root

This seems prity relavent, any comments in reference to the Comment:

http://creationevolutiondesign.blogspot.com/2006/12/neanderthal-genome-my-testable.html

Hi

Because we share some alleged ERV's with chimps. It is thus suggested as proof for our common descent, that we both must have originated from a specie that was infected by this virus. The first problem with this argument is that it's hard to tell what an ERV is when you meet one. It doesn't come with a tag attached saying: "This is an ERV". It could be that some genes which we expect to be ERV's aren't ERV's but something completely different, or it could even be junk genes, byproduct. That is because a virus will rarely be embedded in it's complete form. To explain this, let my use a simplified example. Imagine a woman who has a flu and the virus gets embedded and passed on to a fertilized egg cell. This is of course unlikely because the common flu virus is usually not located near the ovaries, but indulge me for the sake of argument and simplicity. The child would have a flu in every single cell of his body. His cells would constantly reproduce this virus, and spread it throughout it's body. You can imagine this fetus doesn't have a fighting chance from the start on. No, for an ERV to be passed down trough generations, it has to be rendered harmless first. So how do you recognize it as a virus after this rendition to harmless junk then?

 

A second problem of the argument, is it's slippery slope. What if both chimps and humans were infected by the virus, and both got ERV's in a similar fashion? After all, given their similar physiology, that seems reasonable enough right? Well the reply from evolutionists is, that the ERV is specific in a certain locus (place on the genes) and it is improbable for both chimps and humans to create an ERV at the exact same spot. However, I disagree. There is a recent discovery at the university of Pennsylvania US that shows a human DNA-associated protein that would dictate where on the DNA AIDS is to be inserted. The protein called LEDGF would travel along with the retrovirus in it's mantel and then modulate where in the human genome the virus is inserted. So if retroviruses can be locus specific, then loci-specific ERV's is no longer a problem for creationists. It is then a matter of simple causality. Not only similar results by common design; but also similar results by similar processes of viruses become endogenous.

explain to us how the process of evolution advanced so as to let the following occur-- DNA replication requires a high degree of fidelity in order to preserve the genetic code in daughter cells and prevent lethal mutations. This high fidelity is accompanied by 3' to 5' proof reading exonuclease activity of DNA which removes one nucelotide at a time from the end of a DNA chain. Yet there is just one enzyme specifically which executes the process from the 5' to 3' position to allow exonuclease acitvity which facilitats, or I should rather say functions to remove the RNA primer, which enzyme is that? and how did it evolve sentience to be aware of its very specific function? further why would a process that works hard to maintain that high fidelity allow at some point for many a random mutation whose very nature, we are not quite sure of to allow for this 'budding' so to speak from a primogenitor into such things as butterflies, and rabbits, fishes and trees, lizards and humans, stars and glaxies, lakes and mountains etc etc etc..

I hate to be blunt but this seems gobble-gook, can someone please explain in a more general point to what the actual issue is here.

Thanks......

Hi Guys,

Thanks for your input so far.

I am wondering about the following scenario.

Is genetic recombination always a mutational process, with the recent example of the Galapagos finch rapidly evolving a smaller beak size then this evolutionary change could be said to have occured without a "smaller beaksize mutation" unless of course recombination changes are classed as "mutation"?

Thanks for all who have contributed.

Rapid Evolution of Darwins finches

Hi Guys,

Here is a quote from the original post;

First and foremost, Of a genome that is 6 billion bases long, what are the odds that a ERV will be inserted into the same place? 1 in a 6 billion, right? Now, if there are 2 such ERVs, the odds are 1 in 6 billion times 1 in 6 billion for both being inserted into the same places by chance. If there are 3, you must multiply by another 1 in 6 billion. Now, since you have 12 such insertions in humans compared to the common ancestor, you have just passed the creationist number for it having occured by chance! By creationism's own criterion, their argument is invalid. The only creationist rebuttal to this is that there are hot spots, where the odds of a virus being inserted are slightly higher than other places, but there are still a great number of hotspots throughout the genomes, and given the above points, there is no reason why multiple infections would result in the same ERVs being inserted in the same locations with the same crippling errors and showing the same pattern of change with time. Again if there are multiple hotspots and multiple infections, there is no reason that there should not be ERVs that do not match the phylogenetic tree. again we see no deviances from expected inheritance patterns.

In respect to the insertion selection site. Does this recent scientific discovery have any relavence to this subject:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/25/science/25dna.html?ex=1311480000&en=34d8e6ced8d42f47&ei=5089&partner=rssyahoo&emc=rss

A small snippet:

Biologists have suspected for years that some positions on the DNA, notably those where it bends most easily, might be more favorable for nucleosomes than others, but no overall pattern was apparent. Drs. Segal and Widom analyzed the sequence at some 200 sites in the yeast genome where nucleosomes are known to bind, and discovered that there is indeed a hidden pattern.

Thanks for that. I probably should have indicated that I am being specific to current examples such as the dwarthed elephants, mammoths and even the hobbit.

I am trying to establish the mechanism by which the species will reduce as per question 2 and 3. If you could clarify points 2 & 3 that would be great....

Hi,

Wonder if someone can educate me in the way of the Ozone hole(s).

Are they open or have they closed?

Root

Cool, an interesting read. Might surprise some when I say I am not religous at all and would "consider" not "brand" myself an "atheist", why do you seperate the issues into two groups, can a theory of creationism be credible in the absence of religion. Which makes me pleased I am British since Bush does not accept Atheists as real US citizens at this time. Still, as an atheist my mind is still open to the fact of creationism.

Since this is a science forum (And i am not a scientist) I wonder how you are all accounting for the theory (multiverse) & the theory of a (Closed Universe). Their I go again mentioning "Theory". If theory is a fact then surely only one of these theories can be correct, Is this not so.............

Root

Well, I have to say I certainly don't want to cloud this thread in the sense of what is theary and what is fact. Generally it's accepted that a theory predicts and a fact qualifies, but we don't need to bother ourselves with that to understand my point. Firstly, creationisms does not imply a biblical connection for much the same as evolutionists beleif's differ within the theory of evolution and so to does creationists.

The simple fact of the matter is. How did life start on this planet! One could simply read a bible and find out, or reject that notion and go for evolutionism. But how do evolutionists account for life developing on the planet?

Since some say it was chemical related with amino acids and I presume (though I don't know) close to the beginning of the DNA trail, or life came to the planet on the back of a meteorite or comet and has it's DNA origins in an infinate past. And Evolution as you seem to suggest is wrong, though evolvement was inevitable and did occur but in a creationist way. I hate evolutionists that pass off the theory of evolution as a fact, and try to ram down our throats without keeping an open mind to a created past but not at all God as the bible suggest's.

It's a very plausable theory, not fact.

Root

Hi Guys,

Wehey my first post. I think it's lame to ask a creationist to prove themselves right! Afterall their proof is that they are here. On the same tune I think it is lame to suggest one can prove "The theory of evolution". It is to this day just a theory, a theory has yet to establish itself as fact. Not only are evolutionists really struggling with the theory, your failing yourself for what you accuse others as being "Uneducated".

Thoughts?

Root