because of the problems with the therory)."

---

quote:

---

"Do the recent studies in the Antartic prove that the release of Carbon is NOT constant, if this is true carbon dating is gone and with it most of the evolutionary dating."

---

quote:

---

"Patially true... once a theory is proven it becomes a fact, you statment [that they're never proven] is like saying there is no such thing as tomarrow, because it never comes... Chemistry is not a theory, it is the study of chemical reactions... [which] are pretty easy to prove."

---

quote:

---

"We switched from man coming from monkeys to we are now just a common ancestor, because they were totally wrong, and now they are not even sure of that..."

---

quote:

---

"And yes it would be nice if you could furnish a cow/shark, but we would also be happy with a trans species monkey, pig, rat, mouse, anything, take your pick , a transpecies anything."

---

And, finally,

quote:

---

"Your problem, which also explains the way you believe, is that you have never done any indepth, and I mean really indepth research into the subject..."

---

[This message has been edited by WinAce, 09-15-2003]

see this is what I mean about you,you list quote after quote supposedly off mine, taken out of context, to prove what point?
You pull the typical evolutionist trick, quoting things that dont matter or taken out of context to get attention away from your basic point. Then main point here is that you have stated on other CBB's, coming off like some type of expert, stating that "Endogenous Retroviral Insertions Demonstrate Evolution Beyond a Reasonable Doubt " and telling every one that evolution has been proven. Thats why I want to here is this format where your own people will tell you that it hasn't been proven and then maybe the rest of us that what to actually debte these issues can get on with it.
Your condesending staements such as "A friend recently gave me a link to the Totse board, and I was so amazed at the rampant misinformation, ignorant assertions and scientific errors that I couldn't help but comment." are nothing but the ravings of an egocentric child that needs a wake up call.The statements that you make that evolution has been proven is "misinformation" and an "ignorant assertion". Just because someone disagrees with you they are not misinformed, ignorant or any of the other insults you throw around.The methods that you use make you no more than a troll. I have read this site for over a year, never posting because I was behind a firewall on a remote in a restrictive country,(Saudi Arabia). But I have enjoyed reading the intelligent debate, but I occasionally see the trolls like you that need either a reality check by your own people, or exposed as a troll.
Now that you are back with the adults, without the the jargon thrown it to make you look important, defend your postion the evolution had been proven beyond a resonable doubt. Personally,I am glad your on the Evolution side, because I hate it when extreme religious nuts make my side look bad with their stupid statments, I am sure your fellow evolutions hate it when you make them look bad with your extreme statements.

Jester, you were, in msg 2, asked to give you're idea of what would constitute "reasonable" proof in the context of science. Also you were asked to clarify what evolution is.Without getting this sorted out the argument will probably not be very fruitful.As a small side note, you believe you have been misquoted or quoted in a misleading way. I think you should be allowed to start a separate thread to rebut what has been said and show how the above quotes are misleading.

Jester461 and WinAce, like everyone else, begin here with a clean slate. Crimes on other boards, whether real or imagined, are not relevant here. We have a set of Forum Guidelines that we request members follow. In particular I would like to call people's attention to rule 3:

3. Respect for others is the rule here. Argue the position, not the person. The Britannica says, "Usually, in a well-conducted debate, speakers are either emotionally uncommitted or can preserve sufficient detachment to maintain a coolly academic approach."

I would also like to request that contributors stay on topic. The suggestion from NosyNed that Jester begin a new thread if he wishes to show how the quotes from WinAce were taken out of context is a good one.Also, the discussion should not begin in mid-stream. Please introduce the topic and the opposing positions so that others may contribute and/or follow along.------------------

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Administrator

quote:

---

see this is what I mean about you, you list quote after quote supposedly off mine, taken out of context, to prove what point?

---

"Supposedly?" Are you saying that you didn't say these things? I went to the link and I thought that Winace could have produce even more inflamatory things that you said. I also didn't see anything in the context that could help you out here. Maybe you could offer something to clarify what you meant.It is also pretty disingenuous to cry foul when this whole thing started with you producing a post calling Winace an idiot and questioning his/her courage.Since we seem to importing arguments from other forums, why don’t you pick one or two things you want to discuss and start a new thread? For starters how about lets discuss why you think that a scientific theory should become something other than theory once the preponderance of evidence indicates the theory has been demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt?With all due respect,Joe T.

quote:

---

Originally posted by jester461

​

see this is what I mean about you,you list quote after quote supposedly off mine, taken out of context, to prove what point?

---

Basically, that you made a number of statements that only someone with little/no knowledge of evolution would, made other demonstrably false claims, paid no attention to their refutations, became increasingly belligerent as our debate progressed, and basically have no room for calling me an 'idiot' without accidentally poking your eye out with that plank.

quote:

---

You pull the typical evolutionist trick, quoting things that dont matter or taken out of context to get attention away from your basic point.

---

I cannot BELIEVE a creationist wrote that about misquotes.

quote:

---

Then main point here is that you have stated on other CBB's, coming off like some type of expert, stating that "Endogenous Retroviral Insertions Demonstrate Evolution Beyond a Reasonable Doubt " and telling every one that evolution has been proven.

---

Basically, yes. Shared ERVs between humans and apes are unoriginal genetic element whose only viable explanation, one brimming with explanatory and predictive power, is that they were inherited from a common ancestor. In that sense, they effectively falsify creationism with the same conclusiveness that stellar parallax falsified geocentricism. (Not that it wasn't blatantly obvious before, though.)Since I never made the claim that evolution (or a round earth, or anything else) was 'proven' in the absolute, unattainable sense, my statement remains correct and your representation of my views is a strawman. 'Proven beyond a reasonable doubt', however, would be accurate.

quote:

---

Thats why I want to here is this format where your own people will tell you that it hasn't been proven and then maybe the rest of us that what to actually debte these issues can get on with it.

---

You'll find few sympathetic ears here. You could start out by replying to msg. #2 and outlying your standards for scientifically establishing something beyond a reasonable doubt, as well as why the common descent of life doesn't meet them.

quote:

---

Your condesending staements such as "A friend recently gave me a link to the Totse board, and I was so amazed at the rampant misinformation, ignorant assertions and scientific errors that I couldn't help but comment." are nothing but the ravings of an egocentric child that needs a wake up call.

---

First off, I didn't mention names. Why would you automatically assume I was referring to your posts? Would you be willing to say Totse is magically immune from misinformation and ignorance, unlike 99.999% of other message boards out there? Second, many of the statements I rebutted were demonstrable examples of such.Take the repeated assertions that Archeaopteryx was hoaxed, despite my pointing out the fossils contain microscopic traces of bacteria clinging to the wings, which even a modern forger couldn't reproduce. That was demonstrable misinformation.The statements about 'unproven theories', 'Darwin's intense hatred for God' and 'cow/shark trans species' were demonstrable examples of rampant ignorance and scientific errors that even a cursory knowledge of the subjects would eliminate.

quote:

---

The statements that you make that evolution has been proven is "misinformation" and an "ignorant assertion".

---

Since I made no statement that it was proven in the absolute sense, your implying that I did qualifies as misinformation instead. And common descent is as well established, if not more, as a heliocentric solar system, so in that sense it is 'proven' beyond a reasonable doubt.

quote:

---

Just because someone disagrees with you they are not misinformed, ignorant or any of the other insults you throw around.

---

No, mere disagreement doesn't make one ignorant, and I never implied it did. Continued insistence on one's infallibility in making ridiculous assertions when shown with overwhelming evidence to the contrary, as well as dancing around the evidence and pretending it doesn't exist, does.

quote:

---

The methods that you use make you no more than a troll.

---

... Says the guy who acted huffed up and belligerent, turned tail and ran to another forum when unable to confront the evidence, then, once registered, again called his opponent an idiot and displayed a misconception-laden (even by creationist standards), uncorrected knowledge of scientific methodology and epistemology.

quote:

---

I have read this site for over a year, never posting because I was behind a firewall on a remote in a restrictive country,(Saudi Arabia).

---

Given your abysmal knowledge of evolution, I have a very hard time believing that. In fact, I'd call you a liar if it was allowed on this board.

quote:

---

But I have enjoyed reading the intelligent debate, but I occasionally see the trolls like you that need either a reality check by your own people, or exposed as a troll.

---

No comment.

quote:

---

Now that you are back with the adults, without the the jargon thrown it to make you look important, defend your postion the evolution had been proven beyond a resonable doubt.

---

I don't need to. Darwin did, back in the 19th century, and he succeeded by marshalling the evidence to his favor. Simply put, it's a settled issue in the scientific community.The fact you're unable to rebut (or probably understand) my essay doesn't mean ERVs are less than a smackdown argument for common descent)

quote:

---

Personally,I am glad your on the Evolution side, because I hate it when extreme religious nuts make my side look bad with their stupid statments,

---

Stop busting everyone's irony meters, for baby Jesus' sake. You should know that electronic devices cost money.

quote:

---

I am sure your fellow evolutions hate it when you make them look bad with your extreme statements.

---

But you've yet to quote any of my statements that were 'extreme'. I took great care not to make any, which is why my essay on ERVs used less forceful language than could, still, be justified by the data.I could say that only an ignorant hillbilly would remain a creationist after learning of this evidence, but I didn't and opted for reasonable, uncontroversial, non-polemical statements like 'beyond a reasonable doubt' and 'well-established' instead.P.S. Paragraphs were invented for a reason.

quote:

---

This forum has quite a number of Ph.D. biologists who regularly rip the creationists a new one, so my efforts would quite frankly be superfluous here.

---

Hi WinAce,Your efforts would in no way be superfluous here. There are not so many Ph.D. biologists on the site and someone with as strong a background as you have would always be of great importance to the various debates...besides, I work on ERVs so I am always partial to people who plug my field cheers,
M

And on the topic of HERV evolution...Curr Biol. 2001 May 15;11(10):779-83. Related Articles, LinksA HERV-K provirus in chimpanzees, bonobos and gorillas, but not humans.Barbulescu M, Turner G, Su M, Kim R, Jensen-Seaman MI, Deinard AS, Kidd KK, Lenz J.Department of Molecular Genetics, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, 1300 Morris Park Avenue, Bronx, NY 10461, USA.Evidence from DNA sequencing studies strongly indicated that humans and chimpanzees are more closely related to each other than either is to gorillas [1-4]. However, precise details of the nature of the evolutionary separation of the lineage leading to humans from those leading to the African great apes have remained uncertain. The unique insertion sites of endogenous retroviruses, like those of other transposable genetic elements, should be useful for resolving phylogenetic relationships among closely related species. We identified a human endogenous retrovirus K (HERV-K) provirus that is present at the orthologous position in the gorilla and chimpanzee genomes, but not in the human genome. Humans contain an intact preintegration site at this locus. These observations provide very strong evidence that, for some fraction of the genome, chimpanzees, bonobos, and gorillas are more closely related to each other than they are to humans. They also show that HERV-K replicated as a virus and reinfected the germline of the common ancestor of the four modern species during the period of time when the lineages were separating and demonstrate the utility of using HERV-K to trace human evolution.Gene. 2000 Apr 18;247(1-2):265-77. Related Articles, LinksDifferences in HERV-K LTR insertions in orthologous loci of humans and great apes.Lebedev YB, Belonovitch OS, Zybrova NV, Khil PP, Kurdyukov SG, Vinogradova TV, Hunsmann G, Sverdlov ED.Shemyakin-Ovchinnikov Institute of Bioorganic Chemistry, Russian Academy of Sciences, 16/10 Miklukho-Maklaya St., Moscow, Russia. yuri@humgen.siobc.ras.ruThe classification of the long terminal repeats (LTRs) of the human endogenous retrovirus HERV-K (HML-2) family was refined according to diagnostic differences between the LTR sequences. The mutation rate was estimated to be approximately equal for LTRs belonging to different families and branches of human endogenous retroviruses (HERVs). An average mutation rate value was calculated based on differences between LTRs of the same HERV and was found to be 0.13% per million years (Myr). Using this value, the ages of different LTR groups belonging to the LTR HML-2 subfamily were found to vary from 3 to 50Myr. Orthologous potential LTR-containing loci from different primate species were PCR amplified using primers corresponding to the genomic sequences flanking LTR integration sites. This allowed us to calculate the phylogenetic times of LTR integrations in primate lineages in the course of the evolution and to demonstrate that they are in good agreement with the LTR ages calculated from the mutation rates. Human-specific integrations for some very young LTRs were demonstrated. The possibility of LTRs and HERVs involvement in the evolution of primates is discussed.And one of my favorites....Nature. 2000 Feb 17;403(6771):785-9. Related Articles, LinksComment in:
Nature. 2000 Feb 17;403(6771):715, 717.Syncytin is a captive retroviral envelope protein involved in human placental morphogenesis.Mi S, Lee X, Li X, Veldman GM, Finnerty H, Racie L, LaVallie E, Tang XY, Edouard P, Howes S, Keith JC Jr, McCoy JM.Genetics Institute, Inc., Cambridge, Massachusetts 02140, USA.Many mammalian viruses have acquired genes from their hosts during their evolution. The rationale for these acquisitions is usually quite clear: the captured genes are subverted to provide a selective advantage to the virus. Here we describe the opposite situation, where a viral gene has been sequestered to serve an important function in the physiology of a mammalian host. This gene, encoding a protein that we have called syncytin, is the envelope gene of a recently identified human endogenous defective retrovirus, HERV-W. We find that the major sites of syncytin expression are placental syncytiotrophoblasts, multinucleated cells that originate from fetal trophoblasts. We show that expression of recombinant syncytin in a wide variety of cell types induces the formation of giant syncytia, and that fusion of a human trophoblastic cell line expressing endogenous syncytin can be inhibited by an anti-syncytin antiserum. Our data indicate that syncytin may mediate placental cytotrophoblast fusion in vivo, and thus may be important in human placental morphogenesis.In addition one can use other retroelements to corroborate the results of HERV integration/sequence evolution studiesMol Phylogenet Evol. 2003 Mar;26(3):490-501. Related Articles, LinksMolecular cladistic markers in New World monkey phylogeny (Platyrrhini, Primates).Singer SS, Schmitz J, Schwiegk C, Zischler H.Primate Genetics, German Primate Center, Kellnerweg 4, 37077, Gottingen, GermanyTranspositions of primate-specific Alu elements were applied as molecular cladistic markers in a phylogenetic analysis of South American primates. Seventy-four human and platyrrhine loci containing intronic Alu elements were PCR screened in various New World monkeys and the human outgroup to detect the presence of orthologous retrotransposons informative of New World monkey phylogeny. Six loci revealed size polymorphism in the amplification pattern, indicating a shared derived character state due to the presence of orthologous Alu elements confirmed by subsequent sequencing. Three markers corroborate (1) New World monkey monophyly and one marker supports each of the following callitrichine relationships: (2) Callithrix and Cebuella are more closely related to each other than to any other callitrichine, (3) the callitrichines form a monophyletic clade including Callimico, and (4) the next living relatives to the callitrichines are Cebus, Saimiri, and Aotus.

excellant idea, to start with , my idea of reasonable proof, would be that "proof" is something that can be verified in a lab, by a panel of unbiased scientist,duplicated under controlled conditions. This is a standard requirement in most testing procedures for most industries in the world, as well as most legal systems. I do not dispute the results of the mans studies, I dispute the aplication of his findings in the claim that they "prove evolution". And the only response that I have gotten is insults, saying I am a stupid creationist, and that all creationist are ignorant and that any counter agruement I present is ignorant, because it comes from creationist. Since he made this statement, I would like to see him furnish this "proof". Not the study , that he has posted all over the web, but the "proof" that it proves evolution. I am an Electronic Engineer, I a deal with logic and numbers, my uncle was a physicist at Penn state,with more than five books in several different languages and I learned a lot from him, he was not ignorant, but he did not believe in evolution or God because the numbers did not add up on either side, in the realm of probability. I have slightly different views then him, gathered over the years, but the one main point I learned from him is the difference between "proof" and an opinion. And again over here, you start with the insults, at the end of post nine, if you have so much "proof" and such a valid arguement, why the insults all the time?[This message has been edited by jester461, 09-16-2003]

Don;t you think that your standard of proof is a bit too restrictive ?By your standards we haven't proven that star exist or even that sustained nuclear fusion is possible. You've pretty much eliminated all of astronomy from science - celestial mechanics included.It's all very well to insist on lab tests for electronic components but you need to supply some justification for such a serious restriction beyond your personal opinion.

No sorry, I dont. I believe in a creator, and the only comments I get from evolutionist are, "well, where is, we want to see him, give us proof, we want to verifiy himin the lab... and other. If I have to furnish hard evidence of the creator, even though the book I believe to be his has been proven right time after time after time, and never proven wrong, then it is only fair that the people who insults what I believe in furnish proof to the same level that is demanded of me. Statisically my side is doing better in the realm of being correct and not being wrong time after time. I think the level of proof is fair, other wise the study might be valid but the application of its results, that is proves evolution are just another opinion. My problem is not with the study, it is with people saying it is the proof of evolution, if you make such a claim you have to be able to back it up, with evidence.[This message has been edited by jester461, 09-16-2003]

However you have been provided evidence. Science does not "prove", it is always tentative. Thus, nothing will ever be proven, only supported by evidence i.e. the theory of gravity has not been "proven". WinAce has provided one kind of evidence consistent with the theory of evolution in the form of HERVs. I cited more articles (all tests done in the lab mind you) that are also fully consistent with the theory of evolution and fully inconsistent with biblical poof bang creationism. You have not provided suport for creationism. You have thus far only offhandedly dismissed anything posted by WinAce and others without specifically refuting the evidence nor supporting any alternative and issued several statements based on your own personal incredulity. That you feel insulted is a bit puzzling as on this website most of those posting to you have not been particularly insulting, your obvious previous interactions with WinAce not withstanding.In order for creationism to be taken seriously as a science there must be a
1. testable hypothesis
2. the hypothesis must be falsifiable
3. there must be supporting evidence
4. it has to explain the data and natural observations better than competing hypotheses.Creationism is unable to do any of the four and is thus not any more scientific than believing that the tooth fairy created the universe four seconds ago.