Con Men in Lab Coats [how science corrects itself]

Scientific American ^ | March 2006 | By the editors

[Virginia-American]

[Nature, Sept 1, 2005]

I'm not sure what the problem is supposed to be here.

Have they actually found ERVs at the same locus that don't follow the phylogenetic tree? If so, please highlight whewre they say so.

[WKB]

Sometimes ignorance can be quite tenacious.



I'm afraid you don't know just how right you are.

[Junior]

You are discussing apples and oranges. The insertions you listed were made after the split and are not found in the same regions of DNA. The ones RNW mentioned were made before the split and are found in identical regions of the DNA.

[Doctor Stochastic]

By their perpetual silence, the Creos seem to endorse such.

[Junior]

I've been on these threads for nearly eight years. Believe me, I've seen ignorance even more unassailable than yours.

[bobdsmith]

When you figure out how the sky can give birth to a bacteria get back to me

[WKB]

You didn't read PH's note at the top of thread
did you?

[RightWingNilla]

Why are you citing seven year to decades old studies on small regions of DNA?

How is this relevant? Did the DNA change over the last seven years? If you have a problem with the data itself then say so.

If germ line infection is this common -- which it seems to be -- seeing or not seeing comonalities in organisms sharing common descent is not as important as stressed by the evangelists at to.

It is not common at all apparently (compared with other selfish DNA elements).

But even if it was common, you would seriously expect to see insertions at the same position? For Multiple ERVs?

Remember we are talking about 3 billion base pairs!

[WKB]

When you figure out how the sky can give birth to a bacteria get back to me



Ya'll tell me you don't know what the first "thing" was
Now you tell me the first thing was bacteria.
No wonder I'm so confused.

[Junior]

I most certainly did. Ignorance is not necessarily a bad thing, and it can be rectified. It is also verifiable. Therefore, mentioning one's ignorance cannot be an ad hominem as there is hard-and-fast data, and not just an opinion.

Note, ignorance != stupidity. If I had used the latter, you would be justified in citing an ad hominem attack. However, I do not consider you stupid, simply willfully ignorant.

[Boiler Plate]

Sometimes scientists disgrace themselves. It hurts, but we clean up the mess and move on.

PH,
You truly live in, a most blissful world.
Regards,
Boiler Plate

[Doctor Stochastic]

"A Toyota is better designed than a Buick" is a theological argument?

Perhaps for those who revere Harley Earl. (Who didn't design the Harley-Davidson.)

[zeeba neighba]

the mystery of du missing home page

marker

[WKB]

However, I do not consider you stupid, simply willfully ignorant.




You know for some reason I feel the same way
about you.

[tallhappy]

Have they actually found ERVs at the same locus that don't follow the phylogenetic tree?

It is in the post you replied to.

They suggest it must be due to separate germline insertions. They were surprised to see this.

[WKB]

First reply yet that made any sense.

[Virginia-American]

I'm getting seriously confused.

Where do they say these are in the same position on the various chromosomes?

Thanks

[RightWingNilla]

Have they actually found ERVs at the same locus that don't follow the phylogenetic tree? If so, please highlight whewre they say so.

Now *this* is something that might perhaps raise an eyebrow. But they do not mention anything with respect to chromosomal location.

[RightWingNilla]

I'm getting seriously confused.

That is his intention.

I think they were surprised because they found a new element.

[tallhappy]

You are discussing apples and oranges. The insertions you listed were made after the split and are not found in the same regions of DNA.

That is the suggestion.

If true, and I am not arguing against the suggestion, it is indicative, as I said, that such commonalities are in fact more common than made out to be in arguments for their being evidence of common descent.

The reason the suggestion is made in the chimp genome paper that these are separate germ line insertions is becuase it was surprising to see them.

My point is only that it is not as pat and simple and cut and dried as the evangalists at t.o. make it appear.

Genomic science is fascinating and shouldn't be filtered with pre-conceived notions whose main purpose in the first place was as a form of evangelisim.