Intelligent Reasoning

Promoting, advancing and defending Intelligent Design via data, logic and Intelligent Reasoning and exposing the alleged theory of evolution as the nonsense it is. I also educate evotards about ID and the alleged theory of evolution one tard at a time and sometimes in groups

Monday, August 10, 2009

ERVs and universal common descent- it doesn't make any sense

Evolutionists claim that the presence of ERVs- that is their presence in the same locus in different populations, such as chimps and humans, proves common ancestry.

Yet in order for that to happen it means that an virus had to infect a gamete, that gamete had to get used to make an offspring, and then that offspring would have to pass down that genetic marker such that it became fixed in the population.

All that while keeping its sequence identity, over thousands and thousands of generations with recombinations and mutations happening all around it.

So the question should be why did the sequence identity remain intact?

The obvious answer is because it does something and most likely isn't a leftover infection.

Another question would be "are ERVs actually decayed versions- ie selfish genes- of a once full genome?"

Think prions which are leftover proteins which go on to infect the organism that ingests them.

IOW these ERVs, in their normal state, are just another regulatory sequence in the genome.

When the organism gets consumed, for example, if the DNA does not get broken down all the way, these selfish genes can then "take over" the new host.

posted by Joe G @ 9:58 PM  

33 Comments:

  • At 12:57 AM, Blogger blipey said…

    Seriously, Joe. Close the thread now, because you won't actually discuss anything.

    Close it!

    The Universe is Designed because we understand it!

    We understand the Universe because it is designed!

    Close up shop! Nothing to see.

     

  • At 3:29 AM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    "Another question would be "are ERVs actually decayed versions- ie selfish genes- of a once full genome?""


    and the answer is 'we can stitch LTRs back together and get a functioning ERV'

     

  • At 8:32 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    and the answer is 'we can stitch LTRs back together and get a functioning ERV'-

    That could happen under my scenrio also.

    IOW if ERVs were decyed versions we should be able to put the pieces back together- like humpty dumpty.

     

  • At 8:51 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Evolutionists claim that the presence of ERVs- that is their presence in the same locus in different populations, such as chimps and humans, proves common ancestry.

    Yet in order for that to happen it means that an virus had to infect a gamete, that gamete had to get used to make an offspring, and then that offspring would have to pass down that genetic marker such that it became fixed in the population.

    All that while keeping its sequence identity, over thousands and thousands of generations with recombinations and mutations happening all around it.

    So the question should be why did the sequence identity remain intact?

    The obvious answer is because it does something and most likely isn't a leftover infection.    -

    But Richie and the other evolutionitwits need them to be leftover infections so they are.

    Isn't evolutionary "science" great!!!

     

  • At 8:54 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Seriously Erik I close threads once commentors stray off topic and refuse to support their position.

    And Erik it is you who doesn't discuss anything.

    All you can do is twist and misrepresent. And that is because you are a scientifically illiterate clown.

    BTW we infer the universe was designed due to many reasons, only one of which is that it is comprehensible.

    I told you that and you ignored it.

    So I will ignore you until you have something relevant to say.

     

  • At 11:06 AM, Blogger blipey said…

    But failed to explain how "the universe is comprehensible because it was designed" could in any way (even a little teeny tiny bit) be used as PROOF of "the universe is designed because it is comprehensible.

    Also, there's the little concern that you never provided an EXAMPLE of things that are designed.

    Other than that, good job; you get a cookie.

     

  • At 2:48 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    1- Science is NOT about "PROOF". But then again you don't seem to understand science.

    You just blindly follow what others say as long as it doesn't involve a design inference.

    2- It is ALL the evidence taken together. NOT just a comprehensible universe.

    Just because you are willfully ignorant of the evidence does not mean it doesn't exist.

    And a comprehensible universe is incomprehensible in a non-telic scenario.

    3- YOU have FAILED to support your position and can only twist and misreprsent ID

    4- YOU have FAILED to provide any EXAMPLES to support your position.


    bye-bye Erik.

    But do come back when you are prepared to start supporting your position.

    I am tired of dealing with low-life, cheap-seat sitting, stone-throwing, maggot-eating chimp wannabes.

    Put up or shut up.

     

  • At 3:49 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    "But Richie and the other evolutionitwits need them to be leftover infections so they are."

    But Joe, you can put the bits together and have a virus. So they are pieces eof a virus. I fit theory to th evidence, you do it in reverse.

     

  • At 3:56 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Rich,

    One can put together sequences that were never part of a virus and get a virus.

    Another question would be "are ERVs actually decayed versions- ie selfish genes- of a once full genome?"

    Think prions which are leftover proteins which go on to infect the organism that ingests them.

    IOW these ERVs, in their normal state, are just another regulatory sequence in the genome.

    When the organism gets consumed, for example, if the DNA does not get broken down all the way, these selfish genes can then "take over" the new host.    -

    I would expect that one could take pieces and make a virus in that scenario.

    And in your scenario it doesn't make any sense that they would stay intact enough to do so.

    It is very telling that you just ignore that part of my argument.

    Never mind you seem to ignore every part of my argument.

    That is very telling also.

     

  • At 4:01 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    What Rich fails to understand is that in my scenario the virus is the result- the remains- of a once full genome.

    IOW my scenario explains the origins of the virus whereas Rich's scenario doesn't give any clue.

    Just that some virus infected the germline, got passed on, got fixed in the population and remained intact enough to be recognozable.

    You don't have theory to fit any evidence to Rich.

    All you can do is put the cart before the horse.

    For that is what you are doing by claiming evidence for common ancestry BEFORE knowing if the transformations required are even possible.

     

  • At 10:09 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    "What Rich fails to understand is that in my scenario the virus is the result- the remains- of a once full genome."

    Tell us about this, Joe.

     

  • At 8:48 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Tell us about this, Joe.-

    I have- twice.

    Once in the OP and the other time was the last time you posted that ERVs are evidence for chimp/ human common ancestry.

    But anyway Rich do YOU even realize what has to happen in order for your scenario to be true?

    I say you don't for if you did you would look more critically at that "evidence".

    But you won't because you want there to be a relationship between chimps and humans.

     

  • At 9:20 AM, Blogger blipey said…

    Nope. The opening post really doesn't talk about the super-genome at all, Joe.

    Why don't you talk about it now?

     

  • At 9:37 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    The opening post really doesn't talk about the super-genome at all, Joe.-

    What super genome?

    Obviously you are too stupid to understand what I say and therefor must twist and misrepresent what I post.

     

  • At 10:01 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    From the OP:

    So the question should be why did the sequence identity remain intact?

    The obvious answer is because it does something and most likely isn't a leftover infection.

    Another question would be "are ERVs actually decayed versions- ie selfish genes- of a once full genome?"

    Think prions which are leftover proteins which go on to infect the organism that ingests them.

    IOW these ERVs, in their normal state, are just another regulatory sequence in the genome.

    When the organism gets consumed, for example, if the DNA does not get broken down all the way, these selfish genes can then "take over" the new host.

     

  • At 10:06 AM, Blogger blipey said…

    Right. I read it earlier. Why don't you take this opportunity to talk ABOUT it? Rich asked you to talk ABOUT it, not MENTION it.

     

  • At 10:37 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Erik,

    Why is it that you never talk about anything?

    Why is it that you always have to twist and misrepresent your opposition?

    Why is it that you have never had an original thought in your life?

    And how can when test the claim that common ancstry is the ONLY explanation- no matter how ridiculous it is- for ERVs being in the same locus?

    Yet in order for that to happen it means that an virus had to infect a gamete, that gamete had to get used to make an offspring, and then that offspring would have to pass down that genetic marker such that it became fixed in the population.

    All that while keeping its sequence identity, over thousands and thousands of generations with recombinations and mutations happening all around it.

    So the question should be why did the sequence identity remain intact?

    The obvious answer is because it does something and most likely isn't a leftover infection.    -

    Put up or shut up Pratt.

     

  • At 10:40 AM, Blogger blipey said…

    I'll let you talk about nothing on this thread, Joe. I was only interested in letting you know that you never got around to providing an EXAMPLE on the last thread you closed.

    If you ever get around to showing some of your work, you'll be sre to let the world know, right?

     

  • At 1:22 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Erik,

    You have never got around to providing anything.

    No work, no examples, nothing but but an obvious ignorance of science.

    Also you never talk about anything.

    Yours is a position of lies and misrepresentations.

     

  • At 6:51 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    I'm not the one trying to overturn all of modern science. You would think that the person trying to change things would give an EXAMPLE of why their way is better, but I guess not.

     

  • At 7:14 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    I'm not the one trying to overturn all of modern science.-

    Apparently you don't understand science, modern or otherwise.

    As far as EXAMPLES go it is very telling that you cannot present one.

    If you did so I would know exactly what it is you are looking for.

    BTW I am not trying to overturn science, just the materialistic bastardization of it.

     

  • At 7:20 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    Right. You're showing the world the new order by, uh...not showing anything. Ingenious.

     

  • At 8:51 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Nice projection Pratt.

    Your position gained its place by not showing anything.

     

  • At 9:53 AM, Blogger blipey said…

    So that EXAMPLE is forthcoming?

     

  • At 10:05 AM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    Joe, why are you trying to change the subject?

     

  • At 12:56 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Joe, why are you trying to change the subject?-

    Talk to clownie about that.

    That is all he does.

    But anyway the following is for you too:

    And how can when test the claim that common ancstry is the ONLY explanation- no matter how ridiculous it is- for ERVs being in the same locus?

    In order for that to happen it means that an virus had to infect a gamete, that gamete had to get used to make an offspring, and then that offspring would have to pass down that genetic marker such that it became fixed in the population.

    All that while keeping its sequence identity, over thousands and thousands of generations with recombinations and mutations happening all around it.

    So the question should be why did the sequence identity remain intact?

    The obvious answer is because it does something and most likely isn't a leftover infection.    -

     

  • At 12:58 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Erik,

    I am waiting for you to provide an example that supports your position so that I know what it is you are looking for.

    So have at it or fuck off.

     

  • At 1:15 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    I'm looking for an EXAMPLE that shows that Stonehenge was designed. It's not that hard to understand. In fact, I've started many examples of that sort of thing. Really, all you've had to do is fill in the blanks.

    So:

    I'm looking for an EXAMPLE that solves the Stonehenge Problem.

    Can't be more clear than that.

     

  • At 1:27 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Erik,

    I am waiting for you to provide an example that supports your position so that I know what it is you are looking for.

    So have at it or fuck off.

     

  • At 1:37 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    I told you what I'm looking for: an EXAMPLE that applies to the Stonehenge Problem. What's your problem?

    As an EXAMPLE, it would look something like this:

    By examining the ___________ of Stonehenge, I have determined that it's CSI = 14,829. This value corresponds to Stonehenge being designed because it is greater than CSI(design) which is 9,203.

    You asked what I was looking for. There it is. Now where's yours?

     

  • At 2:56 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Erik,

    I am waiting for you to provide an example that supports your position so that I know what it is you are looking for.

    So have at it or fuck off.

    Ya see I have already filled in the blank with respect to Stonehenge.

    Now it is your turn to provide an example that supports your position.

    Or fuck off.

    (BTW your example of an example doesn't even make any sense.)

     

  • At 4:11 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    You have never discussed the Stonehenge Problem, Joe. In fact, you have repeatedly said you don't even know what it is. Which is it? Have you answered it or do you not know what it is?

     

  • At 4:44 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    You have never discussed the Stonehenge Problem, Joe.-

    I said I filled in the blanks of your example. That is beacuse I did.

    You are too stupid to understand what I said and that is why it is up to you to provide an example that supports your position so that I can see what you are talking about.

    An example that supports your position- no other comment from you will be published on any thread until you ante up.

     

Post a Comment

<< Home