ERV's: Evidence of Common Ancestory

So your approach is not to think about how or why an organisms genome appears at it does, just to accept it and not worry? Hardly the best method in furthering our understanding. The onion genome has been sequenced and a lot of this junk DNA results from repeating tracts of degenerated retroviral tracts and transposons. What this means is that the genes encoded by the ERV were able to make multiple copies of itself throughout the genome before mutations inactivated the genes involved.Then there is the syncytin proteins, which mediate embryo transplantation to the uterus wall, and which evolved from the viral envelope proteins originating from ERV sequences, as cited by Percy. However, these same ERV sequences have been associated with ovarian cancer. Other ERV sequences have been associated with various cancers also due to viral proteins such as reverse transcriptase which allows them to copy themselves repeatedly throughout the genome, including into essential human genes.Finally it has been shown that reverse transcriptase and other ERV genes are expressed during infection by modern retroviruses, such as HIV. So wouldn't you say it would be important to understand how/why these ERV sequences function?As a more general query you say that you accept an old earth and and have 'more faith' in the findings of physicists than you do in biologists (presumably because we deal with living systems which interact). So does that mean you accept the age of the layers in the earth and from that the ages when different species we see in the fossil record existed?

And yet this sort of thing has been done, by actual computer scientists who actually did it, instead of merely sitting around fantasizing about what the result would be, like you just did.And guess what, you're completely wrong.Again. Of course not. No creationist is ever going to start explaining features of the natural world, because "goddidit" has no predictive power. This is as though you answered someone who explained to you that marzipan is not made entirely of sugar by saying: "You do believe that sugar is not the answer to marzipan. I say neither are almonds an answer. Therefore marzipan is impossible". That's some interesting double-think you've got going there.Whether or not you admit that the word "speciation" means the formation of new species, and I don't see why you wish to pretend otherwise, new species have been observed to form and creationists admit it. Cool. I'm a mathematician. Your posts are a mess of illogical gibberish.

Firstly, thank you for the positive comment
Now, supposing a breeding pair of Goliath's was created thousands of years ago. Due to success in survival and breeding over many generations, today there are millions of little Goliath's roaming all over the Earth. Perhaps partly due to mutations and natural selection, there are now many enclaves of White Goliath's; Black Goliath's and Goliath's with various shades of grey; not forgetting Goliath's that do not eat on trees, of course.Unlike grey Goliath's which are mostly not fussy with a choice of sexual partners, white Goliath's and black Goliath's do not interbreed with each other. This is because within "embedded codes" of every Goliath is a piece of logic that instructs Goliath's to only have sexual relationship with another creature of similar appearance.Unfortunately, white and black are so far apart in hue that the embedded logic had caused white Goliath's to mistakenly think that black Goliath's are not suitable as sexual partners. Conversely, black Goliath's think that white Goliath's are unattractive as sex partners. Such 'perceptional' and 'behavioral' issues have led to a lack of interbreeding between white and black Goliath's, (even though biologically they are completely compatible). Unlike humans, Goliath's lack the intelligence needed to overcome such mental impediments.Notwithstanding the lack of interbreeding between white and black Goliath's, all Goliath's are actually just variants of the same species.However due to differences in interbreeding and feeding habits, some observers may be led to think that there are at least 6 distinct species of little Goliaths:
Species #1 -- White Goliaths that feed on land and trees
Species #2 -- Grey Goliaths that feed on land and trees
Species #3 -- Black Goliaths that feed on land and trees
Species #4 -- White Goliaths that feed on land but not on trees
Species #5 -- Grey Goliaths that feed on land but not on trees
Species #6 -- Black Goliaths that feed on land but not on trees Mehhh.... shocker!! That gave me a near heart-attack, and my belief in humanity almost shattered ! You do give some impressions of a mathematician.
Perhaps mathematicians ought to stick closely to mathematics, to avoid sounding like.... errr... a snake oil salesman ? Ahaa... I have visited the creationist site, a very good site actually.
A general sense of the term 'speciation' is used in there. It says "Speciation works only within a kind".

quote:

---

Is Natural Selection the Same Thing as Evolution? | Answers in Genesis
Speciation has never been observed to form an organism of a different kind, such as a dog species producing a cat. Speciation works only within a kind. Evolution requires natural selection and speciation to give rise to new kinds from a former kind (e.g., dinosaurs evolving into birds). Speciation, however, leads to a loss of information, not the gain of information required by evolution. Thus, speciation as a possible outcome of natural selection cannot be used as a mechanism for molecules-to-man evolution.

---

What happens is, I have been very strictly adhering to the definition of 'speciation'. Therefore if a new species is never created, then 'speciation process' is really not a speciation process, as that would be a contradiction. So I can safely claim 'speciation' never happened, or observed. Yes, I agree with you it would be important to understand more about ERV's.
I'm glad someone who knows the answer has come forward to explain why there is a lot of junk DNA's in onions.
( That naughty Shalamabobbi could have provided the answers, couldn't he? ) Yes, I would regard physicists finding seriously. I am aware there are explanations that although found inside old rocks, fossils themselves may not be old. At present I am not knowledgeable enough on such issues. Whilst ERVs suggest common ancestry, I cannot fathom how common ancestry can be a possibility without evolution. My disbelief in evolution certainly makes it much harder to accept common ancestry. Are all Apes not 'bio-compatible' with each other? Have attempts been made to artificially cross-inseminate different species of Apes? Perhaps the results would lead us to re-think and simply regard many Apes as variants of the original breeding pair(s). That would partly solve the 'common ancestry' mystery, as 'common ancestry' for variants of the same species is more logical. My view is that difference in DNA counts may not be a valid criteria to differentiate between two species.
Supposing in the 'beginning', a species started out with 100% of the species's original DNA's and over a long time, many variants with less than 100% of the original DNA's had come about. Can we not regard all variants as members of the same species, even though DNA counts between some variants may be very different? I guess you need to model closely if that is the only way to obtain accurate results. However if logical deduction, estimation, approximation and extrapolation can be applied to a much more relaxed model, then why waste time building a detailed model? Strange perception you've got there... I certainly did not dodge your point but directly confronted it. I simply and bluntly suggested that I disagree with 99.9% of evolutionary scientists on evolution. They are all wrong... and you included, (just in case you're as much a scientist as Dr Adequate is a mathematician ) Errr...I find that argument rather strange.
Please then provide a comprehensive list of evolutionary processes and see if one is more plausible than the other.

quote:

---

I guess you need to model closely if that is the only way to obtain accurate results. However if logical deduction, estimation, approximation and extrapolation can be applied to a much more relaxed model, then why waste time building a detailed model?

---

In fact I am only asking you to model closely enough to get accurate results. And to show that you have done so. So far as I can tell you have made no effort to do so.How do you know that biological speciation requires the equivalent of what you call a "new function" ?How do you know that the biological equivlaent of a "new function" would be so likely to be detrimental that the possibility can be written off ?All you are doing is arguing from the features of your "model". But unless you can show that those features are also true of real biology there is no reason to assume that your conclusions are at all accurate.To deal with another point:

quote:

---

A general sense of the term 'speciation' is used in there. It says "Speciation works only within a kind".

---

i.e. it admits that speciation does occur but asserts (for no good reason) that it does not cross the (assumed) "barriers" between the borader taxonomic grouping that they call a "kind".

quote:

---

What happens is, I have been very strictly adhering to the definition of 'speciation'. Therefore if a new species is never created, then 'speciation process' is really not a speciation process, as that would be a contradiction. So I can safely claim 'speciation' never happened, or observed.

---

That is just confused nonsense. Speciation within a creationist "kind" is still speciation. Thus there is no contradiction. Therefore your assertion is certainly not "safe".

Reproductive boundaries differentiate sexual species. So if white and black Goliaths will not breed with one another, then they are not the same species. Mate selection is one form of reproductive boundary.But for the sake of this discussion I can tell you would prefer to only consider organisms that are mutually interfertile to be the same species, whether or not they actually interbreed in reality, and that is fine, we can do it that way.So you need to define a reproductive algorithm, just like you did for meal-time. Then we can examine whether the process of mutation and selection is sufficient to cause speciation.Your reaction to the creationist passage about speciation was this: The creationist passage did not say speciation doesn't happen. It did not say, to use your words, "a new species is never created." It said the exact opposite. It stated that new species are created, that it only happens within kinds, but it happens. You've misinterpreted the passage when you conclude "I can safely claim 'speciation' never happened."You also say that speciation has not been observed, and this is also untrue, and is partly the reason creationists have been forced to concede that speciation does happen. If you look at the Wikipedia article on Speciation you'll find many examples of observed speciation.--Percy

Just noting that for a possible new thread....it sounds a mite difficult to me.

Well, yes, in fact. Human sperm will penetrate the outer coat of the ovum of a gibbon, I think it was. This clearly shows that gibbons and humans are both of the Ape Kind. Right?

Then we can sum this up quite nicely. ERV's are evidence (not absolute proof) that chimps and humans share a common ancestor. While you do not believe that this is actually the case, you do agree that the characteristics of ERV's are consistent with common ancestry.Is that a fair statement?

I guess that would be why I know about genetic algorithms and you don't. You write that you are "quite ignorant about biology/evolution." I concur. You are.I, on the other hand, have studied the subject: my mathematical abilities were in fact a help rather than a hindrance.So if you feel qualified to state your opinion from your position of ignorance, then I don't see why I shouldn't state the facts from a position of knowledge. Certainly I don't see why my contributions to mathematics should disbar me from so doing. Actually, it's a bunch of disingenuous crap, though I can see why it would fool you. However, even they admit that "New species have been observed to form."Will the real creationism please stand up? Given that you are, as you admit, "quite ignorant about biology", and that they are not, might it not be possible that they are right about biology and you are wrong?Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Well if I couldn't answer and that makes me naughty, I'll leave what that makes you for others to answer..Usually when one lacks sufficient knowledge in an area they defer to the experts. Perhaps a wise course of action in all areas with the exception of the monetary system..I have sufficient grey matter for my needs and can recognize the implications of ERV patterns without the need to resort to last Thurdayism however far back that Thursday is placed in time, or how many Thursdays are resorted to.I am in the middle of selling my house and have disconnected from my ISP so only get a chance to get online occasionally now at the library. After the sale goes through I'll be living in the Sierra Nevadas this summer backpacking.Have fun everybody, and if we find that an afterlife is indeed the case, we can look forward to God removing the rest of the creationist's grey matter as the talent from the unprofitable servant, and redistributing it to the rest of us..

ZZZ...zzz... Gee...I must be getting tired... If speciation does not create a "new function", then speciation will never advance evolution. Data change will not be sufficient. Functional change will also be required. The computers tell me that. That was not what I said. I said it's impossible for speciation to create a "new function", not that a "new function" would be detrimental. That's just playing with words. Speciation within a "kind" is simply not what the word is intended. I'd disagree with anyone, (including a Creationist) who would tell me 'speciation' has been observed. If no new species is created by speciation, then speciation is just not speciation. If white and black Goliaths are capable of interbreeding but do not practise it due to a behavioral issue then they are still the same species. 'Mate selection' is suggestive of a behavioral issue and so it cannot be used to define a species.BTW, I have looked at the case of three-spined stickleback and ring species. I'd say the interbreeding issues there are similar to white and black Goliaths. Biologists are making a mistake if they think new species have been formed. I think not only that's insufficient evidence, that may actually suggest humans and gibbon are not of the same compatible kind. Besides, the reverse should also be possible -- Gibbon sperms with human egg cells.Also, how do we reconcile the fact that unlike other Apes, humans are 'intelligent'? This alone should absolutely differentiate us from the Apes kind. But the biology definition of 'species' does not even consider this fact, which is a glaring discrepancy. On the surface that's fair enough.Perhaps the flip side of "theory of evolution" is actually "theory of creation".
Discovery about ERVs may just have opened the lid to a 'secret' of creation. Do you realise those 'new species' were formed by mixing creatures that already exist?
But new species have never been observed to form as a result of evolution.
In other words, the evidence is that whilst creation is a possibility, evolution is not. My eyes beamed as I realise a possibility...As PaulK suggested he would like a sufficiently accurate model of biological life. Can I point him in your direction?
If I find out there is a slightest chance your 'genetic algorithms' may be a potential Nobel price winner, then I will hop right back! Actually I thought you could answer but wouldn't disclose the answers. So I was mistaken.
Have fun backpacking !
.
.
.
Sound's like Shalamabobbi could be on the road. Guess I should be going... Folks, thank you all for your patience and tolerance.

quote:

---

If speciation does not create a "new function", then speciation will never advance evolution. Data change will not be sufficient. Functional change will also be required. The computers tell me that.

---

Your answer amounts to simply repeating the assertion you were supposed to be explaining. You offer no reason at all to think that your model has any relevance to real biology.Or in short, the honest answer would be that you don't know - and you don't care.

quote:

---

That was not what I said. I said it's impossible for speciation to create a "new function", not that a "new function" would be detrimental.

---

Then why can't "new functions" be formed ? It is certainly possible in your model - or would be if your model was even accurate with regard to a typical computer. At the level of bits and bytes there is no hard distinction between data and instructions.

quote:

---

That's just playing with words. Speciation within a "kind" is simply not what the word is intended.

---

No, it's not playing with words. Speciation refers to the formation of new species and that is EXACTLY what is meant in the quote. The fact that creationists assert that there is some ill-defined boundary that limits the degree of evolutionary change that is possible doesn't affect that at all.

quote:

---

I'd disagree with anyone, (including a Creationist) who would tell me 'speciation' has been observed.

---

Have you gone through the examples ?

quote:

---

If no new species is created by speciation, then speciation is just not speciation.

---

New species ARE formed by speciation - and that is exactly what the creationist site meant. In fact many YECs want an episode of incredibly rapid speciation after the Flood, because it means that they can greatly reduce the number of animals that Noah's Ark has to take on board. (e.g. taking one lot of elephants instead of taking African elephants, Indian elephants, mammoths, mastodons etc.).

Biology "does not even consider this fact?" Is Homo sapiens the same two words as Pan paniscus? Biology does consider quite a few facts, y'know: things like ERV's, joined chromosomes, shared pseudogenes, anatomy......

---

"The wretched world lies now under the tyranny of foolishness; things are believed by Christians of such absurdity as no one ever could aforetime induce the heathen to believe." - Agobard of Lyons, ca. 830 AD

Then you trot off and argue with the 50% of creationists who admit that it has.Here's a picture taken from that "very good site actually", Answers in Genesis: Give 'em hell! To the extent that your "little Goliaths" are an accurate model, yes.The only difference would be that computer scientists have actually made their models and observed their behavior, whereas you have merely fantasized about these "little Goliaths" and how they would behave.When you actually do it, rather than just daydreaming about it, new functions emerge as a result of reproduction with variation and selection.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Two things.First, speciation in and of itself does not produce new function. This also requires mutation and selection. Speciation produces divergence, two lineages that move in different evolutionary trajectories.Secondly, why do you think that humans and chimps look different? What is the explanation for the difference in physiology and morphology? It's the difference in DNA, is it not? If changing the DNA can lead to different morphology then how is it impossible for mutation and selection to produce humans and chimps from a common ancestor?Edited by Taq, : No reason given.