Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Human Evolution: Endogenous Retroviruses prove that humans and chimps share a common ancestor.
Gene ^ | 2000 Apr 18 | Lebedev, Y. B. et. al.

Posted on 01/31/2010 9:08:09 AM PST by EnderWiggins

Endogenous retroviruses are the remnant DNA of a past viral infection. Retroviruses (like the AIDS virus or HTLV1, which causes a form of leukemia) make a copy of their own viral DNA and insert it into their host's DNA. This is how they take over the cellular machinery of a cell and use it to manufacture new copies of the virus.

Sometimes, the cell that get’s infected by such a virus is an immature egg cell in the ovary of a female animal. Such cells can be stored in a state of suspended animation or dormancy for as much as 50 years before they complete meiosis and become mature egg cells ready to be fertilized. Because they are dormant gene expression is suppressed and the infection cannot take over the cell and kill it. If that egg later matures and is fertilized, the newborn organism will have that endogenous retrovirus in every one of its cells, and so will all of its descendants.

Every viral infection is unique. The complete genome of an animal is so huge, and the insertion point of a virus’s DNA is so random that it is statistically impossible for any two individuals to have the same exact endogenous retrovirus in the same exact spot on the genome unless they both inherited it from a common ancestor who had the original infection. And the infection of a germ cell is so rare that ERVs make up only somewhere between 1% and 8% of the entire human genome.

If two humans have the same identical ERV, it is proof that they are descended from a common ancestor. And if two different species have the identical ERV, it is proof that they too are descended from a common ancestor. In humans, there are about 30,000 different ERVS embedded in each person's DNA. Except for those later duplicated by a duplication mutation, all of them record unique infections of a single ancestral individual. Now here is where it gets really interesting.

There are at least seven different known instances of shared ERVs between chimps and humans... i.e. ERVs which are the identical viral DNA inserted into the identical spot of the genome. 100% of all chimps and 100% of all humans have these same ERVs. This is only possible if 100% of all chimps and all humans are descended from the single individual that had these original infections.

They are proof that humans and chimps share a common ancestor.

In a 2000 paper published in the journal Gene researchers identified ERVS shared by different primates and used them to assemble a family tree of monkeys apes and humans. Yes... we share ERVs with these lower primates as well. Here is what it looked like:





Figure 4.4.1. Human endogenous retrovirus K (HERV-K) insertions
in identical chromosomal locations in various primates

(Reprinted from Lebedev et al. 2000)


The arrows show the relative insertion times of the viral DNA into the host genome (determined using the “genetic clock” of accumulated later point mutations). All branches to the right carry that ERV - a reflection of the fact that once a retrovirus has inserted into the germ-line DNA of a given organism, it will be inherited by all descendants of that organism.



Reference: Lebedev, Y. B., Belonovitch, O. S., Zybrova, N. V, Khil, P. P., Kurdyukov, S. G., Vinogradova, T. V., Hunsmann, G., and Sverdlov, E. D. (2000) "Differences in HERV-K LTR insertions in orthologous loci of humans and great apes." Gene 247: 265-277.


TOPICS: Science
KEYWORDS: apes; evidence; evolution; godsgravesglyphs; retroviruses
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-90 next last

1 posted on 01/31/2010 9:08:09 AM PST by EnderWiggins
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: EnderWiggins

LOL! They just won’t give up will they?


2 posted on 01/31/2010 9:13:16 AM PST by divine_moment_of_facts (Give me Liberty.. or I'll get up and get it for myself!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: divine_moment_of_facts
LOL! They just won’t give up will they?

Well, they're not content to call something they don't understand "magic".

3 posted on 01/31/2010 9:18:47 AM PST by GeorgeSaden
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: divine_moment_of_facts

Why are you posting a 10 year-old article?

This endogenous retrovirus data is old news.

And why are you LOL? Seems like straightforward science to me.


4 posted on 01/31/2010 9:19:39 AM PST by paterfamilias
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: EnderWiggins

Excellent work.


5 posted on 01/31/2010 9:19:49 AM PST by GeorgeSaden
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EnderWiggins

G-d created that DNA in different species to test your faith....


6 posted on 01/31/2010 9:20:58 AM PST by donmeaker (Invicto)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EnderWiggins

This does not prove anything to me. The one that invented the DNA created the monkey and the Human. Humans are distinct form all his creations on earth.


7 posted on 01/31/2010 9:24:02 AM PST by mountainlion (concerned conservative.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: donmeaker

“G-d created that DNA in different species to test your faith....”

I agree; I also believe that God created a rich evolutionary tapestry to test out intellects (one of His gifts to us) and to challenge our Free Will


8 posted on 01/31/2010 9:24:20 AM PST by paterfamilias
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: divine_moment_of_facts

LOL! They just won’t give up will they?
______________________________________________

With all due respect, comments like yours and other conservatives who laugh at evolution make me want to puke.

Why is it so hard to accept that we are RELATED to other primates? It is not saying that monkeys gave birth to us. It is stating that we are RELATED in our evolution.

Man, have you not ever gone to the zoo and just look at the chimps for a sustained amount of time and think to yourself, some of those actions are human-like?

I know evolution flies in the face of the bible, but lots of things in the old testament are not taken literally.

For example, “The Lord said to Moses, “Tell the Israelites: When a woman has conceived and gives birth to a boy, she shall be unclean for seven days, if she gives birth to a girl, she will be unclean for fourteen days.”
Leviticus 12:1, 12:5

Everyone knows the above is silly. Just as the story of Adam and Eve.

I believe in a higher power, just not the kind that dictates silly stories like the above.

Judi, non-religious, consevative


9 posted on 01/31/2010 9:30:09 AM PST by purpleporter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: EnderWiggins
Evolution, Global Warming = Political Science

If life begats life, how does non-life begat life?

10 posted on 01/31/2010 9:34:14 AM PST by lqcincinnatus (Silence in the face of evil is itself evil.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: divine_moment_of_facts
Let's REALLY confound them ,,,, God SPOKE it all into existence with the exception of MAN.

Thus ... the common denominator is God.

God's DNA migrated to man while God was playing in the mud ... and His Word (which became flesh) also has DNA ... THEREFORE ... the common thread for all that is living is God.

Have at it FreepeRs ... I have no creation/evolution conflict .... but someone might be able to do something with that.

11 posted on 01/31/2010 9:37:00 AM PST by knarf (I say things that are true ... I have no proof ... but they're true)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

sounds like God used a good design for similar created types......

nothing ‘evolutionary’ at all.

but, they have to keep pushing their handwaving, just-so stories.....


12 posted on 01/31/2010 9:43:34 AM PST by raygunfan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: mountainlion
"The one that invented the DNA created the monkey and the Human. Humans are distinct form all his creations on earth."

The DNA disagrees with you.
13 posted on 01/31/2010 12:44:40 PM PST by EnderWiggins
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: paterfamilias
"Why are you posting a 10 year-old article?"

A few reasons:

1. Because it is an great article and worthy of discussion.

2. Because it shows that the proof for human and chimpanzee common ancestry is at least that old, and I'm very interested in how the creationists here try to account for it.

3. Because in my discussions on a couple other threads, it is clear that there are folks here who still have not heard about it.

I'm sure there are others.
14 posted on 01/31/2010 12:49:20 PM PST by EnderWiggins
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: lqcincinnatus
"If life begats life, how does non-life begat life?"

It all depends on what you mean by "life." What most creationists think of when they say "life" is a mystical invention that we have no good reason to believe even exists.

But when scientists speak of "life," they generally do it with the fill understanding that the boundary between life and non-life is arbitrary. Our planet has on it things that are unambiguously living, things that are unambiguously non-living, and things that lie somewhere on a continuum in between.

For example... is a virus "living?" How about a bacterial spore? How about prions?

In short... there is no good reason to accept "life begats [sic] life" as an axiom. It is merely a general rule for which there are exceptions.
15 posted on 01/31/2010 12:56:29 PM PST by EnderWiggins
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: EnderWiggins
That is I think a straw argument. DNA does not agree or disagree with anything, It does what it is programed to do.

Where is another creature that can reason or put a man on the moon. Humans are distinct and separate.

16 posted on 01/31/2010 1:10:52 PM PST by mountainlion (concerned conservative.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: mountainlion
It's not a "straw argument" at all. It is the observation that a serious alternative explanation had not been offered, and so no serious response was warranted.

But as to humans being separate and distinct, what exactly about human reason do you find qualitatively different from all other living things? Certainly we have quantitative gifts, but so do blue whales, cheetahs and bristlecone pines.

Do you honestly believe that other animals do not reason?
17 posted on 01/31/2010 1:24:04 PM PST by EnderWiggins
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: EnderWiggins
This was published in 2000. I wish I had seen it sooner. All this time I thought the Democrats were insulting President George W. Bush when they likened him to a chimpanzee. Now I see it was meant as a compliment.

Democrats of an earlier time were scientific ignoramuses when they compared Abraham Lincoln to a baboon.

18 posted on 01/31/2010 1:26:44 PM PST by Verginius Rufus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: EnderWiggins
I haven't seen a whale on the moon or a monkey invent a Rubik cube.
19 posted on 01/31/2010 4:10:58 PM PST by mountainlion (concerned conservative.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: raygunfan
sounds like God used a good design for similar created types......

Endogenous retroviruses are not "good design", they are similar to spelling mistakes. If two pieces of writing have the same pattern of spelling mistakes, they are related. And you can take that to court.

20 posted on 01/31/2010 6:20:21 PM PST by Oztrich Boy (Don't panic, the lunatics are in charge and have everything in hand.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: mountainlion

I’ve never seen you do those thing either.

I guess that means that Buzz Aldrin and Erno Rubik were created by God separately from the rest of humanity?


21 posted on 01/31/2010 6:52:33 PM PST by EnderWiggins
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: EnderWiggins
They seem to be looking for differences in HERV-K LTR insertions in orthologous loci only in humans and primates.
How about looking for them in, say Ursus spelaeus, the extinct cave bear, or woolly mammoths. They have sequences for both. If even a few HERV-K LTR insertions are the same in such divergent species, then the original study would be moot. I.e. look for - proof as well as + proof.
22 posted on 01/31/2010 6:56:16 PM PST by Kent1957
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kent1957

First and most importantly, what you point out here is that the science here is falsifiable. In other words, were the conclusions false, they would be demonstrated false by exactly the sort of finding you noted; an identical HERV-K LTR insertion in an orthologous locus that did not fit the pattern of descent with modification. it would seem a excellent area of exploration by “ID Scientists” if there actually were such a thing. But there really is no such thing as “ID science” so no such research has been performed.

It would, in fact, only take one such discovery to dismember the argument. And further, it would not even require a look that far afield taxonomically. The same primates examined in the originally paper could have served that had a single one of the HERV-K LTR insertions violated the pattern. And yet, none did.

Yes... the “- proof as well as + proof” that you ask for was pursued by the authors of the original paper. They found only the +.

The ERVs provided two independent but mutually supporting sources of information. Their relative age was determined by the accumulated point mutations. Their pattern of distribution among the primate species was independently identified by actual sequencing. Had they not been genealogically inherited, then there would have been no reason for them to have also correlated perfectly in both time and distribution with the branching sequence of the phylogenetic tree.

Certainly, if another explanation was in the offing, some of the insertions should have been shared by (say) orangutans and humans, but not gorillas. That would have been just as powerful a falsification as finding a recent insertion shared by humans and cave bears. Such insertions were actively looked for.

Yet none were found.

I can assure you that in the decade since this study was published, no contradictory evidence of the sort you describe has been found or published, and thousands of species have been sequenced in the interim.


23 posted on 01/31/2010 7:54:37 PM PST by EnderWiggins
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: knarf

I wonder how their search for that ‘missing link’ is coming along.. It must be frustrating trying so hard to prove we’re just descended from apes. :)


24 posted on 01/31/2010 9:34:49 PM PST by divine_moment_of_facts (Give me Liberty.. or I'll get up and get it for myself!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: EnderWiggins
I don't follow the heard. The nice thing about human reasoning and creativity is that we can all do some thing and not all run over a cliff like some herd mentality. How come after millions of years whales do the same things with little change? Monkeys have hands that could make most of the things we do but they don't
25 posted on 02/01/2010 6:16:33 AM PST by mountainlion (concerned conservative.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: EnderWiggins

I agree that it is a great article. The whole ERV story is quite fascinating to me, and serves as an example of how we are likely to find that “junk DNA” may sometimes be the remnants of ancient viral infections that affected our hominid ancestors.

Similar techniques involving regression analysis of clade variations in HIV strains have allowed scientists to estimate when HIV made the jump from simians to humans.

This concept of remnant DNA being passed along was being discussed in the early 1970’s, when I was an undergraduate biology major. In fact, my Microbiology prof. once facetiously referred to this passed-along DNA as “original sin” (it was a Catholic college, after all).


26 posted on 02/01/2010 6:43:13 AM PST by paterfamilias
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: mountainlion
"How come after millions of years whales do the same things with little change? Monkeys have hands that could make most of the things we do but they don't"

The answer to those questions is actually pretty simple... and it starts by considering a different question:

Why do whales live in the ocean and monkeys live in trees rather than the other way around?

It seems a silly question, but it's not since the answer to leads us to the answers you were looking for. There are many different ways for an organism to make a living. We call them "ecological niches." And different organisms are adapted to different ecological niches, to different ways of making a living.

Whales do the same things they did millions of years ago because the whale niche (actually there are several of them) has not changed. The organisms that live in that niche have changed continuously across time, but the niche persists. So there will almost always be an organism that has evolved to take advantage of it.

Consider for example the niche occupied by Sperm Whales. They are deep divers who subsist primarily on large cephalopods like squid. Millions of years before mammals occupied that niche, it was held by huge seagoing monitor lizards called mosasaurs.

Were sperm whales to become extinct, the niche would be vacant, and some other organism would eventually evolve to occupy it... maybe a gigantic species of penguin. Who knows?

Monkeys don't do what we do because they occupy a different niche (again more than one) than we do.. a small to medium arboreal fruit eating niche. In Madagascar where there no monkeys, lemurs take that role. In Australasia it is occupied by a group of marsupials called Cuscus. In each case they are far better at being monkeys that we ever could be.

So... not only does this answer your question, it also corrects a misconception contained in it; the idea that "little change" is involved.

In point of fact, there has been vast change between the whales and monkeys of today and the whales and monkeys of millions of years ago. They occupy the same niches and so have similar adaptations... but they are certainly not the same whales and monkeys.
27 posted on 02/01/2010 7:37:10 AM PST by EnderWiggins
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: divine_moment_of_facts
"I wonder how their search for that ‘missing link’ is coming along."

What missing link?

"It must be frustrating trying so hard to prove we’re just descended from apes."

Lol... silly Divine. We're not "descended from apes."

We are apes.
28 posted on 02/01/2010 7:41:19 AM PST by EnderWiggins
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Oztrich Boy

but im talking design in general, as far as retroviruses go, again, you not being a believer, dont get the idea of the fall, and the degeneration that resulted in these sorts of viruses, etc.


29 posted on 02/01/2010 9:05:42 AM PST by raygunfan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: EnderWiggins
We are apes.

Speak for yourself! :)
30 posted on 02/01/2010 11:02:10 AM PST by divine_moment_of_facts (Give me Liberty.. or I'll get up and get it for myself!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: divine_moment_of_facts
I wonder how their search for that ‘missing link’ is coming along.. It must be frustrating trying so hard to prove we’re just descended from apes. :)

Well, a biologist would argue that a.) all animals on the greater scale are transitional forms and b.) that "we" (i.e. humans) are not descended from apes (i.e. Hominoidea). We ARE apes.
31 posted on 02/01/2010 11:16:04 AM PST by wolf78 (Inflation is a form of taxation, too. Cranky Libertarian - equal opportunity offender.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: EnderWiggins
"If two humans have the same identical ERV, it is proof that they are descended from a common ancestor. And if two different species have the identical ERV, it is proof that they too are descended from a common ancestor."

Nope. The above is poor logic akin to saying:
"If two software programs have the same identical ERV, it is proof that they are descended from a common program. And if two different Operating Systems have the identical ERV, it is proof that they too are descended from a common program."

Which is to say, the author is dismissing code re-use.

DNA is programming code. To dismiss code re-use is to ignore the entire structure of genes (software sub-routines).

Or to put the above in terms that the simpletonian Darwinists might be able to reach up and grasp: an ERV can be inserted in the lab into the same desired place in an animal's DNA; into multiple species in the same place, in fact...none of which has anything to do with Evolution, but everything to do with routine Intelligent lab work.

32 posted on 02/01/2010 11:26:26 AM PST by Southack (Media Bias means that Castro won't be punished for Cuban war crimes against Black Angolans in Africa)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wolf78

Since when do apes have a conscience?


33 posted on 02/01/2010 1:27:22 PM PST by divine_moment_of_facts (Give me Liberty.. or I'll get up and get it for myself!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: divine_moment_of_facts
Since when do apes have a conscience?

Does that mean that liberals are an evolutionary throw-back?
34 posted on 02/01/2010 1:28:55 PM PST by aruanan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: aruanan
Since when do apes have a conscience?

Does that mean that liberals are an evolutionary throw-back?

Exactly right! ;)
35 posted on 02/01/2010 2:05:33 PM PST by divine_moment_of_facts (Give me Liberty.. or I'll get up and get it for myself!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: purpleporter

Perhaps you puke too easily.


36 posted on 02/01/2010 2:13:26 PM PST by Mr. Lucky
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: paterfamilias
I agree; I also believe that God created a rich evolutionary tapestry to test out intellects (one of His gifts to us) and to challenge our Free Will

No, he created John Calvin, Mohammed, and B.F. Skinner to challenge your free will.
37 posted on 02/01/2010 4:00:39 PM PST by aruanan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Southack
”Which is to say, the author is dismissing code re-use.”

Oh, not even close.

First and foremost, only functional code merits reuse. A good software engineer does not reuse broken or non-functioning code, he removes it. The ERVs in question here do not express at all... they are not genes. This is clear not just because we know the virus that is responsible for the insertion, but also that natural selection is not conserving this DNA.

In actual genes (i.e. genes that express) a significant number of the random point mutations that occur are selected out of the population because they are deleterious. Not all of course, because a certain number are silent, and in any changing environment point mutations have a 50-50 chance of being beneficial. But the deleterious genes are selected out, and as a result the “genetic clock” of expressive genes runs about 30% slower than “junk DNA” where all point mutations accumulate.

These ERVs all have accumulated point mutations at the top rate of non-expressive DNA... so not only are they not “reused code,” they are not code at all.

This is (by the way) the exact same thing we see with human "fossilized genes" for things like smell. Humans possess 100% of the same genes that dogs possess for smell. But most of ours are broken. They still exist, but are no longer functional... having accumulated so many point mutations that they no longer work at all.

Natural selection stopped conserving these genes at the exact same moment we developed the capacity for tricolor vision. Once we were able to see in full color, our sense of smell became unnecessary for finding food, and so it no longer was an advantage to have an acute olfactory sense. Once the deleterious genes stopped being filtered out, these genes decayed at the full rate of the genetic clock. They were no longer "useful code."

Second, the analogy with code reuse is actually an awful one. After all... the only intelligent designers we have to analogize here are human programmers, and the way human programmers use and reuse code bears almost no resemblance to what we see reflected in the genome.

While human programmers absolutely do reuse code, they do not do it in a pattern that could possibly be interpreted as genealogical descent. A useful subroutine may show up in any number of different programs with no regard whatsoever to the larger purpose of the program. If DNA were like a human designed program, we would expect to see one ERV in both capuchin monkeys and humans, while skipping bonobos.

Human technology is contagious, leaping from clade to clade regardless of any overall similarity in technological purpose. It can do this specifically because it is not inherited... it is designed.

There is no reason (if the analogy you are promoting were true) why any ERVs at all should appear and then distribute themselves in a pattern consistent with genealogical descent. Just once or twice would be improbable enough. But 100% of the ERVs we have identified follow that pattern. This raises the explanation of inheritance form a common ancestor unassailable.

This has always been one of the biggest flaws with trying to explain the pattern of homology as “reuse by a common designer.” The only intelligent designer we have to compare the pattern to absolutely does not design that way... in any technology let alone computer programming.

I need to go back on one point... there is another possible explanation that conforms with intelligent design... but it requires a designer who is also being deliberately deceptive. I for one do not believe that God is liar.
38 posted on 02/01/2010 4:08:45 PM PST by EnderWiggins
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: EnderWiggins
"First and foremost, only functional code merits reuse. A good software engineer does not reuse broken or non-functioning code, he removes it." - EnderWiggins

Nonsense. A good programmer might re-use vast amounts of old code rather than waste development Dollars chasing down what unused code in a sub-routine is no longer needed.

This is why vastly profitable companies like MicroSoft have old DOS code remnants still in Windows 7, for example.

39 posted on 02/01/2010 4:27:17 PM PST by Southack (Media Bias means that Castro won't be punished for Cuban war crimes against Black Angolans in Africa)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: divine_moment_of_facts
"Since when do apes have a conscience?"

As far back as we've been able to study them, the great apes (to include at least the gorillas, chimps, bonobos and orangutans) have demonstrated conscience. They also demonstrate inter-species altruism and empathy, symbolic communication, awareness of themselves as unique individuals and the ability to plan, reason, anticipate and deceive. They also possess cultures and technology.

Again I must point out that the difference between humans and other animals is exclusively quantitative. We posses no qualitative uniqueness whatsoever.
40 posted on 02/01/2010 4:27:50 PM PST by EnderWiggins
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: EnderWiggins
"I need to go back on one point... there is another possible explanation that conforms with intelligent design... but it requires a designer who is also being deliberately deceptive. I for one do not believe that God is liar." - EnderWiggins

Logic doesn't care what you believe.

41 posted on 02/01/2010 4:28:05 PM PST by Southack (Media Bias means that Castro won't be punished for Cuban war crimes against Black Angolans in Africa)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: divine_moment_of_facts
Since when do apes have a conscience?

Fallacy of illicit minor
42 posted on 02/01/2010 4:31:38 PM PST by wolf78 (Inflation is a form of taxation, too. Cranky Libertarian - equal opportunity offender.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Southack

You really seem to have a very dismal opinion of God. If you want to portray him as mediocre programmer reusing broken code to save a buck, I will not stop you.

I choose to have a higher opinion of his design skills.


43 posted on 02/01/2010 4:33:09 PM PST by EnderWiggins
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Southack
Am I to understand that you are asserting that logically, God is a liar?

Because it's difficult to come up with an alternative interpretation of that comment.
44 posted on 02/01/2010 4:37:56 PM PST by EnderWiggins
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: EnderWiggins
"You really seem to have a very dismal opinion of God. If you want to portray him as mediocre programmer reusing broken code to save a buck, I will not stop you. I choose to have a higher opinion of his design skills." - EnderWiggins

Opinion and logic are not synonyms.

My original post destroyed the claim that ERVs were proof of Evolution ... by showing that routine lab work inserts ERVs into DNA today by design, not by Evolution. Thus, there is a non-Evolutionary option...which means that Evolution was not proven (please, no sophomoric rants that nothing is really provable, let's not devolve to that level).

I used logic. You used opinion. One is scientific, the other is debatable.

45 posted on 02/01/2010 5:50:56 PM PST by Southack (Media Bias means that Castro won't be punished for Cuban war crimes against Black Angolans in Africa)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Southack
"My original post destroyed the claim that ERVs were proof of Evolution ... by showing that routine lab work inserts ERVs into DNA today by design, not by Evolution."

Again... your "routine lab work" absolutely fails to account for the ERVs as found in the primate family tree. It does not explain the independent but mutually reinforcing data sets they provide. The first being their relative age, the second being their distribution.

Neither are explained by design since the accumulation of point mutations demonstrate that they were acquired tens of thousand, hundreds of thousands and millions of years apart. They do not reflect a single or even several closely spaced events of design... but multiple millions of years over which the insertions were periodically made. I would be fascinated in a "design rationale" for that fact.

And second... the pattern of distribution does not reflect the sort of purposeful reuse found in things designed by humans. I'd love for you to try and assemble a phylogenetic tree for the products of human engineering that would have no exceptions in the distribution of technology that leaped across clades falsifying the pattern of descent with modification. It cannot be done. I assure you (as an engineer myself) I have made the effort. If you can demonstrate otherwise...have at it.

Even accepting your portrayal of God as a mediocre software engineer constrained by budgets or time (a very weird idea that you seem to have no problem with) there is no possible way of assembling a tree of phylogenetic descent for computer programs... even operating systems like Windows. The code instead reflects the contagious technology of actual design, and not the nested similarities created by descent with modification and characteristic of biological organisms.

Does code get reused? Of course. Might even bits of broken code be retained? I imagine it is possible, although it would still be, by definition, bad design. Again, I speak as an engineer, and as a person who has managed teams of engineers. But does code get reused in a patter that perfectly mimics descent with modification?

Not on this planet.

Your alternative seems to have missed these details. And they are the only important part of the proof. Odd that. But in final review, your alternative is not an "non-Evolutionary option at all," it is essentially an appeal to divine conspiracy.

I know you have a high regard of your own command of logic. I can only point out that logic, even of the most refined and sublime sort is of little use if it fails to address the issues at hand.
46 posted on 02/01/2010 9:13:17 PM PST by EnderWiggins
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: purpleporter

The story of Adam and Eve is not “silly.” It bears at least as much contemplation as looking at the chimps in the zoo. Calling it silly is sinking to the level of the anti-science crowd.


47 posted on 02/01/2010 9:24:05 PM PST by firebrand
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: EnderWiggins
"Again... your "routine lab work" absolutely fails to account for the ERVs as found in the primate family tree. It does not explain the independent but mutually reinforcing data sets they provide. The first being their relative age, the second being their distribution."

Incorrect. ERVs are just genetic code. That code gets inserted into the same place and then later re-used is common for software designers.

What would be *correct* to postulate would be that one program was coded before another. The evidence at hand would support that statement.

What is *incorrect* to postulate is that only un-aided processes such as Evolution could explain the ERV code insertion points in different programs over a vast time-period...because we can see identical code being re-used by Intelligent processes in modern software design.

Thus, un-aided processes and aided processes both offer potential, reasonable, demonstrable solutions.

Ergo, one can't claim that *only* un-aided processes were involved. Modern software lab evidence shows that aided processes have done the insertion in question, so aided processes must be included as a potential cause.

QED

48 posted on 02/01/2010 9:39:11 PM PST by Southack (Media Bias means that Castro won't be punished for Cuban war crimes against Black Angolans in Africa)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Southack
"Incorrect. ERVs are just genetic code. That code gets inserted into the same place and then later re-used is common for software designers."

Ah.... I'm sorry. I assumed that you knew what ERVs were. I was wrong.

ERVs are not "just genetic code." In fact, they do not code for anything at all.

So their insertion "in the same place" or "reuse" is pointless... at least from the perspective of intelligent design. Once again your analogy with software engineering proves to be a bad one.

"What would be *correct* to postulate would be that one program was coded before another. The evidence at hand would support that statement."

It is fascinating that you would label as "correct" a postulate that fails to account for any of the actual features seen in the ERVs under consideration.

That postulation is actually a continuation of your ad hoc characterization of the designer as deliberately deceptive. It requires that the sequence in which that coding took place exactly mimicked descent with modification over multiple millions of years... something again for which I'd love to see a reasonable design rationale.

It also fails completely to account for the accumulation of point mutations at all, and they are the diagnostic feature allowing us to temporally sequence the ERVs. It is another feature you fail to account for with any sort of design rationale.

It also fails (yet again) to show any genuine analogy with the intelligent design of humans, as even when humans code "one program after another" and reuse code, the final design is a mosaic of new code, old code and borrowed code that repeatedly and dramatically violates the pattern demanded by genealogical descent.

How is it that you imagine for a second that your "alternative explanation" is an alternative at all, when it explains none of the facts that are so neatly and comprehensively accounted for by the naturalistic explanation?

"Thus, un-aided processes and aided processes both offer potential, reasonable, demonstrable solutions."

That would only be true if both processes actually explained the phenomenon. But in this case only the un-aided process explains any of it.

As is common in creationist attempts to explain away powerful evidence for which you actually have no naturalistic alternative, you have again resorted to a first step of "magic," augmented by deliberate deception on the part of the magician. It is a wonderful unfalsifiable (hence patently unscientific) explanation completely on par with "The universe is only 30 seconds old, and all of us were magically created a half minute ago complete with false memories of a past that never took place, libraries full of false history books, a vast geologic column recording events that actually never occured, and a fictional multi billion year record of fake cosmic events coded into starlight created in flight."

That assertion is essentially no different from your "alternative" posed here. It may be satisfying to you... it may even be true. But it is not science.

Now... if you are eventually able to use your august command of "logic" to come up with an alternative explanation for ERVs that actually explains them, I'm all ears and promise to be impressed.

To this point... not so much.
49 posted on 02/02/2010 6:57:24 AM PST by EnderWiggins
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: EnderWiggins
"ERVs are not "just genetic code." In fact, they do not code for anything at all." - EnderWiggins

LOL! More of your fairy tales, I see. You are completely incorrect, however.

All DNA is comprised of genetic code, even ERVs.

Ta taa. Come back after you've passed basic Biology.

50 posted on 02/02/2010 3:56:45 PM PST by Southack (Media Bias means that Castro won't be punished for Cuban war crimes against Black Angolans in Africa)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-90 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson