|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,915 Year: 4,172/9,624 Month: 1,043/974 Week: 2/368 Day: 2/11 Hour: 1/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Exposing the evolution theory. Part 2 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6 |
Kleinman writes: You won't admit to what the life cycle of a virus is. I will admit that part of that life cycle is the ERVs found in the koala genome. You are the one who won't admit this.
Then you go forward with this ridiculous claim that a germ cell line can have 203,000 retroviral infections and the lineage does just fine. There are billions of examples walking around right now. They are called humans.
Try acting like a virologist who understands a virus's life cycle and what it does to a cell that the virus has infected. I'm not the one disagreeing with virologists.
quote: One of the authors of that paper is John Coffin. He is one of the editors of this textbook on retroviruses: Retroviruses - NCBI Bookshelf So who is disagreeing with virologists? That would be you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6
|
Kleinman writes: You won't admit to what the entire life cycle is of the virus because it doesn't fit your irrational belief system. I will gladly admit that the lifecycle can include the production of viral particles from provirus inserted into the genome. There can also be cases where this doesn't happen. That is what you won't admit.
Tell us about those infected with HIV and are not being treated. Tell us about those who are infected with HTLV, most of whom will only ever have mild symptoms. Tell us how this retrovirus is not driving humans to extinction.
I also disagree with your irrational understanding of the physics and mathematics of biological evolution. That is why you can't explain the evolution of drug resistance and why cancer treatments fail. You make irrational misinterpretations of the data to fit your faulty belief system. That's why you can't explain mathematically the Kishony, Lenski, Desai, or Peabody experiments and make irrational extrapolations of the Desai and Peabody experiments. You are running away from the fact that you disagree with all of the top virologists in the world.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6
|
Kleinman writes: So, when an atheist says there is no God, I'm an atheist and I don't say that. Perhaps you don't understand atheism?
How do atheists come up with that idea? Give us your rational explanation. Our lack of belief in your god is really no different than your lack of belief in Thor or Vishnu.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6
|
Kleinman writes: That and the multiplication rule are used to explain descent with modification and adaptation. Even after all this time you still don't understand how meiosis and sexual reproduction works.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6
|
Kleinman writes: You are being silly again. You are claiming that it happens 203,000 times. I have the evidence that it has happened 203,000 times. I also have the evidence of a currently active retrovirus creating ERV's in real time. There are koalas that have over 50 of these endogenous insertions. Long-read genome sequence assembly provides insight into ongoing retroviral invasion of the koala germline - PMC It's not that hard to figure out that these stack up over time.
They have mild symptoms except for those that end up with lymphoma. In one moment you are trying to say that these insertions destroy cells. Now you are saying that it causes cells to reproduce uncontrollably as well as being immune to apoptosis. So which is it?
Sometime really bad and irrational ideas circulate among scientists. Virologists and biologists have bungled the physics and mathematics of descent with modification and adaptation. Perhaps if you studied some thermodynamics you could see your error? Or you are just wrong, as demonstrated by the mountains of evidence you ignore. We can watch the endogenization process in real time in koalas. These koalas have many new insertions throughout their genome, over 50 in known cases. They aren't melting into a gelatinous goo because the virus is killing all of their cells. You are just wrong.
Do you know everything in the universe? If you were logical, you would call yourself agnostic. But you are not logical. I lack a belief in gods. That makes me an atheist. I don't know if we can even know if there are gods. That also makes me an agnostic. I am both. One is about what I believe and the other is about what I can know. Those are two different things. I also don't claim that gods don't exist. I am still an atheist because I don't have a positive belief in any gods.
I wouldn't say it that way. The belief in Thor or Vishnu is a misunderstanding of God. You don't believe in Thor or Vishnu just like I don't believe in your God.
You are being silly again. I learned how meiosis works in biology. If you still think the multiplication rule applies to sexually reproducing species then you need to go back to your studies.
Were ERVs being accumulated in the genomes of the earliest life forms? If so, what is the percentage of the genome of these ERVs accumulated?
I'm not sure when the earliest retroviruses started inserting themselves into the genomes of host organisms. However, as they accumulate mutations, recombine, and are deleted by indel events they are no longer recognizable as retroviral insertions by the algorithms used to detect such sequences. So you have really old insertions that are either completely removed by indel events or mutated to the point that they are no longer recognizable as ERV's. There are other older insertions that are just on the edge of being detected. Then there are progressively newer insertions that are increasingly easier to recognize as ERV's. The 8% figure for the human genome also includes MaLR's which is a combination of transposon and retroviral repeats. It is a transposon that has picked up a retroviral LTR and is populating the human genome through transposon activity. I usually don't count these as ERV's. The figure I use is 4.7% from ERV classes I-III as detailed in the 2001 human genome paper. The vast majority of those insertions are just solo LTR's due to homologous recombination between the homologous LTR's. Initial sequencing and analysis of the human genome | Nature
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6
|
Kleinman writes: He hates God and he hates people that believe in God, An atheist can't hate God because they don't believe in God. We can no more hate God than you can gate Santa Claus . . . unless you believe in Santa Claus. Do you?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6
|
Kleinman writes: Scientists trained with this type of fiction are unable to explain how drug resistance evolves and why cancer treatments fail. You don't even understand how a Punnett square works. I learned that in 6th grade, and you can't seem to understand what it means. You also can't seem to understand that a vertebrate genome is made up of many chromosomes, nor understand how alleles and genes work. Let's not even get into your complete misunderstanding of how meiosis works. Most of the time you can't even understand that there is more than one gene in a genome.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6 |
Kleinman writes: Take Punnett's square or anything else you know about genetics and you still can't explain the evolution of drug resistance or why cancer treatments fail. I already did that in this thread: https://www.evcforum.net/dm.php?control=msg&t=20319
Biologists failed at understanding the fundamental principle of descent with modification and adaptation. No, they didn't. You fail at even the basics of sexual reproduction. That is why you keep bringing up the multiplication rule which does not apply to sexual reproduction.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6 |
Kleinman writes: Let's consider another one of your irrational ideas in more detail, that of ERVs. You claim that humans and chimps share 203,000 ERVs because a common ancestorial lineage had these ERVs before the human and chimp lineages branched. Humans have 203,000 ERVs. Period. How much we share with chimps is a separate question. You can't even accept the fact that there are 203,000 ERVs in our genome as detailed in the 2001 human genome paper.
Were ERVs being accumulated in the genomes of the earliest life forms? If so, what is the percentage of the genome of these ERVs accumulated? And when were these ERVs accumulated in human/chimpanzee lineage. I already answered those questions. Here it is again. Please read it this time: I'm not sure when the earliest retroviruses started inserting themselves into the genomes of host organisms. However, as they accumulate mutations, recombine, and are deleted by indel events they are no longer recognizable as retroviral insertions by the algorithms used to detect such sequences. So you have really old insertions that are either completely removed by indel events or mutated to the point that they are no longer recognizable as ERV's. There are other older insertions that are just on the edge of being detected. Then there are progressively newer insertions that are increasingly easier to recognize as ERV's. The 8% figure for the human genome also includes MaLR's which is a combination of transposon and retroviral repeats. It is a transposon that has picked up a retroviral LTR and is populating the human genome through transposon activity. I usually don't count these as ERV's. The figure I use is 4.7% from ERV classes I-III as detailed in the 2001 human genome paper. The vast majority of those insertions are just solo LTR's due to homologous recombination between the homologous LTR's. Viruses attack every life form. Retroviruses don't. You were asking about retroviruses. The origin of retroviruses put them in the Paleozoic:
quote: As far as I know, retroviruses only infect vertebrates.
The probability of an adaptive recombination event occurring depends on the frequencies of each of the adaptive alleles. You compute that joint probability by multiplying each of the frequencies of those alleles. You have claimed that the multiplication rule is the probability of two mutations occurring in the same lineage without any recombination. If this is your new multiplication rule, then how is it a problem for evolution? As two beneficial mutations both increase in frequency due to natural selection they will inevitably end up in the same genome.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6 |
Kleinman writes: Do you want me to post the definition of atheism again for you? quote:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6 |
Kleinman writes: When are you going to publish your results and explain how the Kishony and Lenski biological evolutionary experiments work? No one writes papers explaining how other peoples' experiments work.
Yea, I know, I've read all zero of the publications by biologists that explain how the Kishony and Lenski biological evolutionary experiments work. The Lenski and Kishony papers explain how their experiments work. You do realize that there are more than two papers in existence, right?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6 |
Kleinman writes: Why don't you just call yourself agnostic? I am an agnostic. I am also an atheist.
quote:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6 |
Kleinman writes: 203,000 retroviral infections to a germ cell line and the lineage does just fine is part of your belief system. It's an observed fact as detailed in the 2001 human genome paper.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6 |
Kleinman writes: You won't unless you post my papers because biologists have failed to explain these experiments. I already explained them here: https://www.evcforum.net/dm.php?control=msg&t=20319
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6 |
Kleinman writes: Now, here are the papers that explain descent with modification and adaptation that explain the evolution of drug resistance and why cancer treatments fail. They also give the mathematical explanation of the Kishony and Lenski biological evolutionary experiments (if you include the mathematical explanation for biological competition for the Lenski experiment. Here are the links to those papers:For a single selection pressure: The basic science and mathematics of random mutation and natural selection And for multiple simultaneous selection pressures: The mathematics of random mutation and natural selection for multiple simultaneous selection pressures and the evolution of antimicrobial drug resistance And one you left out which explains the mathematics of the Lenski experiment: The Lenski Long Term Evolution Experiment Study those links and learn something about the mathematics of biological evolution. "A stubborn man can't change his mind and won't change the subject."--Winston Churchill
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024