Exposing the evolution theory. Part 2

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. There are billions of examples walking around right now. They are called humans. I'm not the one disagreeing with virologists.

quote:

---

First, the distribution of provirus-containing loci among taxa dates the insertion. Given the size of vertebrate genomes (>1 × 10^9 bp) and the random nature of retroviral integration (22, 23), multiple integrations (and subsequent fixation) of ERV loci at precisely the same location are highly unlikely (24). Therefore, an ERV locus shared by two or more species is descended from a single integration event and is proof that the species share a common ancestor into whose germ line the original integration took place (14).
Just a moment...

---

One of the authors of that paper is John Coffin. He is one of the editors of this textbook on retroviruses:Retroviruses - NCBI BookshelfSo who is disagreeing with virologists? That would be you.

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 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. You are running away from the fact that you disagree with all of the top virologists in the world.

I'm an atheist and I don't say that. Perhaps you don't understand atheism? Our lack of belief in your god is really no different than your lack of belief in Thor or Vishnu.

Even after all this time you still don't understand how meiosis and sexual reproduction works.

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 - PMCIt's not that hard to figure out that these stack up over time. 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? 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. 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. You don't believe in Thor or Vishnu just like I don't believe in your God. If you still think the multiplication rule applies to sexually reproducing species then you need to go back to your studies. 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

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?

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.

I already did that in this thread:https://www.evcforum.net/dm.php?control=msg&t=20319 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.

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. 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. Retroviruses don't. You were asking about retroviruses. The origin of retroviruses put them in the Paleozoic:

quote:

---

Recent research employing a wide variety of bioinformatic approaches has demonstrated that retroviruses evolved during the early Palaeozoic Era, between 460 and 550 million years ago, providing the oldest inferred date estimate for any virus group.
Origin of the retroviruses: when, where, and how? - PubMed

---

As far as I know, retroviruses only infect vertebrates. 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.

quote:

---

Atheism is not an affirmative belief that there is no god nor does it answer any other question about what a person believes. It is simply a rejection of the assertion that there are gods. Atheism is too often defined incorrectly as a belief system. To be clear: Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods.
What is Atheism? - American Atheists

---

No one writes papers explaining how other peoples' 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?

I am an agnostic. I am also an atheist.

quote:

---

Agnostic isn’t just a “weaker” version of being an atheist. It answers a different question. Atheism is about what you believe. Agnosticism is about what you know.
What is Atheism? - American Atheists

---

It's an observed fact as detailed in the 2001 human genome paper.

I already explained them here:https://www.evcforum.net/dm.php?control=msg&t=20319

"A stubborn man can't change his mind and won't change the subject."--Winston Churchill