Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 58 (9173 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: Neptune7
Post Volume: Total: 917,575 Year: 4,832/9,624 Month: 180/427 Week: 93/85 Day: 0/10 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   ERV's: Evidence of Common Ancestory
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1482 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 91 of 166 (504775)
04-02-2009 8:28 PM
Reply to: Message 86 by Taq
04-02-2009 12:39 PM


Prediction: ERV's on the chromosome 2 combined in humans, not in chimps, match
One of the predictions of common ancestry with chimps was that the 46 chromosomes in chimps would match up to the 44 chromosomes in humans with one human chromosome formed from the fusion of two chromosomes in chimps - and this has proven true.
One of the predictions of common ancestry with chimps is that common ERV's would be in the same locations on genes in both genomes.
Prediction: the ERV's on the combined chromosome will also match for another degree of correlation - ie they were there before combination occurred in humans.
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by Taq, posted 04-02-2009 12:39 PM Taq has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 362 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 92 of 166 (504777)
04-02-2009 8:51 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by pcver
04-02-2009 10:10 AM


Question
Partly because I believe in creationism [...] Therefore unless/until proven wrong, my thinking is -- An old earth ...
I don't really understand your thinking.
Look, if you were a Biblical fundamentalist pointing at the Bible and saying ... "Look! it says right there!" then I would understand your thinking. I'd disagree, but I'd understand.
But apparently you're willing to chuck fundamentalism away and go with the Earth being old, which it is.
Then why not go with evolution, too? It's as true as the old Earth. And if you're willing to concede that the geological record shows an old Earth, then you have to concede evolution too. As someone once said --- "We have the fossils. We win."
Unless you're a staunch literalist, which you aren't, why bother holding out? Why not just say, along with all the other Christians who accept evolution: "Wow, evolution is probably the cleverest bit of God's plan. No wonder it took a genius like Darwin to figure it out."
Now your point in fighting (I'm guessing here) seems to me to be that you belong to a church that is anti-evolution and that you just don't get it.
Well, get it.
Someone once said to a guy I know: "You have many misconceptions about evolution". And as he said, these are his words:
That was the ONLY thing that was said. No great arguments, no teaching, no nothing. What it did- was make me want to prove him wrong. I hit the books. I learned about evolution- and proved him right. I was wrong. I had had many misconceptions.
Well, hit the books. You're wrong.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by pcver, posted 04-02-2009 10:10 AM pcver has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 10158
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.7


Message 93 of 166 (504880)
04-03-2009 9:43 PM
Reply to: Message 90 by shalamabobbi
04-02-2009 5:49 PM


Re: LTRs
I'm interested in more details if you are willing. It probably wouldn't hurt the lurkers either.
Very well. In addition to the locus (the spot at which the ERV is found), there are two other sources of phylogenetic information.
The first is LTR divergence. LTR stands for long tandem repeats, and these repeat regions flank the viral genes in the middle like the two pieces of bread in a sandwich. These are often labeled 5' and 3' which relates to the beginning and end of the viral genome respectively (remember that DNA is copied in the 5' to 3' direction). When these viruses insert into the host genome the LTR's have identical or nearly identical sequence. This offers a unique source of information due to the fact that mutations will accrue in each of the LTR's after insertion into the host genome. One can determine when a mutation has occurred in one LTR by comparing it to the other LTR in the same ERV.
If you want to put in some extra effort you can compare them yourself. You can find the sequence for HERV-KC4 here. You can click on the relevant LTR's and get the following links:
5' LTR: link
3' LTR: link
You can then cut and paste these sequences into the LALIGN program. As you will see, they align quite well except for a few substitutions and a couple deletions/insertions. The divergence of these sequences is due to accumulated mutations since insertion. The more time that has passed since insertion the more the two LTR's will diverge. Using this information, one can estimate the time since insertion. This source of information MATCHES the time of insertion established by the locus, just as the theory of evolution predicts.
The second source of phylogenetic information is the divergence of the same ERV in two different species. This one is similar to the the LTR divergence, but instead of comparing changes within the ERV itself one can compare the differences seen between orthologous ERV's in different species. The more distant the common ancestor the more divergent the orthologous ERV's will be. The phylogenies constructed from this information MATCHES (again) the phylogeny established by the locus of the ERV.
Any creationist attempting to explain ERV's must explain all three sources of phylogenetic information: locus, LTR divergence, and orthologous ERV divergence between species. Any explanation that does not do all three has failed to explain ERV's.
Edited by Taq, : No reason given.
Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by shalamabobbi, posted 04-02-2009 5:49 PM shalamabobbi has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by pcver, posted 04-05-2009 7:59 PM Taq has replied

  
pcver
Junior Member (Idle past 5178 days)
Posts: 22
From: Sydney, Australia
Joined: 03-30-2009


Message 94 of 166 (504943)
04-05-2009 7:59 PM
Reply to: Message 93 by Taq
04-03-2009 9:43 PM


Playing poke-a-Goliath
Taq writes:
In Message 93:
Very well. In addition to the locus (the spot at which the ERV is found), there are two other sources of phylogenetic information.
The first is LTR divergence...
The second....is the divergence of the same ERV in two different species...
Any creationist attempting to explain ERV's must explain all three sources of phylogenetic information: locus, LTR divergence, and orthologous ERV divergence between species. Any explanation that does not do all three has failed to explain ERV's.
Thank you for explaining LTR and ERV divergence.
I do not speak for creationists. I don't know how God actually created the world and I cannot explain ERVs any more than suggesting God might have used the same 'mold' to create apes and human, (to avoid creating each one from scratch). Although this is not "common ancestry", there is a tangible connection.
But should creationists explain ERVs in the first place?
It's all very well ERVs are pointing towards "common ancestry", but I think we have merely returned to square one, to where I posted (Message 61): "But how does that prove evolution to be true? Any suggestion how did apes actually descended to be human?"
I do not see ERVs contributing more credence towards the 'engines' of evolution, things like: mutation; natural selection; speciation; genetic drift.
Much as ERVs is proving exciting for linking species, the mechanism of evolution is very much speculative.
Addressing other comments...
Taq writes:
In Message 86:
....There was an influx of ERV's into the genomes of Old World monkey and Old World great apes with the exception of humans and orangutans....This retrovirus goes by the name PTERV1...
...The theory of evolution predicts that because it is not found in orangutans or humans, but is found in chimps and other great apes, that these insertions had to of occurred after the human and chimp lineages split. IOW, these have to be independent insertions. Therefore, these insertions will be occur at non-orthologous positions in each genome. THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT IS OBSERVED....
What you've said is that independent insertions had resulted in non-orthologous positions in each genome.
Therefore orthologous positions for ERVs between apes and human are most likely hereditary, pointing to common ancestry.
I agree with the logic. One issue I have is you credited evolution theory for a prediction came true. I didn't think there was much of a prediction, but it reads like evolution theory is proven to be true because a prediction was fulfilled.
Taq writes:
In Message 86:
...the most recent common ancestor of human mitochondria existed just a few hundred thousand years ago... However, genetic drift lops off branches in any population, and over time only one ancient branch makes it. This is how ERV's become fixed in populations....
Apart from doubting that a few hundred thousand years are sufficient for many ancient branches to drop, I do have difficulties believing in (i) genetic drift; (ii) common ancestor of human existed a few hundred thousand years ago. Also, if the same argument is applied to evolution, then that would suggest there is a nature tendency to reduce diversity over time, not increase.
RAZD writes:
One of the predictions of common ancestry with chimps was that the 46 chromosomes in chimps would match up to the 44 chromosomes in humans with one human chromosome formed from the fusion of two chromosomes in chimps - and this has proven true....
This logic is frauded. Did common ancestry not predicted beforehand that it should have been 42 chromosomes with fusion of four chromosomes? Why not...errr...because we knew the results would contradict the prediction?
shalamabobbi writes:
I think that creationists only look into data that supports their viewpoint and think something is either wrong or incomplete about data that doesn't support their viewpoint....
I consciously try to steer away from such an attitude.
Dr Adequate writes:
From message 89:
You claim that God made these patterns, but challenged to say why, you start talking about "unpredictability and randomness", something that we do not usually associate with an omnipotent Creator.
I used "unpredictability and randomness" to suggest something that God does not control, such as the way matters obey The Laws of Physics, (for example Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle that relate to unpredictability). A retrovirus that is useful at all times to anything and everything that it infects? Could God even create such a retrovirus in the first place? I guess such a retrovirus is impossible, even for God, or it would not be a retrovirus.
Dr Adequate writes:
From message 89:
If you're interested in the math, I wrote an article on Genetic Drift.
Good work. I have quickly browse it. I hope to develop some comments for discussions later.
Just so you know, I am a definite skeptic of Genetic Drift. For a start, I have problem with the fuzzy concept 'Drift'.
Wounded King writes:
From message 85:
You still seem to have a very tenuous grasp of any sort of evolution
Your observation echoes DrAdequate's comments: "I think you're a bit out of your depth here...."
I humbly agree. I do tend to make comments that show I'm quite ignorant about biology/evolution.
Wounded King writes:
From message 85:
...is complete nonsense....modern Homo sapiens evolved, most current estimates for that are closer to 400,000 to 250,000 years ago.
However, I have problems accepting those figures even though they seem 'modest' figures.
I have seen a graph that appears to suggest world population during Jesus time was around 300 million. Present world population has surpassed 6 billion, with the strongest J-curve growth happening in recent times. I did a calculation over 10,000 years, starting from a population of two with a low annual growth rate of 0.2%. Even with such a low growth rate, the population rises from 2 to nearly 1 billion, (951,141,887 to be exact) after 10000 years. My equation: A2 = A1 + A1 * 0.002
Dr Adequate writes:
From Message 89:
But that doesn't mean that all that time ago our lineage had modern brainy brains.
Could Homo Sapiens have taken 400000 years to develop modern brainy brain?
Assuming linear improvement in brain over time, then 20000 years ago the brain of Homo Sapiens should have improved to 95% of modern human brain. By then they ought to be aware of forming communities and avoid killing each other for food.
I calculated the population over 20000 years, using the same low growth rate. I got a staggering multiples of trillions, (to be exact: 452,335,444,804,760,000)
There is a theory, (Toba catastrophe theory) that all humans alive today are descended from a very small population, perhaps between 1,000 to 10,000 breeding pairs about 70,000 years ago. Still, my calculation would produce an unimaginably large figures with that data.
From food-chain perspectives, I can appreciate populations of various animals do not blow out over time. But I cannot appreciate the same for modern intelligent human. 70,000 years do not make sense as I would assume that population growth is often greatest where humans are least educated, as all early humans would be
Wounded King writes:
From Message 85:
Do you really believe that there was a steady linear progression in technology that has got us to our modern state? Do you find hundreds of thousands of years any more plausible than millions?
I have no reason to doubt human intelligence is the same throughout history of humans. So I believe if human history is to re-start, the history will repeat itself in many aspects, There may even be inventions quite similar to iPhone, thousands of years from a new beginning.
Wounded King writes:
One problem is your apparent assumption that every ERV is the result of a novel retroviral insertion event. This is by no means the case...they can actively copy themselves through a process called transpostition.
I will keep this in mind.
Wounded King writes:
From Message 85:
This is quite an assertion. Bottlenecking is a well recognised mechanism for fixing a number of loci effectively simultaneously in a population. Perhaps one or more bottlenecking events were the basis for these chimp specific fixed ERVs.
I thought bottlenecking is only very speculative. I think human nature is such that they tend to spread all over the globe. If there were only 1,000 to 10,000 breeding pairs about 70,000 years ago, they might be tiny communities far apart from each other, resulting in localised bottleneckings that should accentuate genetic differences across the globe. Africans, Europeans, Asians, natives of South Americans and Australia aborigines all have the same fixed ERVs, don't they?
Wounded King writes:
Your entire argument seems to hinge principally upon your own capability for belief in a particular explanation. This is understandable for your own subjective opinion but surely you can appreciate that it isn't a line of argument calculated to sway anybody else?
I don't mind being told I'm wrong. I will then think about it. But if I'm right, will anyone be swayed?
Taq writes:
From Message 86:
This doesn't explain the pattern of insertion nor the sequence comparisons that both point to common ancestry.
I vaguely accept the idea of common ancestry. But I have difficulty believing that common ancestry means human evolved from an apes-like ancestor over hundreds of thousand of years. I have mentioned before perhaps initially God used the same 'mold' to create apes and then human. I believe in such a supernatural event partly because I can see no possiblity of a natural evolutionary process. Intelligent humans seem to have come on world stage rather abruptly.
Taq writes:
You are assuming that all of our ancestors possessed the same mental capacity and technological knowledge that we do. This is a very bad assumption.
Not technological knowledge initially. But I believe the first humans were just as intelligent as we are today. It was a matter of time that they would build up technological knowledge.
Dr Adequate writes:
From Message 92:
I don't really understand your thinking.
Look, if you were a Biblical fundamentalist pointing at the Bible and saying ... "Look! it says right there!" then I would understand your thinking. I'd disagree, but I'd understand.
Thanks for your understanding.
I'm not a fundamentalist of course. I would like to find the truth. It's no good if my belief is false.
Dr Adequate writes:
Then why not go with evolution, too? It's as true as the old Earth.
Arrrh....that's where my problem lies - I believe evolution is false.
Dr Adequate writes:
Unless you're a staunch literalist, which you aren't, why bother holding out? Why not just say, along with all the other Christians who accept evolution: "Wow, evolution is probably the cleverest bit of God's plan. No wonder it took a genius like Darwin to figure it out."

That's why I suggested God had used the same 'mold' for his creation. I also suspect that "The hypothesis of evolution" and "The hypothesis of creation" are different sides of the same coin.
But I cannot accept evolution like some Christians do. That does not work for me because I believe humans were not a result of evolution from a 'common ancestor' and evolution never even occurred. So I cannot go against my conscience.
So you know someone who hit the books, learned about evolution and became a believer of evolution.
Well, I think he could be confused before he hit the books and now he is wrong after reading them
Edited by pcver, : No reason given.

I think I'm safe because Goliath is only seeking out David...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by Taq, posted 04-03-2009 9:43 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 95 by Coragyps, posted 04-05-2009 8:53 PM pcver has not replied
 Message 96 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-05-2009 10:37 PM pcver has not replied
 Message 97 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-05-2009 10:56 PM pcver has not replied
 Message 98 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-06-2009 11:25 AM pcver has not replied
 Message 100 by shalamabobbi, posted 04-06-2009 12:13 PM pcver has not replied
 Message 101 by RAZD, posted 04-07-2009 7:47 AM pcver has replied
 Message 106 by Taq, posted 04-07-2009 2:23 PM pcver has replied

  
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 812 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 95 of 166 (504944)
04-05-2009 8:53 PM
Reply to: Message 94 by pcver
04-05-2009 7:59 PM


Re: Playing poke-a-Goliath
I did a calculation over 10,000 years, starting from a population of two with a low annual growth rate of 0.2%.
There's the problem - we know that human population growth has been nonuniform, even probably going negative for a while during the Black Plague. And the sort of population growth that happened before the explosion of last century wasn't remotely possible until agriculture reached societies - I'll bet that pre-European Australia had a very low population density.
And once again: ERV's are just one little piece of the evidence for a common ancestry of humans and the other great apes. We likely need a thread just to explore that broader topic.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by pcver, posted 04-05-2009 7:59 PM pcver has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 111 by shalamabobbi, posted 04-08-2009 12:04 PM Coragyps has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 362 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 96 of 166 (504948)
04-05-2009 10:37 PM
Reply to: Message 94 by pcver
04-05-2009 7:59 PM


Konwledge Of Angels
But should creationists explain ERVs in the first place?
Yes.
Look, evolution predicts the patterns we see in ERVs just as the theory of gravity predicts that planets move in ellipses of which one focus is the sun.
The only way you can ignore this is to show how a creationist hypothesis works just as well.
If you wanted to say: "There is no gravity, it's just that angels push the planets around" ... then you would have a problem.
The angel hypothesis gives us no reason why the angels should push the planets around in such a way that it looks like the theory of gravity is correct.
But the theory of gravity predicts that the planets should move in that way.
Whereas under the "angel hypothesis" the planets could move in squares or triangles and you could still explain it with angels. The angel hypothesis predicts nothing. Whereas the theory of gravity predicts what we see.
That makes the theory of gravity better. How would you put a satellite into geosynchronous orbit based on the "angels pushing" hypothesis?
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by pcver, posted 04-05-2009 7:59 PM pcver has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 362 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 97 of 166 (504949)
04-05-2009 10:56 PM
Reply to: Message 94 by pcver
04-05-2009 7:59 PM


Re: Playing poke-a-Goliath
This logic is frauded. Did common ancestry not predicted beforehand that it should have been 42 chromosomes with fusion of four chromosomes? Why not...errr...because we knew the results would contradict the prediction?
You are very confused. The claim is not that the theory predicts the chromosome number, but that, given the chromosome number as data, the theory predicts the chromosome structure.
Try reading this article on chromosome 2 for further details.
We are not normally allowed to post links on this forum rather than explaining the matter in our own words, but as I wrote that article, those are my own words.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by pcver, posted 04-05-2009 7:59 PM pcver has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 362 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 98 of 166 (505002)
04-06-2009 11:25 AM
Reply to: Message 94 by pcver
04-05-2009 7:59 PM


Population Growth
Could Homo Sapiens have taken 400000 years to develop modern brainy brain?
Assuming linear improvement in brain over time, then 20000 years ago the brain of Homo Sapiens should have improved to 95% of modern human brain. By then they ought to be aware of forming communities and avoid killing each other for food.
I calculated the population over 20000 years, using the same low growth rate. I got a staggering multiples of trillions, (to be exact: 452,335,444,804,760,000)
There is a theory, (Toba catastrophe theory) that all humans alive today are descended from a very small population, perhaps between 1,000 to 10,000 breeding pairs about 70,000 years ago. Still, my calculation would produce an unimaginably large figures with that data.
And that should show you what is wrong with your calculation.
Like any other species, we are unable to expand our numbers beyond our capacity to feed ourselves.
0,000 years do not make sense as I would assume that population growth is often greatest where humans are least educated, as all early humans would be
Why would you expect that?
I would expect the population to grow along with our ability to feed ourselves.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by pcver, posted 04-05-2009 7:59 PM pcver has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 99 by AdminNosy, posted 04-06-2009 11:27 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 99 of 166 (505003)
04-06-2009 11:27 AM
Reply to: Message 98 by Dr Adequate
04-06-2009 11:25 AM


Topic here!
Population growth is NOT the topic here. Thanks.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-06-2009 11:25 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
shalamabobbi
Member (Idle past 2926 days)
Posts: 397
Joined: 01-10-2009


Message 100 of 166 (505006)
04-06-2009 12:13 PM
Reply to: Message 94 by pcver
04-05-2009 7:59 PM


Re: Playing poke-a-Goliath
pcver writes:
It's all very well ERVs are pointing towards "common ancestry", but I think we have merely returned to square one, to where I posted (Message 61): "But how does that prove evolution to be true?
It is possible to know that the evidence shows that evolution happened even though every last detail of "how" is not known.
Therefore orthologous positions for ERVs between apes and human are most likely hereditary, pointing to common ancestry.
I agree with the logic. One issue I have is you credited evolution theory for a prediction came true. I didn't think there was much of a prediction, but it reads like evolution theory is proven to be true because a prediction was fulfilled.
Yes, the fact that they are in the same locations has no other explanation than common ancestry. If you feel that God created them with the same ERV patterns, there is no reason for that except to make it look as though evolution were the method by which life came about.
Apart from doubting that a few hundred thousand years are sufficient for many ancient branches to drop, I do have difficulties believing in (i) genetic drift; (ii) common ancestor of human existed a few hundred thousand years ago. Also, if the same argument is applied to evolution, then that would suggest there is a nature tendency to reduce diversity over time, not increase.
Genetic mutation rates are known and measured in the present. You have some mutations that make you different from the DNA obtained from your parents. This is proof in the present that genetic drift occurs. It is populations becoming separated that account for diverging paths leading to diversity. The fact that dead ends outnumber positive adaptations is a mute point as the best adaptation only needs to satisfy two conditions, viability and being the best available competitor.
I am not sure how to react to your posts. You admit the arguments against you make sense, yet you do not seem to understand them. You make some counter arguments that are no counter at all really, but rather an indication that you are missing the point. Your view that God made us with ERVs is a last Thursdayism argument and is not evidenced at all. It is merely a religious assertion, and not a very good one at that. This is a science forum and is for discussion/debate backed up with evidence on both sides. Claiming God made the ERVs in place is akin to claiming Adam was created with a few scabs from wrestling with a bear a few days before he was created.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by pcver, posted 04-05-2009 7:59 PM pcver has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1482 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 101 of 166 (505076)
04-07-2009 7:47 AM
Reply to: Message 94 by pcver
04-05-2009 7:59 PM


Predictions and Reality
Hi pcver, long post, lots of denial.
RAZD writes:
One of the predictions of common ancestry with chimps was that the 46 chromosomes in chimps would match up to the 44 chromosomes in humans with one human chromosome formed from the fusion of two chromosomes in chimps - and this has proven true....
This logic is frauded. Did common ancestry not predicted beforehand that it should have been 42 chromosomes with fusion of four chromosomes? Why not...errr...because we knew the results would contradict the prediction?
First off logic is not "frauded" or even fraudulent - it is either valid or invalid. To show that it is invalid you need to show that either a logical fallacy was made in the construction of the argument or that one of the premises is false. Curiously you have not done that, only claimed that there is some nefarious purpose (fraud) being committed.
Second your prediction is not what common ancestry predicts. What common ancestry predicts is that offspring populations (like chimps and humans) would have the same genetic pattern as their parent population (the common ancestor population), and usually (but not always) arranged in the same basic set of chromosomes. The theory of common ancestry further predicts that when there is a difference in the number of chromosomes, that there will be evidence of either duplication of a chromosome, loss of a whole chromosome, the fusion of two chromosomes into one or the division of one chromosome into two.
We can eliminate the duplication by looking at what the chromosomes carry as genes and see if a whole set of genes is duplicated in the population with more chromosomes (chimps). It isn't, therefore duplication did not occur.
We can eliminate loss by looking at the overall similarity of the genomes and see if one has a whole lot of genes that are missing in the population with fewer chromosomes (human). The genomes are some 95 to 98% similar, so no this did not happen either.
That leaves fusion as a prediction for the difference in number of chromosomes between chimps and humans.
Chromosomes come with a curious pattern, they all have telomeres at the ends and centromeres somewhere in the middle.
Thus, if division of a chromosome occurred there should a new centromere in one chromosome in the population with more chromosomes (chimps) that does not exist in the human genome. This is not the case, as every centromere found in the chimp genome is also present in the human genome.
This leaves fusion, which predicts that (a) one chromosome with be found in the population with fewer chromosomes (human) with two centromere, and that (b) one of the centromeres will be deactivated to prevent confusion during cell division, and finally that (c) the fusion point will be where telomeres have combined. Shockingly all three of these predictions is exactly what we find.
The theory of common ancestry also predicts that the pattern of ERV and LTR insertions will be carried from parent population to daughter populations, and that when we have a difference in the number of chromosomes, that the pattern of ERV and LTR will also show what happened.
We can eliminate the duplication by looking at what the chromosomes carry as ERVs and LTRs and see if a whole set of ERVs and LTRs is duplicated in the population with more chromosomes (chimps). It isn't, therefore duplication did not occur.
We can eliminate loss by looking at the overall similarity of the genomes and see if one has a whole lot of ERVs and LTRs that are missing in the population with fewer chromosomes (human). This also did not happen, so loss did not occur.
This leaves us with division or fusion, which predict that the pattern of ERVs and LTRs will be the same, but will be in one group for one chromosome in the population with fewer chromosomes (human), and in two groups in the population with more chromosomes (chimps). Surprisingly this to is exactly what we see.
We also find the same pattern with gene sequences along the chromosomes.
There is absolutely no logical reason for these repeated and repeated and repeated patterns to exist without common ancestry, as genes could function in any pattern in a population of organisms.
That's why I suggested God had used the same 'mold' for his creation. I also suspect that "The hypothesis of evolution" and "The hypothesis of creation" are different sides of the same coin.
You can believe what you want. Interestingly, belief does not change reality.
But I cannot accept evolution like some Christians do. That does not work for me because I believe humans were not a result of evolution from a 'common ancestor' and evolution never even occurred. So I cannot go against my conscience.
And, curiously, neither your acceptance, nor your conscience, have absolutely no effect on nature, the law of gravity, biology in general or evolution in specific. Life is like that.
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by pcver, posted 04-05-2009 7:59 PM pcver has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 102 by pcver, posted 04-07-2009 10:39 AM RAZD has replied

  
pcver
Junior Member (Idle past 5178 days)
Posts: 22
From: Sydney, Australia
Joined: 03-30-2009


Message 102 of 166 (505084)
04-07-2009 10:39 AM
Reply to: Message 101 by RAZD
04-07-2009 7:47 AM


Re: Predictions and Reality
RAZD,
How about I say whilst your logic is valid, your logical statement is frauded?
Firstly, thank you for elaborating on chromosome fusion and so forth.
But you and Dr Adequate had missed my point.
RAZD writes:
Second your prediction is not what common ancestry predicts.... The theory of common ancestry further predicts that when there is a difference in the number of chromosomes, that there will be evidence of either duplication of a chromosome, loss of a whole chromosome, the fusion of two chromosomes into one or the division of one chromosome into two.
What you wrote above clearly shows the fraud I meant to point out earlier.
That so-called prediction was always going to be fulfilled, wasn't it?
You have outlined four possible evidence of common ancestry:
1. duplication of a chromosome;
2. loss of a whole chromosome;
3. fusion of two chromosomes;
4. division of one chromosome into two.
Whichever one is true would not have made the slightest difference. It would have allowed evolutionists to fraudulently claimed a 'prediction' is proven.
Well, a prediction just doesn't get better than that.
I have noticed frequent and flippant use of "predictions", a bad habit of evolutionists, all too anxious to give a false impression their theories are proven
Anyway, is there really such thing as "The theory of common ancestry"?
Dr Adequate writes:
Like any other species, we are unable to expand our numbers beyond our capacity to feed ourselves.
I'm quite sure early humans did not consider their ability to feed their offspring before getting the women pregnant. Then it became too late. I also believe as intelligent humans, they would find ways to feed more of them. They were not like any other species.
Dr Adequate writes:
If you wanted to say: "There is no gravity, it's just that angels push the planets around" ... then you would have a problem.
What a neat little strawman you've got there
You must think all creationists are complete idiots

This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by RAZD, posted 04-07-2009 7:47 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 103 by Percy, posted 04-07-2009 11:01 AM pcver has not replied
 Message 104 by Perdition, posted 04-07-2009 11:54 AM pcver has not replied
 Message 105 by shalamabobbi, posted 04-07-2009 12:12 PM pcver has not replied
 Message 107 by Taq, posted 04-07-2009 3:17 PM pcver has not replied
 Message 108 by RAZD, posted 04-07-2009 10:19 PM pcver has not replied
 Message 115 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-08-2009 8:09 PM pcver has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22606
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 103 of 166 (505090)
04-07-2009 11:01 AM
Reply to: Message 102 by pcver
04-07-2009 10:39 AM


Re: Predictions and Reality
pcver writes:
Dr Adequate writes:
Like any other species, we are unable to expand our numbers beyond our capacity to feed ourselves.
I'm quite sure early humans did not consider their ability to feed their offspring before getting the women pregnant. Then it became too late. I also believe as intelligent humans, they would find ways to feed more of them. They were not like any other species.
Dr. Adequate was not referring to any a priori recognition by species of the inadequacy of the food supply, though humans certainly have more potential for making such estimates than other creatures.
While you're correct to note that humans exercise a great degree of control over their own food supply, ultimately Dr. Adequate was just making a simple and straightforward reference to Malthus, who introduced the principle that populations cannot expand beyond the ability of their environment to sustain them. Correspondingly, of course, during periods of unfavorable environmental change (drought, flood, disease, etc.) populations will decline, as has been our consistent experience.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by pcver, posted 04-07-2009 10:39 AM pcver has not replied

  
Perdition
Member (Idle past 3315 days)
Posts: 1593
From: Wisconsin
Joined: 05-15-2003


Message 104 of 166 (505094)
04-07-2009 11:54 AM
Reply to: Message 102 by pcver
04-07-2009 10:39 AM


Re: Predictions and Reality
You have outlined four possible evidence of common ancestry:
1. duplication of a chromosome;
2. loss of a whole chromosome;
3. fusion of two chromosomes;
4. division of one chromosome into two.
Whichever one is true would not have made the slightest difference. It would have allowed evolutionists to fraudulently claimed a 'prediction' is proven.
That's how science works. Theories have to do two things to be considered valid:
1) They must accomodate all currently known evidence.
2) They must (or should) create novel predictions that can be looked for.
If we know fact A, and we have two theories, one of which is not contradicted by A and one which, if true, requires A, then the scientist would say either could be true, but that the second theory predicts A whereas the first only allows it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by pcver, posted 04-07-2009 10:39 AM pcver has not replied

  
shalamabobbi
Member (Idle past 2926 days)
Posts: 397
Joined: 01-10-2009


Message 105 of 166 (505099)
04-07-2009 12:12 PM
Reply to: Message 102 by pcver
04-07-2009 10:39 AM


Re: Predictions and Reality
pcver writes:
That so-called prediction was always going to be fulfilled, wasn't it?
You have outlined four possible evidence of common ancestry:
1. duplication of a chromosome;
2. loss of a whole chromosome;
3. fusion of two chromosomes;
4. division of one chromosome into two.
Whichever one is true would not have made the slightest difference. It would have allowed evolutionists to fraudulently claimed a 'prediction' is proven.
Well, a prediction just doesn't get better than that.
It could have been loss of a whole chromosome, which would also fit a creation model, instead of fusion which does not. Are you arguing that telomeres in the center are what makes us distinct from apes?
Does creationism have any predictions? Why not ERV patterns in humans in similar positions with kangaroos instead of apes. That would disprove evolution. Why not more ERVs shared with more distantly related species rather than what is found? That would disprove evolution.
Why did God choose to create things to look like evolution occurred? And then to the degree we can manipulate organisms make the theory actually work as well?
Is this all of your argument? Have fun with your friends at the beach..

This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by pcver, posted 04-07-2009 10:39 AM pcver has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024