Is Believing Evolution like believing the World is Flat?
All-seeing-I
decent could be wrong and now, we have the "Genomic Potential
Hypothesis", which is a better explaination for the sudden explosion
of life during the cambra then speciation divergence.
Why won't the evolutionist accept the fact that there are other
theories for the origins of species? And that as long as there are
other theories for the origins of species then the idea of common
decent will be just that; Nothing more then an idea.
Do they believe they will sail off the edge of the earth by letting go
of a 200 year old idea?
Sure seem like it
--
Leading the way to truth, is...
The All Seeing I
John Harshman
> First we have the ERV's that clearly indicate evolution by common
> decent could be wrong and now, we have the "Genomic Potential
> Hypothesis", which is a better explaination for the sudden explosion
> of life during the cambra then speciation divergence.
>
> Why won't the evolutionist accept the fact that there are other
> theories for the origins of species? And that as long as there are
> other theories for the origins of species then the idea of common
> decent will be just that; Nothing more then an idea.
Because the genomic potential hypothesis (Schwabe, right?) is
ridiculous, and is unable to explain any of the data. Turns out that all
the alternatives to common descent have that same problem.
Here's a nice analysis:
http://home.planet.nl/~gkorthof/korthof56.htm
> Do they believe they will sail off the edge of the earth by letting go
> of a 200 year old idea?
Sorry, but are you actually putting down evolution by suggesting that
it's an old idea, while claiming that the best theories are found in
books that are several thousand years old?
Dave Oldridge
8ab1-2c7...@z41g2000yqz.googlegroups.com:
>First we have the ERV's that clearly indicate evolution by common
>decent could be wrong and now, we have the "Genomic Potential
>Hypothesis", which is a better explaination for the sudden explosion
>of life during the cambra then speciation divergence.
How do ERV's indicate that common descent may be false? We have several
in common with chimps. How would that happen EXCEPT by common descent?
>
>Why won't the evolutionist accept the fact that there are other
>theories for the origins of species? And that as long as there are
>other theories for the origins of species then the idea of common
>decent will be just that; Nothing more then an idea.
Because the "other theories" presented are based on misrepresentation of
the actual facts.
>
>Do they believe they will sail off the edge of the earth by letting go
>of a 200 year old idea?
>
>Sure seem like it
>
You seem to be of the opinion that you will sail off the edge if you
abandon a 400 year old idea that was originally framed to justify a
rebellion against God and His Church. Maybe you will--off an edge that
is 90 degrees to everything else and into hell.
>Leading the way to truth, is...
>
>The All Seeing I
Translation: Leading the way to a life of lies and of rebellion against
the Most High.
Signed by: the Unseeing Ego.
--
Dave Oldridge+
RAM
This from a loon who doesn't believe man landed on the moon, believes
in watchers, cites other loons who know nothing about science and
thinks 2000 year old ancient texts have relevant scientific
knowledge. It is precisely this type of inconsistency and illogic
that marks you as a loon.
>
> --
> Leading the way to truth, is...
This type of silliness doesn't help either.
>
> The All Seeing I
Dana Tweedy
> First we have the ERV's that clearly indicate evolution by common
> decent could be wrong and now,
No, the ERVs show that evolution is correct.
> we have the "Genomic Potential
> Hypothesis", which is a better explaination for the sudden explosion
> of life during the cambra then speciation divergence.
How is it a "better explanation"?
>
> Why won't the evolutionist accept the fact that there are other
> theories for the origins of species?
Because there aren't any that match the evidence.
> And that as long as there are
> other theories for the origins of species then the idea of common
> decent will be just that; Nothing more then an idea.
All theories are ideas.
>
> Do they believe they will sail off the edge of the earth by letting go
> of a 200 year old idea?
There's no need to let go of a working, and useful scientific theory.
>
> Sure seem like it
Then you are wrong again.
DJT
raven1
<ap...@email.com> wrote:
>First we have the ERV's that clearly indicate evolution by common
>decent could be wrong
They clearly indicate the opposite.
>and now, we have the "Genomic Potential
>Hypothesis",
What, exactly, is that supposed to be, and where in the peer-reviewed
literature can I find it?
> which is a better explaination for the sudden explosion
>of life during the cambra then speciation divergence.
>
>Why won't the evolutionist accept the fact that there are other
>theories for the origins of species?
There aren't any other *scientific* theories for the OOS.
>And that as long as there are
>other theories for the origins of species
There aren't.
> then the idea of common
>decent will be just that; Nothing more then an idea.
And one that is supported by all the available evidence.
>Do they believe they will sail off the edge of the earth by letting go
>of a 200 year old idea?
>
>Sure seem like it
Do you believe that you'll sail off the edge of the Earth by actually
learning something - *anything* - about how science actually works?
All-seeing-I
> All-seeing-I wrote:
> > First we have the ERV's that clearly indicate evolution by common
> > decent could be wrong and now, we have the "Genomic Potential
> > Hypothesis", which is a better explaination for the sudden explosion
> > of life during the cambra then speciation divergence.
>
> > Why won't the evolutionist accept the fact that there are other
> > theories for the origins of species? And that as long as there are
> > other theories for the origins of species then the idea of common
> > decent will be just that; Nothing more then an idea.
>
> Because the genomic potential hypothesis (Schwabe, right?) is
> ridiculous, and is unable to explain any of the data. Turns out that all
> the alternatives to common descent have that same problem.
Why is it ridiculous? It explains the relative sudden appearance of
life during the Cambrian much better then speciation which needs much
more time to occur. Unless you subscribe to the concept of punctuated
equilibrium. It explains some of the 'junk DNA' too. Also, having
multiple origins lines up with the biblical account of "each after his
own kind". The bible clearly describes land, air and water creatures
being created separately and at various times during the creation
account.
The biggest draw back at your link below (which I read already,
thanks) is the amino acids. "Schwabe's theory must start with all 20
amino acids because all species now have 20 amino acids in the code."
But this is easily solved by a creator providing them. So now we have
a beginning to life and a process to evolve life that follows the
biblical outline.
I do not see this theory as ridiculous but plausible based on
chemistry, the bible, observations and the scientific evidence of what
happened during the Cambrian.
But this was besides the point. My point is there are other theories
regarding origins that could be just as likely. But we will never find
out as long as old ideas supersede any new ones.
> Here's a nice analysis:
>
> http://home.planet.nl/~gkorthof/korthof56.htm
It was a good one. I had read it before I posted. Thanks.
> > Do they believe they will sail off the edge of the earth by letting go
> > of a 200 year old idea?
>
> Sorry, but are you actually putting down evolution by suggesting that
> it's an old idea, while claiming that the best theories are found in
> books that are several thousand years old?
I do not compare ancient texts to scientific theories other then to
see where both could possibly line up together. I believe science has
done many incredible things to further mankind. But that does not mean
science is right all of the time. That also does not mean the ancient
texts are wrong all of the time either.
All-seeing-I
> All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote in news:madman-1efe90f5-605b-4702-
>
> >First we have the ERV's that clearly indicate evolution by common
> >decent could be wrong and now, we have the "Genomic Potential
> >Hypothesis", which is a better explaination for the sudden explosion
> >of life during the cambra then speciation divergence.
>
> How do ERV's indicate that common descent may be false? �We have several
> in common with chimps. �How would that happen EXCEPT by common descent?
Right. We do.
However, If chimps are closer to humans than to gorillas, but Gorillas
and Chimps can not share an ERV unless the ERV is also present in
humans because they all share a common ancestor, then finding an ERV
in chimps and gorillas, but not in humans falsifies evolution.
> >Why won't the evolutionist accept the fact that there are other
> >theories for the origins of species? And that as long as there are
> >other theories for the origins of species then the idea of common
> >decent will be just that; Nothing more then an idea.
>
> Because the "other theories" presented are based on misrepresentation of
> the actual facts.
>
> >Do they believe they will sail off the edge of the earth by letting go
> >of a 200 year old idea?
>
> >Sure seem like it
>
> You seem to be of the opinion that you will sail off the edge if you
> abandon a 400 year old idea that was originally framed to justify a
> rebellion against God and His Church. �Maybe you will--off an edge that
> is 90 degrees to everything else and into hell.
What 400 year old idea would that be?
[]
John Stockwell
> First we have the ERV's that clearly indicate evolution by common
> decent could be wrong and now, we have the "Genomic Potential
> Hypothesis", which is a better explaination for the sudden explosion
> of life during the cambra then speciation divergence.
Schwabe has all genomes (of all organisms
living and fossilized including
all that we have yet to find) appearing suddenly 3.5 billion years
ago.... with no supporting evidence.
>
> Why won't the evolutionist accept the fact that there are other
> theories for the origins of species? And that as long as there are
> other theories for the origins of species then the idea of common
> decent will be just that; Nothing more then an idea.
There are no other remotely viable theories than common
descent.
>
> Do they believe they will sail off the edge of the earth by letting go
> of a 200 year old idea?
Good ideas worth keeping pop up occasionally.
>
> Sure seem like it
>
> --
>
> The All Seeing I
-John
Eric Root
But you haven't named any. All the ideas you like are vastly less
likely than evolution.
> But we will never find
> out as long as old ideas supersede any new ones.
>
> > Here's a nice analysis:
>
> >http://home.planet.nl/~gkorthof/korthof56.htm
>
> It was a good one. I had read it before I posted. Thanks.
>
> > > Do they believe they will sail off the edge of the earth by letting go
> > > of a 200 year old idea?
>
> > Sorry, but are you actually putting down evolution by suggesting that
> > it's an old idea, while claiming that the best theories are found in
> > books that are several thousand years old?
>
> I do not compare ancient texts to scientific theories other then to
> see where both could possibly line up together. I believe science has
> done many incredible things to further mankind. But that does not mean
> science is right all of the time.
Just 90% of the time.
>That also does not mean the ancient
> texts are wrong all of the time either.
Just 90% of the time.
Eric Root
Eric Root
> On Jan 8, 2:48�pm, Dave Oldridge <doldr...@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:
>
> > All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote in news:madman-1efe90f5-605b-4702-
> > 8ab1-2c759aed6...@z41g2000yqz.googlegroups.com:
>
> > >First we have the ERV's that clearly indicate evolution by common
> > >decent could be wrong and now, we have the "Genomic Potential
> > >Hypothesis", which is a better explaination for the sudden explosion
> > >of life during the cambra then speciation divergence.
>
> > How do ERV's indicate that common descent may be false? �We have several
> > in common with chimps. �How would that happen EXCEPT by common descent?
>
> Right. We do.
>
> However, If chimps are closer to humans than to gorillas, but Gorillas
> and Chimps can not share an ERV unless the ERV is also present in
> humans because they all share a common ancestor, then finding an ERV
> in chimps and gorillas, but not in humans falsifies evolution.
>
Nope. It just means that we were wrong about which primates were most
related. it says nothing at all about the validity of evolution.
Your mistake is like saying that, if we find we were wrong about the
sequences of battlefield commands at the Battle of Waterloom, then
history is totally false and everything happens all at once.
(snip)
Eric Root
Boikat
> First we have the ERV's that clearly indicate evolution by common
> decent could be wrong and now,
I what imaginary world that be in?
> we have the "Genomic Potential
> Hypothesis", which is a better explaination for the sudden explosion
> of life during the cambra then speciation divergence.
Why is it "better"? Because it's not acepted by mainstream science
due to lack of any verifiable or testable evidence?
>
> Why won't the evolutionist accept the fact that there are other
> theories for the origins of species?
Got any with supporting evidence, and not simply some off the wall
attempt at "anything", a long as it's not accepted by mainstream
scientists?
> And that as long as there are
> other theories for the origins of species then the idea of common
> decent will be just that; Nothing more then an idea.
Again, if you have a valid alternate *scientific* theory, I'm sure
everyone would like to see it. Other than that, your notion that just
because there are, what *you* (and fringe loons) consider, "other
theories" floating around, relegates the ToE to the status of "just
another idea", reflects, again, or your ignorance of science.
>
> Do they believe they will sail off the edge of the earth by letting go
> of a 200 year old idea?
Tis is suprimely ironic, coming from a twit, who is pushing a creation
*myth*, that is several housand years old, has no supporting evidence,
and with many of the claims made in the myth, refuted by physical
reality.
>
> Sure seem like it
Only in your imaginary world, Monnnkeey-boy.
>
> --
> Leading the way to truth, is...
"Yo! Uber Tracker. You're going the wrong way."
-Manfred-
>
> The All Seeing I
It's pretty dificult to be "all seeing" with your head at it's current
location.
Boikat
Baron Bodissey
<snip>
>
> The biggest draw back at your link below (which I read already,
> thanks) is the amino acids. "Schwabe's theory must start with all 20
> amino acids because all species now have 20 amino acids in the code."
> But this is easily solved by a creator providing them. So now we have
> a beginning to life and a process to evolve life that follows the
> biblical outline.
>
This is a perfect example of why you can not combine science with the
supernatural. By saying that any problem can be solved by invoking the
interference of a Creator. you have actually solved nothing. A
scientific explanation has to stand on its own, not propped up with
convenient miracles.
Baron Bodissey
When science is on the march, nothing stands in its way.
� Amazon Women on the Moon
bpuharic
<ap...@email.com> wrote:
>First we have the ERV's that clearly indicate evolution by common
>decent could be wrong
really? we chemists certainly disagree. but, then, you creationists
still think demons affect the weather
and now, we have the "Genomic Potential
>Hypothesis", which is a better explaination for the sudden explosion
>of life during the cambra then speciation divergence.
actually it's not. because your own reference says evolution is a fact
i guess your religion requires you to give up reading comprehension
>
>Why won't the evolutionist accept the fact that there are other
>theories for the origins of species? And that as long as there are
>other theories for the origins of species then the idea of common
>decent will be just that; Nothing more then an idea.
why cant you creationists realize that, after 2000 years of being
wrong, people are tired of seeing you saying 'ghostbusters' is a
documentary?
bpuharic
<ap...@email.com> wrote:
>On Jan 8, 2:23�pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>> All-seeing-I wrote:
>ommon
>> > decent will be just that; Nothing more then an idea.
>>
>> Because the genomic potential hypothesis (Schwabe, right?) is
>> ridiculous, and is unable to explain any of the data. Turns out that all
>> the alternatives to common descent have that same problem.
>
>Why is it ridiculous? It explains the relative sudden appearance of
>life during the Cambrian much better then speciation which needs much
>more time to occur. Unless you subscribe to the concept of punctuated
>equilibrium.
really? how does an idea which is
-untestable
-has NO mechanism
-can not explain long term changes in organisms with time
explain anything? and, again, we CAN test the existence of demons and
angels TODAY. right now. immediately
they don't exist. so creationism is wrong
It explains some of the 'junk DNA' too. Also, having
>multiple origins lines up with the biblical account of "each after his
>own kind". The bible clearly describes land, air and water creatures
>being created separately and at various times during the creation
>account.
actually it doesn't. it doesnt explain what happens for events that
take longer than a human lifetime. your view of the bible is wrong
>
>The biggest draw back at your link below (which I read already,
>thanks) is the amino acids. "Schwabe's theory must start with all 20
>amino acids because all species now have 20 amino acids in the code."
>But this is easily solved by a creator providing them. So now we have
>a beginning to life and a process to evolve life that follows the
>biblical outline.
god did it can explain my flat tire. or a nail can explain it
god did it can explain earthquakes. or plate tectonics can
god did it can explain disease. or germs can
now, then, perhaps you can tell me WHEN in the entire history of the
human race YOUR view was ever right in explaining ANYTHING
>
>I do not see this theory as ridiculous but plausible based on
>chemistry, the bible, observations and the scientific evidence of what
>happened during the Cambrian.
meaningless. god did it is a useless idea, as i demonstrated above
>
>But this was besides the point. My point is there are other theories
>regarding origins that could be just as likely. But we will never find
>out as long as old ideas supersede any new ones.
wrong. if your idea had validity, evidence would show it
where's the evidence?
>
>I do not compare ancient texts to scientific theories other then to
>see where both could possibly line up together. I believe science has
>done many incredible things to further mankind. But that does not mean
>science is right all of the time. That also does not mean the ancient
>texts are wrong all of the time either.
and your reliigion?
WRONG all the time.
it was wrong when used to explain
-earthquakes
-disease
-planetary motion
and any other time it was used. in 2000 years you creationists have
NEVER been right
ever.
All-seeing-I
> On Jan 8, 4:14�pm, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
> <snip>
>
> > The biggest draw back at your link below (which I read already,
> > thanks) is the amino acids. "Schwabe's theory must start with all 20
> > amino acids because all species now have 20 amino acids in the code."
> > But this is easily solved by a creator providing them. So now we have
> > a beginning to life and a process to evolve life that follows the
> > biblical outline.
>
> <snip>
>
> This is a perfect example of why you can not combine science with the
> supernatural. By saying that any problem can be solved by invoking the
> interference of a Creator. you have actually solved nothing. A
> scientific explanation has to stand on its own, not propped up with
> convenient miracles.
Why do you see a problem with a creator providing the additional amino
acids?
Science obviously can only speculate and infer what happened. The best
answer that fits what we see is a creator was involved.
Why deny it?
>
> Baron Bodissey
> When science is on the march, nothing stands in its way.
> � � � � � Amazon Women on the Moon
Boikat
> On Jan 8, 5:26�pm, Baron Bodissey <mct5...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 8, 4:14�pm, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
> > <snip>
>
> > > The biggest draw back at your link below (which I read already,
> > > thanks) is the amino acids. "Schwabe's theory must start with all 20
> > > amino acids because all species now have 20 amino acids in the code."
> > > But this is easily solved by a creator providing them. So now we have
> > > a beginning to life and a process to evolve life that follows the
> > > biblical outline.
>
> > <snip>
>
> > This is a perfect example of why you can not combine science with the
> > supernatural. By saying that any problem can be solved by invoking the
> > interference of a Creator. you have actually solved nothing. A
> > scientific explanation has to stand on its own, not propped up with
> > convenient miracles.
>
> Why do you see a problem with a creator providing the additional amino
> acids?
It probably has something to do with that "lack of evidence" thingy
that you don't understand.
>
> Science obviously can only speculate and infer what happened. The best
> answer that fits what we see is a creator was involved.
What "creator"?
>
> Why deny it?
It's not "denied". It's dismissed due to lack of testable evidence.
I know that's a difficult concept to wrap your brain around, since one
neuron can only go so far, but it really is that simple.
Boikat
All-seeing-I
> On Jan 8, 4:22�pm, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 8, 2:48�pm, Dave Oldridge <doldr...@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:
>
> > > All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote in news:madman-1efe90f5-605b-4702-
> > > 8ab1-2c759aed6...@z41g2000yqz.googlegroups.com:
>
> > > >First we have the ERV's that clearly indicate evolution by common
> > > >decent could be wrong and now, we have the "Genomic Potential
> > > >Hypothesis", which is a better explaination for the sudden explosion
> > > >of life during the cambra then speciation divergence.
>
> > > How do ERV's indicate that common descent may be false? �We have several
> > > in common with chimps. �How would that happen EXCEPT by common descent?
>
> > Right. We do.
>
> > However, If chimps are closer to humans than to gorillas, but Gorillas
> > and Chimps can not share an ERV unless the ERV is also present in
> > humans because they all share a common ancestor, then finding an ERV
> > in chimps and gorillas, but not in humans falsifies evolution.
>
> Nope. �It just means that we were wrong about which primates were most
So now chimps, apes and humans are NOT related? Are you reading
Chris?
>it says nothing at all about the validity of evolution.
> Your mistake is like saying that, if we find we were wrong about the
> sequences of battlefield commands at the Battle of Waterloom, then
> history is totally false and everything happens all at once.
>
> (snip)
>
> Eric Root- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
I am begining to think all that is necessary to believe evolution is
an ability to decieve oneself.
Think.
If humans and apes and chimps originate from a Single Common Ancestor
but, there is an ERV in the K family that is present in apes and
chimps but not present in humans....
WTF does that tell ya?
bpuharic
<ap...@email.com> wrote:
>On Jan 8, 5:26�pm, Baron Bodissey <mct5...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Jan 8, 4:14�pm, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
>> <snip>
>>
>> > The biggest draw back at your link below (which I read already,
>> > thanks) is the amino acids. "Schwabe's theory must start with all 20
>> > amino acids because all species now have 20 amino acids in the code."
>> > But this is easily solved by a creator providing them. So now we have
>> > a beginning to life and a process to evolve life that follows the
>> > biblical outline.
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> This is a perfect example of why you can not combine science with the
>> supernatural. By saying that any problem can be solved by invoking the
>> interference of a Creator. you have actually solved nothing. A
>> scientific explanation has to stand on its own, not propped up with
>> convenient miracles.
>
>Why do you see a problem with a creator providing the additional amino
>acids?
because it's a meaningless explanation. for 2000 years you guys cried
wolf about 'god did it' and every natural event ever seen
aren't you tired of being wrong?
>
>Science obviously can only speculate and infer what happened. The best
>answer that fits what we see is a creator was involved.
a tired non answer. if that answer had a use, we'd have found it when
you guys said demons caused earthquakes
how'd that work out for you?
John Stockwell
> On Jan 8, 5:26 pm, Baron Bodissey <mct5...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jan 8, 4:14 pm, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
> > <snip>
>
> > > The biggest draw back at your link below (which I read already,
> > > thanks) is the amino acids. "Schwabe's theory must start with all 20
> > > amino acids because all species now have 20 amino acids in the code."
> > > But this is easily solved by a creator providing them. So now we have
> > > a beginning to life and a process to evolve life that follows the
> > > biblical outline.
>
> > <snip>
>
> > This is a perfect example of why you can not combine science with the
> > supernatural. By saying that any problem can be solved by invoking the
> > interference of a Creator. you have actually solved nothing. A
> > scientific explanation has to stand on its own, not propped up with
> > convenient miracles.
>
> Why do you see a problem with a creator providing the additional amino
> acids?
>
> Science obviously can only speculate and infer what happened. The best
> answer that fits what we see is a creator was involved.
>
> Why deny it?
Well, basically Madman, the god you worship is nothing more
than deus ex machina, a gob of chewing gum to stick in the
void of your ignorance. If scientists operated the way you
want there would be no science, only half baked ad hoc
hypotheses with no possibility of usefulness.
-John
>
>
>
> > Baron Bodissey
> > When science is on the march, nothing stands in its way.
hersheyh
> On Jan 8, 4:31�pm, Eric Root <er...@swva.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jan 8, 4:22�pm, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jan 8, 2:48�pm, Dave Oldridge <doldr...@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:
>
> > > > All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote in news:madman-1efe90f5-605b-4702-
> > > > 8ab1-2c759aed6...@z41g2000yqz.googlegroups.com:
>
> > > > >First we have the ERV's that clearly indicate evolution by common
> > > > >decent could be wrong and now, we have the "Genomic Potential
> > > > >Hypothesis", which is a better explaination for the sudden explosion
> > > > >of life during the cambra then speciation divergence.
>
> > > > How do ERV's indicate that common descent may be false? �We have several
> > > > in common with chimps. �How would that happen EXCEPT by common descent?
>
> > > Right. We do.
>
> > > However, If chimps are closer to humans than to gorillas, but Gorillas
> > > and Chimps can not share an ERV unless the ERV is also present in
> > > humans because they all share a common ancestor, then finding an ERV
> > > in chimps and gorillas, but not in humans falsifies evolution.
>
> > Nope. �It just means that we were wrong about which primates were most
> > related. �
>
> So now chimps, apes and humans are NOT related? �Are you reading
> Chris?
As I pointed out in the other thread where you mentioned this
nonsensical misinterpretation of the evidence, ERVs can be
occasionally removed as well as inserted. That is especially true for
ERVs that still are relatively "active".
"The human ERV-K (HERV-K) family includes some of the most active
retroviral elements in human genome [6], [7]. Although most of the
proviral copies of ERV-K in the genome are inactive, some show
evidence of past positive selection at the env gene [8], [9]. ERVs, as
well the other retroelements, can invade the host genome due to
transposition bursts [10], counteracted by host-driven excision and
purging [11], [12]."
http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0001026
> >it says nothing at all about the validity of evolution.
> > Your mistake is like saying that, if we find we were wrong about the
> > sequences of battlefield commands at the Battle of Waterloom, then
> > history is totally false and everything happens all at once.
>
> > (snip)
>
> > Eric Root- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> I am begining to think all that is necessary to believe evolution is
> an ability to decieve oneself.
That would be creationism that *requires* the ability to deceive
oneself.
> Think.
>
> If humans and apes and chimps originate from a Single Common Ancestor
> but, there is an ERV in the K family that is present in apes and
> chimps but not present in humans....
>
> WTF does that tell ya?
It tells you that that particular copy was excised in the human
lineage. Other copies were not.
alextangent
> On Jan 8, 5:26 pm, Baron Bodissey<mct5...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Jan 8, 4:14 pm, All-seeing-I<ap...@email.com> wrote:
>> <snip>
>>
>>> The biggest draw back at your link below (which I read already,
>>> thanks) is the amino acids. "Schwabe's theory must start with all 20
>>> amino acids because all species now have 20 amino acids in the code."
>>> But this is easily solved by a creator providing them. So now we have
>>> a beginning to life and a process to evolve life that follows the
>>> biblical outline.
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> This is a perfect example of why you can not combine science with the
>> supernatural. By saying that any problem can be solved by invoking the
>> interference of a Creator. you have actually solved nothing. A
>> scientific explanation has to stand on its own, not propped up with
>> convenient miracles.
>
> Why do you see a problem with a creator providing the additional amino
> acids?
Because there's absolutely zero evidence for it. Jeez, this is basic
chemistry, numbnuts.
>
> Science obviously can only speculate and infer what happened. The best
> answer that fits what we see is a creator was involved.
>
> Why deny it?
Because goddidit is boring, that's why. Bo-ring. It isn't an answer,
it's an excuse for not thinking. Goddidit fits as the answer to every
question.
If everything can be answered this way, why do you bother getting up in
the morning? Why not write yourself a script to auto respond to every
new post on t.o with
"The best answer that fits what we see is a creator was involved. It
really is THAT simple.
All-Seeing-Asswipe"
Second thoughts, strike the script. It might give you more time for
dumping your clueless pseudo-science on some other unsuspecting newsgroup.
>
>>
>> Baron Bodissey
>> When science is on the march, nothing stands in its way.
Desertphile
<ap...@email.com> wrote:
> First we have the ERV's that clearly indicate evolution by common
> decent could be wrong...
No, ERV's are yet more evidence showing commoon descent is
correct. Or did the gods set out to deceive us?
--
http://desertphile.org
Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
"Why aren't resurrections from the dead noteworthy?" -- Jim Rutz
Desertphile
<ap...@email.com> wrote:
> On Jan 8, 2:48�pm, Dave Oldridge <doldr...@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:
> > All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote in news:madman-1efe90f5-605b-4702-
> > 8ab1-2c759aed6...@z41g2000yqz.googlegroups.com:
> >
> > >First we have the ERV's that clearly indicate evolution by common
> > >decent could be wrong and now, we have the "Genomic Potential
> > >Hypothesis", which is a better explaination for the sudden explosion
> > >of life during the cambra then speciation divergence.
> >
> > How do ERV's indicate that common descent may be false? �We have several
> > in common with chimps. �How would that happen EXCEPT by common descent?
> Right. We do.
>
> However, If chimps are closer to humans than to gorillas, but Gorillas
> and Chimps can not share an ERV unless the ERV is also present in
> humans because they all share a common ancestor, then finding an ERV
> in chimps and gorillas, but not in humans falsifies evolution.
It is impossible to falsify evolution, shit-for-brains: one can
only falsify evolutionary theory.
And there is an ERV in Chimpanzees and Gorillas that are no longer
in the Human genome: evolution removed it as it was not a fixed
allele. See my video on the subject.
Desertphile
<er...@swva.net> wrote:
> On Jan 8, 4:22�pm, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
> > On Jan 8, 2:48�pm, Dave Oldridge <doldr...@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:
> >
> > > All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote in news:madman-1efe90f5-605b-4702-
> > > 8ab1-2c759aed6...@z41g2000yqz.googlegroups.com:
> >
> > > >First we have the ERV's that clearly indicate evolution by common
> > > >decent could be wrong and now, we have the "Genomic Potential
> > > >Hypothesis", which is a better explaination for the sudden explosion
> > > >of life during the cambra then speciation divergence.
> >
> > > How do ERV's indicate that common descent may be false? �We have several
> > > in common with chimps. �How would that happen EXCEPT by common descent?
> >
> > Right. We do.
> >
> > However, If chimps are closer to humans than to gorillas, but Gorillas
> > and Chimps can not share an ERV unless the ERV is also present in
> > humans because they all share a common ancestor, then finding an ERV
> > in chimps and gorillas, but not in humans falsifies evolution.
> Nope. It just means that we were wrong about which primates were most
> related.
It means the ERV was lost in the Human genome. This happens in
species where the ERV is not "fixed" (i.e., not in every
individual).
> it says nothing at all about the validity of evolution.
> Your mistake is like saying that, if we find we were wrong about the
> sequences of battlefield commands at the Battle of Waterloom, then
> history is totally false and everything happens all at once.
>
> (snip)
>
> Eric Root
heekster
>LLoyd Trilobite, The Cambrian Mammal
Fixed your sig. No charge.
All-seeing-I
Gee. THTAS funny. Where is your "testable" evidence for divergence?
>
> Boikat- Hide quoted text -
All-seeing-I
evidence?
Where is the evidence for this?
Boikat
It's called "speciation", lack-wit, and several *observed* examples
have been presented to you on multiple occasions. Those examples are
testable, since they can be, and have been, independantly verified.
Your continious pretence that no evidence has been presented, and its
validity, is your problem, and not a problem for the ToE. That's
probably another concept that you can't wrap your mono-synaptic mind
around, but again, it's that simple: The ToE's validity is not
damaged by your willful stupidity.
Boikat
bpuharic
>>
>> It's not "denied". �It's dismissed due to lack of testable evidence.
>> I know that's a difficult concept to wrap your brain around, since one
>> neuron can only go so far, but it really is that simple.
>
>Gee. THTAS funny. Where is your "testable" evidence for divergence?
>
MRSA.
now, then, where's your evidence for angels and demons?
Boikat
BTW, Monnnkeey-boy, where's your "testable" evidence that "goddidit"?
Sorry, again, arguments from ignorance, incredulity, stupidity,
"ancient text", popular belief, "I say so", non-sequitur, and any
other logical fallacy, does not count as evidence.
Boikat
chibiabos
<madman-1efe90f5-605b-...@z41g2000yqz.googlegroups.co
m>, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
> First we have the ERV's that clearly indicate evolution by common
> decent could be wrong and now, we have the "Genomic Potential
> Hypothesis", which is a better explaination for the sudden explosion
> of life during the cambra then speciation divergence.
What's a "cambra?" Did you mean to say "than" or "then?"
> Why won't the evolutionist accept the fact that there are other
> theories for the origins of species? And that as long as there are
> other theories for the origins of species then the idea of common
> decent will be just that; Nothing more then an idea.
Jesus, you did it again.
> Do they believe they will sail off the edge of the earth by letting go
> of a 200 year old idea?
>
> Sure seem like it
Sure seem like you're devolving. Do you need a Christ Cracker to make
you all smart again?
-chib
--
Member of S.M.A.S.H.
Sarcastic Middle-aged Atheists with a Sense of Humor
John Harshman
>>> First we have the ERV's that clearly indicate evolution by common
>>> decent could be wrong and now, we have the "Genomic Potential
>>> Hypothesis", which is a better explaination for the sudden explosion
>>> of life during the cambra then speciation divergence.
>>> theories for the origins of species? And that as long as there are
>>> other theories for the origins of species then the idea of common
>>> decent will be just that; Nothing more then an idea.
>> ridiculous, and is unable to explain any of the data. Turns out that all
>> the alternatives to common descent have that same problem.
>
> Why is it ridiculous? It explains the relative sudden appearance of
> life during the Cambrian much better then speciation which needs much
> more time to occur.
No it doesn't. Read Korthof.
> Unless you subscribe to the concept of punctuated
> equilibrium.
You have no idea what you're talking about. PE has nothing to do with
the Cambrian explosion. By the way, since you don't believe in the
geological record, you don't believe in the Cambrian explosion either.
> It explains some of the 'junk DNA' too.
How?
> Also, having
> multiple origins lines up with the biblical account of "each after his
> own kind". The bible clearly describes land, air and water creatures
> being created separately and at various times during the creation
> account.
Actually, Schwabe's theory is completely incompatible with your bible
story. First, it's entirely naturalistic. Second, these origins aren't
happening in three waves, but in single species over all of earth
history. More importantly, compatibility with the bible should have
nothing to do with acceptance of a scientific theory.
> The biggest draw back at your link below (which I read already,
> thanks) is the amino acids. "Schwabe's theory must start with all 20
> amino acids because all species now have 20 amino acids in the code."
> But this is easily solved by a creator providing them. So now we have
> a beginning to life and a process to evolve life that follows the
> biblical outline.
Only in a few small respects, contradicting it in most ways. And of
course it contradicts all the data.
> I do not see this theory as ridiculous but plausible based on
> chemistry, the bible, observations and the scientific evidence of what
> happened during the Cambrian.
What you don't see is almost everything. You apparently don't see
anything you read, for example.
> But this was besides the point. My point is there are other theories
> regarding origins that could be just as likely. But we will never find
> out as long as old ideas supersede any new ones.
Yes, and your point is wrong. Not every theory is equally likely. Is
phlogiston as likely as oxygen? Is Aristotle's theory of gravitational
acceleration as likely as Galileo's?
>> Here's a nice analysis:
>>
>> http://home.planet.nl/~gkorthof/korthof56.htm
>
> It was a good one. I had read it before I posted. Thanks.
And yet you seem to have learned nothing from it, because Korthof
explains in fair detail just why it's ridiculous.
>>> Do they believe they will sail off the edge of the earth by letting go
>>> of a 200 year old idea?
>> Sorry, but are you actually putting down evolution by suggesting that
>> it's an old idea, while claiming that the best theories are found in
>> books that are several thousand years old?
>
> I do not compare ancient texts to scientific theories other then to
> see where both could possibly line up together. I believe science has
> done many incredible things to further mankind. But that does not mean
> science is right all of the time. That also does not mean the ancient
> texts are wrong all of the time either.
So you weren't actually saying anything at all?
Boikat
ASS-I(diot) has developed a new escape mechanism:
"Evidence?"
Even after it's been presented before, he will keep asking for the
same "evidence", over and over again. He can delude himself all he
wants by telling himself that no evidence has been presented, and then
keep demanding "evidence" like a stuck record.
Of course, it only makes him look willfully ignorant or incredibly
stupid.
Boikat
Cory Albrecht
You're such a fucking hypocrite.
g...@risky-biz.com
I have no patience for rooting around for specific newsgroup quotes. I
wrote this:
"3. If more than one explanation is offered for a phenomenon, each has
an equal chance of being true. "
...as a description of your position. And you have provided an example
below.
>
> And that as long as there are
> other theories for the origins of species then the idea of common
> decent will be just that; Nothing more then an idea.
Diligent work on short notice. Thanks.
Greg Guarino
Dave Oldridge
a9a4-836...@s31g2000yqs.googlegroups.com:
>On Jan 8, 2:48�pm, Dave Oldridge <doldr...@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:
>> All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote in news:madman-1efe90f5-605b-
4702-
>> 8ab1-2c759aed6...@z41g2000yqz.googlegroups.com:
>>
>> >First we have the ERV's that clearly indicate evolution by common
>> >decent could be wrong and now, we have the "Genomic Potential
>> >Hypothesis", which is a better explaination for the sudden explosion
>> >of life during the cambra then speciation divergence.
>>
>> How do ERV's indicate that common descent may be false? �We have
several
>> in common with chimps. �How would that happen EXCEPT by common
descent?
>
>Right. We do.
>
>However, If chimps are closer to humans than to gorillas, but Gorillas
>and Chimps can not share an ERV unless the ERV is also present in
>humans because they all share a common ancestor, then finding an ERV
>in chimps and gorillas, but not in humans falsifies evolution.
No necesarily. It might just mean that we have the tree wrong in that
place. But can you actually find such an ERV? That is to say, one that
is unequivocally in the same location in chimps and gorillas but totally
and seamlessly absent in humans?
>
>
>> >Why won't the evolutionist accept the fact that there are other
>> >theories for the origins of species? And that as long as there are
>> >other theories for the origins of species then the idea of common
>> >decent will be just that; Nothing more then an idea.
>>
>> Because the "other theories" presented are based on misrepresentation
of
>> the actual facts.
>>
>> >Do they believe they will sail off the edge of the earth by letting
go
>> >of a 200 year old idea?
>>
>> >Sure seem like it
>>
>> You seem to be of the opinion that you will sail off the edge if you
>> abandon a 400 year old idea that was originally framed to justify a
>> rebellion against God and His Church. �Maybe you will--off an edge
that
>> is 90 degrees to everything else and into hell.
>
>What 400 year old idea would that be?
The literal inerrancy of scripture. Actually, it never really achieved
the form your cult worships it in until the 19th century.
-
Dave Oldridge+
SortingItOut
> On Jan 8, 5:26�pm, Baron Bodissey <mct5...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jan 8, 4:14�pm, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
> > <snip>
>
> > > The biggest draw back at your link below (which I read already,
> > > thanks) is the amino acids. "Schwabe's theory must start with all 20
> > > amino acids because all species now have 20 amino acids in the code."
> > > But this is easily solved by a creator providing them. So now we have
> > > a beginning to life and a process to evolve life that follows the
> > > biblical outline.
>
> > <snip>
>
> > This is a perfect example of why you can not combine science with the
> > supernatural. By saying that any problem can be solved by invoking the
> > interference of a Creator. you have actually solved nothing. A
> > scientific explanation has to stand on its own, not propped up with
> > convenient miracles.
>
> Why do you see a problem with a creator providing the additional amino
> acids?
>
> Science obviously can only speculate and infer what happened. The best
> answer that fits what we see is a creator was involved.
>
> Why deny it?
Where are the details? Exactly *what* is the creator? And do you
have even a conceptual idea as to how the creator assembled living
things? Until you provide details, there's no reason to believe
you're actually onto something.
richardal...@googlemail.com
> On Jan 8, 5:26�pm, Baron Bodissey <mct5...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 8, 4:14�pm, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
> > <snip>
>
> > > The biggest draw back at your link below (which I read already,
> > > thanks) is the amino acids. "Schwabe's theory must start with all 20
> > > amino acids because all species now have 20 amino acids in the code."
> > > But this is easily solved by a creator providing them. So now we have
> > > a beginning to life and a process to evolve life that follows the
> > > biblical outline.
>
> > <snip>
>
> > This is a perfect example of why you can not combine science with the
> > supernatural. By saying that any problem can be solved by invoking the
> > interference of a Creator. you have actually solved nothing. A
> > scientific explanation has to stand on its own, not propped up with
> > convenient miracles.
>
> Why do you see a problem with a creator providing the additional amino
> acids?
>
> Science obviously can only speculate and infer what happened. The best
> answer that fits what we see is a creator was involved.
>
> Why deny it?
>
Because it is an assertion which cannot be tested.
Science advances because scientific explanations limit possible
outcomes.
"A creator did it" can explain anything.
That's what makes it useless in science.
RF
Ye Old One
>First we have the ERV's that clearly indicate evolution by common
>decent could be wrong
Wrong, as usual. ERVs [note, there is no possessive apostrophe needed]
are very good proof of evolution.
> and now, we have the "Genomic Potential Hypothesis", which is a better explaination for the sudden explosion
>of life during the cambra then speciation divergence.
Now we can all see just how nuts you are.
>
>Why won't the evolutionist accept the fact that there are other
>theories for the origins of species?
Because there are none.
> And that as long as there are
>other theories for the origins of species then the idea of common
>decent will be just that; Nothing more then an idea.
>
>Do they believe they will sail off the edge of the earth by letting go
>of a 200 year old idea?
>
>Sure seem like it
Time to face up to at least these two examples of your past stupid
claims.
1) That the actor Paul Newman was a creationist...
[Message-ID: <e3xDk.44738$De7....@bignews7.bellsouth.net>]
2) That "Dr." Kent Hovind has made lots of *scientific* discoveries...
[Message-ID: <3Olyk.31543$Ep1....@bignews2.bellsouth.net>]
Now, all you have to do is justify them, with evidence of course, or
finally admit you were a fool to make them.
Or are you just going to go on being a cowardly lying troll?
--
Bob.
When D-G made Madman out of clay he forgot to magic the brain. I think
that explains everything.
Ye Old One
<ap...@email.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>On Jan 8, 2:48�pm, Dave Oldridge <doldr...@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:
>> All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote in news:madman-1efe90f5-605b-4702-
>> 8ab1-2c759aed6...@z41g2000yqz.googlegroups.com:
>>
>> >First we have the ERV's that clearly indicate evolution by common
>> >decent could be wrong and now, we have the "Genomic Potential
>> >Hypothesis", which is a better explaination for the sudden explosion
>> >of life during the cambra then speciation divergence.
>>
>> How do ERV's indicate that common descent may be false? �We have several
>> in common with chimps. �How would that happen EXCEPT by common descent?
>
>Right. We do.
>
>However, If chimps are closer to humans than to gorillas, but Gorillas
>and Chimps can not share an ERV unless the ERV is also present in
>humans because they all share a common ancestor, then finding an ERV
>in chimps and gorillas, but not in humans falsifies evolution.
But that is not what we find.
--
Bob.
You have not been charged for this lesson - learn from it rather than
continuing to make a fool of yourself.
Stuart
> On Jan 8, 2:23 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
> > All-seeing-I wrote:
> > > decent could be wrong and now, we have the "Genomic Potential
> > > Hypothesis", which is a better explaination for the sudden explosion
> > > of life during the cambra then speciation divergence.
>
> > > other theories for the origins of species then the idea of common
> > > decent will be just that; Nothing more then an idea.
>
> > ridiculous, and is unable to explain any of the data. Turns out that all
> > the alternatives to common descent have that same problem.
>
> Why is it ridiculous? It explains the relative sudden appearance of
The operative word there is *relative*. So?
The Cambrian *explosion* represents mostly the rapid diversification
of
animals with hard parts. What is it abot the CE that doesn't make
sense
in the light of evolution?
One would expect an *arms race* to quicken such diverisification.
And its called an *explosion*, but it took 20 million years or so.
Since
you think the Earth is 6000 years old, why single out the CE?
> life during the Cambrian much better then speciation which needs much
> more time to occur.
What are you babbling about? The CE took 20 million years. Just 5
million years ago, there weren't any hominids.
Unless you subscribe to the concept of punctuated
> equilibrium.
Has nothing to do with the causes of the CE.
>It explains some of the 'junk DNA' too.
Doesn't.
Also, having
> multiple origins lines up with the biblical account of "each after his
> own kind".
What does the CE have to do with "multiple Origins"
The bible clearly describes land, air and water creatures
> being created separately and at various times during the creation
> account.
Fruit bearing trees existed before sea creatures?
>
> The biggest draw back at your link below (which I read already,
> thanks) is the amino acids. "Schwabe's theory must start with all 20
> amino acids because all species now have 20 amino acids in the code."
> But this is easily solved by a creator providing them. So now we have
> a beginning to life and a process to evolve life that follows the
> biblical outline.
>
What isn't solved by invoking an all-powerful deity?
As you as you invoke *goddidit* as an explanation you lose.
Stuart
All-seeing-I
wrote:
> All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote in news:madman-f557cc18-bbe9-4e20-
> a9a4-836241eda...@s31g2000yqs.googlegroups.com:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Jan 8, 2:48嚙緘m, Dave Oldridge <doldr...@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:
> >> All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote in news:madman-1efe90f5-605b-
> 4702-
> >> 8ab1-2c759aed6...@z41g2000yqz.googlegroups.com:
>
> >> >First we have the ERV's that clearly indicate evolution by common
> >> >decent could be wrong and now, we have the "Genomic Potential
> >> >Hypothesis", which is a better explaination for the sudden explosion
> >> >of life during the cambra then speciation divergence.
>
> several
> >> in common with chimps. 嚙瘡ow would that happen EXCEPT by common
> descent?
>
> >Right. We do.
>
> >However, If chimps are closer to humans than to gorillas, but Gorillas
> >and Chimps can not share an ERV unless the ERV is also present in
> >humans because they all share a common ancestor, then finding an ERV
> >in chimps and gorillas, but not in humans falsifies evolution.
>
> place. But can you actually find such an ERV? 嚙確hat is to say, one that
> is unequivocally in the same location in chimps and gorillas but totally
> and seamlessly absent in humans?
I did not find it. Science did. It is a HERV-K provirus.
http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0960982201002275
" precise details of the nature of the evolutionary separation of the
lineage leading to humans from those leading to the African great apes
have remained uncertain"
How much more clear can that be?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >> >Why won't the evolutionist accept the fact that there are other
> >> >theories for the origins of species? And that as long as there are
> >> >other theories for the origins of species then the idea of common
> >> >decent will be just that; Nothing more then an idea.
>
> >> Because the "other theories" presented are based on misrepresentation
> of
> >> the actual facts.
>
> >> >Do they believe they will sail off the edge of the earth by letting
> go
> >> >of a 200 year old idea?
>
> >> >Sure seem like it
>
> >> You seem to be of the opinion that you will sail off the edge if you
> >> abandon a 400 year old idea that was originally framed to justify a
> >> rebellion against God and His Church. 嚙瞎aybe you will--off an edge
> that
> >> is 90 degrees to everything else and into hell.
>
> >What 400 year old idea would that be?
>
> The literal inerrancy of scripture. 嚙璀ctually, it never really achieved
> the form your cult worships it in until the 19th century.
evidence?
>
> -
> Dave Oldridge+- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Burkhard
> On Jan 8, 4:31�pm, Eric Root <er...@swva.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jan 8, 4:22�pm, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jan 8, 2:48�pm, Dave Oldridge <doldr...@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:
>
> > > > All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote in news:madman-1efe90f5-605b-4702-
> > > > 8ab1-2c759aed6...@z41g2000yqz.googlegroups.com:
>
> > > > >First we have the ERV's that clearly indicate evolution by common
> > > > >decent could be wrong and now, we have the "Genomic Potential
> > > > >Hypothesis", which is a better explaination for the sudden explosion
> > > > >of life during the cambra then speciation divergence.
>
> > > > in common with chimps. �How would that happen EXCEPT by common descent?
>
> > > Right. We do.
>
> > > However, If chimps are closer to humans than to gorillas, but Gorillas
> > > and Chimps can not share an ERV unless the ERV is also present in
> > > humans because they all share a common ancestor, then finding an ERV
> > > in chimps and gorillas, but not in humans falsifies evolution.
>
> > related. �
>
> So now chimps, apes and humans are NOT related? �Are you reading
> Chris?
No, it means exactly what it says: they are related but the degree of
relation may just need rethinking - like finding out doing a bit of
family history that the person everyone thought of your cousin thrice
removed was actually four times removed due to some extramarital
peccadillos in that generation. In the case at hand btw, it does not
even merit on its own that conclusion, since ERVs can also be
eliminated, not just inserted.
> says nothing at all about the validity of evolution.
> > Your mistake is like saying that, if we find we were wrong about the
> > sequences of battlefield commands at the Battle of Waterloom, then
> > history is totally false and everything happens all at once.
>
> > (snip)
>
> > Eric Root- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> I am begining to think all that is necessary to believe evolution is
> an ability to decieve oneself.
>
> Think.
>
> If humans and apes and chimps originate from a Single Common Ancestor
> but, there is an ERV in the K family that is present in apes and
> chimps but not present in humans....
>
> WTF does that tell ya?
Since chimps and humans are apes, your question doesn't make much
sense. If one replaces "apes" with Gorrilas in your question, it could
mean either that Gorillas and chimps split off from the human line and
caught the virus only after that (which would mean we have to revise
our assumptions about how closely we are related to chimps) or it
could mean that after we split from the chimps, we lost the ERV in
question. Now we have to hypothesis that both generate new potential
evidence *things we would find if one is true but not the other) so we
can look for this and decide between them (and undoubtedly the
researchers in the relevant field did)
Burkhard
>
> > >> >Sure seem like it
>
> > >> You seem to be of the opinion that you will sail off the edge if you
> > >> abandon a 400 year old idea that was originally framed to justify a
> > >> rebellion against God and His Church. �Maybe you will--off an edge
> > that
> > >> is 90 degrees to everything else and into hell.
>
> > >What 400 year old idea would that be?
>
> > The literal inerrancy of scripture. �Actually, it never really achieved
> > the form your cult worships it in until the 19th century.
>
> evidence?
Any good history of the Christian churches. Several references too
doctrinal and academic debate through the ages are in this shortish
article:
Coleman (1975). "Biblical Inerrancy: Are We Going Anywhere?".
Theology Today Volume 31, No. 4.
Ye Old One
<ap...@email.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>On Jan 8, 2:23�pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>> All-seeing-I wrote:
>> > First we have the ERV's that clearly indicate evolution by common
>> > decent could be wrong and now, we have the "Genomic Potential
>> > Hypothesis", which is a better explaination for the sudden explosion
>> > of life during the cambra then speciation divergence.
>>
>> > Why won't the evolutionist accept the fact that there are other
>> > theories for the origins of species? And that as long as there are
>> > other theories for the origins of species then the idea of common
>> > decent will be just that; Nothing more then an idea.
>>
>> Because the genomic potential hypothesis (Schwabe, right?) is
>> ridiculous, and is unable to explain any of the data. Turns out that all
>> the alternatives to common descent have that same problem.
>
>Why is it ridiculous?
Well, for one thing, if you support it then it has to be wrong. No if
or buts.
>It explains the relative sudden appearance of
>life during the Cambrian much better then speciation
No it does not.
> which needs much
>more time to occur.
It had time, many millions of years.
> Unless you subscribe to the concept of punctuated
>equilibrium. It explains some of the 'junk DNA' too. Also, having
>multiple origins lines up with the biblical account of "each after his
>own kind". The bible clearly describes land, air and water creatures
>being created separately and at various times during the creation
>account.
Which we know is completely wrong.
>
>The biggest draw back at your link below (which I read already,
>thanks) is the amino acids. "Schwabe's theory must start with all 20
>amino acids because all species now have 20 amino acids in the code."
>But this is easily solved by a creator providing them.
So we are back to the old "goddidit" claims. Sorry, rejected long ago.
> So now we have
>a beginning to life and a process to evolve life that follows the
>biblical outline.
>
>I do not see this theory as ridiculous
It is not a theory. A theory has to explain all the evidence and make
predictions of new evidence that will back it up. The ToE has been
doing that for 150 years without fail - nothing else has.
> but plausible based on
>chemistry, the bible, observations and the scientific evidence of what
>happened during the Cambrian.
Not even close.
>
>But this was besides the point. My point is there are other theories
>regarding origins that could be just as likely.
No there are not. That is the thing you seem unable to get through
your thick skull.
>But we will never find
>out as long as old ideas supersede any new ones.
One reason the old idea, creationism, was rejected long ago was
because it did not fit the evidence.
>
>
>> Here's a nice analysis:
>>
>> http://home.planet.nl/~gkorthof/korthof56.htm
>
>It was a good one. I had read it before I posted. Thanks.
>
>> > Do they believe they will sail off the edge of the earth by letting go
>> > of a 200 year old idea?
>>
>> Sorry, but are you actually putting down evolution by suggesting that
>> it's an old idea, while claiming that the best theories are found in
>> books that are several thousand years old?
>
>I do not compare ancient texts to scientific theories other then to
>see where both could possibly line up together. I believe science has
>done many incredible things to further mankind. But that does not mean
>science is right all of the time. That also does not mean the ancient
>texts are wrong all of the time either.
But it does seem that you are wrong all the time.
Madman (aka Mudbrain) is on record as claiming:-
Science causes disease.
That 3.5% actually means 25%...
That the actor Paul Newman was a creationist...
That "Dr." Kent Hovind has made lots of *scientific* discoveries...
That wars have been fought because some scientific finding discredited
some facet of some religion...
To have a "higher education" than most posters to this news group...
To understand how geologists determine the age of any given sample of
rock...
That trilobites were Cambrian mammals... [that one still makes me
laugh]
And that he has "created genes" and not evolved ape genes...
That linguists have traced all the world's languages to the Middle
East region and back to around the same time as the bible claims Noah
and his sons rebuilt mankind.
Claimed that talk.origin's moderator was a troll.
Claimed cigarettes do not cause cancer.
The [Dropa] stone is real, the troglodytes exist, the graves are
there, many books have been written on the subject...
Now, I ask you, is this the sort of guy you would give an credence to?
Certainly I don't.
--
Bob.
Ye Old One
In the fossil and genetic records.
>
>>
>> Boikat- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
--
Bob.
If brains were dynamite, you wouldn't have enough to blow your nose.
Ye Old One
<ap...@email.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>On Jan 8, 5:26�pm, Baron Bodissey <mct5...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Jan 8, 4:14�pm, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
>> <snip>
>>
>> > The biggest draw back at your link below (which I read already,
>> > thanks) is the amino acids. "Schwabe's theory must start with all 20
>> > amino acids because all species now have 20 amino acids in the code."
>> > But this is easily solved by a creator providing them. So now we have
>> > a beginning to life and a process to evolve life that follows the
>> > biblical outline.
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> This is a perfect example of why you can not combine science with the
>> supernatural. By saying that any problem can be solved by invoking the
>> interference of a Creator. you have actually solved nothing. A
>> scientific explanation has to stand on its own, not propped up with
>> convenient miracles.
>
>Why do you see a problem with a creator providing the additional amino
>acids?
Because there is no evidence for a creator or the need for one.
>
>Science obviously can only speculate and infer what happened.
Infer, yes. When are you going to learn what infer means? Look, for
the umpteenth time, here is the COED definition:-
infer
n verb (infers, inferring, inferred) deduce from evidence and
reasoning rather than from explicit statements.
DERIVATIVES
inferable (also inferrable) adjective
ORIGIN
C15 (in the sense 'bring about, inflict'): from Latin inferre
'bring in, bring about'.
> The best
>answer that fits what we see is a creator was involved.
No it is not, that is NOT a valid answer because it is NOT based on
evidence.
>
>Why deny it?
Because, as always, you are wrong.
Ye Old One
<ap...@email.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
See below.
See above.
>
>
>- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
--
Ye Old One
enriched this group when s/he wrote:
More like 70 million years or more.
If you compare that to the time since the KT extinction we get a
better picture of how unlike an explosion it really was.
[SNIP]
--
Bob.
Ye Old One
<ap...@email.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>On Jan 8, 4:31�pm, Eric Root <er...@swva.net> wrote:
>> On Jan 8, 4:22�pm, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Jan 8, 2:48�pm, Dave Oldridge <doldr...@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:
>>
>> > > All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote in news:madman-1efe90f5-605b-4702-
>> > > 8ab1-2c759aed6...@z41g2000yqz.googlegroups.com:
>>
>> > > >First we have the ERV's that clearly indicate evolution by common
>> > > >decent could be wrong and now, we have the "Genomic Potential
>> > > >Hypothesis", which is a better explaination for the sudden explosion
>> > > >of life during the cambra then speciation divergence.
>>
>> > > How do ERV's indicate that common descent may be false? �We have several
>> > > in common with chimps. �How would that happen EXCEPT by common descent?
>>
>> > Right. We do.
>>
>> > However, If chimps are closer to humans than to gorillas, but Gorillas
>> > and Chimps can not share an ERV unless the ERV is also present in
>> > humans because they all share a common ancestor, then finding an ERV
>> > in chimps and gorillas, but not in humans falsifies evolution.
>>
>> Nope. �It just means that we were wrong about which primates were most
>> related. �
>
>So now chimps, apes and humans are NOT related?
Chimps and humans are apes you moron.
> Are you reading
>Chris?
>
>>it says nothing at all about the validity of evolution.
>> Your mistake is like saying that, if we find we were wrong about the
>> sequences of battlefield commands at the Battle of Waterloom, then
>> history is totally false and everything happens all at once.
>>
>> (snip)
>>
>> Eric Root- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
>I am begining to think all that is necessary to believe evolution is
>an ability to decieve oneself.
>
>Think.
>
>If humans and apes and chimps originate from a Single Common Ancestor
>but, there is an ERV in the K family that is present in apes and
>chimps but not present in humans....
>
>WTF does that tell ya?
That you have misunderstood something - as usual.
--
Bob.
Your IQ score is 2 (it takes 3 to grunt).
Dan Listermann
"All-seeing-I" <ap...@email.com> wrote in message
news:madman-ca9a6bd1-3cf4-...@p8g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
>
> Science obviously can only speculate and infer what happened. The best
> answer that fits what we see is a creator was involved.
>
that record the myths of goatherds.
.
Dan Listermann
"Burkhard" <b.sc...@ed.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:728f2073-7692-493b...@p8g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
Naa. Just chuck it all and declare "goddidit."
.
Dave Oldridge
b59b-204...@26g2000yqo.googlegroups.com:
>On Jan 8, 10:26�pm, Dave Oldridge <doldr...@leavethisoutshaw.ca>
>wrote:
>> All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote in news:madman-f557cc18-bbe9-
4e20-
>> a9a4-836241eda...@s31g2000yqs.googlegroups.com:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Jan 8, 2:48�pm, Dave Oldridge <doldr...@leavethisoutshaw.ca>
wrote:
>> >> All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote in news:madman-1efe90f5-605b-
>> 4702-
>> >> 8ab1-2c759aed6...@z41g2000yqz.googlegroups.com:
>>
>> >> >First we have the ERV's that clearly indicate evolution by common
>> >> >decent could be wrong and now, we have the "Genomic Potential
>> >> >Hypothesis", which is a better explaination for the sudden
explosion
>> >> >of life during the cambra then speciation divergence.
>>
>> >> How do ERV's indicate that common descent may be false? �We have
>> several
>> >> in common with chimps. �How would that happen EXCEPT by common
>> descent?
>>
>> >Right. We do.
>>
>> >However, If chimps are closer to humans than to gorillas, but
Gorillas
>> >and Chimps can not share an ERV unless the ERV is also present in
>> >humans because they all share a common ancestor, then finding an ERV
>> >in chimps and gorillas, but not in humans falsifies evolution.
>>
>> No necesarily. �It might just mean that we have the tree wrong in that
>> place. But can you actually find such an ERV? �That is to say, one
that
>> is unequivocally in the same location in chimps and gorillas but
totally
>> and seamlessly absent in humans?
>
>I did not find it. Science did. It is a HERV-K provirus.
>http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0960982201002275
>
>" precise details of the nature of the evolutionary separation of the
>lineage leading to humans from those leading to the African great apes
>have remained uncertain"
>
>How much more clear can that be?
It says exactly what I said above. Not what you said. I cannot access
the full paper, but nothing in the abstract would incline me to believe
that the finding recludes evolution, but rather that it is hoped that it
will clarify some questions about our particular end of the the tree of
life.
I think you indulge in a lot of typical creationist wishful thinking in
that you think that every question that pops up in any scientific
investigation proves that science is impossible.
You still seem to be standing on your blasphemous explanation of the GULO
gene. That sort of thing, you see, is why I deem creationism to be not
merely an error, but rather a full-blown HERESY.
--
Dave Oldridge+
Eric Root
> On Jan 8, 4:31�pm, Eric Root <er...@swva.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jan 8, 4:22�pm, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
>
>
> > > > All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote in news:madman-1efe90f5-605b-4702-
> > > > 8ab1-2c759aed6...@z41g2000yqz.googlegroups.com:
>
> > > > >First we have the ERV's that clearly indicate evolution by common
> > > > >decent could be wrong and now, we have the "Genomic Potential
> > > > >Hypothesis", which is a better explaination for the sudden explosion
> > > > >of life during the cambra then speciation divergence.
>
> > > > How do ERV's indicate that common descent may be false? �We have several
> > > > in common with chimps. �How would that happen EXCEPT by common descent?
>
> > > Right. We do.
>
> > > However, If chimps are closer to humans than to gorillas, but Gorillas
> > > and Chimps can not share an ERV unless the ERV is also present in
> > > humans because they all share a common ancestor, then finding an ERV
> > > in chimps and gorillas, but not in humans falsifies evolution.
>
> > related. �
>
> So now chimps, apes and humans are NOT related? �Are you reading
> Chris?
>
> > Your mistake is like saying that, if we find we were wrong about the
> > sequences of battlefield commands at the Battle of Waterloom, then
> > history is totally false and everything happens all at once.
>
> > (snip)
>
> > Eric Root- Hide quoted text -
>
No answer to my comment? No rebuttal to the analogy? Why am I not
surprised?
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> I am begining to think all that is necessary to believe evolution is
> an ability to decieve oneself.
>
Then you change the subject to a nonsensical non sequitur that is
actually a characteristic of creationists? What kind of honesty is
that?
> Think.
I am beginnning to think you don't even know what that means.
>
> If humans and apes and chimps originate from a Single Common Ancestor
> but, there is an ERV in the K family that is present in apes and
> chimps but not present in humans....
>
> WTF does that tell ya?
Absolutely nothing about the validity of evolution?
Eric Root
hersheyh
> On Jan 8, 6:26�pm, hersheyh <hershe...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> > > On Jan 8, 4:31�pm, Eric Root <er...@swva.net> wrote:
>
> > > > On Jan 8, 4:22�pm, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Jan 8, 2:48�pm, Dave Oldridge <doldr...@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:
>
> > > > > > All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote in news:madman-1efe90f5-605b-4702-
> > > > > > 8ab1-2c759aed6...@z41g2000yqz.googlegroups.com:
>
> > > > > > >First we have the ERV's that clearly indicate evolution by common
> > > > > > >decent could be wrong and now, we have the "Genomic Potential
> > > > > > >Hypothesis", which is a better explaination for the sudden explosion
> > > > > > >of life during the cambra then speciation divergence.
>
> > > > > > How do ERV's indicate that common descent may be false? �We have several
> > > > > > in common with chimps. �How would that happen EXCEPT by common descent?
>
> > > > > Right. We do.
>
> > > > > However, If chimps are closer to humans than to gorillas, but Gorillas
> > > > > and Chimps can not share an ERV unless the ERV is also present in
> > > > > humans because they all share a common ancestor, then finding an ERV
> > > > > in chimps and gorillas, but not in humans falsifies evolution.
>
> > > > Nope. �It just means that we were wrong about which primates were most
> > > > related. �
>
> > > So now chimps, apes and humans are NOT related? �Are you reading
> > > Chris?
>
> > nonsensical misinterpretation of the evidence, ERVs can be
> > occasionally removed as well as inserted. �That is especially true for
> > ERVs that still are relatively "active".
>
> evidence?
>
retroviral sequences can be excised (or purged) is an experimentally
observed phenomenon. Often, but not always, there are small traces (a
tiny duplication) that is a trace of such excision, but after several
million years, one cannot always expect that.
>
> > "The human ERV-K (HERV-K) family includes some of the most active
> > retroviral elements in human genome [6], [7]. Although most of the
> > proviral copies of ERV-K in the genome are inactive, some show
> > evidence of past positive selection at the env gene [8], [9]. ERVs, as
> > well the other retroelements, can invade the host genome due to
> > transposition bursts [10], counteracted by host-driven excision and
> > purging [11], [12]."
http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0001026
>
> > > >it says nothing at all about the validity of evolution.
> > > > Your mistake is like saying that, if we find we were wrong about the
> > > > sequences of battlefield commands at the Battle of Waterloom, then
> > > > history is totally false and everything happens all at once.
>
> > > > (snip)
>
> > > > Eric Root- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > I am begining to think all that is necessary to believe evolution is
> > > an ability to decieve oneself.
>
> > That would be creationism that *requires* the ability to deceive
> > oneself.
>
> > > Think.
>
> > > If humans and apes and chimps originate from a Single Common Ancestor
> > > but, there is an ERV in the K family that is present in apes and
> > > chimps but not present in humans....
>
> > > WTF does that tell ya?
>
> > It tells you that that particular copy was excised in the human
> > lineage. �Other copies were not.
>
> Where is the evidence for this?
Let's see. I propose an explanatory mechanism for the absence of one
particular ERV in the human lineage that involves processes that have
been experimentally observed to occur (excision) in a number of
laboratories. You propose that all the other ERVs except this one
were magically and independently inserted in exactly the same sites in
all three living organisms (a process that is not observed with
retroviral insertion in the lab, where we find quasi-random insertions
in cells) who were themselves independently and magically created by
an invisible, undetectable, omnipotent entity. And you think that *I*
am the one who is lacking in evidence to support the reasonableness of
this apparent 'anomoly'? Where is the evidence that can test *your*
mechanism?
>
> - Hide quoted text -
>
>
>
All-seeing-I
> On Jan 8, 8:40 pm, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
> > > > If humans and apes and chimps originate from a Single Common Ancestor
> > > > but, there is an ERV in the K family that is present in apes and
> > > > chimps but not present in humans....
>
> > > > WTF does that tell ya?
>
> > > It tells you that that particular copy was excised in the human
> > > lineage. Other copies were not.
>
> > Where is the evidence for this?
>
> Let's see. �I propose an explanatory mechanism for the absence of one
> particular ERV in the human lineage that involves processes that have
> been experimentally observed to occur (excision) in a number of
> laboratories. �You propose that all the other ERVs except this one
> were magically and independently inserted in exactly the same sites in
> all three living organisms (a process that is not observed with
> retroviral insertion in the lab, where we find quasi-random insertions
> in cells) �who were themselves independently and magically created by
> an invisible, undetectable, omnipotent entity. �And you think that *I*
> am the one who is lacking in evidence to support the reasonableness of
> this apparent 'anomoly'? �Where is the evidence that can test *your*
> mechanism?
By "proposing" you really mean there are no evidences at all other
then an inference made from somewhat unrelated lab data.
Next. Why do you ask for a natural science explaination of the
supernatural when you already know one cannot be offered? How
dishonest of you.
Christopher Denney
> On Jan 9, 11:57锟絘m, hersheyh <hershe...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jan 8, 8:40 pm, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
> []
> > > > > If humans and apes and chimps originate from a Single Common Ancestor
> > > > > but, there is an ERV in the K family that is present in apes and
> > > > > chimps but not present in humans....
>
> > > > > WTF does that tell ya?
>
> > > > It tells you that that particular copy was excised in the human
> > > > lineage. Other copies were not.
>
> > > Where is the evidence for this?
>
> > particular ERV in the human lineage that involves processes that have
> > been experimentally observed to occur (excision) in a number of
> > were magically and independently inserted in exactly the same sites in
> > all three living organisms (a process that is not observed with
> > retroviral insertion in the lab, where we find quasi-random insertions
> > an invisible, undetectable, omnipotent entity. 锟紸nd you think that *I*
> > am the one who is lacking in evidence to support the reasonableness of
> > mechanism?
>
> By "proposing" you really mean there are no evidences at all other
> then an inference made from somewhat unrelated lab data.
>
> Next. Why do you ask for a natural science explaination of the
> supernatural when you already know one cannot be offered? How
> dishonest of you.
Did you even read what he wrote, or did you stop at the word propose
in confusion?
Almost all of science is explanations of what was once thought to be
supernatural.
Obviously, once science explains it, it stops being supernatural.
hersheyh
>
> " precise details of the nature of the evolutionary separation of the
> lineage leading to humans from those leading to the African great apes
> have remained uncertain"
>
> How much more clear can that be?
I am assuming that you only read the abstract rather than the actual
paper. That also is all I have to go on right now, since I am
unwilling to pony up for the paper. I can think of at least three
possible *natural* explanations, none of which involve inventing a
fairy to do the job. All of which involve known observed natural
mechanisms.
You, OTOH, have to invent an invisible and untestable supernatural
fairy that can do whatever you want it to in order to get your
mechanism. I certainly agree that if one wants a non-useful pseudo-
explanation that can explain anything, a useless fool can always
invent such a useful tool (the magical fairy) to create a useless and
worthless pseudo-explanation. 'Godidit' can explain anything and its
opposite.
All-seeing-I
wrote:
> On Jan 9, 10:14�am, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 9, 11:57�am, hersheyh <hershe...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jan 8, 8:40 pm, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
> > []
> > > > > > If humans and apes and chimps originate from a Single Common Ancestor
> > > > > > but, there is an ERV in the K family that is present in apes and
> > > > > > chimps but not present in humans....
>
> > > > > > WTF does that tell ya?
>
> > > > > It tells you that that particular copy was excised in the human
> > > > > lineage. Other copies were not.
>
> > > > Where is the evidence for this?
>
> > > particular ERV in the human lineage that involves processes that have
> > > been experimentally observed to occur (excision) in a number of
> > > were magically and independently inserted in exactly the same sites in
> > > all three living organisms (a process that is not observed with
> > > retroviral insertion in the lab, where we find quasi-random insertions
> > > an invisible, undetectable, omnipotent entity. �And you think that *I*
> > > am the one who is lacking in evidence to support the reasonableness of
> > > mechanism?
>
> > By "proposing" you really mean there are no evidences at all other
> > then an inference made from somewhat unrelated lab data.
>
> > Next. Why do you ask for a natural science explaination of the
> > supernatural when you already know one cannot be offered? How
> > dishonest of you.
>
> Did you even read what he wrote, or did you stop at the word propose
> in confusion?
>
> Almost all of science is explanations of what was once thought to be
> supernatural.
> Obviously, once science explains it, it stops being supernatural.
Hahahahah!!!!
You guys can't keep yoir story straight.
And..
"Since this is the concept of �shared errors� applied to endogenous
retroviruses (and since retroviruses are a type of transposon), much
of the two preceding responses is applicable. It is not a prediction
of the hypothesis of universal common ancestry or the more specific
hypothesis of Neo-Darwinism that the same ERVs will exist in the same
chromosomal location in two or more species. Evolution does not even
predict the existence of ERVs, much less that they will be found at
the same location in two or more species. After all, evolutionary
theory was considered robust prior to the discovery of ERVs. This is
but another example of taking an observation, claiming it as a
prediction of evolution, and then using the fact the observation fits
the prediction as evidence for the truth of evolution."
http://www.trueorigin.org/theobald1e.asp#pred21
All-seeing-I
> On Jan 9, 5:24�am, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 8, 10:26�pm, Dave Oldridge <doldr...@leavethisoutshaw.ca>
> > wrote:
>
> > > All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote in news:madman-f557cc18-bbe9-4e20-
> > > a9a4-836241eda...@s31g2000yqs.googlegroups.com:
>
> > > >> All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote in news:madman-1efe90f5-605b-
> > > 4702-
> > > >> 8ab1-2c759aed6...@z41g2000yqz.googlegroups.com:
>
> > > >> >First we have the ERV's that clearly indicate evolution by common
> > > >> >decent could be wrong and now, we have the "Genomic Potential
> > > >> >Hypothesis", which is a better explaination for the sudden explosion
> > > >> >of life during the cambra then speciation divergence.
>
> > > several
> > > >> in common with chimps. �How would that happen EXCEPT by common
> > > descent?
>
> > > >Right. We do.
>
> > > >However, If chimps are closer to humans than to gorillas, but Gorillas
> > > >and Chimps can not share an ERV unless the ERV is also present in
> > > >humans because they all share a common ancestor, then finding an ERV
> > > >in chimps and gorillas, but not in humans falsifies evolution.
>
> > > place. But can you actually find such an ERV? �That is to say, one that
> > > that
> > > >> is 90 degrees to everything else and into hell.
>
> > > >What 400 year old idea would that be?
>
> > > the form your cult worships it in until the 19th century.
>
> > evidence?
>
> > > -
> > > Dave Oldridge+- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
I read the entire paper.
I posted the gist:
Christopher Denney
> On Jan 9, 12:27�pm, Christopher Denney <christopher.den...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jan 9, 10:14�am, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jan 9, 11:57�am, hersheyh <hershe...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Jan 8, 8:40 pm, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
> > > []
> > > > > > > If humans and apes and chimps originate from a Single Common Ancestor
> > > > > > > but, there is an ERV in the K family that is present in apes and
> > > > > > > chimps but not present in humans....
>
> > > > > > > WTF does that tell ya?
>
> > > > > > It tells you that that particular copy was excised in the human
> > > > > > lineage. Other copies were not.
>
> > > > > Where is the evidence for this?
>
> > > > particular ERV in the human lineage that involves processes that have
> > > > been experimentally observed to occur (excision) in a number of
> > > > were magically and independently inserted in exactly the same sites in
> > > > all three living organisms (a process that is not observed with
> > > > retroviral insertion in the lab, where we find quasi-random insertions
> > > > an invisible, undetectable, omnipotent entity. �And you think that *I*
> > > > am the one who is lacking in evidence to support the reasonableness of
> > > > mechanism?
>
> > > By "proposing" you really mean there are no evidences at all other
> > > then an inference made from somewhat unrelated lab data.
>
> > > Next. Why do you ask for a natural science explaination of the
> > > supernatural when you already know one cannot be offered? How
> > > dishonest of you.
>
> > Did you even read what he wrote, or did you stop at the word propose
> > in confusion?
>
> > Almost all of science is explanations of what was once thought to be
> > supernatural.
> > Obviously, once science explains it, it stops being supernatural.
>
> Hahahahah!!!!
>
> You guys can't keep yoir story straight.
>
> And..
>
So that's a "No" then, or you didn't read what I wrote.
hersheyh
Yet the only thing you have posted from it is an exact quote from the
abstract, which I copied from that site myself and posted just below.
"precise details of the nature of the evolutionary separation of the
lineage leading to humans from those leading to the African great apes
have remained uncertain."
If you have read the entire paper, perhaps you will be good enough to
post a section of the materials and methods or some other section that
is not a direct copy of the abstract. Or you can e-mail me a pdf, if
you have it in that format.
Desertphile
<ap...@email.com> wrote:
> On Jan 8, 5:26�pm, Baron Bodissey <mct5...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Jan 8, 4:14�pm, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
> > <snip>
> >
> > > The biggest draw back at your link below (which I read already,
> > > thanks) is the amino acids. "Schwabe's theory must start with all 20
> > > amino acids because all species now have 20 amino acids in the code."
> > > But this is easily solved by a creator providing them. So now we have
> > > a beginning to life and a process to evolve life that follows the
> > > biblical outline.
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> > This is a perfect example of why you can not combine science with the
> > supernatural. By saying that any problem can be solved by invoking the
> > interference of a Creator. you have actually solved nothing. A
> > scientific explanation has to stand on its own, not propped up with
> > convenient miracles.
> Why do you see a problem with a creator providing the additional amino
> acids?
Do those space aliens (your "creators") contain amino acids? If
so, where did those amino acids come from?
Idiot.
--
http://desertphile.org
Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
"Why aren't resurrections from the dead noteworthy?" -- Jim Rutz
Desertphile
The full article was posted here in talk.origins several months
ago (a PDF behind a paywall). The question was if the removal of
the same ERV in the human genome left parts of it behind.
Desertphile
<d...@listermann.com> wrote:
> "All-seeing-I" <ap...@email.com> wrote in message
> news:madman-ca9a6bd1-3cf4-...@p8g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
> > Science obviously can only speculate and infer what happened. The best
> > answer that fits what we see is a creator was involved.
Yes, evolution creates.
> If you really want to know what happened, you need to consult ancient texts
> that record the myths of goatherds.
The pipa a'ha macav have a better mrythod: they dream history.
hersheyh
wrote:
> On Sat, 09 Jan 2010 15:19:01 GMT, Dave Oldridge
>
>
>
> > All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote in news:madman-bcbc3c1c-4c6e-46f1-
> > b59b-204c292a1...@26g2000yqo.googlegroups.com:
The claim in the abstract is that the human genome at this site is
intact. But complete excision of retroviruses without leaving a tag
does occur. Just more rarely.
bpuharic
<ap...@email.com> wrote:
>
>
>By "proposing" you really mean there are no evidences at all other
>then an inference made from somewhat unrelated lab data.
>
>Next. Why do you ask for a natural science explaination of the
>supernatural when you already know one cannot be offered? How
>dishonest of you.
but you're here contradicting yourself. you say there's plenty of
evidence for 'ghostbusters' in nature.
>
>
bpuharic
<ap...@email.com> wrote:
>
>"Since this is the concept of �shared errors� applied to endogenous
>retroviruses (and since retroviruses are a type of transposon), much
>of the two preceding responses is applicable. It is not a prediction
>of the hypothesis of universal common ancestry or the more specific
>hypothesis of Neo-Darwinism that the same ERVs will exist in the same
>chromosomal location in two or more species. Evolution does not even
>predict the existence of ERVs
this is HYSTERICAL!! we have a creationist...a believer in an
ideology that, for 2000 years, failed to even tell us VIRUSES
existed...telling us evolution doesnt predict viruses exist!! viruses,
per se, have NOTHING to do with evolution. evolution would happen even
if viruses didn't exist.
and creationists thought viral effects were due to demons...
amazing
, much less that they will be found at
>the same location in two or more species. After all, evolutionary
>theory was considered robust prior to the discovery of ERVs. This is
>but another example of taking an observation, claiming it as a
>prediction of evolution, and then using the fact the observation fits
>the prediction as evidence for the truth of evolution.
meaningless. this is absolutely meaningless.
evolutuion can tell us HOW viruses affect evolution. but evolution was
discovered before viruses were.
the creationist has NO idea how science works. to him, 'ghostbusters'
is a documentary
Mark Isaak
> [...]
> But this was besides the point. My point is there are other theories
> regarding origins that could be just as likely.
Without the evidence to support them, it is mathematically impossible for
them to be "just as likely". Yes, there are other theories, but all the
evidence (or close enough to all for practical purposes) is on the side
of evolution.
> [...]
> I do not compare ancient texts to scientific theories other then to see
> where both could possibly line up together. I believe science has done
> many incredible things to further mankind. But that does not mean
> science is right all of the time. That also does not mean the ancient
> texts are wrong all of the time either.
What I don't get is how Adman is wrong all the time. It must take some
effort.
--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) earthlink (dot) net
"It is certain, from experience, that the smallest grain of natural
honesty and benevolence has more effect on men's conduct, than the most
pompous views suggested by theological theories and systems." - D. Hume
Mark Isaak
> On Jan 8, 5:26�pm, Baron Bodissey <mct5...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Jan 8, 4:14�pm, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote: <snip>
>>
>> > The biggest draw back at your link below (which I read already,
>> > thanks) is the amino acids. "Schwabe's theory must start with all 20
>> > amino acids because all species now have 20 amino acids in the code."
>> > But this is easily solved by a creator providing them. So now we have
>> > a beginning to life and a process to evolve life that follows the
>> > biblical outline.
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> This is a perfect example of why you can not combine science with the
>> supernatural. By saying that any problem can be solved by invoking the
>> interference of a Creator. you have actually solved nothing. A
>> scientific explanation has to stand on its own, not propped up with
>> convenient miracles.
>
> Why do you see a problem with a creator providing the additional amino
> acids?
Because creators work in clay. Everybody knows that.
Boikat
> On Fri, 08 Jan 2010 13:14:37 -0800, All-seeing-I wrote:
> > [...]
> > But this was besides the point. My point is there are other theories
> > regarding origins that could be just as likely.
>
> Without the evidence to support them, it is mathematically impossible for
> them to be "just as likely". �Yes, there are other theories, but all the
> evidence (or close enough to all for practical purposes) is on the side
> of evolution.
>
> > [...]
> > I do not compare ancient texts to scientific theories other then to see
> > where both could possibly line up together. I believe science has done
> > many incredible things to further mankind. But that does not mean
> > science is right all of the time. That also does not mean the ancient
> > texts are wrong all of the time either.
>
> What I don't get is how Adman is wrong all the time. �It must take some
> effort.
He's either a Grand Master Troll or hr's psychotically opposed to
anything that runs counter to his "world view".
Boikat
All-seeing-I
> On Fri, 08 Jan 2010 16:02:06 -0800, All-seeing-I wrote:
> > On Jan 8, 5:26�pm, Baron Bodissey <mct5...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> On Jan 8, 4:14�pm, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote: <snip>
>
> >> > The biggest draw back at your link below (which I read already,
> >> > thanks) is the amino acids. "Schwabe's theory must start with all 20
> >> > amino acids because all species now have 20 amino acids in the code."
> >> > But this is easily solved by a creator providing them. So now we have
> >> > a beginning to life and a process to evolve life that follows the
> >> > biblical outline.
>
> >> <snip>
>
> >> This is a perfect example of why you can not combine science with the
> >> supernatural. By saying that any problem can be solved by invoking the
> >> interference of a Creator. you have actually solved nothing. A
> >> scientific explanation has to stand on its own, not propped up with
> >> convenient miracles.
>
> > Why do you see a problem with a creator providing the additional amino
> > acids?
>
> Because creators work in clay. �Everybody knows that.
Sure.
But you are not familiar with how the word clay is being used during
ancient times.
"Adamu (One Who's Like Earth's Clay) [ruddy] had smooth, dark red
blood-colored skin and black-hair." [Tellinger, M., 2006, Slave
Species of god, page 251]
Dark red blood is almost black.
If the sumerian tales are correct, you were made from Enki's sperm,
the ovum of an ape and then implanted into Nammu. They tried
copulation with female apes first but the results were deformed. They
could not talk; Legs were bent.
You were made to be a worker. A slave.
If true, That means apes are not your common ancestor. An apes is your
ancestoral mother.
How about THAT.
Boikat
The word "idiotic" springs to mind.
Boikat
Desertphile
On Fri, 8 Jan 2010 14:31:09 -0800 (PST), Eric Root
<er...@swva.net> wrote:
> On Jan 8, 4:22�pm, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
> > On Jan 8, 2:48�pm, Dave Oldridge <doldr...@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:
> >
> > > All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote in news:madman-1efe90f5-605b-4702-
> > > 8ab1-2c759aed6...@z41g2000yqz.googlegroups.com:
> >
> > > >First we have the ERV's that clearly indicate evolution by common
> > > >decent could be wrong and now, we have the "Genomic Potential
> > > >Hypothesis", which is a better explaination for the sudden explosion
> > > >of life during the cambra then speciation divergence.
> >
> > > How do ERV's indicate that common descent may be false? �We have several
> > > in common with chimps. �How would that happen EXCEPT by common descent?
> >
> > Right. We do.
> >
> > However, If chimps are closer to humans than to gorillas, but Gorillas
> > and Chimps can not share an ERV unless the ERV is also present in
> > humans because they all share a common ancestor, then finding an ERV
> > in chimps and gorillas, but not in humans falsifies evolution.
> Nope. It just means that we were wrong about which primates were most
> related.
A HERV-K provirus in chimpanzees, bonobos and gorillas, but not
humans
Madalina Barbulescu, Geoffrey Turner, Mei Su, Rachel Kim, Michael
I. Jensen-Seaman, Amos S. Deinard, Kenneth K. Kidd and Jack Lenz
Evidence from DNA sequencing studies strongly indicated that
humans and chimpanzees are more closely related to each other than
either is to gorillas [1�4]. However, precise details of the
nature of the evolutionary separation of the lineage leading to
humans from those leading to the African great apes have remained
uncertain. The unique insertion sites of endogenous retroviruses,
like those of other transposable genetic elements, should be
useful for resolving phylogenetic relationships among closely
related species. We identified a human endogenous retrovirus K
(HERV-K) provirus that is present at the orthologous position in
the gorilla and chimpanzee genomes, but not in the human genome.
Humans contain an intact preintegration site at this locus. These
observations provide very strong evidence that, for some fraction
of the genome, chimpanzees, bonobos, and gorillas are more closely
related to each other than they are to humans. They also show that
HERV-K replicated as a virus and reinfected the germline of the
common ancestor of the four modern species during the period of
time when the lineages were separating and demonstrate the utility
of using HERV-K to trace human evolution.
Results and discussion
Endogenous retroviruses exist in distinct structural forms that
proceed in a defined chronological order. As with other
retrotransposable elements, the preintegration site is the most
ancestral allele [5�7] and is followed by the inserted element,
which is the full-length provirus in the case of endogenous
retroviruses. Frequently, homologous recombination between the two
long terminal repeats (LTRs) of full-length proviruses then
results in the formation of solo LTRs. Random deletions of parts
of proviruses along with flanking host sequences may also occur.
Proviruses or solo LTRs present at the same site in the genomes of
two species are identical by descent, as the likelihood of
independent integrations at the same site (insertional homoplasy)
is negligible [7, 8].
HERV-K [9] is present in the genomes of catarrhines
(cercopithecoids 5 Old World monkeys, and hominoids 5 apes and
humans) [10�12], and more distantly related sequences are present
in platyrrhines (New World mon- keys) [13]. It has been
reinfecting the germline of the lineage leading to modern humans
in recent evolutionary time [14, 15]. Many of the HERV-K
proviruses present in the human genome today formed after the
evolutionary separation of the human lineage from the chimpanzee
and gorilla lineages [14, 15]. Others formed prior to the
separation of the three genera and are present at ortholo- gous
positions in the human, chimpanzee, bonobo, and gorilla genomes,
but not in the orangutan genome [14]. Therefore, HERV-K was active
both before and after the evolutionary separation of humans (Homo
sapiens), common chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes), bonobos (pygmy
chimpanzees, Pan paniscus), and gorillas (Gorilla gorilla) from a
common ancestor. If it was also active during the period when the
lineages leading to the modern species were separating, then the
insertion sites of HERV-K pro- viruses could be useful for tracing
those lineages. To date, no sites of HERV-K provirus insertion, or
those of any mobile genetic element, have been reported to be in
only two of the three genera. To examine the evolutionary history
of HERV-K among hominoids, we identified HERV-K proviruses in the
gorilla genome by inverse PCR amplification of the 59
provirus-host junctions using conditions described by others [16,
17] and primers described previously [14]. The DNA sequences
flanking the provi- ruses were determined. A BLAST search of the
human genome using the sequence flanking one such provirus
(HERV-K-GC1) indicated that the orthologous position in humans
lacked a HERV-K provirus or solo LTR. PCR primers were designed
based on the human sequence (BAC RP11�500M8 from human chromosome
12p13.3, GenBank accession number AC005832) that flanked both
sides of the HERV-K-GC1 provirus and used to amplify the
orthologous sequences from various primates (Figure 1). Sequencing
of the resulting products (Figure 2) re- vealed that integration
of HERV-K-GC1 involved a 5 bp target site duplication (59-ATTAT-39
flanking the viral 1 strand) and that the provirus was inserted at
the identical bp in the genomes of gorillas, bonobos, and common
chimpanzees. No preintegration site allele was detected by PCR in
any Gorilla or Pan individual tested (Figure 1). Thus, the
HERV-K-GC1 provirus must have formed prior to the separation of
the lineages leading to Gorilla and Pan.
In contrast, PCR and sequencing analyses showed that the human,
orangutan (Pongo pygmaeus), and rhesus macaque (Macaca mulatta)
genomes contained a preintegration site at the orthologous locus
(Figures 1 and 2). No solo LTR was present, and the 5 bp target
site was not duplicated. Multiple humans and orangutans were
tested, and all were found to contain only the preintegration site
(Figure 1b).
Several possibilities were considered to explain how a provirus
could be present in Gorilla and Pan but be absent in Homo. It is
highly unlikely that the provirus was deleted in humans, as the
retroviral integration process is irrevers- ible. Another
possibility was that the provirus was replaced in the human
lineage by a gene conversion or unequal crossover event. In
particular, the preintegration site may have been duplicated
either in tandem or at another position within the genome of the
common ancestor of Homo, Pan, and Gorilla. A recombination event
involving the duplicated locus could then have replaced the 9.5 kb
provirus in humans with a sequence similar to the preintegration
site. In this regard, analysis of the human sequence flanking the
HERV-K-GC1 integration site in Pan and Gorilla indicated that the
ape provirus lies within an older L1 retrotransposon and that
several L1 elements and an Alu element lie within a 5 kb stretch
flanking the insertion site of the provirus. This particularly
raised the possibility that gene conversion from an L1 element at
a nonorthologous position might have replaced the provirus in the
human lineage.
To test these possibilities, we designed several PCR primers based
on the human sequence over a 5.4 kb stretch of sequence flanking
the site of the HERV-K-GC1 inser- tion in Pan and Gorilla (Figure
1). No evidence for a preintegration locus in Pan or Gorilla was
seen with any combination of primers used (Figure 1c). Thus,
neither of those genera contains a duplicated locus, tandem or
otherwise, including any L1 element at a nonorthologous position,
that is sufficiently similar to the HERV-K-GC1 site to be
recognized by any of the PCR primer pairs used. The data are
consistent with the conclusion that these genera lack an
appropriate locus for a putative gene conversion event that could
have eliminated the provirus within the human lineage.
We also considered the possibility that a putative recombi- nation
event involved a duplication of a sequence flanking the provirus
insertion site that was too short to be detected with the PCR
primers used. The innermost primer pair used (59c and 39d, Figure
1) generated a 299 bp product from human DNA containing 192 bp 59
to the ATTAT duplication in apes and 102 bp 39 to the duplication.
To look for evidence of such a short, tandem duplication, the
sequences flanking the provirus in a gorilla and a bonobo and the
corresponding preintegration loci from an orang- utan and a rhesus
macaque were determined by the sequencing of PCR-amplified
segments of the cognate ge- nomes and compared to the
corresponding stretch of human DNA (Figure 2). A stretch
corresponding to 2852 bp in humans was determined in each species.
The five sequences were colinear throughout their entire lengths,
except for the provirus and indels of a few bp, such as those
shown in Figure 2b. Thus, there is no small duplica- tion, tandem
or otherwise, within the sequenced stretch of any of the genera
that might have participated in a putative recombination event to
replace the provirus within the human lineage. The colinearity
also showed that all the L1 elements within the sequenced stretch
flanking the proviral insertion site were ancestral to the
cercopithecoid-hominoid divergence. As expected, the Homo sequence
was most related to those of the African apes, Pan and Gorilla,
and more distantly related to those of Pongo and Macaca (Figure
2a). In pairwise comparisons, there was a 1.5% difference between
Pan and Gorilla, 1.6%
difference between Homo and Pan, and a 1.7% difference between
Homo and Gorilla. Positions where two of the three species
possessed a shared derived difference rela- tive to the outgroup
sequence provided by Pongo and Macaca provided insight into
relationships among genera. Homo and Gorilla shared one such
difference (a single bp substitution), while Pan and Homo shared
none. However, Pan and Gorilla shared seven differences, including
four single bp substitutions, a one bp deletion, a ten bp dele-
tion 160 bp 59 to the provirus (Figure 2b), and the provirus
itself. These observations strongly supported Pan and Gorilla as
being the most closely related genera in this part of the genome.
The similarity of the Homo sequence to those of Pan and Gorilla is
clear, as it differs by 1.6%�1.7% (Figure 2). BLAST searches of
the human genome (htgs and nr databases) with sequences as small
as 45 bp immediately flanking the provirus (ATTAT target for
HERV-K-GC1 plus 20 bp on either side) showed that the next best
matches after the orthologous locus differed by 8%�10% from the
sequences immediately flanking the HERV-K- GC1 provirus in Pan and
Gorilla. This indicates that the L1 element into which the
HERV-K-GC1 provirus is integrated is an ancient element that has
accumulated a sufficient number of unique mutations to be 8%�10%
different from any other L1 element in the human genome. Thus, it
is unlikely that any nonorthologous se- quence in the human
genome, L1 repeat or otherwise, existed in recent human evolution
that could have served as the source sequence for a putative gene
conversion event that replaced the HERV-K-GC1 provirus specifi-
cally within the human lineage, even an event that replaced as
little as 20 bp on either side of the 9.5 kbp HERV-K-GC1 provirus.
Rather, the human locus is clearly more closely related to the
orthologous loci in Pan and Gorilla than it is to any other locus
in the human genome.
In principle, the following gene conversion scenario could have
resulted in the removal of the provirus in the human lineage.
First, the preintegration locus underwent a dupli- cation event in
the common ancestor of Homo, Pan, and Gorilla. Second, the
provirus formed in one of the two copies of the locus by viral
infection of the common ancestor. Next, the Gorilla lineage
diverged from the Pan-Homo common ancestor. Then, the Pan and Homo
lineages diverged. Afterwards, a recombination event reversed the
original locus duplication, restoring a single copy of the locus
without the provirus in the Homo lineage. However, the PCR and
sequencing assays uniformly failed to detect any evidence for the
presence of such a duplicated locus in Gorilla or Pan. Therefore,
in addition to the removal of the provirus specifically in the
Homo lineage, the sce- nario also requires recombination events in
the Pan and Gorilla lineages to eliminate the provirus-free copy
of the locus. Since the Gorilla lineage diverged before the Pan
and Homo lineages separated, this means that indepen- dent
recombination events would have had to occur in both the Pan and
Gorilla lineages. While this scenario can never be formally
excluded, there is a more parsimonious alternative that involves
three fewer recombination events.
The alternative is an allelic segregation model (Figure 2d) in
which the provirus formed in the most recent common ancestor of
Homo, Pan, and Gorilla just before the three lineages separated.
The provirus allele was fixed in the Gorilla lineage. Both alleles
were then maintained in the Pan-Homo common ancestor until the
individual lineages diverged. The provirus allele was fixed in the
Pan lineage, while the preintegration site allele was fixed in the
Homo lineage. The allelic segregation model is more parsimoni- ous
than the gene conversion scenario because it does not require the
locus duplication event in the common ancestor or the two
independent losses of the duplicated locus in the Gorilla and Pan
lineages. In addition, the possibility that humans diverged first,
the provirus formed next, and the gorilla-chimpanzee divergence
occurred last is extremely unlikely given the greatest sequence
similarity between chimpanzees and humans at most loci [1�4].
Rather, the presence of HERV-K-GC1 in gorillas and chimpanzees,
but not humans, is best explained by the maintenance of the
preintegration site in the human lineage since before the time
when the provirus formed in the common ancestor of chimpanzees and
gorillas. This leads to the conclusion that, for some fraction of
the ge- nome, the gorilla and chimpanzee genomes are more closely
related to each other than either is to humans. Furthermore, the
number of shared derived differences linking chimpanzees with
gorillas (seven in 2852 bp) sug- gests that relatively divergent
haplotypes existed in the last common ancestor of the three modern
genera, which is indicative of a large effective population size.
This is similar to the pattern observed in extant great apes, in
which haplotypes differing by up to nine substitutions per kb are
found within populations of chimpanzees or gorillas [18, 19] and
are consistent with recent estimates of the effective population
size of the last common ances- tor of humans and chimpanzees [4].
The precise details of the nature of the phylogenetic separation
of humans from the African great apes has remained uncertain.
Genetic studies indicated that humans and chimpanzees are the most
closely related pair for much of the genome [1�4]. However, for
some fraction of the genome, they are not [1, 3, 4]. Such data are
consis- tent with a model in which alleles segregated differently
among the three eventual lineages [1, 4, 19�21]. Some alleles that
were polymorphic in the common ancestor of gorilla, chimpanzees,
and humans became fixed within the common ancestor of humans and
chimpanzees before the latter two lineages separated. This, along
with new mutations in the human-chimpanzee common ancestor,
accounts for the higher genetic relatedness of chimpan- zees and
humans that appears to encompass the majority of the genome [1, 3,
4]. However, at positions in the genome where allelism was
maintained throughout the period of existence of the
human-chimpanzee common ancestor, some of the same alleles that
became fixed in the gorilla lineage may also have been fixed in
only one of the human or chimpanzee lineages. The HERV-K- GC1
provirus provides a compelling piece of evidence for such a model,
as it is the clearest example to date of a specific locus within
the genome where chimpanzees and gorillas are more closely related
to each other than either is to humans. Moreover, since neutral
alleles are maintained in a population for only a limited time
that depends on the size of the population [4, 19�24], the data
presented here imply that the separation of the Homo, Pan, and
Gorilla lineages occurred within a period of time that was
sufficiently short for such allelism to be main- tained. The
significance of the work presented here is the demonstration of
the utility of HERV-K as a marker for studying human evolution,
the conclusion thatHERV-K was active at about the time that the
three lineages were evolutionarily separating, and the very strong
experimen- tal evidence that, in some fraction of the genome,
chim- panzees, bonobos, and gorillas are more closely related to
each other than any of them is to humans. HERV-K and other
retrotransposable elements should contribute to de- termining what
that fraction is.
Acknowledgements
Ape tissue samples were kindly provided by Stanford University,
the Yerkes Regional Primate Center, the Henry Doorly Zoo, and the
Milwaukee County Zoo. This work was supported by research grant
CA44822 and training grants GM07491 and CA09060 from the National
Institutes of Health.
References
1. Satta Y, Klein J, Takahata N: DNA archives and our nearest
relative: the trichotomy problem revisited. Mol Phylogenet Evol
2000, 14:259-275.
2. Goodman M, Porter CA, Czelusniak J, Page SL, Schneider H,
Shoshani J, et al.: Toward a phylogenetic classification of
Primates based on DNA evidence complemented by fossil evidence.
Mol Phylogenet Evol 1998, 9:585-598.
3. Ruvolo M: Molecular phylogeny of the hominoids: inferences from
multiple independent DNA sequence data sets. Mol Biol Evol 1997,
14:248-265.
4. Chen FC, Li WH: Genomic divergences between humans and other
hominoids and the effective population size of the common ancestor
of humans and chimpanzees. Amer J Hum Gen 2001, 68:444-456.
5. Stoneking M, Fontius JJ, Clifford SL, Soodyall H, Arcot SS,
Saha N, et al.: Alu insertion polymorphisms and human evolution:
evidence for a larger population size in Africa. Genome Res 1997,
7:1061-1071.
6. Hamdi H, Nishio H, Zielinski R, Dugaiczyk A: Origin and
phylogenetic distribution of Alu DNA repeats: irreversible events
in the evolution of primates. J Mol Biol 1999, 289:861- 871.
7. Boeke JD, Stoye JP: Retrotransposons, endogenous retroviruses,
and the evolution of retroelements. In Retroviruses. Edited by
Coffin JM, Hughes SH, and Varmus HE. Cold Spring Harbor, NY: Cold
Spring Harbor Laboratory Press; 1997:343-435.
8. Withers-Ward ES, Kitamura Y, Barnes JP, Coffin JM: Distribution
of targets for avian retrovirus DNA integration in vivo. Genes Dev
1994, 8:1473-1487.
9. Ono M: Molecular cloning and long terminal repeat sequences of
human endogenous retrovirus genes related to types A and B
retrovirus genes. J Virol 1986, 58:937-944.
10. Mariani-Costantini R, Horn TM, Callahan R: Ancestry of a human
endogenous retrovirus family. J Virol 1989, 63:4982-4985.
11. Steinhuber S, Brack M, Hunsmann G, Schwelberger H, Dierich MP,
Vogetseder W: Distribution of human endogenous retrovirus HERV-K
genomes in humans and different primates. Hum Genet 1995,
96:188-192.
12. Dangel AW, Mendoza AR, Baker BJ, Daniel CM, Carroll MC, Wu LC,
et al.: The dichotomous size variation of human complement C4
genes is mediated by a novel family of endogenous retroviruses,
which also establishes species- specific genomic patterns among
Old World primates. Immunogenetics 1994, 40:425-436.
13. Simpson GR, Patience C, Lower R, Tonjes RR, Moore HD, Weiss
RA, et al.: Endogenous D-type (HERV-K) related sequences are
packaged into retroviral particles in the placenta and possess
open reading frames for reverse transcriptase. Virology 1996,
222:451-456.
14. Barbulescu M, Turner G, Seaman MI, Deinard AS, Kidd KK, Lenz
J: Many human endogenous retrovirus K (HERV-K) proviruses are
unique to humans. Curr Biol 1999, 9:861-868.
15. Medstrand P, Mager DL: Human-specific integrations of the
HERV-K endogenous retrovirus family. J Virol 1998, 72:9782- 9787.
16. Li J, Shen H, Himmel KL, Dupuy AJ, Largaespada DA, Nakamura T,
et al.: Leukaemia disease genes: large-scale cloning and pathway
predictions. Nat Genet 1999, 23:348-353.
17. Tonjes RR, Czauderna F, Kurth R: Genome-wide screening,
cloning, chromosomal assignment, and expression of full- length
human endogenous retrovirus type K. J Virol 1999, 73:9187-9195.
18. Deinard AS, Kidd KK: Identifying conservation units within
captive chimpanzee populations. Amer J Phys Anthropol 2000,
111:25-44.
19. Deinard A, Kidd K: Evolution of a HOXB6 intergenic region
dewithin the great apes and humans. J Hum Evol 1999, 36:687- 703.
20. Pamilo P, Nei M: Relationships between gene trees and species
trees. Mol Biol Evol 1998, 5:568-583.
21. Wu CI: Inferences of species phylogeny in relation to
segregation of ancient polymorphisms. Genetics 1991, 127:429-435.
22. Takahata N: Allelic genealogy and human evolution. Mol Biol
Evol 1993, 10:2-22.
23. Kaessmann H, Wiebe V, Pa�a�bo S: Extensive nuclear DNA
sequence diversity among chimpanzees. Science 1999, 286:1159-1162.
24. Garner KJ, Ryder OA: Mitochondrial DNA diversity in gorillas.
Mol Phylogenet Evol 1996, 6:39-48.
Addresses: Department of Molecular Genetics, Albert Einstein
College of Medicine, 1300 Morris Park Avenue, Bronx, New York
10461, USA. Department of Genetics. Department of Anthropology,
Yale University School of Medicine, 333 Cedar Street, New Haven,
Connecticut 06520, USA Correspondence: Jack Lenz E-mail:
le...@aecom.yu.edu
These authors contributed equally to this manuscript. Present
addresses: kHuman and Molecular Genetics Center, Medical College
of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53226, USA. # School of
Veterinary Medicine, University of California, Davis, Davis,
California 95616, USA.
Received: 21 August 2000 Revised: 22 February 2001 Accepted: 28
February 2001 Published: 15 May 2001 Current Biology 2001,
11:779�783 0960-9822/01/$ � see front matter 2001 Elsevier Science
Ltd. All rights reserved.
Figure 1
PCR amplification of HERV-K-GC1 from primate genomic DNAs. Species
abbreviations are: M.m., Macaca mulatta; P.py., Pongo pygmaeus;
G.g., Gorilla gorilla; P.pa., Pan paniscus; P.t., Pan troglodytes;
and H.s., Homo sapiens. (a) A map of the HERV-KGC1 preintegration
and proviral loci. Arrows show the positions of PCR primers used
in this study. Primers within HERV-K were from Barbulescu et al.
[14]. Those from the flanking sequences were based on the human
sequence from BAC RPCI11�500M8 (GenBank Accession number
AC005832). Macaca mulatta lacks a stretch of about 600 bp relative
to the hominoid species near primer 39f. The white boxes indicate
the 5 bp target sequence that was duplicated during the
integration of HERV-K-GC1. The black rectangles denote the HERV-K
long terminal repeats (LTRs). (b) PCR amplification of the
provirus junctions and preintegration site. Each lane shows the
products from a different individual of the indicated species. M,
marker. (c) PCR amplification of the HERVK- GC1 provirus and
preintegration site using different primer pairs in one individual
of each of the indicated species.
Figure 2
Sequences flanking the HERV-K-GC1 insertion site in different
primate species. Sequences were entered into GenBank (Accession
numbers AF294259- AF294264). (a) A diagram showing the sequenced
region relative to the position of the provirus in Gorilla and
Pan. The numbers to the left of each line show the differences
between the corresponding sequence and the human sequence, in
which each substitution, insertion, or deletion relative to human
was counted as one difference. The black rectangles indicate the
HERV-K long terminal repeats (LTRs). The white boxes indicate the
5 bp (ATTAT) that were duplicated flanking the provirus in Gorilla
and Pan. These are present only once in Homo, Pongo, and Macaca.
The 5 bp sequence is present at nucleotide 173,033 of version
AC005832.1 of the BAC. GENSCAN 1.0 analysis of the human BAC
predicted the presence of a gene similar to one of unknown
function predicted within the Drosophila melanogaster genome
(CG9986, GenBank Accession numbers AAF56802) z2 kb downstream of
the position of the provirus in Gorilla and Pan and in the
opposite transcriptional orientation. RepeatMasker analysis of the
human BAC indicated that there were several L1 sequences and an
Alu element within a 5 kbp stretch surrounding the provirus
insertion site in apes. (b) The sequences corresponding to 165 bp
flanking either side of the provirus. Asterisks indicate the
positions of single base pair substitutions. Deletions in the
indicated species are shown as gaps. (c) Sequences of 40 bp
immediately flanking either side of the provirus. Dots indicate
sequence identity relative to the human sequence. Dashes indicate
the absence of the corresponding nucleotide. The last five
nucleotides of the viral LTRs are shown in the black rectangles.
(d) Segregation of the empty preintegration allele (E) and the
provirus allele (V) in the Homo, Pan, and Gorilla lineages. E 1 V
indicates that both alleles were present in the population of the
cognate species. LCA, last common ancestor.
--
John Harshman
> Was: Re: Is Believing Evolution like believing the World is Flat?
>
> On Fri, 8 Jan 2010 14:31:09 -0800 (PST), Eric Root
> <er...@swva.net> wrote:
>
>> On Jan 8, 4:22 pm, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
>>> On Jan 8, 2:48 pm, Dave Oldridge <doldr...@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:
>>>
>>>> All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote in news:madman-1efe90f5-605b-4702-
>>>> 8ab1-2c759aed6...@z41g2000yqz.googlegroups.com:
>>>>> First we have the ERV's that clearly indicate evolution by common
>>>>> decent could be wrong and now, we have the "Genomic Potential
>>>>> Hypothesis", which is a better explaination for the sudden explosion
>>>>> of life during the cambra then speciation divergence.
>>>> How do ERV's indicate that common descent may be false? We have several
>>>> in common with chimps. How would that happen EXCEPT by common descent?
>>> Right. We do.
>>>
>>> However, If chimps are closer to humans than to gorillas, but Gorillas
>>> and Chimps can not share an ERV unless the ERV is also present in
>>> humans because they all share a common ancestor, then finding an ERV
>>> in chimps and gorillas, but not in humans falsifies evolution.
>
>> Nope. It just means that we were wrong about which primates were most
>> related.
>
> A HERV-K provirus in chimpanzees, bonobos and gorillas, but not
> humans
> Several possibilities were considered to explain how a provirus
> could be present in Gorilla and Pan but be absent in Homo.
[snip]
I pick this one:
hersheyh
That makes two of us (well, it is also the choice of the authors of
the paper), now that I see more of their evidence. Chosen for the
simple reason that it is the most parsimonious explanation (see
Ockham), as the authors point out.
As they also point out, this explanation is in agreement with the
other evidence that the three-way split between the populations that
produced the lineages leading to modern gorilla, the two chimpanzees,
and humans occurred in a relatively (on a geological time-scale) short
time frame.
Now all the all-seeing one needs to present is a testable explanation
that is more parsimonious. 'Goddidit', not being a testable
explanation, since it can explain anything and its opposite, does not
seem to be such an explanation.
Caranx latus
<snip>
> If the sumerian tales are correct, you were made from Enki's sperm,
> the ovum of an ape and then implanted into Nammu.
There are *no* Sumerian texts that carry that story.
<snip>
Ye Old One
Nothing like going to a respected source is there Mudbrain?
And quoting a nutter like Michael Tellinger is nothing like going to a
respected source.
>
>Dark red blood is almost black.
Is it?
>
>If the sumerian tales are correct,
They are not, and as far as I can tell this is NOT a sumerian tale.
> you were made from Enki's sperm,
>the ovum of an ape and then implanted into Nammu. They tried
>copulation with female apes first but the results were deformed. They
>could not talk; Legs were bent.
>
>You were made to be a worker. A slave.
You are totally nuts.
>
>If true,
It isn't.
> That means apes are not your common ancestor.
All us apes share a common ancestor.
> An apes is your
>ancestoral mother.
Yes, my mother, just like yours, is an ape.
>
>How about THAT.
--
Bob.
You have not been charged for this lesson - learn from it rather than
continuing to make a fool of yourself.
Mark Isaak
You need to read your ancient texts again. They don't say that.
Incidentally, 2006 does not qualify as "ancient".
Ye Old One
<ap...@email.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
You really do need to learn what 'inference' actually means.
>
>Next. Why do you ask for a natural science explaination of the
>supernatural when you already know one cannot be offered? How
>dishonest of you.
No dishonesty involved, well, apart from yours.
--
Bob.
You are depriving a village somewhere of an idiot.
Ye Old One
>All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote in news:madman-bcbc3c1c-4c6e-46f1-
>b59b-204...@26g2000yqo.googlegroups.com:
>
>>On Jan 8, 10:260m, Dave Oldridge <doldr...@leavethisoutshaw.ca>
>>wrote:
>>> All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote in news:madman-f557cc18-bbe9-
>4e20-
>>> a9a4-836241eda...@s31g2000yqs.googlegroups.com:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> >On Jan 8, 2:480m, Dave Oldridge <doldr...@leavethisoutshaw.ca>
>wrote:
>>> >> All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote in news:madman-1efe90f5-605b-
>>> 4702-
>>> >> 8ab1-2c759aed6...@z41g2000yqz.googlegroups.com:
>>>
>>> >> >First we have the ERV's that clearly indicate evolution by common
>>> >> >decent could be wrong and now, we have the "Genomic Potential
>>> >> >Hypothesis", which is a better explaination for the sudden
>explosion
>>> >> >of life during the cambra then speciation divergence.
>>>
>>> >> How do ERV's indicate that common descent may be false? e have
>>> several
>>> >> in common with chimps. ow would that happen EXCEPT by common
>>> descent?
>>>
>>> >Right. We do.
>>>
>>> >However, If chimps are closer to humans than to gorillas, but
>Gorillas
>>> >and Chimps can not share an ERV unless the ERV is also present in
>>> >humans because they all share a common ancestor, then finding an ERV
>>> >in chimps and gorillas, but not in humans falsifies evolution.
>>>
>>> No necesarily. t might just mean that we have the tree wrong in that
>>> place. But can you actually find such an ERV? hat is to say, one
>that
>>> is unequivocally in the same location in chimps and gorillas but
>totally
>>> and seamlessly absent in humans?
>>
>>I did not find it. Science did. It is a HERV-K provirus.
>>http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0960982201002275
>>
>>" precise details of the nature of the evolutionary separation of the
>>lineage leading to humans from those leading to the African great apes
>>have remained uncertain"
>>
>>How much more clear can that be?
>
>It says exactly what I said above. Not what you said. I cannot access
>the full paper,
[snip]
--
Bob.
Ye Old One
<hers...@yahoo.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>On Jan 9, 5:24�am, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
>> On Jan 8, 10:26�pm, Dave Oldridge <doldr...@leavethisoutshaw.ca>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> > All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote in news:madman-f557cc18-bbe9-4e20-
>> > a9a4-836241eda...@s31g2000yqs.googlegroups.com:
>>
>> > >On Jan 8, 2:48�pm, Dave Oldridge <doldr...@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:
>> > >> All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote in news:madman-1efe90f5-605b-
>> > 4702-
>> > >> 8ab1-2c759aed6...@z41g2000yqz.googlegroups.com:
>>
>> > >> >First we have the ERV's that clearly indicate evolution by common
>> > >> >decent could be wrong and now, we have the "Genomic Potential
>> > >> >Hypothesis", which is a better explaination for the sudden explosion
>> > >> >of life during the cambra then speciation divergence.
>>
>> > >> How do ERV's indicate that common descent may be false? �We have
>> > several
>> > >> in common with chimps. �How would that happen EXCEPT by common
>> > descent?
>>
>> > >Right. We do.
>>
>> > >However, If chimps are closer to humans than to gorillas, but Gorillas
>> > >and Chimps can not share an ERV unless the ERV is also present in
>> > >humans because they all share a common ancestor, then finding an ERV
>> > >in chimps and gorillas, but not in humans falsifies evolution.
>>
>> > No necesarily. �It might just mean that we have the tree wrong in that
>> > place. But can you actually find such an ERV? �That is to say, one that
>> > is unequivocally in the same location in chimps and gorillas but totally
>> > and seamlessly absent in humans?
>>
>> I did not find it. Science did. It is a HERV-K provirus.http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0960982201002275
>>
>> " precise details of the nature of the evolutionary separation of the
>> lineage leading to humans from those leading to the African great apes
>> have remained uncertain"
>>
>> How much more clear can that be?
>
>I am assuming that you only read the abstract rather than the actual
>paper. That also is all I have to go on right now, since I am
>unwilling to pony up for the paper.
I think you will find the paper here:-
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=MImg&_imagekey=B6VRT-433PCG6-S-1&_cdi=6243&_user=10&_orig=search&_coverDate=05%2F15%2F2001&_sk=999889989&view=c&wchp=dGLbVtz-zSkzk&md5=e4bc36381e43ac130bcd79afb2c7fa6d&ie=/sdarticle.pdf
or http://tinyurl.com/y9k9tx2
> I can think of at least three
>possible *natural* explanations, none of which involve inventing a
>fairy to do the job. All of which involve known observed natural
>mechanisms.
>
>You, OTOH, have to invent an invisible and untestable supernatural
>fairy that can do whatever you want it to in order to get your
>mechanism. I certainly agree that if one wants a non-useful pseudo-
>explanation that can explain anything, a useless fool can always
>invent such a useful tool (the magical fairy) to create a useless and
>worthless pseudo-explanation. 'Godidit' can explain anything and its
>opposite.
>
>>
--
Bob.
Desertphile
> On Jan 9, 5:24�am, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
> > On Jan 8, 10:26�pm, Dave Oldridge <doldr...@leavethisoutshaw.ca>
> > wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > > All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote in news:madman-f557cc18-bbe9-4e20-
> > > a9a4-836241eda...@s31g2000yqs.googlegroups.com:
> >
> > > >On Jan 8, 2:48�pm, Dave Oldridge <doldr...@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:
> > > >> All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote in news:madman-1efe90f5-605b-
> > > 4702-
> > > >> 8ab1-2c759aed6...@z41g2000yqz.googlegroups.com:
> >
> > > >> >First we have the ERV's that clearly indicate evolution by common
> > > >> >decent could be wrong and now, we have the "Genomic Potential
> > > >> >Hypothesis", which is a better explaination for the sudden explosion
> > > >> >of life during the cambra then speciation divergence.
> >
> > > >> How do ERV's indicate that common descent may be false? �We have
> > > several
> > > >> in common with chimps. �How would that happen EXCEPT by common
> > > descent?
> >
> > > >Right. We do.
> >
> > > >However, If chimps are closer to humans than to gorillas, but Gorillas
> > > >and Chimps can not share an ERV unless the ERV is also present in
> > > >humans because they all share a common ancestor, then finding an ERV
> > > >in chimps and gorillas, but not in humans falsifies evolution.
> >
> > > No necesarily. �It might just mean that we have the tree wrong in that
> > > place. But can you actually find such an ERV? �That is to say, one that
> > > is unequivocally in the same location in chimps and gorillas but totally
> > > and seamlessly absent in humans?
> >
> > I did not find it. Science did. It is a HERV-K provirus.http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0960982201002275
> >
> > " precise details of the nature of the evolutionary separation of the
> > lineage leading to humans from those leading to the African great apes
> > have remained uncertain"
> >
> > How much more clear can that be?
> I am assuming that you only read the abstract rather than the actual
> paper. That also is all I have to go on right now, since I am
> unwilling to pony up for the paper.
The article has been posted in full, sans images, yesterday.
> I can think of at least three
> possible *natural* explanations, none of which involve inventing a
> fairy to do the job. All of which involve known observed natural
> mechanisms.
>
> You, OTOH, have to invent an invisible and untestable supernatural
> fairy that can do whatever you want it to in order to get your
> mechanism. I certainly agree that if one wants a non-useful pseudo-
> explanation that can explain anything, a useless fool can always
> invent such a useful tool (the magical fairy) to create a useless and
> worthless pseudo-explanation. 'Godidit' can explain anything and its
> opposite.
Desertphile
Desertphile
<ap...@email.com> wrote:
> I read the entire paper.
And you failed to understand it.
> I posted the gist:
Idiot.
> "precise details of the nature of the evolutionary separation of
> the lineage leading to humans from those leading to the African great
> apes have remained uncertain"
Yes, and it always will be. Now then: produce evidence to support
your absurd claim that ERVs are evidence AGAINST common descent.
Desertphile
It appears to match the other evidence. Maybe we should vote on
it, like they voted over Jesus being a god....
chris thompson
>
>
>
> > On Jan 9, 5:24�am, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jan 8, 10:26�pm, Dave Oldridge <doldr...@leavethisoutshaw.ca>
> > > wrote:
>
> > > > All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote in news:madman-f557cc18-bbe9-4e20-
> > > > a9a4-836241eda...@s31g2000yqs.googlegroups.com:
>
> > > > >On Jan 8, 2:48�pm, Dave Oldridge <doldr...@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:
> > > > >> All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote in news:madman-1efe90f5-605b-
> > > > 4702-
> > > > >> 8ab1-2c759aed6...@z41g2000yqz.googlegroups.com:
>
> > > > >> >First we have the ERV's that clearly indicate evolution by common
> > > > >> >decent could be wrong and now, we have the "Genomic Potential
> > > > >> >Hypothesis", which is a better explaination for the sudden explosion
> > > > >> >of life during the cambra then speciation divergence.
>
> > > > >> How do ERV's indicate that common descent may be false? �We have
> > > > several
> > > > >> in common with chimps. �How would that happen EXCEPT by common
> > > > descent?
>
> > > > >Right. We do.
>
> > > > >However, If chimps are closer to humans than to gorillas, but Gorillas
> > > > >and Chimps can not share an ERV unless the ERV is also present in
> > > > >humans because they all share a common ancestor, then finding an ERV
> > > > >in chimps and gorillas, but not in humans falsifies evolution.
>
> > > > place. But can you actually find such an ERV? �That is to say, one that
> > > > is unequivocally in the same location in chimps and gorillas but totally
> > > > and seamlessly absent in humans?
>
> > > I did not find it. Science did. It is a HERV-K provirus.http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0960982201002275
>
> > > lineage leading to humans from those leading to the African great apes
> > > have remained uncertain"
>
>
> > I am assuming that you only read the abstract rather than the actual
> > paper. �That also is all I have to go on right now, since I am
> > possible *natural* explanations, none of which involve inventing a
> > fairy to do the job. �All of which involve known observed natural
> > mechanisms.
>
> > You, OTOH, have to invent an invisible and untestable supernatural
> > fairy that can do whatever you want it to in order to get your
> > mechanism. �I certainly agree that if one wants a non-useful pseudo-
> > explanation that can explain anything, a useless fool can always
> > invent such a useful tool (the magical fairy) to create a useless and
> > worthless pseudo-explanation. 'Godidit' can explain anything and its
> > opposite.
>
> > > > >> >theories for the origins of species? And that as long as there are
> > > > >> >other theories for the origins of species then the idea of common
> > > > >> >decent will be just that; Nothing more then an idea.
>
> > > > >> Because the "other theories" presented are based on misrepresentation
> > > > of
> > > > >> the actual facts.
>
> > > > >> >Do they believe they will sail off the edge of the earth by letting
> > > > go
> > > > >> >of a 200 year old idea?
>
> > > > >> >Sure seem like it
>
> > > > >> You seem to be of the opinion that you will sail off the edge if you
> > > > >> abandon a 400 year old idea that was originally framed to justify a
> > > > >> rebellion against God and His Church. �Maybe you will--off an edge
> > > > that
> > > > >> is 90 degrees to everything else and into hell.
>
> > > > >What 400 year old idea would that be?
>
> > > > The literal inerrancy of scripture. �Actually, it never really achieved
> > > > the form your cult worships it in until the 19th century.
>
> > > evidence?
>
> > > > -
>
> > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
>
>
> "" precise details of the nature of the evolutionary separation of
> the
> lineage leading to humans from those leading to the African great
> apes
> have remained uncertain"
That is not by any means the point of the paper. The gist is that
there's a particular retrovirus that does not follow the expected
pattern. The authors propose several mechanisms by which such an
anomaly can occur. Can you do the same? Of course you can. But can you
back up your claims with evidence and logic? Doubtful.
Chris
bpuharic
wrote:
>On Jan 8, 7:57�pm, bpuharic <w...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> >> It's not "denied". �It's dismissed due to lack of testable evidence.
>> >> I know that's a difficult concept to wrap your brain around, since one
>> >> neuron can only go so far, but it really is that simple.
>>
>> >Gee. THTAS funny. Where is your "testable" evidence for divergence?
>>
>> MRSA.
>>
>> now, then, where's your evidence for angels and demons?
>
>ASS-I(diot) has developed a new escape mechanism:
>
>"Evidence?"
>
>Even after it's been presented before, he will keep asking for the
>same "evidence", over and over again. He can delude himself all he
>wants by telling himself that no evidence has been presented, and then
>keep demanding "evidence" like a stuck record.
>
>
>Boikat
don't forget his all purpose:
YOU NEED HELP! AND A STRAIGHT JACKET!
etc. etc...
Dave Oldridge
news:at5kk590qe0ichceh...@4ax.com:
>http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=MImg&_imagekey=B6VRT-433PCG6-S-
>1&_cdi=6243&_user=10&_orig=search&_coverDate=05%2F15%2F2001&_sk=99988998
>9&view=c&wchp=dGLbVtz-zSkWz&md5=e4bc36381e43ac130bcd79afb2c7fa6d&ie=/sda
>rticle.pdf
Thank you.
--
Dave Oldridge+
Eric Root
> On Jan 8, 4:31�pm, Eric Root <er...@swva.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jan 8, 4:22�pm, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jan 8, 2:48�pm, Dave Oldridge <doldr...@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:
>
> > > > All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote in news:madman-1efe90f5-605b-4702-
> > > > 8ab1-2c759aed6...@z41g2000yqz.googlegroups.com:
>
> > > > >First we have the ERV's that clearly indicate evolution by common
> > > > >decent could be wrong and now, we have the "Genomic Potential
> > > > >Hypothesis", which is a better explaination for the sudden explosion
> > > > >of life during the cambra then speciation divergence.
>
> > > > How do ERV's indicate that common descent may be false? �We have several
> > > > in common with chimps. �How would that happen EXCEPT by common descent?
>
> > > Right. We do.
>
> > > However, If chimps are closer to humans than to gorillas, but Gorillas
> > > and Chimps can not share an ERV unless the ERV is also present in
> > > humans because they all share a common ancestor, then finding an ERV
> > > in chimps and gorillas, but not in humans falsifies evolution.
>
>
> So now chimps, apes and humans are NOT related? �
Huh? Of course they are related. How could you screw up and come up
with a mistake like that?
> Are you reading
> Chris?
>
Am I reading Chris? What's that supposed to mean?
> >it says nothing at all about the validity of evolution.
> > Your mistake is like saying that, if we find we were wrong about the
> > sequences of battlefield commands at the Battle of Waterloom, then
> > history is totally false and everything happens all at once.
>
> > (snip)
No response?
>
> > Eric Root- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> I am begining to think all that is necessary to believe evolution is
> an ability to decieve oneself.
>
Thoughts come into your head without relation to what goes on around
you?
> Think.
>
> If humans and apes and chimps originate from a Single Common Ancestor
> but, there is an ERV in the K family that is present in apes and
> chimps but not present in humans....
>
> WTF does that tell ya?
What do you think it indicates?
Eric Root
hersheyh
> orhttp://tinyurl.com/y9k9tx2
>
> > �I can think of at least three
> >possible *natural* explanations, none of which involve inventing a
> >fairy to do the job. �All of which involve known observed natural
> >mechanisms.
>
> >You, OTOH, have to invent an invisible and untestable supernatural
> >fairy that can do whatever you want it to in order to get your
> >mechanism. �I certainly agree that if one wants a non-useful pseudo-
> >explanation that can explain anything, a useless fool can always
> >invent such a useful tool (the magical fairy) to create a useless and
> >worthless pseudo-explanation. 'Godidit' can explain anything and its
> >opposite.
>
> --
> Bob.
Read it. Although ASI didn't ask, my three possible natural
explanations were:
1. Despite the preponderance of other sequence evidence supporting the
idea that gorillas diverged first from a (human, chimp) ancestor with
subsequent splitting of that ancestor into lineages leading to modern
(and several now extinct) human species and the two modern chimp
species, the actual split was of a (chimp,gorilla) ancestor from the
human lineage. Although there are a subset of markers that indicate
the latter, there are simple natural explanations (see 3) for this,
and unlike viral integration, single nucleotide reversions or
independent same-site changes are common. This is *highly* unlikely,
but not impossible.
2. Loss of the virus in the human lineage. As the authors point out,
there are known natural mechanisms that can produce this, but they are
rare. This is unlikely (but not as *highly* unlikely as #1 and #3),
but not impossible.
[Let me add a fourth possible explanation, just for fun.]
3. Because retrovirus integration is only quasi-random, within certain
general biases, it is (barely) possible that the chimp site involved a
second integration that 'just happened' to be in the same position as
the earlier gorilla insertion. This is also *highly* unlikely.
4. Allelic segregation and subsequent fixation. That is, the
ancestral populations from which the gorilla and (chimp,human)
lineages derived was polymorphic wrt this viral integration site.
Think of it as the equivalent of ABO blood types in humans, but with a
trait that was selectively neutral and could be lost or kept without
consequence. In the gorilla lineage the allele with the virus became
fixed (or the population that became this lineage had no 'absent'
allele as a founder effect). In the lineage that subsequently split
into human and chimp lineages, both alleles were present (+ and - the
integrated virus) -- that is, it was polymorphic. In the chimp
lineage, the + form became fixed (probably by neutral drift). In the
human, the - form became fixed. This is obviously the most
parsimonious natural explanation, requiring only standard population
genetics and neutral drift. It is also a common explanation for many
of the other 'deviations' from the gorilla first, chimp and human
later modern consensus.
What is not considered is ASIs alternative 'pseudo-explanation' that
an invisible undetectable fairy magically poofed modern chimps (both
species), modern gorilla, and modern human into existence in their
present form with this difference from expectation being the only
signature of design. That is simply not a natural explanation, has no
supporting material evidence, and could equally well be used to
explain any combination whatsoever (i.e., it is untestable). IOW,
this is a completely worthless explanation.
Otto
news:Xns9CFA8239BF7B0...@69.16.185.250...
> All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote in news:madman-1efe90f5-605b-4702-
> 8ab1-2c7...@z41g2000yqz.googlegroups.com:
>
>>First we have the ERV's that clearly indicate evolution by common
>>decent could be wrong and now, we have the "Genomic Potential
>>Hypothesis", which is a better explaination for the sudden explosion
>>of life during the cambra then speciation divergence.
>
> How do ERV's indicate that common descent may be false? We have several
> in common with chimps. How would that happen EXCEPT by common descent?
We have an overwhelming percentage of our genome in common with worms, fruit
flies, and what more. Not only with chimps.
BTW, could you explain to me why they always use the word "descent" while
drawing an evolutionary tree which shows us at the top ?
Otto
TomS
<hjkdgb$odi$1...@speranza.aioe.org>, Otto stated..."
[...snip...]
>BTW, could you explain to me why they always use the word "descent" while
>drawing an evolutionary tree which shows us at the top ?
An evolutionary tree should not show any species at the "top". It
should show all species which have not changed into a new species
(those which are still alive, or have gone extinct without having
followers) at the "end" of a branch.
Well, if "up" on the tree is "later in time", then the most-recently
evolved species would be at the top, but even then, as Homo sapiens
is not the most-recently evolved species, it wouldn't be at the top.
And there should be no reason for having "later in time" being "up",
"down", "right", "left". Or even, as some diagrams do nowadays, the
tree is drawn in a disk, with "more recently evolved" being "outward".
I know that some old 19th century diagrams of evolution, there was
a preferential status given to humans, and the tree was drawn as a
"woody plant" with humans at the top.
--
---Tom S.
the failure to nail currant jelly to a wall is not due to the nail; it is due to
the currant jelly.
Theodore Roosevelt, Letter to William Thayer, 1915 July 2
Spootnick
news:madman-1efe90f5-605b-...@z41g2000yqz.googlegroups.com...
> First we have the ERV's that clearly indicate evolution by common
> decent could be wrong and now, we have the "Genomic Potential
> Hypothesis", which is a better explaination for the sudden explosion
> of life during the cambra then speciation divergence.
>
> theories for the origins of species? And that as long as there are
> other theories for the origins of species then the idea of common
> decent will be just that; Nothing more then an idea.
>
> of a 200 year old idea?
>
> Sure seem like it
>
> Leading the way to truth, is...
>
> The All Seeing I
>
IMHO, "believing evolution" *is* "like believing the world is flat."
Why ? Because you shouldn't *believe* in evolution. If you do, then
evolution is a religion to you. And that's the last thing it should be
according to science, isn't it ?
Sorry for raking this up....
Otto
Desertphile
<Ot...@ottolovesrisotto.com> wrote:
> "Dave Oldridge" <dold...@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote in news message
> news:Xns9CFA8239BF7B0...@69.16.185.250...
> > All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote in news:madman-1efe90f5-605b-4702-
> > 8ab1-2c7...@z41g2000yqz.googlegroups.com:
> >
> >>First we have the ERV's that clearly indicate evolution by common
> >>decent could be wrong and now, we have the "Genomic Potential
> >>Hypothesis", which is a better explaination for the sudden explosion
> >>of life during the cambra then speciation divergence.
> >
> > How do ERV's indicate that common descent may be false? We have several
> > in common with chimps. How would that happen EXCEPT by common descent?
> We have an overwhelming percentage of our genome in common with worms, fruit
> flies, and what more. Not only with chimps.
Idiot.
Otto
news:9mmrl5tv0m30vv7hh...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 16:31:23 +0100, "Otto"
> <Ot...@ottolovesrisotto.com> wrote:
>
>> "Dave Oldridge" <dold...@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote in news message
>> news:Xns9CFA8239BF7B0...@69.16.185.250...
>> > All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote in news:madman-1efe90f5-605b-4702-
>> > 8ab1-2c7...@z41g2000yqz.googlegroups.com:
>> >
>> >>First we have the ERV's that clearly indicate evolution by common
>> >>decent could be wrong and now, we have the "Genomic Potential
>> >>Hypothesis", which is a better explaination for the sudden explosion
>> >>of life during the cambra then speciation divergence.
>> >
>> > How do ERV's indicate that common descent may be false? We have
>> > several
>> > in common with chimps. How would that happen EXCEPT by common descent?
>
>> We have an overwhelming percentage of our genome in common with worms,
>> fruit
>> flies, and what more. Not only with chimps.
>
> Idiot.
Let's see... you think of yourself as quite some guy.... right ?
You suffer from hypertrophy of the ego, right ?
Otto
Kermit
> "Dave Oldridge" <doldr...@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote in news messagenews:Xns9CFA8239BF7B0...@69.16.185.250...> > 8ab1-2c759aed6...@z41g2000yqz.googlegroups.com:
>
> >>First we have the ERV's that clearly indicate evolution by common
> >>decent could be wrong and now, we have the "Genomic Potential
> >>Hypothesis", which is a better explaination for the sudden explosion
> >>of life during the cambra then speciation divergence.
>
> > How do ERV's indicate that common descent may be false? �We have several
> > in common with chimps. �How would that happen EXCEPT by common descent?
>
> We have an overwhelming percentage of our genome in common with worms, fruit
> flies, and what more. Not only with chimps.
True. But we have *more in common with chimps than with barbary apes,
and more in common with them than with wolves, and more in common with
them than with lobe-finned fish, etc. Morphology and genomes form a
nested hierarchy - pretty much the same one Linnaeus came up with.
>
> BTW, could you explain to me why they always use the word "descent" while
> drawing an evolutionary tree which shows us at the top ?
We are descendants of our ancestors; these are old words and have a
certain inertia. As for the other, I am guessing that when Linnaeus
and others saw the branching and bifurcating manner of the nested
hierarchy of life, they thought of a tree... which grows upward.
Kermit
>
> Otto
Kermit
> "All-seeing-I" <ap...@email.com> wrote in news messagenews:madman-1efe90f5-605b-...@z41g2000yqz.googlegroups.com...
I disagree. One tactic of the Creationists is that they conflate the
meanings of words.
"Belief" has two usages:
1. Thinking X is true ("I believe India has more citizens than the
USA")
2. Embracing a system of values ("I believe a man should shoot his own
dog.")
If I think X is true I usually have evidence for it, or another
rational reason (I believe cars need to have their oil changed only
every 8000 km or so. I am utterly disinterested in this, but that's
what a preponderance of experts say.)
So I believe the modern synthesis (are they still calling it that?) is
the correct explanation for the variety of life on Earth, and I can
give evidential reasons for it, as well as the support of 99.99% of
the professionals in the field.
I won't give the Creationists the word "belief", anymore than I will
give them science. Can't have it; not theirs.
Just because they believe things contrary to fact for emotional
reasons doesn't mean that everyone who believes something arrives at
that conclusion by the same process.
Kermit
Desertphile
Yes, I'm a guy. Oh wait.... (checking).... yep, still a guy.
> You suffer from hypertrophy of the ego, right ?
No.