Posted on 07/13/2009 9:55:26 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
Human-Chimp Similarities: Common Ancestry or Flawed Research?
by Jeffrey Tomkins, Ph.D.*
In 2003, the human genome was heralded as a near-complete DNA sequence, except for the repetitive regions that could not be resolved due to the limitations of the prevailing DNA sequencing technologies.[1] The chimpanzee genome was subsequently finished in 2005 with the hope that its completion would provide clear-cut DNA similarity evidence for an ape-human common ancestry.[2] This similarity is frequently cited as proof of man's evolutionary origins, but a more objective explanation tells a different story, one that is more complex than evolutionary scientists seem willing to admit...
(Excerpt) Read more at icr.org ...
“there is a petition out with over 700 signatures by scientists stating that htey dissagree with Darwinian Evolution,”
Link?
I have a feeling I know a wee bit more about the subject than you do, your so-called education notwithstanding.
In order for the creationist “explanation” to be superior it would have to BETTER explain the data, the data that you don't know anything about; thus your ‘what do you mean by ‘look younger’?’ question.
Do you realize how stupid it makes you look to claim victory in an argument where you don't understand what is being discussed?
When you made your idiotic and grandiose claim to have refuted an entire field of study I asked you two simple things, neither of which you have been competent enough to accomplish.
a) explain why biologist think ERV is evidence for common descent
b) where you think there made their mistake.
Then you are forced to ask me about the very rudiments of the ERV data for common descent; i.e. ‘what do you mean by “look younger”?’.
Typical creationist “I don't understand the data or the explanation behind it, but I am 100% confident it is wrong, and I already refuted it, and my “explanation” that doesn't even address the data is a far superior because it has the word “creationism” in it.”
from a site discussing ERVs (Seems these supposed ‘evidences for common descent are made up of ‘Human Specific’ and Chimp Specific’ which just shows that even macroevo advocates can’t agree that they are ‘commonly shared’ but Talk Origin has made that claim anyways- apparently, makign hte claim makes it so DESPITE the evidence against it?:
“Endogenous retroviruses. Endogenous retroviruses (ERVs) have become all but extinct in the human lineage, with only a single retrovirus (human endogenous retrovirus K (HERV-K)) still active24. HERV-K was found to be active in both lineages, with at least 73 human-specific insertions (7 full length and 66 solo long terminal repeats (LTRs)) and at least 45 chimpanzee-specific insertions (1 full length and 44 solo LTRs). A few other ERV classes persisted in the human genome beyond the human–chimpanzee split, leaving 9 human-specific insertions (all solo LTRs, including five HERV9 elements) before dying out.”
(Initial Sequence of the Chimpanzee Genome, Nature Sept 1 2005)
If this is something chimps and humans have in common then why are they spoken of as human and chimpanzee specific. These are known to be the most highly transposable elements in the respective genomes, at what point are the sequences identical because I haven’t found any and I have been looking for months.
“Against this background, it was surprising to find that the chimpanzee genome has two active retroviral elements (PtERV1 and PtERV2) that are unlike any older elements in either genome; these must have been introduced by infection of the chimpanzee germ line. The smaller family (PtERV2) has only a few dozen copies, which nonetheless represent multiple (5–8) invasions, because the sequence differences among reconstructed subfamilies are too great (8%) to have arisen by mutation since divergence from human. It is closely related to a baboon endogenous retrovirus (BaEV, 88% ORF2 product identity) and a feline endogenous virus (ECE-1, 86% ORF2 product identity). The larger family (PtERV1) is more homogeneous and has over 200 copies. Whereas older ERVs, like HERV-K, are primarily represented by solo LTRs resulting from LTR–LTR recombination, more than half of the PtERV1 copies are still full length, probably reflecting the young age of the elements. PtERV1-like elements are present in the rhesus monkey, olive baboon and African great apes but not in human, orang-utan or gibbon, suggesting separate germline invasions in these species.”
PtERV1 and PtERV2 supposedly happened after the human/chimpanzee split, they give reasons for this. However, the PtERV1 ERV is present in the rhesus monkey, olive baboon and African great apes but not in humans! What is up with that?
I have had evolutionists rant and rave about ERVs but when they are confronted with the actual scientific data they are ready to change the subject. What they will tell you is that this represents some kind of a twin nested hiearchy, which is absurd, you wouldn’t use highly transposable elements for something like that. You would use mitochondria dna (mtDNA) which is also refered to as a molecular clock. The molecular clocks are notoriously inaccurate and do not line up with what their paloeontologist brethren are saying. Molecular clocks can be as far out as 10-12 million years for the chimpanzee human split and that varies by a great deal as well.
ERVs are not proof of anything, if you notice there is very little scientific literature even being produced. That is because no one knew they were there until fairly recently and no one quite knows what to make of them, especially evolutionists.”
I understand the argument just fine, Dreamer. The fact that you won’t state your own position only shows that you are afraid to be pinned down and defeated (again).
And I have never claimed to have refuted an entire field of study. I’m claiming that Creation and ID scientists, who have the same academic and professional credentials as your Temple of Darwin co-religionists, have completely refuted your outdated ERV arguments.
As for explaining why biologists think ERVs are evidence for common descent, you already know that I know the answer to this, as we have spent weeks on this subject in the past. Could it be that YOU have forgotten your own idiotic arguments?
As for asking what you meant by looking younger, the question still stands. I want every aspect of your argument committed to writing so that when I tear your lame, outdated Temple of Darwin arguments to shreds, your comments will be there for all to read.
And as for how stupid it makes you look, I can only assume that you were looking in the mirror, otherwise your comment makes no sense. Which makes sense, as it was you, not me, who dropped out of graduate school.
Tell that to Allmendream, he’s the one who is still clinging to the Temple of Darwin’s long since refuted ERV arguments. And let’s not give him to much info. to start with. For some reason he wants us to educate him on his own ERV arguments before he will respond to ours. Talk about being overly careful!
And yes, I have a Masters in Molecular Biology after defending my thesis. You have a worthless degree in Administrating administration for administrators.
If you understood the question you wouldn't have had to ask ‘what do you mean by look younger’; you would have answered the question that your so called explanation left untouched.
You made a rather grandiose claim to prior victories and have repeatedly shown both by your beginner level questions and your idiotic “explanation” that you don't even know the subject.
How can you reconcile these contradictory positions?
Adaptation is degeneration?
By adapting such that a population is better suited to its environment it is worse off, degraded, de-evolving?
You can hide behind your hubris all you want, Dropout. Your refusal to state your argument (in your own words) or to answer basic question is now available for all to see. You have managed to lose the debate once again, except this time by default. LOL!!!!
[[let’s not give him to much info.]]
Ok- I’ll keep hush about hte fact that common design predicts common insertion points, and finding common insertion points doesn’t infact point to common ancestry as claimed. Two commonly designed creatures would of course be susceptible to similar virus’, and both species being bombarded by millions of viruses, amny of which inflict both species commonly,, one would of course expect to see soem ervs that were similar in both species- but I guess the a priori belief of commo nancestry must be protected at all cost by denying common insertion points in commonly designed creatures doesn’t point to creation commonality- only to macroevolution- I won’t point out that claiming common descent based on similar insertion points is a statement of faith, and NOT science either- I’ll keep that to myself until after AM states his position
Because it is obvious you don't understand the subject and are unable to state the basic premise of the scientific field of study you CLAIM to have refuted; I will ONCE AGAIN provide the explanation for why biologists think ERV’s are evidence for common descent.
RNA virus reproduce by incorporating themselves into their host's genome. The body tries to stop this by burying the viral sequence and not allowing it to replicate. When this response takes place in a reproductive cell it can lead to an “endogenous retroviral sequence” or ERV, that is then present in the genome of a population.
Once the ERV is in the genome it is typically not under any selective pressure and is thus expected to change at the neutral mutation rate (i.e. any mutation that happens is neutral to selection, neither selected for or against, as the ERV doesn't DO anything).
Thus the longer the ERV is in the genome the more mutated it becomes from the original viral sequence. This is what I mean by looking “young” or looking “old”. An “old” sequence is more mutated from the original viral sequence than a “young” sequence.
Now WHY THIS IS EVIDENCE FOR COMMON DESCENT, is that when you compare genomes you will find this pattern....
An ERV found in only some human populations looks younger than an ERV found in all human populations.
An ERV found in only in all humans looks younger than an ERV found in both humans and chimps.
An ERV found in only humans and chimps looks younger than an ERV found in humans chimps and gorillas.
This is exactly what one would expect if the ERV had incorporated into a human at a recent time in the past, and only that human’s descendants carry that very “young” looking ERV.
This is exactly what one would expect if the ERV had incorporated into a common ancestor of all humans, and all humans carry that somewhat “young” looking ERV.
This is exactly what one would expect if that ERV had incorporated into a common ancestor of both humans and chimps; and thus both humans and chimps all carry that fairly “older” looking ERV.
And this is exactly what one would expect if that ERV had incorporated into a common ancestor of humans, chimps and gorillas; thus all three carry that fairly “old” looking ERV.
And I can make a PREDICTION! Always the hallmark of a useful explanation in Science. An ERV found in all primates will look even “older” than an ERV found only in chimps, gorillas and humans.
Moreover this data is of USE. If a human DNA sample is found or amplified from remains, the ancestry of the person can be traced to a particular human population based upon the presence of particular ERV sequences unique to that population. The relation of one human population to another human population can be established by the commonality of ERV’s such that, for example, American Indians can be shown to be descended from an Asiatic population.
Also, it isn’t just that the sequences follow the expected pattern of looking “young” or “old” depending upon how widespread the ERV is; it is also that when comparing among species/populations that have that ERV you will find the expected pattern whereby (for example among an ERV shared among all primates) humans and chimps are most similar, human chimps and gorillas are next most similar, humans chimps gorillas and orangutans are most similar after that; and humans chimps gorillas and orangutans will all be more similar to each other than any is to a gibbon.
This pattern is explained by the observation of ERV incorporation, fits the theory that it had incorporated into a common ancestor, and allows prediction of similarity and divergence of DNA sequences, and allows one to show known common ancestry patterns among human populations.
Endogenous retroviruses (ERVs) are some of the most cited evidences for evolution. They are part of the suite of ‘junk DNA’ that supposedly comprised the vast majority of our DNA. ERVs are said to be parasitic retroviral DNA sequences that infected our genome long ago and have stayed there ever since. These short DNA strands are found throughout the human genome, and make up about 5% of the DNA,1 or about 10% of the total amount of DNA that is classified as transposable elements (i.e. 50%).2
However, the term ‘endogenous retrovirus’ is a bit of a misnomer. There are numerous instances where small transposable elements thought to be endogenous retroviruses have been found to have functions, which invalidates the ‘random retrovirus insertion’ claim. For instance, studies of embryo development in mice suggest that transposable elements (of which ERVs are a subset) control embryo development. Transposable elements seem to be involved in controlling the sequence and level of gene expression during development, by moving to/from the sites of gene control.3
Moreover, researchers have recently identified an important function for a large proportion of the human genome that has been labelled as ERVs. They act as promoters, starting transcription at alternative starting points, which enables different RNA transcripts to be formed from the same DNA sequence.
‘We report the existence of 51,197 ERV-derived promoter sequences that initiate transcription within the human genome, including 1,743 cases where transcription is initiated from ERV sequences that are located in gene proximal promoter or 5’ untranslated regions (UTRs).’4
And,
‘Our analysis revealed that retroviral sequences in the human genome encode tens-of-thousands of active promoters; transcribed ERV sequences correspond to 1.16% of the human genome sequence and PET tags that capture transcripts initiated from ERVs cover 22.4% of the genome.’5
Moreover, researchers have recently identified an important function for a large proportion of the human genome that has been labelled as ERVs.
So we’re not just talking about a small scale phenomenon. These ERVs aid transcription in over one fifth of the human genome! ‘These data illustrate the potential of retroviral sequences to regulate human transcription on a large scale consistent with a substantial effect of ERVs on the function and evolution of the human genome.’3 This again debunks the idea that 98% of the human genome is junk, and it makes the inserted evolutionary spin look like a tacked-on nod to the evolutionary establishment. These results support the conclusions of the ENCODE project, which found that at least 93% of DNA was transcribed into RNA."
woops- forgot link again: http://creation.com/large-scale-function-for-endogenous-retroviruses
“Thus, ‘retroviruses are ‘proof’ for common descent”
Not hardly! Claiming that is nothign more than a statement of faith! NOT Science! ‘retroviruses’ are infact NOT junk DNA as claimed by macroevolutionists, and since these passed along viruses DO have function, and are vital to life, and deevelopment, they could NOT have occured in a stepwise fashion and infact evidence shows they did NOT evolve- nor did they ‘adapt’ in a stepwise fashion to the point where they were essential for life- but macroevolutionsits can’t escape this fact, and thus stick to their disproven ‘junk DNA’ claims regardless of whether hte evidence proves otherwise
I will take a look at your lame and outdated ERV “argument” when I get home. And quite trying to transfer you feeling of self-loathing for dropping out onto me. I was going to say it’s beneath you, but now I’m not so sure. Let’s just say it is enough that you understand the source of your self-loathing (dropping out of grad school), and that you keep it to yourself, lest others identify the real reason and reopen old wounds.
Until later, all the best—GGG :op
Are you equally proud of your useless degree in Administering Administration to Administrators?
And I have come to expect the worst of juvenile and asinine and uncivil behavior from you GGG, so nothing you could do would do other than pleasantly surprise me, and you have yet to do so.
And if you already knew the subject you would know what it said before looking, once again showing that besides being ignorant, you are less than forthcoming with the truth.
At least two people have told you more than once to re-read your own posts.
If you can’t read, why don’t you go back to DU/DC where you’ll obviously fit in better?
If the evidence is in my posting history why are you unable to provide examples?
It is like you are simply making it up as you go along.
Your posting history is there for all to see and since day one several people knew immediately you’re just another trolling liberal.
He’s also about 12 years old.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.