RE: "Where is your evidence?"

RE: "Where is your evidence?" (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Theology] >> Science & Origins

Message

Bettawrekonize -> RE: "Where is your evidence?" (11/7/2007 10:58:56 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Method You are trying to use modern examples to show that speciation would not produce a nested hierarchy in the absence of horizontal transfer using ERV's specifically. If you are using modern examples then you must include all 200,000 ERV's, not just the handful that differ between any individual human. According to UCD, at one time those 200,000 ERV's were't there and at a later time they were. They weren't all put there at once and at the time they were put their, there is no reason for them to branch off into a nested hierarchy. quote: If you include all ERV's, as any model should, then it becomes quite apparent that after millions of years these lineages will still share hundreds of thousands of ERV's even though they have not interbred in all that time. Each lineage will also have ERV's not found in the other lineage due to accumulation of those ERV's since they diverged. Let's call these lineages A and B. At this point let's say that lineage B splits once again into lineage C. That lineage will have the lineage B specific ERV's that accumulated since the split from lineage A as well as the ERV's shared between lineage A and lineage B. After a few million years all three lineages will accumulate lineage specific ERV's but all three lineages will share ERV's from the common ancestor of all three lineages (the common ancestor of lineages A and B) and lineages B and C will share ERV's that accumulated before the divergence of lineage C. Voila, a nested hierarchy. Your model seems to assume that the organisms acquired all 200,000 ERV's at once. I am going to assume that's not what you are contending. I have shown, on a case by case bases, why these ERV's would not form any such nested hierarchy. quote: Only if individual ERV's outnumbered shared ERV's. They don't. According to UCD, at one time, those alleged shared erv's were individual Erv's. There is no reason for them to have branched into any sort of nested hierarchy to begin with. Your model seems to assume that the organisms acquired all 200,000 ERV's all at once. If this is not the case, then there is no reason for ERV's to form any such nested hierarchy. When any specific ERV is acquired, the organisms that acquired them would speciate into violations using methods described above. When new ERV's are acquired, those organisms will likewise speciate into violations by the methods described above. After millions of years (and by the time you have 200,000 ERV's), the methods I described above (based on what we know about genetics) would form a giant mess, not a nested hierarchy.

Bettawrekonize -> RE: "Where is your evidence?" (11/7/2007 11:13:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Method You are trying to use modern examples to show that speciation would not produce a nested hierarchy in the absence of horizontal transfer using ERV's specifically. If you are using modern examples then you must include all 200,000 ERV's, not just the handful that differ between any individual human. No, I do not have to show that the alleged ERV's that don't differ among humans would form violations, I just have to show that the recently acquired ones would form violations. All 200,000 alleged ERV's that exist among humans were, according to UCD, acquired sometime in the past and were not all magically inserted into an entire specie all at once. Since there is no reason that the recently acquired ones would form a nested hierarchy then there is no reason for the 200,000 alleged ERV's to form a nested hierarchy at the various times that they were acquired and the organisms possessing them diverged. If UCD is true, we would expect to see a tangled mess. Furthermore, as the organisms further diversify, it would be expected that the alleged nested hierarchy would become blurred and organisms would begin to form a mess as mutations and new ERV's accumulate and form violations from the methods I demonstrated before, especially over millions of years of accumulated violations. This alleged nested hierarchy is not evidence for evolution, it's a problem for evolution, and I think you're beginning to see why. Indeed, the evidence was designed to resist naturalistic explanation to a remarkable degree, not only does this alleged nested hierarchy resist common decent, but it even resists horizontal gene transfer as a mechanism for additional variation (since they would form violations), making it difficult for committed naturalists to speculate any naturalistic unguided mechanism that would form such a phenomena. quote: Syvanen published a series of papers on horizontal gene transfer starting in 1984 [1], predicting that lateral gene transfer exists, has biological significance, and is a process that shaped evolutionary history from the very beginning of life on earth. ... "While horizontal gene transfer is well-known among bacteria, it is only within the past 10 years that its occurrence has become recognized among higher plants and animals. The scope for horizontal gene transfer is essentially the entire biosphere, with bacteria and viruses serving both as intermediaries for gene trafficking and as reservoirs for gene multiplication and recombination (the process of making new combinations of genetic material)." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horizontal_gene_transfer Not only does a nested hierarchy resist universal evolution, it even resists horizontal gene transfers as a mechanism having influence on evolution to produce further diversity. Again, UCD is unfalsifiable. UCD does not predict this arbitrary nested hierarchy and a nested hierarchy resists horizontal gene transfer as being a mechanism that aided in the process of creating new combinations of genetic material. quote: As Jain, Rivera and Lake (1999) put it: "Increasingly, studies of genes and genomes are indicating that considerable horizontal transfer has occurred between prokaryotes."[2] (see also Lake and Riveral, 2007).[3] The phenomenon appears to have had some significance for unicellular eukaryotes as well. As Bapteste et al. (2005) observe, "additional evidence suggests that gene transfer might also be an important evolutionary mechanism in protist evolution."[4] The only reason horizontal gene transfer is speculated here (despite the general lack of observable mechanism) and not in the case of humans and chimps is because in the case of humans and chimps horizontal gene transfer does not fit the pattern. However, in the above example, it more closely fits the pattern so they speculate it as a cause of diversity (or something that helps bring about more diversity). Assuming this alleged nested hierarchy does exist among higher organisms (ie: humans and chimps) and assuming UCD does predict it (which it does not) even if there are violations, they could attribute it to horizontal gene transfer just like they do with prokaryotes. The lack of observable mechanism isn't a problem in the case of prokaryotes and likewise wouldn't be a problem in the case of humans, chimps, and similar organisms. After all, we do observe viruses that can cross the specie boundary, over millions of years it is perfectly plausible for such retroviruses to produce many such violations. Again, this alleged nested hierarchy for higher taxons resists UCD (for reasons stated above) and it resists horizontal gene transfer.

Veritas -> RE: "Where is your evidence?" (11/7/2007 11:30:03 PM)
Betta, You've argued that the nested hierarchy is arbitrary; that there is no nested hierarchy. Now, you are trying to argue that evolution does not predict a nested hierarchy. I think both points are wrong, but if you think they are both correct, then there is no problem with evolution. If you are right, then there is no nested hierarchy, but that's OK because evolution does not predict one.

Bettawrekonize -> RE: "Where is your evidence?" (11/7/2007 11:46:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Veritas You've argued that the nested hierarchy is arbitrary; that there is no nested hierarchy. Now, you are trying to argue that evolution does not predict a nested hierarchy. I am arguing that even if the alleged nested hierarchy is not arbitrary, UCD does not predict one.

BVZ -> RE: "Where is your evidence?" (11/8/2007 9:35:10 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize quote: ORIGINAL: Veritas You've argued that the nested hierarchy is arbitrary; that there is no nested hierarchy. Now, you are trying to argue that evolution does not predict a nested hierarchy. I am arguing that even if the alleged nested hierarchy is not arbitrary, UCD does not predict one. Betta: Answer the following: If two organisms share 200000 ERV's in identical locations, are they related? If you answered no, how did they both end up with the 200000 ERV's they share?

Bettawrekonize -> RE: "Where is your evidence?" (11/8/2007 11:04:46 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BVZ If two organisms share 200000 ERV's in identical locations, are they related? Why should they be? Evolution doesn't predict that they should be related (well, it doesn't necessarily predict that they shouldn't be related either, it predicts nothing. Evolution definitely doesn't predict this alleged nested hierarchy). quote: If you answered no, how did they both end up with the 200000 ERV's they share? Perhaps these alleged ERV's aren't ERV's but they were put there by a designer because they serve a purpose. Perhaps the purpose is to resist naturalistic explanation or perhaps they serve a function to the organism (or did serve a function and the function broke in some organisms due to mutations). After all, we have found alleged ERV's that serve a function. The problem here is that you are assuming unguided naturalistic processes and then you're trying to have me explain things from an unguided naturalistic perspective when the very thing I am explaining to you is that the evidence resists unguided naturalistic explanations. Another problem with your ERV hypothesis that resists naturalistic explanation is this quote: If the human race is younger than the murine race, as evolutionist biologists believe, there is no reason to suppose that the human ERVs are older than those of the mouse. (3) Xenotropic ERVs reside in cells that have no receptor for them. Instead, envelope (env) proteins of these ERVs bind receptors on cells of other animals.8 How did these ERVs get into the cell, if they were not built inside? It is no surprise to read speculations like this in Retroviruses, the �Bible� of retrovirology: �It is likely that xenotropic viruses originally inserted into the germ line in a host background that encoded their cognate receptor but that the functional xenotropic viral receptor allele was subsequently lost, probably under selective pressure from exogenous xenotropic viruses.�9 http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v1/n2/were-retroviruses-created-good So of course, committed naturalists must resort to unscientific, unsubstantiated explanations to explain these problems away.

Bettawrekonize -> RE: "Where is your evidence?" (11/8/2007 11:10:33 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Method But unguided natural processes DO FOLLOW RULES. Neither the laws of physics nor natural selection care to create or maintain a nested hierarchy.

Aristocrat -> RE: "Where is your evidence?" (11/8/2007 11:57:34 AM)
Quick question to the folks on this thread trying to reason with Betta. If Betta refuses to accept common descent, how how could she possibly entertain the concept of "Nested Hierarchy"?

Method -> RE: "Where is your evidence?" (11/8/2007 5:29:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize According to UCD, at one time those 200,000 ERV's were't there and at a later time they were. They weren't all put there at once and at the time they were put their, there is no reason for them to branch off into a nested hierarchy. This is a matter of retroviral insertion and mutation. As new ERV's enter the genome other more ancient ERV's are either removed through random deletions or accumulate enough mutations that they are no longer recognized as ERV's. The human and chimp genome project is but a snapshot of a continuing process. Secondly, ERV's don't "branch off". Populations do. quote: quote: If you include all ERV's, as any model should, then it becomes quite apparent that after millions of years these lineages will still share hundreds of thousands of ERV's even though they have not interbred in all that time. Each lineage will also have ERV's not found in the other lineage due to accumulation of those ERV's since they diverged. Let's call these lineages A and B. At this point let's say that lineage B splits once again into lineage C. That lineage will have the lineage B specific ERV's that accumulated since the split from lineage A as well as the ERV's shared between lineage A and lineage B. After a few million years all three lineages will accumulate lineage specific ERV's but all three lineages will share ERV's from the common ancestor of all three lineages (the common ancestor of lineages A and B) and lineages B and C will share ERV's that accumulated before the divergence of lineage C. Voila, a nested hierarchy. Your model seems to assume that the organisms acquired all 200,000 ERV's at once. I am going to assume that's not what you are contending. I have shown, on a case by case bases, why these ERV's would not form any such nested hierarchy. My model assumes that organisms have the ERV's that they have. Humans have 200,000 ERV's. How they got there is demonstrated by comparisons to other species. ERV's will continue to accumulate in the genome and old ones will either disappear through mutation or deletion events. This is the way of things. quote: According to UCD, at one time, those alleged shared erv's were individual Erv's. There is no reason for them to have branched into any sort of nested hierarchy to begin with. ERV's don't branch off. Populations do. When those populations branch off they will have all of the ERV's found in the ancestral population just as you and your siblings share the ERV's found in your parents. Once the two populations are genetically isolated (i.e. new species) they will accumulate lineage specific ERV's that will not be shared between the two groups. This produces a nested hierarchy. quote: When any specific ERV is acquired, the organisms that acquired them would speciate into violations using methods described above. How does this work? How does the process of speciation produce violations of a nested hierarchy? Moving to post 76 . . . quote: No, I do not have to show that the alleged ERV's that don't differ among humans would form violations, I just have to show that the recently acquired ones would form violations. Your model only works with asexual reproduction. Among sexually reproducing populations you need mates, and mates for your offspring. This requires a population that will also have the new ERV in approximately the same numbers. quote: Syvanen published a series of papers on horizontal gene transfer starting in 1984 [1], predicting that lateral gene transfer exists, has biological significance, and is a process that shaped evolutionary history from the very beginning of life on earth. ... "While horizontal gene transfer is well-known among bacteria, it is only within the past 10 years that its occurrence has become recognized among higher plants and animals. The scope for horizontal gene transfer is essentially the entire biosphere, with bacteria and viruses serving both as intermediaries for gene trafficking and as reservoirs for gene multiplication and recombination (the process of making new combinations of genetic material)." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horizontal_gene_transfer Any examples of horizontal transfer between primates? quote: gain, UCD is unfalsifiable. UCD does not predict this arbitrary nested hierarchy and a nested hierarchy resists horizontal gene transfer as being a mechanism that aided in the process of creating new combinations of genetic material. I am not talking about UCD. I am talking about PCD, Primate Common Descent.

Method -> RE: "Where is your evidence?" (11/8/2007 5:41:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize quote: ORIGINAL: BVZ If two organisms share 200000 ERV's in identical locations, are they related? Why should they be? Evolution doesn't predict that they should be related (well, it doesn't necessarily predict that they shouldn't be related either, it predicts nothing. Evolution definitely doesn't predict this alleged nested hierarchy). Then how do you explain the fact that you and your brother have 200,000 ERV's in exactly the same genomic positions? Did you each suffer 200,000 retrovirus infections in the womb and the retrovirus just happened to insert into the same spots? Let's look at the odds of that happening. Let's say that a retrovirus has 1,000 (1E3) positions that it can insert into, and it inserts randomly among those positions. The chances of a single retrovirus inserting into the same position is 1 in 1E3. For each insertion we multiply by another 1,000. So the total probability is 1 in 1E . . . well, it's a huge number. Is that what you are saying? quote: Perhaps these alleged ERV's aren't ERV's but they were put there by a designer because they serve a purpose. Perhaps the purpose is to resist naturalistic explanation or perhaps they serve a function to the organism (or did serve a function and the function broke in some organisms due to mutations). That doesn't explain why you and your brother share the same exact ERV's at the same exact spots. quote: After all, we have found alleged ERV's that serve a function. The problem here is that you are assuming unguided naturalistic processes and then you're trying to have me explain things from an unguided naturalistic perspective when the very thing I am explaining to you is that the evidence resists unguided naturalistic explanations. Another problem with your ERV hypothesis that resists naturalistic explanation is this So let me get this straight. You and your brother share the same ERV's because of magic? quote: If the human race is younger than the murine race, as evolutionist biologists believe, there is no reason to suppose that the human ERVs are older than those of the mouse. (3) Xenotropic ERVs reside in cells that have no receptor for them. Instead, envelope (env) proteins of these ERVs bind receptors on cells of other animals.8 How did these ERVs get into the cell, if they were not built inside? It is no surprise to read speculations like this in Retroviruses, the �Bible� of retrovirology: �It is likely that xenotropic viruses originally inserted into the germ line in a host background that encoded their cognate receptor but that the functional xenotropic viral receptor allele was subsequently lost, probably under selective pressure from exogenous xenotropic viruses.�9 http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v1/n2/were-retroviruses-created-good Given what we know about evolution and retroviruses this is the most likely conclusion. What do you propose? Magic?

Bettawrekonize -> RE: "Where is your evidence?" (11/8/2007 6:04:38 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Method This is a matter of retroviral insertion and mutation. As new ERV's enter the genome other more ancient ERV's are either removed through random deletions or accumulate enough mutations that they are no longer recognized as ERV's. Which will blur your alleged hierarchy. If UCD is true and what you're saying is true, why haven't most of the alleged 200,000 ERV's gone away in the methods you just described? quote: Secondly, ERV's don't "branch off". Populations do. When the individuals/populations with the recently acquired ERV's branch off. You are obviously taking what I am saying out of context. quote: My model assumes that organisms have the ERV's that they have. Okay, so now you're assuming that they got them by magic? Or are you assuming that they were acquired at one time. If they were acquired at one time when the organisms that acquired them branch off they will form violations just the same way we see violations within a specie. Species with a further relationship will share ERV sequences that species with a closer relationship don't share. Again, you admit that this method will produce violations for recently acquired ERV's, the alleged 200,000 ERV's were at one time recently acquired so they will branch off into violations and those violations will continue down the population as more violations are accumulated through the same methods described above. quote: How they got there is demonstrated by comparisons to other species. You mean assumed by comparisons to other species. Wouldn't they have gotten there by retrovirus activity? After being acquired, there is no reason for the specie to branch off into a nested hierarchy. Organisms within a specie are never observed to produce any such an alleged nested hierarchy. quote: ERV's will continue to accumulate in the genome and old ones will either disappear through mutation or deletion events. This is the way of things. ERV's will accumulate violations in the genome and old violations may become blurred over time (which won't produce this alleged nested hierarchy), but by then new violations would have accumulated. quote: ERV's don't branch off. Populations do. Again, you're taking what I said out of context. When the populations branch off they will form ERV violations just like we see violations within a specie. quote: When those populations branch off they will have all of the ERV's found in the ancestral population just as you and your siblings share the ERV's found in your parents. There would be violations because there would be many populations that are further related containing ERV patterns that you have that species with a closer relationship don't share. When those populations branch off they will branch off to produce violations where populations of a further relationship will have ERV's similarities that populations with a closer relationship don't have. It won't produce your alleged nested hierarchy, it would produce violations. quote: Once the two populations are genetically isolated (i.e. new species) they will accumulate lineage specific ERV's that will not be shared between the two groups. This produces a nested hierarchy They will accumulate more violations using the methods I described (based on what we know about genetics). quote: How does this work? How does the process of speciation produce violations of a nested hierarchy? I already explained it to you. It's perfectly possible for two cousins to share a trait that two brothers don't share. This is a violation in the nested hierarchy. These three people can become isolated and form three separate populations where (at least parts of) one population shares features with another population with a further relationship that it doesn't share with a closer relationship. Evolution produces no such hierarchy on a specie basis so there is no reason for it to produce such an alleged hierarchy once the organisms speciate. It would be expected that violations would exist everywhere once the species speciate because they exist everywhere within the specie (that is, as different segments of a population speciate, you will have linages with a further relationship sharing features that lineages with a closer relationship don't share, producing violations). quote: Your model only works with asexual reproduction. Just the opposite. Sexual reproduction is exactly what produces violations within a specie and those violations will not go away once the organisms speciate. However, I can see why asexual reproduction would produce this alleged nested hierarchy (assuming that horizontal gene transfer doesn't exist within the population). Wow, it all makes sense now, the designer produced violations in populations that produce asexually (ie: the prokaryotes I mentioned from wikipedia that allegedly underwent horizontal gene transfer sometime in the past though it's not observed now) where we don't observe horizontal gene transfer exactly because a nested hierarchy would be expected in those situations. Thanks. quote: Among sexually reproducing populations you need mates, and mates for your offspring. This requires a population that will also have the new ERV in approximately the same numbers. Why would the population have the ERV's in approximately the same numbers? The population doesn't care about the numbers of the ERV's. When an individual acquires an ERV s/he doesn't try to distribute the ERV throughout the population in approximately the same numbers. The ERV will distribute through the offspring and form violations like the violations we see within a specie and when those organisms with violations eventually speciate the violations won't go away. quote: Any examples of horizontal transfer between primates? In the case of prokaryotes, lack of observed mechanism is generally not a problem. So it won't be a problem here either. quote: I am not talking about UCD. I am talking about PCD, Primate Common Descent. You are assuming PCD.

Method -> RE: "Where is your evidence?" (11/8/2007 6:29:20 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize quote: ORIGINAL: Method This is a matter of retroviral insertion and mutation. As new ERV's enter the genome other more ancient ERV's are either removed through random deletions or accumulate enough mutations that they are no longer recognized as ERV's. Which will blur your alleged hierarchy. If UCD is true and what you're saying is true, why haven't most of the alleged 200,000 ERV's gone away in the methods you just described? How does this process blur the hierarchy? Also, given the observed and calculated substitution and indel rate the removal of ERV's is quite slow which is why a nested hierarchy is observed among primates. quote: quote: Secondly, ERV's don't "branch off". Populations do. When the individuals/populations with the recently acquired ERV's branch off. You are obviously taking what I am saying out of context. So using populations, please explain how recently acquired ERV's produce non-nested hierarchies. quote: Okay, so now you're assuming that they got them by magic? Or are you assuming that they were acquired at one time. I am saying that each offspring acquires all of the ERV's present in their parents plus any that may have been produced in the gametes that produced them. Given the extreme rarity of insertion events it is rare for an individual to be born with an ERV not found in either parent. However, given a large enough population and enough time these events do add up. In the 5 or so million years since chimps and humans shared a common ancestor less than 100 ERV's have accumulated in the human genome while 350 or so accumulated in the chimp genome. It's not like this process is extremely common. quote: If they were acquired at one time when the organisms that acquired them branch off they will form violations just the same way we see violations within a specie. Species with a further relationship will share ERV sequences that species with a closer relationship don't share. Say again? Violations are caused by horizontal transfer between lineages. When populations speciate there is no more horizontal transfer so there are no violations. I think you need to spell out your argument step by step. quote: You mean assumed by comparisons to other species. Wouldn't they have gotten there by retrovirus activity? After being acquired, there is no reason for the specie to branch off into a nested hierarchy. Organisms within a specie are never observed to produce any such an alleged nested hierarchy. The time of insertion can be inferred by comparing different species. quote: Again, you're taking what I said out of context. When the populations branch off they will form ERV violations just like we see violations within a specie. Why? quote: There would be violations because there would be many populations that are further related containing ERV patterns that you have that species with a closer relationship don't share. How can I be more closely related to another species than to someone in my own species? That doesn't make sense. quote: I already explained it to you. It's perfectly possible for two cousins to share a trait that two brothers don't share. This is a violation in the nested hierarchy. There can still be horizontal transfer between the descendants of the cousins and brothers, and they do not reproduce asexually. Both the cousins and brothers must find mates and their offspring must as well. Also, the traits that the cousins share is due to a common ancestor, is it not? quote: These three people can become isolated and form three separate populations where (at least parts of) one population shares features with another population with a further relationship that it doesn't share with a closer relationship. That seems highly improbable, does it not? That these three people are the founders of three new species? I think you idea of population genetics is a little off. What is much more common, and observed, is that an ERV will spread through a population. When that population splits into two in a speciation event the ERV will be found at equal frequencies in both populations. quote: quote: Your model only works with asexual reproduction. Among sexually reproducing populations you need mates, and mates for your offspring. This requires a population that will also have the new ERV in approximately the same numbers. Why would the population have the ERV's in approximately the same numbers? Hardy-Weinberg distributions. Basic population genetics. quote: The population doesn't care about the numbers of the ERV's. When an individual acquires an ERV s/he doesn't try to distribute the ERV throughout the population in approximately the same numbers. The ERV will distribute through the offspring and form violations like the violations we see within a specie and when those organisms with violations eventually speciate the violations won't go away. If you have children you have spread approximately 200,000 ERV's. quote: quote: Any examples of horizontal transfer between primates? In the case of prokaryotes, lack of observed mechanism is generally not a problem. So it won't be a problem here either. Horizontal transfer IS observed in prokaryotes. Look up transduction and sex pillus some time. quote: quote: I am not talking about UCD. I am talking about PCD, Primate Common Descent. You are assuming PCD. I am evidencing PCD, which is what the OP asked for.

Bettawrekonize -> RE: "Where is your evidence?" (11/8/2007 7:16:16 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Method So using populations, please explain how recently acquired ERV's produce non-nested hierarchies. Already have. quote: Say again? Violations are caused by horizontal transfer between lineages. When populations speciate there is no more horizontal transfer so there are no violations. We see violations within a specie, it's possible for two cousins to share a characteristic that two brothers don't share. There are violations all over the place within a specie and when the organisms speciate those violations won't go away. quote: The time of insertion can be inferred by comparing different species. However, you're assuming UCD to be true. quote: How can I be more closely related to another species than to someone in my own species? That doesn't make sense. That's not what I'm saying, I'm saying it's possible for two populations with a further relationship to share characteristics that two populations with a closer relationship don't share. quote: Both the cousins and brothers must find mates and their offspring must as well. Yes, and the offspring will also have violations where members with a further relationship share traits that members with a closer relationship don't share, which is exactly what we see within a specie. Those violations won't go away when they speciate. quote: Also, the traits that the cousins share is due to a common ancestor, is it not? Exactly the point and it doesn't form any such nested hierarchy. It forms violations. Likewise, no such nested hierarchy should be expected to be seen if PCD or UCD is true. Those existing violations won't go away when the species speciate. quote: That seems highly improbable, does it not? That these three people are the founders of three new species? I think you idea of population genetics is a little off. This is just one example. This is one possibility, there are many others that would form violations as well. In fact, it would be highly unlikely for a non violation to ever form since the specie has violations all over the place (again, this example is just one such violation. One out of many). Many violations exist within a given specie. Those violations don't just disappear when the specie speciates. quote: What is much more common, and observed, is that an ERV will spread through a population. When that population splits into two in a speciation event the ERV will be found at equal frequencies in both populations. Are these ERV's ever observed to become static within a population (without someone deliberately selecting them to be static)? Source with experiments showing this to happen (and by that, I don't mean speculation based on alleged existing patterns)? If you are saying that the alleged ERV's will spread throughout an entire population (ie: every individual will have it), that's just speculation based on the alleged pattern we observe. It's not based on observation, there is nothing causing it to spread to an entire population. The chances of them becoming static within a population in any sort of nested hierarchy form is unlikely. That means that two individuals both carrying the alleged ERV would have to have offspring, those offspring can only have offspring with other people with the alleged ERV's etc.. until you form a new specie and the odds of that happening are very small. It would mean that people with the ERV's somehow got isolated from people without the ERV's and if this is plausible it's perfectly plausible (actually way more plausible) for three populations to become isolated in the same manner, two people within two populations being brothers and not sharing ERV's while one of those people shares an ERV with a cousin within the third population. It's just as plausible (a lot more plausible) for two isolated populations to share characteristics that two isolated populations with a closer relationship don't share. Within a given specie there are violations all over the place, when the organisms/populations speciate those violations don't disappear. Even if your event does happen and the entire population manages to form a static ERV it still won't form any nested hierarchy relative to other populations (it won't form any sort of nested hierarchy at all, just an isolated ERV with violations all over the place when considering other genetic sequences. Not even the isolated ERV sequence will be a nested hierarchy). There is no nested hierarchy within the specie, when those species speciate there is no reason for them to produce any sort of nested hierarchy. Please explain how a population with violations all over the place whose descendants constantly form violations for as long as we can observe would likely somehow form your alleged nested hierarchy? quote: If you have children you have spread approximately 200,000 ERV's. At one time those alleged ERV's were newly acquired and when they did, they formed violations within the specie in much the same way we see violations within current species. When our alleged ancestors allegedly speciated those violations won't go away.

Bettawrekonize -> RE: "Where is your evidence?" (11/8/2007 7:31:43 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Method Horizontal transfer IS observed in prokaryotes. Look up transduction and sex pillus some time. I know, which is why I said it's generally not a problem. In the case cited on wikipedia, it's not a problem, the only reason why they speculate horizontal gene transfer is because of hierarchy violations. Here is another case. quote: Analysis of DNA sequences suggests that horizontal gene transfer has also occurred within eukaryotes, from their chloroplast and mitochondrial genome to their nuclear genome. As stated in the endosymbiotic theory, chloroplasts and mitochondria probably originated as bacterial endosymbionts of a progenitor to the eukaryotic cell.[8] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horizontal_gene_transfer#Prokaryotes In this example they find violations so they speculate horizontal gene transfer despite the lack of observable mechanism. The lack of observable mechanism isn't a problem here and it likewise wouldn't be a problem if there are violations within the higher taxons.

Bettawrekonize -> RE: "Where is your evidence?" (11/8/2007 11:17:20 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Method Among prokaryotes there is horizontal gene transfer and relationships do resemble a tangled mess. However, the diversity caused by the currently observable horizontal gene transfer is minimal. quote: It has been suggested that horizontal gene transfer (HGT) is the "essence of phylogeny." In contrast, much data suggest that this is an exaggeration resulting in part from a reliance on inadequate methods to identify HGT events. In addition, the assumption that HGT is a ubiquitous influence throughout evolution is questionable. Instead, rampant global HGT is likely to have been relevant only to primitive genomes. In modern organisms we suggest that both the range and frequencies of HGT are constrained most often by selective barriers. As a consequence those HGT events that do occur most often have little influence on genome phylogeny. Although HGT does occur with important evolutionary consequences, classical Darwinian lineages seem to be the dominant mode of evolution for modern organisms. http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/100/17/9658 So how do committed naturalists accommodate this problem? "Instead, rampant global HGT is likely to have been relevant only to primitive genomes" They speculate that HGT was rampant sometime in the past (and not now) despite lack of observable evidence. This is not evidence for UCD, it's a problem for UCD. "As a consequence those HGT events that do occur most often have little influence on genome phylogeny." Basically, they are saying that the HGT events that do occur have little influence on genome phylogeny yet you admit that prokaryotes resemble a tangled mess. This is a problem for evolution. So, to explain this tangled mess (among other problems), they are speculating that rampant global HGT occurred sometime in the past despite lack of observation. More examples of committed naturalists resorting to unobserved speculation to explain problems.

BVZ -> RE: "Where is your evidence?" (11/8/2007 11:42:59 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize quote: ORIGINAL: BVZ If two organisms share 200000 ERV's in identical locations, are they related? Why should they be? Evolution doesn't predict that they should be related (well, it doesn't necessarily predict that they shouldn't be related either, it predicts nothing. Evolution definitely doesn't predict this alleged nested hierarchy). So your answer is no. quote: quote: If you answered no, how did they both end up with the 200000 ERV's they share? Perhaps these alleged ERV's aren't ERV's but they were put there by a designer because they serve a purpose. Perhaps the purpose is to resist naturalistic explanation or perhaps they serve a function to the organism (or did serve a function and the function broke in some organisms due to mutations). After all, we have found alleged ERV's that serve a function. The problem here is that you are assuming unguided naturalistic processes and then you're trying to have me explain things from an unguided naturalistic perspective when the very thing I am explaining to you is that the evidence resists unguided naturalistic explanations. Another problem with your ERV hypothesis that resists naturalistic explanation is this quote: If the human race is younger than the murine race, as evolutionist biologists believe, there is no reason to suppose that the human ERVs are older than those of the mouse. (3) Xenotropic ERVs reside in cells that have no receptor for them. Instead, envelope (env) proteins of these ERVs bind receptors on cells of other animals.8 How did these ERVs get into the cell, if they were not built inside? It is no surprise to read speculations like this in Retroviruses, the �Bible� of retrovirology: �It is likely that xenotropic viruses originally inserted into the germ line in a host background that encoded their cognate receptor but that the functional xenotropic viral receptor allele was subsequently lost, probably under selective pressure from exogenous xenotropic viruses.�9 http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v1/n2/were-retroviruses-created-good So of course, committed naturalists must resort to unscientific, unsubstantiated explanations to explain these problems away. Excellent. Now, answer the following: Do you believe that a designer placing the ERV's is a scientific view?

BVZ -> RE: "Where is your evidence?" (11/8/2007 11:47:56 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Aristocrat Quick question to the folks on this thread trying to reason with Betta. If Betta refuses to accept common descent, how how could she possibly entertain the concept of "Nested Hierarchy"? You don't have to understand something to disagree with it. Betta disagrees with us on the point that ERV's are evidence for common descent. But at the same time he doesn't understand it. All I am trying to do here is to upgrade his position to a better one, namely: He ACTUALLY UNDERSTANDS what ERV's are, and how they are evidence for UCD, and doesn't agree with it. I don't mind people disagreeing with me. But Betta doesn't even understand what we are talking about. (Which is easily shown by his claim that ERV's can arise through convergent evolution. (??!?!?!?)) Also, I do it for the lurkers.

Bettawrekonize -> RE: "Where is your evidence?" (11/9/2007 12:32:22 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BVZ But Betta doesn't even understand what we are talking about. (Which is easily shown by his claim that ERV's can arise through convergent evolution. (??!?!?!?)) Where did I say this?

Bettawrekonize -> RE: "Where is your evidence?" (11/9/2007 10:35:37 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Method quote: This is a matter of retroviral insertion and mutation. As new ERV's enter the genome other more ancient ERV's are either removed through random deletions or accumulate enough mutations that they are no longer recognized as ERV's. Also, given the observed and calculated substitution and indel rate the removal of ERV's is quite slow which is why a nested hierarchy is observed among primates. Your later statement makes your former one irrelevant.

BVZ -> RE: "Where is your evidence?" (11/15/2007 12:45:50 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize quote: ORIGINAL: BVZ But Betta doesn't even understand what we are talking about. (Which is easily shown by his claim that ERV's can arise through convergent evolution. (??!?!?!?)) Where did I say this? I went back and checked. It was actually unclemonkey that said it. I apologize.

unclemonkey -> RE: "Where is your evidence?" (11/15/2007 1:26:34 AM)
ORIGINAL: BVZ quote: It was actually unclemonkey that said it. I apologize. You criticized a link I cited by saying: �This is so stupid, I can hardly believe what I am reading. Is the author SERIOUSLY claiming that ERV in the same location in different species, can be ascribed to CONVERGENT EVOLUTION?� I just check the cite and what it says is �Evolution does not even predict the existence of ERVs, much less that they will be found at the same location in two or more species�. How you understand that as �claiming that ERV in the same location in different species, can be ascribed to CONVERGENT EVOLUTION� is beyond me. In response to your obviously bogus accusation I asked the question: �Humans and frogs both have five digits on the hands/feet. According to the TOE, is that because of �common descent� or is it �convergent evolution�?�. You never answered my question but continue your bogus accusation. How about answering my question?

BVZ -> RE: "Where is your evidence?" (11/15/2007 6:26:02 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: unclemonkey ORIGINAL: BVZ quote: It was actually unclemonkey that said it. I apologize. You criticized a link I cited by saying: �This is so stupid, I can hardly believe what I am reading. Is the author SERIOUSLY claiming that ERV in the same location in different species, can be ascribed to CONVERGENT EVOLUTION?� If someone things that ERV's can be caused by convergent evolution, they don't know what they are talking about. It's really that simple. quote: I just check the cite and what it says is �Evolution does not even predict the existence of ERVs, much less that they will be found at the same location in two or more species�. How you understand that as �claiming that ERV in the same location in different species, can be ascribed to CONVERGENT EVOLUTION� is beyond me. I quoted the part from the link I was referring to, so I am not sure how you managed to miss it. Read post number 35 in this thread again. I even gave you the link. Here it is again: quote: http://www.trueorigin.org/theobald1e.asp The suggestion that the hypothesis of common ancestry would be falsified by the discovery of the same ERV at the same locus in two species that are not believed to have shared a recent common ancestor is incorrect. ERVs simply would join the list of alleged markers for evolution that exhibit homoplasy. And given what is known of retrovirus selectivity, I doubt anyone would be surprised. I have bolded the part where the claim is made. quote: In response to your obviously bogus accusation I asked the question: �Humans and frogs both have five digits on the hands/feet. According to the TOE, is that because of �common descent� or is it �convergent evolution�?�. You never answered my question but continue your bogus accusation. How about answering my question? Answer: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/04/2/l_042_01.html Interestingly, the answer to your question provides us with even more evidence for UCD. Now isn't that a surprise? Don't you find it that all evidence we find is evidence for UCD... and that we find no evidence contradicting it? Something for you to think about: You guys asked for evidence. We provided it. You responded to the evidence using the link. I showed how the person who wrote the material found there does not know what he/she is talking about, nullifying the response. Are you sure you want to use someone who doesn't know what he/she is talking about as a reference?

unclemonkey -> RE: "Where is your evidence?" (11/15/2007 8:29:24 AM)
ORIGINAL: BVZ quote: If someone things that ERV's can be caused by convergent evolution, they don't know what they are talking about. It's really that simple. YOU are the one who made the claim. The cite you were criticizing made no mention of convergent evolution as you falsely claimed. I asked a question about convergent evolution BECAUSE YOU brought it up. quote: I quoted the part from the link I was referring to, so I am not sure how you managed to miss it. Read post number 35 in this thread again. I even gave you the link. This is NOT saying that anything can be the result of �convergent evolution�. �ERVs simply would join the list of alleged markers for evolution that exhibit homoplasy. And given what is known of retrovirus selectivity, I doubt anyone would be surprised.� They are NOT saying ERV�s can be the result of �convergent evolution�. They are making the obvious observation that when anything doesn�t fit �common descent� evolutionists find some way to make it fit the TOE so they can claim the TOE predicts it. Your claim is still false. quote: Answer: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/04/2/l_042_01.html �The explanation for this common structure lies in a common heritage� � from your cite. I understand that to mean the answer is that frogs and humans share a common ancestor. Do you agree?

BVZ -> RE: "Where is your evidence?" (11/19/2007 12:17:57 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: unclemonkey ORIGINAL: BVZ quote: If someone things that ERV's can be caused by convergent evolution, they don't know what they are talking about. It's really that simple. YOU are the one who made the claim. The cite you were criticizing made no mention of convergent evolution as you falsely claimed. I asked a question about convergent evolution BECAUSE YOU brought it up. The only claim made by me is that the website sais that ERV's can be the result of convergent evolution. This is easily provable by reading the actual website. quote: quote: I quoted the part from the link I was referring to, so I am not sure how you managed to miss it. Read post number 35 in this thread again. I even gave you the link. This is NOT saying that anything can be the result of �convergent evolution�. �ERVs simply would join the list of alleged markers for evolution that exhibit homoplasy. And given what is known of retrovirus selectivity, I doubt anyone would be surprised.� They are NOT saying ERV�s can be the result of �convergent evolution�. They are making the obvious observation that when anything doesn�t fit �common descent� evolutionists find some way to make it fit the TOE so they can claim the TOE predicts it. Your claim is still false. Homoplasy = Convergent evolution. They think that ERV's can be ascribed to homoplasy. Hence, they think that ERV's can be ascribed to convergent evolution. quote: quote: Answer: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/04/2/l_042_01.html �The explanation for this common structure lies in a common heritage� � from your cite. I understand that to mean the answer is that frogs and humans share a common ancestor. Do you agree? Sure.

Method -> RE: "Where is your evidence?" (11/19/2007 7:01:56 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize We see violations within a specie, it's possible for two cousins to share a characteristic that two brothers don't share. There are violations all over the place within a specie and when the organisms speciate those violations won't go away. The violations are caused by horizontal transfer between lineages within a species. But let's take the two cousins and two brothers. They have to mate with someone, don't they? Let's look at one specific HERV that is heterologous in the human population: HERV-K115 quote: Neurosci Lett. 2006 Nov 20;408(3):226-9. Epub 2006 Sep 26. Insertional polymorphism of endogenous retrovirus HERV-K115 in schizophrenia. Otowa T, Tochigi M, Rogers M, Umekage T, Kato N, Sasaki T. Department of Neuropsychiatry, Graduate School of Medicine, University of Tokyo, Bunkyo, Tokyo 113-8655, Japan. Retroviruses are implicated in the pathogenesis of schizophrenia. Human endogenous retrovirus type K115 (HERV-K115) is a full-length, potentially transcriptional retrovirus and is also polymorphic. We investigated the frequency of HERV-K115 in Japanese schizophrenia patients and healthy controls. No difference was found in the frequency between patients and controls (8.4% versus 9.4%, respectively). However, a marginal difference was observed in age at onset between the HERV-K positive and negative patients (p=0.057). The HERV-K115 insertion appeared to be more frequent in patients with younger onset than those with later onset. These results preliminarily suggest that HERV-K115 may not be associated with schizophrenia in general, but that it could play a partial role in early precipitation of the disease. In this case, HERV-K115 is only found in about 10% of the population. The scenario you gave for the cousins and brothers could occur with this ERV. However, if each brother or cousin is going to start a new species then they need someone to mate with, as do their children. This requires a breeding population. 10% of each of those breeding populations will have HERV-K115. Each of those species will have the ERV. quote: quote: The time of insertion can be inferred by comparing different species. However, you're assuming UCD to be true. When time of insertion is inferred from the data it mirrors the nested hierarchy produced by morphology. It's a stunning confirmation of evolution. quote: quote: That seems highly improbable, does it not? That these three people are the founders of three new species? I think you idea of population genetics is a little off. This is just one example. This is one possibility, there are many others that would form violations as well. This is the only possibility, and it would be exceedingly rare. It is much more probable that the HERV would be present in low numbers throughout the population, such as seen with HERV-K115. quote: Are these ERV's ever observed to become static within a population (without someone deliberately selecting them to be static)? ERV's are observed to be static within populations. Most of the 200,000 ERV's in the human genome are homozygous within the population. quote: If you are saying that the alleged ERV's will spread throughout an entire population (ie: every individual will have it), that's just speculation based on the alleged pattern we observe. It's an unavoidable consequence of population genetics. quote: Even if your event does happen and the entire population manages to form a static ERV it still won't form any nested hierarchy relative to other populations (it won't form any sort of nested hierarchy at all, just an isolated ERV with violations all over the place when considering other genetic sequences. Not even the isolated ERV sequence will be a nested hierarchy). If an ERV becomes fixed in a population after sharing common ancestry with chimps it will still form a nested hiearchy. For example, many human ERV's inserted and fixed in human ancestors. Those ERV's are not found in gorillas, macaques, or other primates in the same position in the genome. The nested hierarchy is observed. quote: There is no nested hierarchy within the specie, when those species speciate there is no reason for them to produce any sort of nested hierarchy. Please explain how a population with violations all over the place whose descendants constantly form violations for as long as we can observe would likely somehow form your alleged nested hierarchy? The ERV would be spread throughout the population. You need a breeding population in order to speciate. quote: At one time those alleged ERV's were newly acquired and when they did, they formed violations within the specie in much the same way we see violations within current species. When our alleged ancestors allegedly speciated those violations won't go away. They do go away because horizontal transfer no longer occurs.

Page: << < prev 2 3 [4] 5 6 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5 ANSI