Half Lives Havn't Changed

[Bread_of_Life]

Mscoville,

I'm not talking to you currently, I quite admit you've got me whipped on the science end, I have better evidence than your Isochrons.

Whether or not you do, you're theory better explain isochrons too. Any good theory should explain all the available evidence, after all.

Atheist, do you want to translate this for me? This makes it sound as if it has the potential through insertions to cause mutation that could be seen as evolution. However it makes it sound also as if it is not a definite. Also does this mean that new information (or a net increase in information) is added without a source through random mutation? Or does it simply mean that there is the potential for that and so far only non beneficial mutations like schizophrenia have been observed?

Okay, in plain english, the paper is saying that ERVIs (endogenous retroviral insertions) could in of themselves cause further potentially harmful mutations in the human genome where they are inserted. However, this paper is purely about the effects of retroviral insertions, and not their significance evolutionarily.

Let me explain what retroviral insertions are. Basically, most viruses do not have a mechanism for copying themselves - in other words, they lack reproductive apparatus. That means that they use our (or other animals) gene copying apparatus instead. Inside every cell in our body we have gene copying apparatus - not only because we have to make new cells to replace old ones all the time, but also because genes code from proteins, and therefore we have to "read" genes all the time to make these proteins.

Viruses very cleverly insert themselves in our DNA, and use these processes to make copies of themselves. Because our body is very good at making copies of DNA, viruses can reproduce very fast inside of us. In fact, some viruses reproduce hundreds of times faster than bacteria, and can overrun our cells very quickly indeed.

However, occasionally, the cells in which these viruses imbed survive with the imbedded virus intact within our DNA. When this happens in a sex cell, like a sperm or an egg, this insertion can be passed onto our young. Occasionally, these insertions become "fixed" within a genome, that is, the young that they are passed onto are successful at surviving and breeding, as are their young etc, and the insertion becomes very common within the population. Now, this clearly isn't a very common occurence, because it involves some considerable luck, but over the course of millions of years, it does happen. In fact, it has happened quite a lot - about 1% of our DNA is made up of retroviral insertions (Retroviruses and primate evolution, Sverdlov ED., http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.f...5&dopt=Abstract )

Okay, so now you know what a retroviral insertion is. But how can they help us infer evolutionary change, and find out about evolutionary relationships. Well, the answer is simple. Evolution is about common ancestry. In other words, if you go far enough back, chimps and ourselves end up being related to the same creature, and that creature, if you go far enough back, merges with the cat lineage, which eventually merges with the reptile lineage etc etc.

What that means is, if evolution is true, then we should share lots of retroviral insertions with our close relatives, because we will have inherited the same ERVIs from our shared common ancestor. These insertions will be the same insertions in the same place. However, with animals that we are less closely related to, we will share considerably less insertions, because it is extremely unlikely that the same retrovirus would have inserted itself at the same place in sex cells and become fixed in two different creatures independently. Therefore, if we do find a significant number of retroviral insertions in common in creatures, we can be sure that they are related - because it is impossible that we would share so many of the same insertions at the same place in our genome by chance.

What we can also do is compare a large set of insertions, say, 5 to 10, in a group of animals, and infer evolutionary relationship, and see if that is in agreement with other forms of evidence, such as morphological, other genetic evidences, fossil record etc. And of course, this analysis is being done more and more now we are sequencing the genomes of more animals.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/se...ml#retroviruses

If you click on the link above you will see the results of such a comparison. In this test, scientists compared 14 ERVs between 6 different species. They found that, humans chimps and gorillas were very closely related, as they shared 11 in common. In turn, 9 of these they also all shared with orangutans. Orangs, humans, chimps and gorillas shared 7 with gibbons. This larger group shared 5 with old world monkeys but only 2 with new world monkeys. Humans had 3 ERVs to themselves, that they shared with no other species.

This clearly indicates phylogenetic relationship between apes, there is no other way of explaining this phenomenon. Furthermore, the effect is falsifiable. For example, if we found the 2 retroviral insertions that humans, chimps and gorillas shared exclusively in cows, or sheep, or lizards, then this would make no sense in an evolutionary framework. However, we do not.

[Guest mscoville]

because it is impossible that we would share so many of the same insertions at the same place in our genome by chance.

Hilarious argument for an evolutionist to use in my opinion. I get your argument though.

Whether or not you do, you're theory better explain isochrons too. Any good theory should explain all the available evidence, after all.

I'm sure God understands it better than you. Ha. It's a pity you don't understand him. Then you'd have some meaning in your life, because he is the source of truth. Prepared for your yadda yadda.

So is this what you think too Yod? Are you an evolutionist too? If so, was Adam a half man or what?

I fish for brook trout primarily. Some steel head, atlantic salmon, coho, king salmon, browns, yum....

~M

[Bread_of_Life]

Hilarious argument for an evolutionist to use in my opinion. I get your argument though.

How come it's hilarious, given that you do get the argument?

[Guest mscoville]

chance.

Ironic, funny. Saying that it's unlikely that something would happen by chance.

[Osiris]

Gotta question -

Psalm 19

4 . . . In the heavens he has pitched a tent for the sun,

5 which is like a bridegroom coming forth from his pavilion,

like a champion rejoicing to run his course.

6 It rises at one end of the heavens

and makes its circuit to the other;

nothing is hidden from its heat.

Ecclesiastes 1:5

The sun rises and the sun sets, and hurries back to where it rises.

Is anyone going to fight tooth and nail here that the sun orbits the Earth - because this is what the Bible says happens!?

What's the argument here ( no sarcasm intended ) ? The sun does rise and set....hence the term sunrise and sunset.

You forgot "and hurries back to where it rises."

The sun rises and sets from our perspective, but it does NOT hurry back to were it rises because the earth is the one doing the rotation. But I guess since it is in the bible, a round earth rotating on its axis must not be true.

[Guest mscoville]

Howdy Osiris,

That was not a very well stated argument. The verse from Ecclesiastes is a poetic verse. Are you Christian or am I banging my head against a wall if I ask you a question?

~ Martin

Edited June 2, 2004 by mscoville

[Steff]

Mscoville, I have a question. How do you know the verse in Ecclesiastes is a poetic verse and the book of Genesis isn't? You can't just pick and choose what is meant to be poetry and what isn't. My question is how do you decide which is which?

[Guest mscoville]

Don't take my word for it. I'm a moron. Do some study on the different styles of writing in the Bible. There are many. The Bible uses colorful language at times. Genesis is not written that way. It's concise and to the point. It's an account. It's not flowered up. Check it out. Read the accompanying verses in Ecclesiastes. Then read Genesis. If you want the Bible to seem like it has problems you can make all kinds of "startling" discoveries. Check your self for motive before you read.

~ Suspended Brain Scoville (given name)

[Steff]

Settle down Mscoville, I wasn't name calling or saying you were an idiot, I was simply asking a legitimate question.

If you interpret the greek version of the bible does Ecclesiastes come across as poetic? Or did the translators who did the original KJV just translate it that way? I'd be interested to see what a linguist versed in ancient greek would have to say. I'd also point out that what one person considerers poetic, another may not. You need a measuring stick if you will to make a reasonable argument here.

[Guest Strservant]

Settle down Mscoville, I wasn't name calling or saying you were an idiot, I was simply asking a legitimate question.

If you interpret the greek version of the bible does Ecclesiastes come across as poetic? Or did the translators who did the original KJV just translate it that way? I'd be interested to see what a linguist versed in ancient greek would have to say. I'd also point out that what one person considerers poetic, another may not. You need a measuring stick if you will to make a reasonable argument here.

Steff,

Please accept this as it is intended. I'm not trying to be offensive at all just informative. The Old Testament was originally written in Hebrew not Greek, therefore to find the styles of writing one would need to look at Hebrew writings. Again no offense intended.

Respectfully,

Strservant