Posted on 09/13/2006 3:52:47 PM PDT by DannyTN
"Just a flesh wound!" Placemarker
BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHA!
Why is it that only I need to show that my scenario is more likely?
Why don't you need to show that individual infections followed by moves to fixation for *thousands* of ERVs is 'more likely'?
Because common descent is *assumed* 'a priori' and everything is shoved into that paradigm? Obviously.
Continued research will destroy this scenario just like Haeckel's embryos. It just takes a while.
Why don't you need to show that individual infections followed by moves to fixation for *thousands* of ERVs is 'more likely'?
OK, I think this makes it clear.
In your scenario, if I'm understanding you correctly, there are thousands upon thousands more fixation events:
Under the accepted scientific scenario, an ERV got inserted into the genome of a chimp-human-gorilla ancestor once, then it was inherited by the daughter species.
Under yours, the insertion has to happen three times, in the exact same spot in the genome, and get fixed three different times. Sounds like three times more work. It also sounds less probable; why can't one of the fixations fail?
Now consider an ERV found in all apes but not in monkeys. Using normal biology, the process is exactly the same as for the chimp-human-gorilla case, just earlier. Under your hypothesis, the same virus has to infect the germ cell line of every species of both Asian and African apes in exactly the same location, then become fixed in each lineage. Lots more work, much more chance for failure, again.
Because common descent is *assumed* 'a priori' and everything is shoved into that paradigm? Obviously.
I repeat, the ERV data is evidence for common descent; as I showed above, common descent accounts for the tree-like distribution in a simple and elegant manner. No ad-hoc assumptions about the various species of simians having their DNA created with the tree pattern so the retroviruses all infect the same part of the genome. No blasphemous assumptions that God is really Loki in disguise, putting unused reverse transcriptase genes in mammals just to fool us. No improbable assumptions that the ERVs in all the various species got fixed, or that all species in a clade (everything descended from some ancestor) got infected, and only them.
Continued research will destroy this scenario just like Haeckel's embryos. It just takes a while.
Be careful what you wish for, it might come true.
There were two things with Haeckel and embryology that are no longer part of science. First, his drawings were not accurate. Not a big deal; they were replaced by photos decades ago, and are now only of historical interest.
Second, his Biogenetic Theory, that, say, a developing mammal actually is fish, then an amphibian, then a reptile, and so forth, is wrong. This has been known since before 1900, and, again is only of historical interest.
However, ontogeny really does recapitulate phylogeny, and provides yet more evidence of common descent. There are a lot of phenomena that simply make no sense otherwise. Examples include
the fetal teeth of anteaters and baleen whales which are reabsorbed and never used;
the teeth of platypuses, which are always below the gum line and are never used;
the way a whale's blowhole starts off as an embryonic nose that moves back;
the egg teeth that some newborn marsupials have but never use;
the way our ear bones form in the jaw and migrate to the ear;
the recurrent laryngeal nerve;
and so on and so on.
Some More of God's Greatest Mistakes is an amusing discussion of these and related facts of natural history.
Tone it down.
Yes sir..so sorry for all that vitriol in that post...I need to watch myself...LOL...
No, it's your theory that requires thousands of fixation events because of the thousands of HERVs and the one-time infection moving to fixation scenario. It's not just that it got inherited by some 'daughter species', it had to move to fixation, thousands of times. Indeed, why can't one of the fixations fail?
And I can't find the evidence for this 'exact same spot' claim that you and T.O. make.
I'm sure some of the fixations did fail; there's now no evidence of the retroviral infection.
Please provide some details about exactly what your explanation is for the tree-like structure exhibited by the ERVs; I probably have a wrong idea about it.
T.O. provides references ot the scientific literature. That's where to start.
No, a failed fixation would be represented by partial appearance in the population, not total absence. You cannot distinguish a 'failed fixation' from a non-infection using criteria like that. It's no more than idle speculation.
And I know t.o. provides the references. I checked them. No evidence to support the claim, other than the assertion itself... and a nice little picture to post.
I expect to find that this 'exact same spot' claim doesn't mean what you think it does. It could actually be quite consistent with 'exact same gene', which would support my hypothesis since gene expression affects have been documented.
Just wondered if you knew. I figured not.
You gotta stop taking those t.o. assertions at face value. They're worthless without knowing the underlying data. You've absolutely got to look at the underlying data for interpretive bias.
That's why it is so important to separate evidence from 'interpretation'.
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.