|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
genetic evidence against evolution - 5/29/2008 2:43:45 PM
|
|
|
swan42
Posts: 347
Joined: 5/3/2008
Status: offline
|
What hypothetical genetic evidence could be imagined that cannot be "explained away" by evolution?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: genetic evidence against evolution - 5/29/2008 3:04:36 PM
|
|
|
essentialsaltes
Posts: 1025
Joined: 10/14/2007
From: Inglewood, CA
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: swan42
What hypothetical genetic evidence could be imagined that cannot be "explained away" by evolution?
Species' genomes would be 'unique' enough that any attempts at phylogenetic reconstruction would be a hopeless failure.
If each species had a 'random' amino acid encoding.
_____________________________
"My object in all arguments is not to make any preconceived opinion of mine seem right, but merely to discover and establish the truth, whatever the truth may be."
-- HP Lovecraft, letter to Robert E. Howard 7/27-28/34
|
|
|
|
|
RE: genetic evidence against evolution - 5/29/2008 10:56:06 PM
|
|
|
drmark
Posts: 3265
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
|
There is none. Zillions of years of random mutations can be used to account for any scenario. Evolution is unfalsifiable!
_____________________________
Jeremiah 31:31-34. The time is NOW, fellow saints!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: genetic evidence against evolution - 5/30/2008 5:05:01 AM
|
|
|
Agahnim
Posts: 221
Joined: 2/27/2008
Status: offline
|
If humans did not share the Endogenous Retroviruses that all of the great apes have in common, that would falsify the hypothesis that we’re related to them. However, fortunately for evolution, the distribution of ERVs precisely mirrors the pattern of relationships that was concluded from fossil and morphological evidence before ERVs were discovered.
In other words, DrMark doesn’t know what he’s talking about here.
_____________________________
"I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ." --Mahatma Gandhi
|
|
|
|
|
RE: genetic evidence against evolution - 5/30/2008 10:43:47 AM
|
|
|
Method
Posts: 1096
Joined: 9/19/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: drmark
There is none. Zillions of years of random mutations can be used to account for any scenario.
So evolution can produce irreducibly complex systems, complex specified informaiton, new organs, new limbs, etc.? Have you finally admitted that evolution is true?
quote:
Evolution is unfalsifiable!
Not at all. If you find a fish with an exact copy of a jellyfish gene then you have falsified evolution. Guess what, this creature does exist. They are known as Glofish. They are also the product of ID. So we already have a perfect example of a violation of the twin nested hierarchies produced by ID so this is exactly what we should see if ID were active in the past. We do not see this signal.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: genetic evidence against evolution - 5/30/2008 10:56:51 AM
|
|
|
Jhud
Posts: 7505
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Lake Wobegon
Status: offline
|
quote:
If humans did not share the Endogenous Retroviruses that all of the great apes have in common, that would falsify the hypothesis that we’re related to them. However, fortunately for evolution, the distribution of ERVs precisely mirrors the pattern of relationships that was concluded from fossil and morphological evidence before ERVs were discovered.
Well, as has been said numerous times, it certainly seems to indicate relatedness of genomes, but isn't itself evidence for the mechanisms of evolution; particularly as a retroviral insertion isn't at all a evolutionary process.
_____________________________
Jack
“I mean to live my life an obedient man, but obedient to God, subservient to the wisdom of my ancestors; never to the authority of political truths arrived at yesterday at the voting booth”
William F. Buckley Jr. 1925-2008
|
|
|
|
|
RE: genetic evidence against evolution - 5/30/2008 11:15:45 AM
|
|
|
gluadys
Posts: 1000
Joined: 4/26/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Jhud
quote:
If humans did not share the Endogenous Retroviruses that all of the great apes have in common, that would falsify the hypothesis that we’re related to them. However, fortunately for evolution, the distribution of ERVs precisely mirrors the pattern of relationships that was concluded from fossil and morphological evidence before ERVs were discovered.
Well, as has been said numerous times, it certainly seems to indicate relatedness of genomes, but isn't itself evidence for the mechanisms of evolution; particularly as a retroviral insertion isn't at all a evolutionary process.
The original insertion a is not an evolutionary process. But only an evolutionary process can account for it becoming an ERV and for the pattern of ERVs in apes leading to the identical phylogeny as their comparative morphology and genetics.
Or are you prepared to offer an equally good theory?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: genetic evidence against evolution - 5/30/2008 11:40:12 AM
|
|
|
Jhud
Posts: 7505
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Lake Wobegon
Status: offline
|
quote:
The original insertion a is not an evolutionary process. But only an evolutionary process can account for it becoming an ERV and for the pattern of ERVs in apes leading to the identical phylogeny as their comparative morphology and genetics.
Or are you prepared to offer an equally good theory?
Well, no, a reproductive process accounts for the the same genetic information being passed along; that in and of itself really tells us nothing about evolutionary processes.
_____________________________
Jack
“I mean to live my life an obedient man, but obedient to God, subservient to the wisdom of my ancestors; never to the authority of political truths arrived at yesterday at the voting booth”
William F. Buckley Jr. 1925-2008
|
|
|
|
|
RE: genetic evidence against evolution - 5/30/2008 12:40:48 PM
|
|
|
Method
Posts: 1096
Joined: 9/19/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Jhud
Well, no, a reproductive process accounts for the the same genetic information being passed along; that in and of itself really tells us nothing about evolutionary processes.
The process of producing ERV's is an evolutionary process, as is the subsequent change in the ERV sequence. Both the placement and and seqeuence of orthologous ERV's produce the same nested hierarchy. The change in the ERV sequence certainly illustrates the process of mutation and natural selection (mostly neutral drift given the lack of function for a vast majority of ERV's).
|
|
|
|
|
RE: genetic evidence against evolution - 5/30/2008 1:06:46 PM
|
|
|
Jhud
Posts: 7505
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Lake Wobegon
Status: offline
|
quote:
The process of producing ERV's is an evolutionary process, as is the subsequent change in the ERV sequence. Both the placement and and seqeuence of orthologous ERV's produce the same nested hierarchy. The change in the ERV sequence certainly illustrates the process of mutation and natural selection (mostly neutral drift given the lack of function for a vast majority of ERV's).
Well, no, it illustrates reproduction; it really says nothing about the power of mutation and natural selection to produce complex novel structures and systems.
_____________________________
Jack
“I mean to live my life an obedient man, but obedient to God, subservient to the wisdom of my ancestors; never to the authority of political truths arrived at yesterday at the voting booth”
William F. Buckley Jr. 1925-2008
|
|
|
|
|
RE: genetic evidence against evolution - 5/30/2008 1:35:39 PM
|
|
|
Method
Posts: 1096
Joined: 9/19/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Jhud
Well, no, it illustrates reproduction;
Since when does reproduction explain differences in ERV sequence?
quote:
it really says nothing about the power of mutation and natural selection to produce complex novel structures and systems.
Yes, it does. It shows that DNA does change, and DNA change is what is needed to produce complex novel structures and systems.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: genetic evidence against evolution - 5/30/2008 3:17:02 PM
|
|
|
Agahnim
Posts: 221
Joined: 2/27/2008
Status: offline
|
Even though I agree with what Method and Gluadys have said here, I’d like to point out (as I have before) that I intended this pattern of ERVs as evidence for common descent, not for a specific process of evolution. And I mentioned this in my previous post in this thread: “If humans did not share the Endogenous Retroviruses that all of the great apes have in common, that would falsify the hypothesis that we’re related to them”; that is, common descent.
_____________________________
"I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ." --Mahatma Gandhi
|
|
|
|
|
RE: genetic evidence against evolution - 5/30/2008 6:37:52 PM
|
|
|
gluadys
Posts: 1000
Joined: 4/26/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Jhud
quote:
The original insertion a is not an evolutionary process. But only an evolutionary process can account for it becoming an ERV and for the pattern of ERVs in apes leading to the identical phylogeny as their comparative morphology and genetics.
Or are you prepared to offer an equally good theory?
Well, no, a reproductive process accounts for the the same genetic information being passed along; that in and of itself really tells us nothing about evolutionary processes.
No, reproduction alone would not account for all the species, (and all the larger taxon in the case of shared ERVs) displaying the ERV. Remember, the virus originally invaded one germline cell in one organism. The organism can only pass it on to its descendants. For an ERV to become part of the standard species genome, that one organism has to become the common ancestor of all of a subsequent generation, which all inherited the ERV.
For the same ERV to show up across more than one species in this way, the organism in which it first occurred has to be the common ancestor of the whole range of species in which it is found. That's evolution.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: genetic evidence against evolution - 6/2/2008 12:32:16 PM
|
|
|
Jhud
Posts: 7505
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Lake Wobegon
Status: offline
|
quote:
No, reproduction alone would not account for all the species, (and all the larger taxon in the case of shared ERVs) displaying the ERV. Remember, the virus originally invaded one germline cell in one organism. The organism can only pass it on to its descendants. For an ERV to become part of the standard species genome, that one organism has to become the common ancestor of all of a subsequent generation, which all inherited the ERV.
For the same ERV to show up across more than one species in this way, the organism in which it first occurred has to be the common ancestor of the whole range of species in which it is found. That's evolution
Well, I think this is pretty much what I have been saying. ERVs don’t arise through evolutionary processes; they arise through the infection of organisms by certain kinds of viruses.
They aren’t passed along by evolutionary processes; they are passed along by reproduction. Now it seems to indicate that the genetics of previous generation is indeed present in modern ones, and so would establish the reality of common descent – but common descent itself isn’t a mechanism, it would be an after the fact reality. ERVs tell us nothing of the how organisms came to be different from one another in terms of the complex interdependent and independent genetics that are the basis for their various structures and systems.
Now a question; why is it we couldn’t simply assume that ERVs infected the same places in the genome across a number of different similar organisms?
_____________________________
Jack
“I mean to live my life an obedient man, but obedient to God, subservient to the wisdom of my ancestors; never to the authority of political truths arrived at yesterday at the voting booth”
William F. Buckley Jr. 1925-2008
|
|
|
|
|
RE: genetic evidence against evolution - 6/2/2008 1:37:38 PM
|
|
|
gluadys
Posts: 1000
Joined: 4/26/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Jhud
Now it seems to indicate that the genetics of previous generation is indeed present in modern ones, and so would establish the reality of common descent – but common descent itself isn’t a mechanism, it would be an after the fact reality.
And that is the point. It establishes common descent. And you are right. Other than in cases where we have observed it in real time, we can only establish common descent after the fact, through evidence such as ERVs.
Now as to mechanism, I think you are omitting that selection is a mechanism of evolution and selection is principally a matter of differential reproductive success. So I would not say that reproduction is never a mechanism of evolution.
quote:
ERVs tell us nothing of the how organisms came to be different from one another in terms of the complex interdependent and independent genetics that are the basis for their various structures and systems.
ERVs per se don't, but cladistic speciation and subsequent innovation and selection in the separated gene pools does tell us how organisms came to be different from one another.
Again, you don't seem to count this as a mechanism, but it is certainly a mechanism of population genetics and generation of biodiversity.
quote:
Now a question; why is it we couldn’t simply assume that ERVs infected the same places in the genome across a number of different similar organisms?
Well, first you have to consider that we are dealing with an incredibly small subset of viral infections. 1. They are failed infections---ones that did not succeed in taking over the cellular reproductive machinery to create new viruses.
2. They are viral infections of germ-line cells only, and within that subset, only of germline cells which are active participants in a successful conception.
3. The organism which first inherits the ERV must then bequeathe it to all of some subsequent generation of its species.
Second, one has to consider the vast number of loci at which a viral infection could be situated. Even allowing for "hot spots" which seem to attract more than their fair share of such infections, there are billions of possible loci. That two viruses acting independently would hit the same spot is therefore highly remote under any circumstances. That both of them would do so in a germline cell which is eventually the common ancestor of the whole species constitutes a probability close to zero.
In addition, that both infections would leave identical signatures is extremely unlikely. Each viral infection is unique even when it is the same virus in the same species. So even if both became ERVs, it is highly improbable that they would be identical, even in the extremely remote possibility that they might occur in the same locus.
Finally, that the ERVs shared across species would conform to the same phylogenetic pattern as determined by cladisitic analysis makes no sense at all without common descent. Identical ERVs occurring independently could and should show up in orangutans and humans without also showing up in gorillas and chimpanzees.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: genetic evidence against evolution - 6/3/2008 12:15:15 PM
|
|
|
Jhud
Posts: 7505
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Lake Wobegon
Status: offline
|
quote:
If humans did not share the Endogenous Retroviruses that all of the great apes have in common, that would falsify the hypothesis that we’re related to them. However, fortunately for evolution, the distribution of ERVs precisely mirrors the pattern of relationships that was concluded from fossil and morphological evidence before ERVs were discovered.
Well, there is certainly evidence of this:
Retrovirus Struck Ancestors Of Chimps And Gorillas Millions Of Years Ago, But Not Ancestral Humans
_____________________________
Jack
“I mean to live my life an obedient man, but obedient to God, subservient to the wisdom of my ancestors; never to the authority of political truths arrived at yesterday at the voting booth”
William F. Buckley Jr. 1925-2008
|
|
|
|
|
RE: genetic evidence against evolution - 6/3/2008 2:55:50 PM
|
|
|
gluadys
Posts: 1000
Joined: 4/26/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Jhud
quote:
If humans did not share the Endogenous Retroviruses that all of the great apes have in common, that would falsify the hypothesis that we’re related to them. However, fortunately for evolution, the distribution of ERVs precisely mirrors the pattern of relationships that was concluded from fossil and morphological evidence before ERVs were discovered.
Well, there is certainly evidence of this:
Retrovirus Struck Ancestors Of Chimps And Gorillas Millions Of Years Ago, But Not Ancestral Humans
I am not too clear from the article whether the viral element is found in the same locus in chimps and gorillas. That both groups would be affected by the same virus and that it could become endogenous in each species is not surprising if the effect was a population bottleneck as suggested, but they are apparently able to tell that these are due to independent infections. So one would need the information, not given in the article, as to how they determined this. Apparently there are actually many copies of this retroelement in both genomes and they are found at different loci, some near a gene and some not.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: genetic evidence against evolution - 6/3/2008 3:15:37 PM
|
|
|
essentialsaltes
Posts: 1025
Joined: 10/14/2007
From: Inglewood, CA
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: gluadys
I am not too clear from the article whether the viral element is found in the same locus in chimps and gorillas.
The paper and a summary are available online:
quote:
Eichler and colleagues found over 100 copies of PTERV1 in each African ape (chimp and gorilla) and Old World monkey (baboon and macaque) species. The authors compared the sites of viral integration in each of these primates and found that few if any of these insertion sites were shared among the primates. It appears therefore that the sequences have not been conserved from a common ancestor, but are specific to each lineage.
_____________________________
"My object in all arguments is not to make any preconceived opinion of mine seem right, but merely to discover and establish the truth, whatever the truth may be."
-- HP Lovecraft, letter to Robert E. Howard 7/27-28/34
|
|
|
|
|
RE: genetic evidence against evolution - 6/3/2008 3:50:25 PM
|
|
|
gluadys
Posts: 1000
Joined: 4/26/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: essentialsaltes
quote:
ORIGINAL: gluadys
I am not too clear from the article whether the viral element is found in the same locus in chimps and gorillas.
The paper and a summary are available online:
quote:
Eichler and colleagues found over 100 copies of PTERV1 in each African ape (chimp and gorilla) and Old World monkey (baboon and macaque) species. The authors compared the sites of viral integration in each of these primates and found that few if any of these insertion sites were shared among the primates. It appears therefore that the sequences have not been conserved from a common ancestor, but are specific to each lineage.
Thank you. That is exactly what I suspected would be the case.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: genetic evidence against evolution - 6/3/2008 5:29:42 PM
|
|
|
essentialsaltes
Posts: 1025
Joined: 10/14/2007
From: Inglewood, CA
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: gluadys
Thank you. That is exactly what I suspected would be the case.
It's almost as though you made a prediction based on evolutionary theory, and it was later confirmed. But we all know that's crazy talk.
_____________________________
"My object in all arguments is not to make any preconceived opinion of mine seem right, but merely to discover and establish the truth, whatever the truth may be."
-- HP Lovecraft, letter to Robert E. Howard 7/27-28/34
|
|
|
|
|
RE: genetic evidence against evolution - 6/3/2008 5:54:23 PM
|
|
|
Jhud
Posts: 7505
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Lake Wobegon
Status: offline
|
quote:
These ERV's are not found in orthologous positions which is consistent with independent insertion.
Well, most of them aren't.
_____________________________
Jack
“I mean to live my life an obedient man, but obedient to God, subservient to the wisdom of my ancestors; never to the authority of political truths arrived at yesterday at the voting booth”
William F. Buckley Jr. 1925-2008
|
|
|
|
|
RE: genetic evidence against evolution - 6/3/2008 5:55:24 PM
|
|
|
Jhud
Posts: 7505
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Lake Wobegon
Status: offline
|
quote:
It's almost as though you made a prediction based on evolutionary theory, and it was later confirmed. But we all know that's crazy talk.
There was a prediction made that a retrovirus would infect certain primates and not others? Where was that made?
_____________________________
Jack
“I mean to live my life an obedient man, but obedient to God, subservient to the wisdom of my ancestors; never to the authority of political truths arrived at yesterday at the voting booth”
William F. Buckley Jr. 1925-2008
|
|
|
|
|
RE: genetic evidence against evolution - 6/3/2008 11:08:42 PM
|
|
|
Method
Posts: 1096
Joined: 9/19/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Jhud
There was a prediction made that a retrovirus would infect certain primates and not others? Where was that made?
There is the observation that retroviruses infect different primate species right now.
The prediction is that ORTHOLOGOUS ERV's will follow a specific pattern. PtERV's are not orthologous.
From the paper
For the three intervals putatively shared between macaque and chimpanzee, we attempted to refine the precise position of the insertions by taking advantage of the available whole-genome shotgun sequences for these two genomes. For each of the three loci, we mapped the precise insertion site in the chimpanzee and then examined the corresponding site in macaque (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov). In one case, we were unable to refine the map interval owing to the presence of repetitive rich sequences within the interval. In two cases, we were able to refine the map location to single basepair resolution (Figures S4 and S5). Based on this analysis, we determined that the sites were not orthologous between chimpanzee and macaque. It is interesting to note that this level of refined mapping in chimpanzee revealed 4- to 5-bp AT-rich target site duplications in both cases. These findings are consistent with an exogenous retrovirus source since proviral integrations typically target AT-rich DNA ranging from 4 to 6 bp in length [24]. Although the status of the remaining overlapping sites is unknown, these data resolve four additional sites as independent insertion events and suggest that the remainder may similarly be non-orthologous.
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pubmed&pubmedid=15737067
quote:
Well, most of them aren't [orthologous].
24 of the ERV's ended up in the same general region (within the resolution of the BAC clones which are several thousand bases each), but none of those which were examined were orthologous as discussed in the above quote and in the paper itself.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: genetic evidence against evolution - 6/4/2008 6:49:57 AM
|
|
|
gluadys
Posts: 1000
Joined: 4/26/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Jhud
quote:
It's almost as though you made a prediction based on evolutionary theory, and it was later confirmed. But we all know that's crazy talk.
There was a prediction made that a retrovirus would infect certain primates and not others? Where was that made?
No, given the information that the virus had attacked chimps and gorillas, but not humans, the prediction was that the ERVs would not be found in the same loci, but rather (as one would suspect from independent infections) at different loci. Of course, if it had attacked humans, but independently of the other apes, one would also expect different loci.
The ERVs that fall into a common descent type phylogeny are those located at identical loci across the hominid family, suggesting a single infection.
|
|
|
|
 New Messages |
 No New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/ New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/o New Messages |
 Locked w/ New Messages |
 Locked w/o New Messages |
|
 Post New Thread
Reply to Message
Post New Poll
Submit Vote
Delete My Own Post
Delete My Own Thread
Rate Posts |
|
|
Forum Tools
Printable Version
