Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,821 Year: 3,078/9,624 Month: 923/1,588 Week: 106/223 Day: 4/13 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Most convincing evidence for evolutionary theory
Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 106 of 189 (409592)
07-10-2007 11:21 AM
Reply to: Message 104 by IamJoseph
07-10-2007 10:07 AM


Re: Introductory Virology
In your first paragraph you appear to have decided to make your reply in Unwinese. I can't make out what you are trying to say. Of the three things you mention only the transmission of DNA is a form of transmission, natural selection and adaptation clearly are not. As far as I can see all this paragraph really says is that heredity is gentic, which I have no quibble with. If you want to specify that all life falls into the 'genetic kind' then that is fine by me.
Be that as it may.
Else there is no successful cross-specie, thereby negating the principle it espouses. Are you saying, all forms of pre-h-sapians prevailed simultainiously?
What you are describing is not cross-species. You are describing the persistence of a virus in a population undergoing anagenesis. Just look at your avian flu example, it is not neccessary for birds to die out in order for the virus to spread to humans, only for the virus to change so it is infective to humans.
But it CAN occur - along with some consequences - so where has it been factored in?
Lots of places where it is relevant, which is not in a discussion of retroviral insertions as evidence of evolution.
Equally, it can readily be transferred.
This is a claim with no basis. If you are talking about this pseudo cross-species infection withion a population undergoing anagenesis then of course the immunological complement will be inherited. But in the normal non-crazy sense of cross species infection which the rest of the world uses the chances would be very remote that a virus picks up by chance from one host genome a genetic sequence related to the operation of the immune system which would operate in the genome of another species, although admittedly the chances would be better the more closely related the species were.
So now we have negated heriditory factors, while enumerating transmissions of traits - maybe it does not suit you! What if this was the case, and there is good reason to believe it can happen - have you not heard of gene related propencity?
OK, so you are clearly discussing anagenesis here, one has to wonder why since none of the scenarios outlined so far have concerned anagenesis. Doddy proposed two possibilities on involving infection and subsequent cladogenesis as the human and chimp lineages split and the other involved two independently created lineages and a virus capable of infecting both of those lineages. Your supposed other option just seems to have been the same as number two but with a whole lot of accessory garbage about kinds thrown in. As long as you are supposing that humans and chimps are from distinct specially created lineages then you require a virus capable of infecting both lineages to even begin to explain the retroviral insertions.
TTFN,
WK
P.S. We are fairly off topic and getting RAZD's back up. Maybe we should set up a new thread on which to discuss the nature of retroviral insertions. *ooops* This was actually in a different thread, never mind. Although this still seems to be verging on the derailly.
Edited by Wounded King, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by IamJoseph, posted 07-10-2007 10:07 AM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 110 by IamJoseph, posted 07-10-2007 10:14 PM Wounded King has replied

  
Doddy
Member (Idle past 5910 days)
Posts: 563
From: Brisbane, Australia
Joined: 01-04-2007


Message 107 of 189 (409663)
07-10-2007 6:06 PM
Reply to: Message 105 by IamJoseph
07-10-2007 10:45 AM


Re: Introductory Virology
IamJoseph writes:
Bird flu. Also, mad cow.
As I said above, bird flu isn't a retrovirus. It is a negative-sense single stranded RNA virus. And mad cow isn't even a virus, but a prion (rogue protein rather than a rogue genome).
But let me pretend that you did just tell me a cross-kind retrovirus. Now we can move on.
The other difference between your view and mine is that you require two viral infections, one in one species/kindone in another. On the other hand, I require only one that is passed on to the two descendant species.
To go back to the analogy that iceage brought up, we see this in two different documents.
quote:
Fourscore and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.
If you had shown me a cross-kind retrovirus, you would have shown, in this example, that both authors of these documents have a sticky comma button on their keyboard. Now you have to give an explanation as to why it got stuck in the same spot in such a big document.
PS: It's ok WK. I don't mind this topic. But if it keeps going, maybe we take it out to another thread.
Edited by Doddy, : No reason given.

Help inform the masses - contribute to the EvoWiki today!
Contributors needed for the following articles: Pleiotropy, Metabolism, Promoter, Invertebrate, Meiosis, DNA, Transcription, Chromosome, Tetrapod, Phenotype, Messenger RNA, Mammals, Appendix , Variation, Selection, Gene, Gametogenesis, Homo erectus and others.
Registration not needed, but if desired, register here!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by IamJoseph, posted 07-10-2007 10:45 AM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 108 by PeterMc, posted 07-10-2007 6:21 PM Doddy has replied
 Message 111 by IamJoseph, posted 07-10-2007 10:29 PM Doddy has replied

  
PeterMc
Junior Member (Idle past 6091 days)
Posts: 25
From: New Zealand
Joined: 06-21-2007


Message 108 of 189 (409667)
07-10-2007 6:21 PM
Reply to: Message 107 by Doddy
07-10-2007 6:06 PM


Re: Introductory Virology
Mmmm, what did I start here?
The whole topic of retroviral insertions and heredity deserves (and no doubt has) topic threads of its own. I am only begining to understand it myself but it is entertaining to observe the twisted knots IaJ has made of it.
I introduced it as one of the "most convincing evidence for evolution theory" which I think most would agree, it is near the top of the list.
Any others.....?
I would add though, that as an example of evidence that would possibly convince a creationist, this is very usefull. The research is up to date, it avoids most of the fall-back "rote" answers, and it gets people thinking. As we have seen it is very hard to refute.
Edited by PeterMc, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by Doddy, posted 07-10-2007 6:06 PM Doddy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 109 by Doddy, posted 07-10-2007 8:05 PM PeterMc has not replied

  
Doddy
Member (Idle past 5910 days)
Posts: 563
From: Brisbane, Australia
Joined: 01-04-2007


Message 109 of 189 (409680)
07-10-2007 8:05 PM
Reply to: Message 108 by PeterMc
07-10-2007 6:21 PM


Re: Introductory Virology
That's true. I wonder why more evolutionists don't use this as proof. Also, I have to work out a way to explain it simply. Perhaps I should have a picture of a human chromosome and a chimp chromosome and highlight the retroviral elements?
Any ideas? What was helpful for you to understand it, what wasn't and what do you still need to know?
As for now though, I'd appreciate all talk on retroviruses move to another thread. If nobody has started one in a few hours, maybe I will.

Help inform the masses - contribute to the EvoWiki today!
Contributors needed for the following articles: Pleiotropy, Metabolism, Promoter, Invertebrate, Meiosis, DNA, Transcription, Chromosome, Tetrapod, Phenotype, Messenger RNA, Mammals, Appendix , Variation, Selection, Gene, Gametogenesis, Homo erectus and others.
Registration not needed, but if desired, register here!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by PeterMc, posted 07-10-2007 6:21 PM PeterMc has not replied

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3669 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 110 of 189 (409703)
07-10-2007 10:14 PM
Reply to: Message 106 by Wounded King
07-10-2007 11:21 AM


Re: Introductory Virology
quote:
WK
Of the three things you mention only the transmission of DNA is a form of transmission, natural selection and adaptation clearly are not.
This was expressed as relating to evolution.
quote:
As far as I can see all this paragraph really says is that heredity is gentic, which I have no quibble with. If you want to specify that all life falls into the 'genetic kind' then that is fine by me.
Be that as it may.
That's a deflection. The point is, one can create categories based on any of numerous factors, depending on the application - eg: speed, beauty, brain, biology, etc. It is correct that addressing the issue of fulcrum differences, covering all generations, that speech should be highlighted for humans - I'd prefer you acknowledged this, as opposed to inferring this is too naive - it is not. I put it to you, any other answer would get you an 'F' in a test of name the difference between animals and humans!
quote:
What you are describing is not cross-species. You are describing the persistence of a virus in a population undergoing anagenesis. Just look at your avian flu example, it is not neccessary for birds to die out in order for the virus to spread to humans, only for the virus to change so it is infective to humans.
Incorrect. My reference to virus was to say that with cross-species occuring, a dna-embedded virus can be transmitted also.
quote:
Lots of places where it is relevant, which is not in a discussion of retroviral insertions as evidence of evolution.
The relevence depends on the application. The point it related to is, if a virus can be transmitted, deathremental to the host, either there is a filtering system - or the premise of adaptation suffers. Accepting deathremental baggage is not a good means of survival. It seems there is a selection process here - not regarding the host and virus, but on your own preferred basis. Else relevent and impacting factors should be considered.
quote:
This is a claim with no basis. If you are talking about this pseudo cross-species infection withion a population undergoing anagenesis then of course the immunological complement will be inherited. But in the normal non-crazy sense of cross species infection which the rest of the world uses the chances would be very remote that a virus picks up by chance from one host genome a genetic sequence related to the operation of the immune system which would operate in the genome of another species, although admittedly the chances would be better the more closely related the species were.
Again, this is a selective view - it is not very remote when considering the odds contained in evolution, nor does 'remote' odds negate the principle it can happen. As I said, this is not even factored it, so remote becomes mute. You should consider what situation results when a host takes on board a fatal virus - because it can happen - and the host can die - and speciation will fail.
quote:
As long as you are supposing that humans and chimps are from distinct specially created lineages then you require a virus capable of infecting both lineages to even begin to explain the retroviral insertions.
I did. And these infections are recent - not millions of years old. Recently, AIDS is also seen as such a possibility. But what is it you are saying - if a new virus can effect animals and humans - does your premise become dented? - I am trying to avoid a cyclical debate here.
quote:
P.S. We are fairly off topic and getting RAZD's back up. Maybe we should set up a new thread on which to discuss the nature of retroviral insertions. *ooops* This was actually in a different thread, never mind. Although this still seems to be verging on the derailly.
A reason should be given if its off topic: the debate concerns most convincing arguement for evolution - I don't see any veerings here.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by Wounded King, posted 07-10-2007 11:21 AM Wounded King has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 121 by Wounded King, posted 07-11-2007 4:48 AM IamJoseph has not replied

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3669 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 111 of 189 (409711)
07-10-2007 10:29 PM
Reply to: Message 107 by Doddy
07-10-2007 6:06 PM


Re: Introductory Virology
quote:
doddy
But let me pretend that you did just tell me a cross-kind retrovirus. Now we can move on.
The other difference between your view and mine is that you require two viral infections, one in one species/kindone in another. On the other hand, I require only one that is passed on to the two descendant species.
I think you 'must' - but not for my arguement's sake. The rna distinction is contrived to suit a particular, narror research factor encountered - IOW, you are positing a specific instance, not a generic premise here. Virus' are engenius in manourvering their mode of survival (cancer, AIDS, Diabetes have resisted all cures), nor does an attacking virus have to be retro. Basically, if I'm correct, you are saying if a virus or other form of attacking entity, can attack both an animal and human - the theory of speciation suffers? My point here is that if a virus becomes embedded in the rna or dna, it is not a proof of speciation per se - because it negatively impacts on speciation being a viable guarantee. The other point is that speciation is indeed a perishment of one life form to usher in another. The issue of an ape evolving to a modern human cannot be proven by the factors tended.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by Doddy, posted 07-10-2007 6:06 PM Doddy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 112 by DrJones*, posted 07-10-2007 10:52 PM IamJoseph has replied
 Message 113 by Doddy, posted 07-10-2007 11:20 PM IamJoseph has replied
 Message 122 by PeterMc, posted 07-11-2007 5:26 AM IamJoseph has replied

  
DrJones*
Member
Posts: 2284
From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Joined: 08-19-2004
Member Rating: 6.8


Message 112 of 189 (409714)
07-10-2007 10:52 PM
Reply to: Message 111 by IamJoseph
07-10-2007 10:29 PM


Re: Introductory Virology
Virus' are engenius in manourvering their mode of survival (cancer, AIDS, Diabetes have resisted all cures)
Diabetes is not caused by a virus, and while some cancers are linked to viruses (ex. HPV and cervical cancer) not all of them are, there are also gentic and enviromental factors.
The other point is that speciation is indeed a perishment of one life form to usher in another.
And that is a blatantly false statement. If it was correct we'd only have one species of bears, one species of whale, etc.

Just a monkey in a long line of kings.
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist!
*not an actual doctor

This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by IamJoseph, posted 07-10-2007 10:29 PM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 114 by IamJoseph, posted 07-10-2007 11:30 PM DrJones* has replied

  
Doddy
Member (Idle past 5910 days)
Posts: 563
From: Brisbane, Australia
Joined: 01-04-2007


Message 113 of 189 (409722)
07-10-2007 11:20 PM
Reply to: Message 111 by IamJoseph
07-10-2007 10:29 PM


Re: Introductory Virology
IamJoseph writes:
nor does an attacking virus have to be retro.
Well, not it doesn't, but it does have to be able to integrate into the genome. If it can't, then the virus will never leave any trace in the next organism, as it can't enter the genome of the sperm/ova.
Also of note, and to bear in mind with the future discussion, is that viral elements are not thought to be involved in the divergence of apes and humans.
Anyway, any further discussion on this topic can go to my new thread when it gets promoted: Endogenous retroviral elements as proof of common descent

Help inform the masses - contribute to the EvoWiki today!
Contributors needed for the following articles: Pleiotropy, Metabolism, Promoter, Invertebrate, Meiosis, DNA, Transcription, Chromosome, Tetrapod, Phenotype, Messenger RNA, Mammals, Appendix , Variation, Selection, Gene, Gametogenesis, Homo erectus and others.
Registration not needed, but if desired, register here!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by IamJoseph, posted 07-10-2007 10:29 PM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 115 by IamJoseph, posted 07-10-2007 11:35 PM Doddy has not replied

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3669 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 114 of 189 (409724)
07-10-2007 11:30 PM
Reply to: Message 112 by DrJones*
07-10-2007 10:52 PM


Re: Introductory Virology
quote:
Diabetes is not caused by a virus, and while some cancers are linked to viruses (ex. HPV and cervical cancer) not all of them are
No impact.
quote:
And that is a blatantly false statement. If it was correct we'd only have one species of bears, one species of whale, etc.
But the bear is said to have evolved from another bear - which does not survive when the new bear has evolved. We don't see Mamoths anymore - we see elephants. The grammatical rule is, one must take the logical path of what it means.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by DrJones*, posted 07-10-2007 10:52 PM DrJones* has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 116 by DrJones*, posted 07-10-2007 11:39 PM IamJoseph has replied

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3669 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 115 of 189 (409725)
07-10-2007 11:35 PM
Reply to: Message 113 by Doddy
07-10-2007 11:20 PM


Re: Introductory Virology
quote:
doddy
Also of note, and to bear in mind with the future discussion, is that viral elements are not thought to be involved in the divergence of apes and humans.
The point was that a retrovirus transmigration via dna/rna would negatively impact speciation. The obvious answer is YES. Whether this negates speciation per se was not the issue, but that the virus is not a deciding factor here.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by Doddy, posted 07-10-2007 11:20 PM Doddy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 117 by iceage, posted 07-10-2007 11:42 PM IamJoseph has not replied

  
DrJones*
Member
Posts: 2284
From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Joined: 08-19-2004
Member Rating: 6.8


Message 116 of 189 (409726)
07-10-2007 11:39 PM
Reply to: Message 114 by IamJoseph
07-10-2007 11:30 PM


Re: Introductory Virology
No impact.
other than exposing your lack of fundamental knowledge of biology?
But the bear is said to have evolved from another bear - which does not survive when the new bear has evolved
except that we have multiple species of bears, if the "first" bear produced the next and then promptly died why do we have many different bear species currently living?

Just a monkey in a long line of kings.
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist!
*not an actual doctor

This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by IamJoseph, posted 07-10-2007 11:30 PM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 118 by IamJoseph, posted 07-10-2007 11:54 PM DrJones* has not replied

  
iceage 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5915 days)
Posts: 1024
From: Pacific Northwest
Joined: 09-08-2003


Message 117 of 189 (409727)
07-10-2007 11:42 PM
Reply to: Message 115 by IamJoseph
07-10-2007 11:35 PM


Re: Introductory Virology
IAJ you signal to noise ratio is very low. In this thread alone your past few posts are shear nonsense.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by IamJoseph, posted 07-10-2007 11:35 PM IamJoseph has not replied

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3669 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 118 of 189 (409733)
07-10-2007 11:54 PM
Reply to: Message 116 by DrJones*
07-10-2007 11:39 PM


Re: Introductory Virology
quote:
except that we have multiple species of bears, if the "first" bear produced the next and then promptly died why do we have many different bear species currently living?
The many species does not impact, because the particular bear in that species is perished. That speciation is the deathknell of its precedence is not disputable. If a protoype is nominated for modern humans - it also says one is abolete and extinct. The categorising does not impact here.
Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by DrJones*, posted 07-10-2007 11:39 PM DrJones* has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 119 by Doddy, posted 07-11-2007 4:01 AM IamJoseph has replied

  
Doddy
Member (Idle past 5910 days)
Posts: 563
From: Brisbane, Australia
Joined: 01-04-2007


Message 119 of 189 (409748)
07-11-2007 4:01 AM
Reply to: Message 118 by IamJoseph
07-10-2007 11:54 PM


Introductory Evolutionary Biology
IamJoseph writes:
That speciation is the deathknell of its precedence is not disputable.
Rubbish!
Consider an example. Say some toads (maybe just 102 individual toads, certainly not all of the toads in existence) of a certain toad species is transported from a pacific archipelago to a large continent, such as Australia. On that new continent, it faces large distances, drought, new predators and different food sources, and adapts accordingly (long legs, smaller body size and larger poison glands). So much adaptation may occur that it could become a different species to the original on the island (so if these mainland toads were brought back to their island, they wouldn't breed with the island toads). Will that cause the previous species, those still living on that island atoll, to die?
Edited by Doddy, : clarify

Help inform the masses - contribute to the EvoWiki today!
Contributors needed for the following articles: Pleiotropy, Metabolism, Promoter, Invertebrate, Meiosis, DNA, Transcription, Chromosome, Tetrapod, Phenotype, Messenger RNA, Mammals, Appendix , Variation, Selection, Gene, Gametogenesis, Homo erectus and others.
Registration not needed, but if desired, register here!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by IamJoseph, posted 07-10-2007 11:54 PM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 120 by IamJoseph, posted 07-11-2007 4:08 AM Doddy has not replied

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3669 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 120 of 189 (409749)
07-11-2007 4:08 AM
Reply to: Message 119 by Doddy
07-11-2007 4:01 AM


Re: Introductory Evolutionary Biology
quote:
Rubbish!
Consider an example. Say some toads (maybe just 102 individual toads, certainly not all of the toads in existence) of a certain toad species is transported from a pacific archipelago to a large continent, such as Australia. On that new continent, it faces large distances, drought, new predators and different food sources, and adapts accordingly (long legs, smaller body size and larger poison glands). So much adaptation may occur that it could become a different species to the original on the island (so if these mainland toads were brought back to their island, they wouldn't breed with the island toads). Will that cause the previous species, those still living on that island atoll, to die?
Yes - that's a deathknel at ground zero. The execptions of a toad adapting elsewhere does not alter the paradigm.
Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by Doddy, posted 07-11-2007 4:01 AM Doddy 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