Predictions and Evolution

[Botz]

Hi SA

If you look at the phylogeny I linked you to, you will find a map of the relation of apes (including humans). As you can see from this map, our lineage is most closely related to the chimp lineage - that is, they split not long ago. Not long before that split, our lineage split from the Gorilla lineage etc.

Basically, every time to streams "join", it means the lineages have combined at a common ancestor. What that means is that every time a linegage splits, the common ancestor split into two lineages, one going to human, one to chimps or whatever.

However, I don't want to continue if there's something you don't understand fully. Perhaps you could voice your misunderstanding, or ask some structured questions so that I can find out more about the source of it, and deal with it accordingly?

I understand the idea behind the theory here and I have looked at the site you gave it is just a little abstract to me because I am so unfamiliar with this type of Scientific thinking...never having had to do any in my life before...but I

understand this.

Well, I've not presented very much evidence yet at all. The only things that I have said that are based on evidence are:

a) That ERVs implant themselves into our genetic code

b) That on rare occasions, they get into the germ line, and on even rarer occasions, they become common ("fixed") in a population

c) That the process of where an ERV implants in terms of precise position can be thought of as random.

d) That it is therefore very unlikely that any two animals or group of animals should share an identical ERV in an identical position in their genome purely at random.

These were all from the first post. I'm happy to show you the evidence for these, and how ERVs are identified in our genome etc. if you wish. But they have all been verified experimentally in their own ways. Which one do you distrust?

It is the overview that I will just sit on for the moment and wait for you to expound a little more...because I do not know exactly what is going on I have to take it on trust at the moment until I can get a more substantial grip on what you are developing...hope that makes sense.

It's okay, the little "code words" scientists use for things (like phylogeny) are difficult to come to terms with at first. Actually, what they mean is usually really easy. For example:

phylogeny: map of animal relationships / common ancestry

ERV: a type of virus that implants itself in the DNA or sperm or ova

See, we may use 3 letter acronyms, and stupidly hard to pronouce words that'd score highly on scrabble, but they usually do mean something sensible and easy to digest!

This I can understand...pray continue.

[jenbe]

SA....I know this thread is for Botz benefit,but occasionally something inspirational flashes into my mind so intensely that I feel compelled to share . Hope you forgive me.....

See, we may use 3 letter acronyms, and stupidly hard to pronouce words that'd score highly on scrabble, but they usually do mean something sensible and easy to digest

Botz..

This I can understand...pray continue.  :thumbsup

The words, Doh... Duh.........and Run , spring to mind..,

Jill

[Bread_of_Life]

Horizoneast

Just curious SA – but haven’t studies shown that some ERVs actually have the ability to reduce the chances of some types of viral infection and may be anti-viral vectors native to the genome and not the result of an invation of a host cell?

Not exactly. There is very good evidence that some HERVs (Human ERVs) are activated and coding during the human lifetime. There is evidence that this activity can be triggered by disease.

However, there is also evidence that this can have negative as well as positive affects - the activation of HERVs often makes the situation worse, not better.

Also, the human genome contains about 1% ERVs, that's as many as 30,000. Whereas there are many families of ERVs, there are many less than 30,000, and most of these are copies of the same sort of retrovirus, from the same family. As you can see from the link I posted, the example I gave of shared ERVs between animals were all from the same family. Now it may be that a few ERVs are actually misidentified, and may be native to the genome, but it is unlikely that many of the same family of ERV (in this casie HERV-K) would all be doing the same function, as this would involve a lot of redundancy.

Botz

This I can understand...pray continue.

Excellent.

Okay, I'll continue. There's not really much more to say, except to test our predictions from creationism and evolutionism.

Testing the Predictions

If you would care to look back at the link I gave you, and at the picture (the phylogeny) embedded into that page.

This phylogeny was actually not created from previous evidences or understandings of human evolution. It was not based on other genetic, morphological, embryological or fossil evidences. It was actually based on the analysis of shared ERVs.

This should immediately tell you something. This picture is *exactly* the same hierarchical grouping that scientists already believed existed from other evidences for evolution. The fact that ERV evidence, which is independent of other evidences, drew exactly the same picture of relationship as predicted is extremely important to start with.

However, lets explain the picture in more depth. Scientists tested total of 14 known human ERVs of the same family, checking whether they were shared in indentical chromosomal positions by the other animals in the picture. You can see each of these 14 ERVs, represented as an arrow pointing towards a point in the phylogeny. This is when scientists believe they were inserted into the genome.

As you can see, of 14 ERVs tested, only 3 (about 21%, or one fifth) were unique to humans. These are the three that point only to the human lineage, after divergence from other lineages, closely stacked on the right hand side. This blows creationism prediction C1 out of the water, but confirms evolution prediction E1.

You can also see that Humans share most ERVs with chimps and gorillas. In total, we share 11 ERVs with chimps and gorillas, 2 more than Orangs who share 9 with us, and 5 more than with gibbons. The traditional view of human phylogeny states that we are closest related to chimps, then gorillas, then orangs, then gibbons, then old world monkeys, then new world monkeys. The ERV evidence confirms this, meaning that evolutionary prediction E2 has come true, animals who are more closely related share more ERVs. This also confirms E3 and E4, this hierarchy is EXACTLY as predicted by other evolutionary evidence.

E3 is an extremely interesting one, it's probably also the most convincing. It's a bit of a catch all, so let me give you some examples of specifics. Remember I said that according to evolution:

"old world monkeys and humans should share the same number of ERVs with New World Monkeys"

Well, count them. Old world monkeys and humans share exactly 2 ERVs with New World Monkeys, the same two.

I also said:

I can say that Gibbons and Chimps will share the same number of ERVs with Old World Monkeys, but this number will be less than what Chimps and Human beings share.

Again, count em. Gibbons and chimps share exactly the same number of ERVs with Old World Monkeys (4), and this number is less than what humans and chimps share (11). These are very very specific predictions that evolution has made, which are necessary consequences of evolution and phylogeny, and best of all have been shown to be true.

By the way, perhaps you were wondering whatever happened to prediction C2, about timescales for mutation. Well, the answer is simple. Notice the fairly precise spacing of the viruses on this chart. Groups of viruses arn't evenly spaced, they are put where they are in a very deliberate manner.

For example, look at the 3 ERVs that only humans have. Scientists know they must all have implanted after the divergence of human and chimp lineage, or else chimps would have them, but which order did they come in exactly? Which out of the three implanted first, which last? The answer lies in analysing the mutations in each of these ERVs, the extent to which they have been corrupted during the time they have been present in the genome.

As you can see, in each case, for each virus, significant ammounts of mutation has occured, in most cases many millions of years worth of mutation. This would mean that young earth creationist prediction C2 is falsified.

Conclusions

Therefore what can we gather from this evidence so far? Well, firstly, creationism is proven false, its predictions didn't come true, they are in obvious divergence to the facts. Out of 14 ERVs, between 2 animals, creationists would have expected us to share approximately 0 by chance alone in identical positions in the genome. We actually share 9.

Indeed, 2 of those 9 we share with no less than 7 animals in total, in identical positions. You can easily calculate the chances against this occuring by chance using a calculator. The odds are astronomical.

So creationism is false, as is young earth, btw. What else have we proven? Well, we've gone a long way to proving evolution true. Not only are its very specific and unlikely predictions coming true - but also it is the only theory I can think of that would explain the data.

Predictions are necessarily strong evidences, because noone can see into the future. In this case, predictions have been able to tell between a hypothesis that was incorrect (creationism), and a genuine scientific theory that is likely, at least in part, to be true (evolution).

[nebula]

So creationism is false, as is young earth, btw. What else have we proven? Well, we've gone a long way to proving evolution true. Not only are its very specific and unlikely predictions coming true - but also it is the only theory I can think of that would explain the data.

Proven?

Have you truly been able to jump from "supported by the evidence" to "proven"?

You know you need to be careful about when you use that word, you know?

[Bread_of_Life]

Nebula,

I do not think I used the word "Proven" disproportionately. A hypothesis only needs to get one prediction wrong to be proven false. This is why science spends a lot of time disproving theories - because disproof takes less time!

In terms of proving a theory true, establishing it as a fact, this requires a lot of evidence, and hence more than a single prediction. However, in the case of evolution, so many predictions have been proven true that, like other similar theories, we think of it as fact, as proven beyond reasonable doubt.

What I've done here is look at 4 predictions of evolution with regard to ERVs. We've found that evolutionary theory has gotten all 4 predictions right. Is that just blind luck, even with such specific predictions, or must evolution have at least some element of truth in it? Also, of course, when put in context of other evidences and predictions, this builds a convincing case. Since this context doesn't exist here, I chose my words carefully, I said that this went a long way to proving evolution true, I didn't say it did.

[Bread_of_Life]

horizoneast

[Botz]

Testing the Predictions

If you would care to look back at the link I gave you, and at the picture (the phylogeny) embedded into that page.

This phylogeny was actually not created from previous evidences or understandings of human evolution. It was not based on other genetic, morphological, embryological or fossil evidences. It was actually based on the analysis of shared ERVs.

This should immediately tell you something. This picture is *exactly* the same hierarchical grouping that scientists already believed existed from other evidences for evolution. The fact that ERV evidence, which is independent of other evidences, drew exactly the same picture of relationship as predicted is extremely important to start with.

Hi SA...The easiest thing to do would be to refer you to what HorizonEast says...he seems to grasp what you are talking about far easier than I do...but that would be a cop out and so I will really try hard to answer you fairly.

I can see that the expected evidence supports the Scientists hypotheses...but surely this sort of thing has happened time and time again and proved inconclusive especially in the light of freshly emerging information?

Also are there not Evolutionists who actually disagree or are sceptical of the apparent brilliant results that the ERVs seem to project?

You can also see that Humans share most ERVs with chimps and gorillas. In total, we share 11 ERVs with chimps and gorillas, 2 more than Orangs who share 9 with us, and 5 more than with gibbons. The traditional view of human phylogeny states that we are closest related to chimps, then gorillas, then orangs, then gibbons, then old world monkeys, then new world monkeys. The ERV evidence confirms this, meaning that evolutionary prediction E2 has come true, animals who are more closely related share more ERVs. This also confirms E3 and E4, this hierarchy is EXACTLY as predicted by other evolutionary evidence.

I bet if you asked the average man in the street what the traditional view of human phyogeny was..he would not have a clue ...and that when explained there would be a wide variety of answers that were nearest the expected view through chance more than knowledge...I am beginning to suspect that the complicated language of Science is only known by a small proportion of individuals and that most is taken on trust by a fairly complacent public....Sorry this was not meant to be a smokescreen...just observations as I myself strive to understand things presented here.

As you can see, in each case, for each virus, significant ammounts of mutation has occured, in most cases many millions of years worth of mutation. This would mean that young earth creationist prediction C2 is falsified.

Conclusions

Therefore what can we gather from this evidence so far? Well, firstly, creationism is proven false, its predictions didn't come true, they are in obvious divergence to the facts. Out of 14 ERVs, between 2 animals, creationists would have expected us to share approximately 0 by chance alone in identical positions in the genome. We actually share 9.

Indeed, 2 of those 9 we share with no less than 7 animals in total, in identical positions. You can easily calculate the chances against this occuring by chance using a calculator. The odds are astronomical.

So creationism is false, as is young earth, btw. What else have we proven? Well, we've gone a long way to proving evolution true. Not only are its very specific and unlikely predictions coming true - but also it is the only theory I can think of that would explain the data.

Predictions are necessarily strong evidences, because noone can see into the future. In this case, predictions have been able to tell between a hypothesis that was incorrect (creationism), and a genuine scientific theory that is likely, at least in part, to be true (evolution).

Man SA... I can just about see what you are trying to intimate through Scientific prediction...but as I barely understood it I can hardly agree or disagree with what you are trying to do...and I am not trying to plead ignorance to protect my Creationist views. I have spent time on numerous sites wading through the information on ERVs and predictions within Science...but my only conclusion is that this type of ?'micro-evolution' is fraught with difficulties not least being its relative newness to the scene...and the lack of in depth understanding of the results over a period of time...ie. because it is so new there are all sorts of possibilities that might severely change the data so far agreed upon.

[Bread_of_Life]

Botz

Hi SA...The easiest thing to do would be to refer you to what HorizonEast says...he seems to grasp what you are talking about far easier than I do...but that would be a cop out and so I will really try hard to answer you fairly.

Perhaps you could point out exactly where your understanding breaks down on this subject, and then I could discuss it in simpler terms?

I can see that the expected evidence supports the Scientists hypotheses...but surely this sort of thing has happened time and time again and proved inconclusive especially in the light of freshly emerging information?

Not really. It is rare for a theory to make several very specific predictions, for these predictions to be proven true, but then for the core of the theory to be proven totally false, or indeed inconclusive.

Also are there not Evolutionists who actually disagree or are sceptical of the apparent brilliant results that the ERVs seem to project?

Well, there is some disagreement as to how useful genetic evidences in general can be in terms of resolving fine structure relationships between animals.

For example, if you look at the phylogeny (the tree) I linked you to, you'll notice that Humans, Chimps and Gorillas share the same number of ERVs (11). Now, it's very unlikely that these 3 lineages split off at the same time, so this still leaves the question open "chimps or gorillas, which are humans closer related to?" This sort of fine structure question in phylogeny has been difficult to resolve, especially for very closely related species like Gorillas, chimps and us.

However, there is no disagreement whatsoever in the scientific that ERVs conclusively show (as does much other evidence) that the animal kingdom really is related.

I bet if you asked the average man in the street what the traditional view of human phyogeny was..he would not have a clue ...and that when explained there would be a wide variety of answers that were nearest the expected view through chance more than knowledge...I am beginning to suspect that the complicated language of Science is only known by a small proportion of individuals and that most is taken on trust by a fairly complacent public

Unfortunately, you're right, most people wouldn't know what a "phylogeny" was, far less how to draw the one for humans beings and the apes. They wouldn't know in other words whether we are more closely related to a gibbon or a chimp (although they'd probably guess chimp, and they'd be right as it happens).

However, this is not due to closedness within the scientific community - who are open and public about publishing their results and putting them on show. It's more to do with the level of scientific education in our respective countries, which is extremely poor. In the US, about 50% of high school graduates believe that the world was created exactly as it says in the book of genesis, word for word - this is shows a very worrying ignorance of basic scientific evidence and fact.

I have spent time on numerous sites wading through the information on ERVs and predictions within Science...but my only conclusion is that this type of ?'micro-evolution' is fraught with difficulties not least being its relative newness to the scene...and the lack of in depth understanding of the results over a period of time...ie. because it is so new there are all sorts of possibilities that might severely change the data so far agreed upon.

What sort of information, for example? And again, if you could, please do explain what you do not understand about our conversation so far, and I'll be more than happy to try to explain it again.

horizoneast

my cut and paste was not given for you to answer, nor did I solicit such from you. It was posted so others might see another opinion on the subject of shared errors in DNA. There are many assumptions presented in the two views and the calculations from each are certainly not conclusive, but both views may be of general interest in light of your speculative claims.

Perhaps though, given that I did answer all the points therein, you might want to answer my points. After all, the fact that there exists a counter-argument doesn't mean that argument is any good. I can make up a spurious a counter-argument to the existence of Mars or Venus, it doesn't mean it holds water. The best thing to do would be to try to defend the views expressed in your article - simply stating an opposing view really isn't enough.

I hardly think the textbooks are being re-written. Your grandiose assertions that you have proven

[jenbe]

horizeneast,

Reading through your post , I really thought I had wandered onto the humour site by mistake.........it certainly made me smile.....intentional or not....

Jill

[Bread_of_Life]

Jenbe

Wow SA your