Jump to content


Photo

The Great Syncytin Challenge To Intelligent Design


  • Please log in to reply
172 replies to this topic

#161 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,429 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Retired science teacher with 26 yrs of experience: Biology, physical sciences, & physics.
  • Age: 64
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Midwest, USA

Posted 26 September 2013 - 02:34 PM

They were not wrong. That is the number of ERVs they had identified at the time. It is now double that.

 

What on earth is your point?

 

Is something wrong here? Did you not get enough sleep after your long trip? I am trying to be sarcastic about this.

 

Quote: (Barry Desborough) " The 200,000 figure is correct. It comes from the whole genome studies of chimps and humans."

 

You have now given us two widely different figures on the same page. Which one is correct?

 

I have a lecture to give this evening. I will be back later. Maybe tomorrow.

 

Best wishes.



#162 Barry Desborough

Barry Desborough

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 115 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 64
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • France

Posted 26 September 2013 - 02:38 PM

Is something wrong here? Did you not get enough sleep after your long trip? I am trying to be sarcastic about this.

 

Quote: (Barry Desborough) " The 200,000 figure is correct. It comes from the whole genome studies of chimps and humans."

 

You have now given us two widely different figures on the same page. Which one is correct?

 

I have a lecture to give this evening. I will be back later. Maybe tomorrow.

 

Best wishes.

I did not quote 98,000.

 

But it's pretty irrelevant anyway. The majority of human-chimp ERVs are in apparently orthologous loci. How do you explain this?



#163 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,429 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Retired science teacher with 26 yrs of experience: Biology, physical sciences, & physics.
  • Age: 64
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Midwest, USA

Posted 26 September 2013 - 02:49 PM

I did not quote 98,000.

 

But it's pretty irrelevant anyway. The majority of human-chimp ERVs are in apparently orthologous loci. How do you explain this?

 

Still dodging. I quoted what you said (i.e. the 200,000 figure)....a one hundred and two thousand ERV difference ...in other words a 102% error.

 

You don't like to admit mistakes to creationists, do you?

 

'orthologus loci'? So you would like to change the subject rather than admit the mistake. I get you.

 

Answer: Organisms that share similar genotypes have a common Creator, not a common ancestor. But if you disagree then give us the name/designation and the genetic formula for that so-called 'common ancestor'.

 

Gotta leave the office now.



#164 Barry Desborough

Barry Desborough

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 115 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 64
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • France

Posted 26 September 2013 - 03:01 PM

Still dodging. I quoted what you said (i.e. the 200,000 figure)....a one hundred and two thousand ERV difference ...in other words a 102% error.

 

You don't like to admit mistakes to creationists, do you?

 

'orthologus loci'? So you would like to change the subject rather than admit the mistake. I get you.

 

Answer: Organisms that share similar genotypes have a common Creator, not a common ancestor. But if you disagree then give us the name/designation and the genetic formula for that so-called 'common ancestor'.

 

Gotta leave the office now.

Dodging what? Is snide innuendo all you folk have? 

 

If organisms share similar genotypes for functional reasons, then the designer hypothesis could gain some credibility. It would not be conclusive, by any means, but when similarity is there for obviously non-functional, accidental reasons, and the only sensible explanation is common ancestry, then the only sensible explanation is common ancestry.



#165 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,429 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Retired science teacher with 26 yrs of experience: Biology, physical sciences, & physics.
  • Age: 64
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Midwest, USA

Posted 26 September 2013 - 06:59 PM

Dodging what? Is snide innuendo all you folk have? 

 

If organisms share similar genotypes for functional reasons, then the designer hypothesis could gain some credibility. It would not be conclusive, by any means, but when similarity is there for obviously non-functional, accidental reasons, and the only sensible explanation is common ancestry, then the only sensible explanation is common ancestry.

 

I gave you two recent sources  from the latest research on the issue and you just dissed them as if they were meaningless. So far I have given you five sources that state that the number is NOW 98,000 ERV's in the human genome including the statement from Oxford.

 

Here's a reminder: "There have been found over 98000 ERV's (endogenous retrovirus). These represent infections a the germ line level." DATE: APRIL 14, 2013.

(highlighted date mine).

 

http://evolutionscie...er-what-is.html

 

Quote: "They make up almost 8 percent of the human genome in the form of 98,000 fragments from 30,000 retroviruses—and everyone's ERVs are more or less the same, give or take a few mutations." JULY 4, 2011 (emphasis mine).

 

http://othersiderefl...troviruses.html

 

Now would you please get off your arrogant little hobby horse and admit the mistake? Your position is wrong and you need to correct it. But even if your numbers were correct you still don't know what or how the origin of ERV's happened and you don't know what the genetic formula of the so-called 'common ancestor' was.

 

AND...are you or are you not going to answer post # 103?


  • Bonedigger likes this

#166 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 26 September 2013 - 07:10 PM

AND...are you or are you not going to answer post # 103?

I think post #103 makes too much sense. Consider it an honor that it was ignored. I don't even think there were any spelling mistakes. Though I didn't look that close.

 

Barry is still stuck in the speculation=fact mode. As long as it is in support of evolution from his perspective, it is washed and stamped as science184.gif



#167 Barry Desborough

Barry Desborough

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 115 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 64
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • France

Posted 26 September 2013 - 09:01 PM

I gave you two recent sources  from the latest research on the issue and you just dissed them as if they were meaningless. So far I have given you five sources that state that the number is NOW 98,000 ERV's in the human genome including the statement from Oxford.

 

Here's a reminder: "There have been found over 98000 ERV's (endogenous retrovirus). These represent infections a the germ line level." DATE: APRIL 14, 2013.

(highlighted date mine).

 

http://evolutionscie...er-what-is.html

 

Quote: "They make up almost 8 percent of the human genome in the form of 98,000 fragments from 30,000 retroviruses—and everyone's ERVs are more or less the same, give or take a few mutations." JULY 4, 2011 (emphasis mine).

 

http://othersiderefl...troviruses.html

 

Now would you please get off your arrogant little hobby horse and admit the mistake? Your position is wrong and you need to correct it. But even if your numbers were correct you still don't know what or how the origin of ERV's happened and you don't know what the genetic formula of the so-called 'common ancestor' was.

 

AND...are you or are you not going to answer post # 103?

Creationist blogs? Don't make me laugh. Here are the figures from the whole genome surveys.

 

http://www.nature.co...9860a0_T11.html

 

http://www.nature.co...re04072_T2.html

 

The majority of ERVs found in the chimp and human genomes are common to chimps and humans, and are found in orthologous locations.

 

I'll have a look at your wonderful post #103...



#168 Barry Desborough

Barry Desborough

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 115 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 64
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • France

Posted 26 September 2013 - 09:17 PM

Starting with Haeckel's drawings clear up to the many debates I have had with evolutionists on countless websites in the last twelve years...oh, yes. It's been used frequently.

 

 

 

 

 

Friday, huh? That's when you are going to do to us what an innumerable amount of like-minded neo-Darwinians before you could not do?

 

We are giving you plenty of reasonable doubt. It isn't convincing because, like I said, you don't know of the origin, source, or cause of ERV's to begin with. But if you think you can give us the genetic formula for the so-called common ancestor that shared the first ERV that branched off to humans and apes then be our guest. What was that creature, Mr. Desborough? Name him and give the time, date, and circumstance of the first INFECTED (emphasis mine because you obviously aren't getting it)organism.

 

 

 

No, it only makes sense to YOU because you want it to make sense. I personally think that the first ERV's were an (gasp!) infection (hmm, now where did I get an idea like that?.............Oh, you said so...among others of your ilk who have likewise said so)and that it was a deleterious infection after all. BUT...where do I get such an idea? Answer: I am guessing just like you are.

 

 

 

Look, God did not give us the data to determine the origin and cause of ERV's. We don't have that information. But neither do you and you are dishonestly claiming that you do...without documentation nor empirical proof of that origin. All science is based upon empirical investigation -- yet you have none for the origin of ERV's.

 

 

 

Baloney. No one refutes the existence of ERV's and their present function. You have given us detailed reasoning...which classifies as opinion; nothing more.

 

 

 

You think you can manipulate reality by mere extrapolation of facts in the present back to 'facts' in the distant past...without observation. This is why we utterly reject your summation of this matter.

 

Tell us something: How could we possibly know for sure that the damaged Ford Taurus as seen below...

 

FordTaurus_zps7c67eb05.jpg

 

...did not evolve from the Model T Ford as seen below?

 

ford_model_t_zps2d682152.jpg

 

Answer: Because for the fact that we have both the written observed history of Ford vehicles and all of of the Ford models from Oct. 1st 1908 until the present? Simple: we have the fact that they were all made by intelligent engineers...by record!

 

We also have a written history of the world as concerns the creation and fall of man written by Moses and the prophets.


You have no such access to the history of ERV's. Stop pretending that you do.

 

Lastly, you still didn't answer the question about corruption and your use of the word 'fault'. Now explain what the source of that ERV 'fault' and what is the source of degeneration, decay, and death from the evolutionary standpoint? Where did it come from?

Well, all I can see here is a load of blather, and the unsupported assertion that a certain piece of writing is "history".

 

The retroviral structure of ERVs, with the telltale traces of the action of integrase, and the presence of the integrase gene plus all the other retroviral genes are facts that can be repeatedly observed. Add the results of the Phoenix virus experiment, and the observations of current, ongoing endogenization in koalas, and the fact that ERVs are of retroviral origin are clear and obvious to any informed, objective scholar.

 

Re. faults, I have repeatedly told you that reverse transcription is a very error-prone process. See http://www.pnas.org/...5/7427.full.pdf



#169 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,429 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Retired science teacher with 26 yrs of experience: Biology, physical sciences, & physics.
  • Age: 64
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Midwest, USA

Posted 27 September 2013 - 05:18 AM

Creationist blogs? Don't make me laugh. Here are the figures from the whole genome surveys.

 

Will you now resort to lies in order to hide the truth? I didn't refer to a SINGLE creationist source. They were strongly evolutionist. So were the other five sources that informed us that the count for human ERV's is 98,000.

 

http://www.nature.co...9860a0_T11.html

 

http://www.nature.co...re04072_T2.html

 

The majority of ERVs found in the chimp and human genomes are common to chimps and humans, and are found in orthologous locations.

 

So again, who is telling the the truth: evolutionists 'A' or evolutionists 'B'? I don't believe your sources. They are almost certainly interpreting the data in a way that makes their theory fit the 'facts' the way they want it to...like the so man so-called 'ape-men' fossils (i.e. Ida, archeoraptor, Ardi, pildown, Nebraska man, etc.) that were dug up and yet were later discovered to be phony or fake.

 

I'll have a look at your wonderful post #103...

 

There is the arrogance yet again; I said nothing about post #103 being 'wonderful'.



#170 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,429 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Retired science teacher with 26 yrs of experience: Biology, physical sciences, & physics.
  • Age: 64
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Midwest, USA

Posted 27 September 2013 - 07:43 AM

Well, all I can see here is a load of blather, and the unsupported assertion that a certain piece of writing is "history".

 

Haeckel's drawings are still used in the classroom today and I have indeed been given that argument quite a few times through the years. Your reply is empty.

 

The retroviral structure of ERVs, with the telltale traces of the action of integrase, and the presence of the integrase gene plus all the other retroviral genes are facts that can be repeatedly observed. Add the results of the Phoenix virus experiment, and the observations of current, ongoing endogenization in koalas, and the fact that ERVs are of retroviral origin are clear and obvious to any informed, objective scholar.

 

.00014 percent likeness is not a very good percentage my myth-believing counterpart.

 

But just like I know you would you ignored the body of my argument (the strongest parts) including this; "But if you think you can give us the genetic formula for the so-called common ancestor that shared the first ERV that branched off to humans and apes then be our guest. What was that creature, Mr. Desborough? Name him and give the time, date, and circumstance of the first INFECTED (emphasis mine because you obviously aren't getting it)organism."

 

Why didn't you answer me on this, Barry?

 

Re. faults, I have repeatedly told you that reverse transcription is a very error-prone process. See http://www.pnas.org/...5/7427.full.pdf

 

'very error-prone process'.  ??? Why? Do you think that this 'infection' as per what your companions in unbelief call it is related to the entropy factor ? But then again you never did explain the origin of  degeneration, corruption, or decay as I posed to you in an earlier post. Why do such things exist in the first place?



#171 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,429 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Retired science teacher with 26 yrs of experience: Biology, physical sciences, & physics.
  • Age: 64
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Midwest, USA

Posted 27 September 2013 - 08:48 AM

One other matter here but if you were to ignore what I said above then don't ignore this one:

 

From our new poster lifepsyops who brought us this:

 

Quote: "

Here we analyse genomic sequence data in mammals that have independently evolved echolocation and show that convergence is not a rare process restricted to several loci but is instead widespread, continuously distributed and commonly driven by natural selection acting on a small number of sites per locus. Systematic analyses of convergent sequence evolution in 805,053 amino acids within 2,326 orthologous coding gene sequences compared across 22 mammals (including four newly sequenced bat genomes) revealed signatures consistent with convergence in nearly 200 loci. Strong and significant support for convergence among bats and the bottlenose dolphin was seen in numerous genes linked to hearing or deafness, consistent with an involvement in echolocation. Unexpectedly, we also found convergence in many genes linked to vision: the convergent signal of many sensory genes was robustly correlated with the strength of natural selection. This first attempt to detect genome-wide convergent sequence evolution across divergent taxa reveals the phenomenon to be much more pervasive than previously recognized.

 

http://www.nature.co...ature12511.html

 

From 'Nature' no less!

 

But then the comments of the scientists who are making such discoveries:

 

We had expected to find identical changes in maybe a dozen or so genes but to see nearly 200 is incredible,"

 

"We know natural selection is a potent driver of gene sequence evolution, but identifying so many examples where it produces nearly identical results in the genetic sequences of totally unrelated animals is astonishing."

 

"We found that molecular signals of convergence were widespread, and were seen in many genes across the genome. It greatly adds to our understanding of genome evolution." rolleyes.gif

 

"These results could be the tip of the iceberg. As the genomes of more species are sequenced and studied, we may well see other striking cases of convergent adaptations being driven by identical genetic changes."

 

http://www.scienceda...30904132548.htm

 

So, Barry, what does this do to your argument that the human/ape convergance of ERV's is irrefutable proof of an evolutionary common ancestor?



#172 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 27 September 2013 - 10:07 AM

I really like convergent evolution. It has to be one of the best arguments against evolution.

I've said it a dozen times here alone but let's make it a dozen and one...

The best evidence against evolution is usually the same evidence purported to be for it.

#173 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 27 September 2013 - 06:13 PM

I've studied this topic in considerable depth, and discussed it with many creationists. Some are familiar with it, some are not. Some have come up with ingenious objections, but none have stuck. Each time a new one is brought up, dealing with it has strengthened the case from ERVs for common descent. I'd be vary happy if anyone here could come up with anything, especially anything new.

The problem Barry is having here, is that he doesn't understand that model of 'Adam' is that of 'common descent'. It doesn't inhibit the 'design argument' at all, and is a good argument FOR design.

The bigger problem for Barry is the question that is automatically begged: Where did the ERV's come from in the first place? The materialist is hard pressed to do anything but posit "Faith Claims" whenever it is brought up. Or, rather "Blind Faith Claims".






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users