Total Posts:16|Showing Posts:1-16
Jump to topic:

Evolution and Retroviruses

distraff
Posts: 1,002
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/11/2016 5:22:35 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
I have always found evolution very interesting. I recently read about the role of retroviruses in evolution. Some viruses when they spread through the body will attack a cell and insert their DNA into the cell's DNA. The DNA that is inserted is used to build proteins to take over the cell and use it to jump on to other cells. If these get into reproductive cells then they will be inherited.

In fact 5-10% of human DNA is retrovirus DNA and it is unlikely we would have so many if we had only been around for 6,000 years. We know they are retrovirus because they have the exact same sequence of retrovirus genes that are used to build the retrovirus, take over the cell, and take over more cells. They are bordered by identical LTR sequences which are the parts of the host cell DNA that were torn apart and rebuilt and is the collateral damage evidence of the insertion.
http://www.politicalforum.com...
http://www.politicalforum.com...

Some retrovirus DNA is used by the body for non-coding purposes to sort of be there to help the coding DNA get turned into proteins. Originally they were used by the virus to code proteins to invade the body, but now they are being used by the body in a way that their sequence does not really matter like much non-coding DNA.

We have found that humans share the exact same location of many retrovirus sequences with many apes and the more similar the species the less mutation difference there is between the different versions of the shared retrovirus sequences in certain shared retroviruses studied by geneticists. These mutation differences happen after the species split and the longer two species have been separate the more mutations and therefore the more difference.
http://www.politicalforum.com...
http://www.politicalforum.com...

Also, since only 1-2% of human DNA is different and 5-10% of human is retrovirus mathematically most retrovirus sequences have to be shared between humans and apes even if all the DNA difference was retrovirus DNA. In fact scientists have found that only 5-10% of DNA difference between humans and apes are retrovirus so only about .1% of DNA is retrovirus and different from chimps, so 99% of retrovirus DNA is shared between humans and apes in the same locations which is incredible to have such a match up in such a long DNA sequence.

We know that retroviruses don't only get inserted in specific locations in the DNA because they are everywhere in human DNA and in all sorts of random locations. Evolution easily explains this because we and chimpanzees inherited most of our DNA from a common ancestor.

Source:
http://www.evolutionarymodel.com...
Stronn
Posts: 314
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/13/2016 11:33:07 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/11/2016 5:22:35 PM, distraff wrote:
I have always found evolution very interesting. I recently read about the role of retroviruses in evolution. Some viruses when they spread through the body will attack a cell and insert their DNA into the cell's DNA. The DNA that is inserted is used to build proteins to take over the cell and use it to jump on to other cells. If these get into reproductive cells then they will be inherited.

In fact 5-10% of human DNA is retrovirus DNA and it is unlikely we would have so many if we had only been around for 6,000 years. We know they are retrovirus because they have the exact same sequence of retrovirus genes that are used to build the retrovirus, take over the cell, and take over more cells. They are bordered by identical LTR sequences which are the parts of the host cell DNA that were torn apart and rebuilt and is the collateral damage evidence of the insertion.
http://www.politicalforum.com...
http://www.politicalforum.com...

Some retrovirus DNA is used by the body for non-coding purposes to sort of be there to help the coding DNA get turned into proteins. Originally they were used by the virus to code proteins to invade the body, but now they are being used by the body in a way that their sequence does not really matter like much non-coding DNA.

We have found that humans share the exact same location of many retrovirus sequences with many apes and the more similar the species the less mutation difference there is between the different versions of the shared retrovirus sequences in certain shared retroviruses studied by geneticists. These mutation differences happen after the species split and the longer two species have been separate the more mutations and therefore the more difference.
http://www.politicalforum.com...
http://www.politicalforum.com...

Also, since only 1-2% of human DNA is different and 5-10% of human is retrovirus mathematically most retrovirus sequences have to be shared between humans and apes even if all the DNA difference was retrovirus DNA. In fact scientists have found that only 5-10% of DNA difference between humans and apes are retrovirus so only about .1% of DNA is retrovirus and different from chimps, so 99% of retrovirus DNA is shared between humans and apes in the same locations which is incredible to have such a match up in such a long DNA sequence.

We know that retroviruses don't only get inserted in specific locations in the DNA because they are everywhere in human DNA and in all sorts of random locations. Evolution easily explains this because we and chimpanzees inherited most of our DNA from a common ancestor.

Source:
http://www.evolutionarymodel.com...

If you haven't yet, you might also look up human chromosome 2, which is now known to be be the fusion of two chimpanzee chromosomes that merged during the evolution of homo sapiens. Other primates have 24 chromosomes; humans have 23.
Akhenaten
Posts: 854
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/13/2016 12:50:54 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/11/2016 5:22:35 PM, distraff wrote:
I have always found evolution very interesting. I recently read about the role of retroviruses in evolution. Some viruses when they spread through the body will attack a cell and insert their DNA into the cell's DNA. The DNA that is inserted is used to build proteins to take over the cell and use it to jump on to other cells. If these get into reproductive cells then they will be inherited.

In fact 5-10% of human DNA is retrovirus DNA and it is unlikely we would have so many if we had only been around for 6,000 years. We know they are retrovirus because they have the exact same sequence of retrovirus genes that are used to build the retrovirus, take over the cell, and take over more cells. They are bordered by identical LTR sequences which are the parts of the host cell DNA that were torn apart and rebuilt and is the collateral damage evidence of the insertion.
http://www.politicalforum.com...
http://www.politicalforum.com...

Some retrovirus DNA is used by the body for non-coding purposes to sort of be there to help the coding DNA get turned into proteins. Originally they were used by the virus to code proteins to invade the body, but now they are being used by the body in a way that their sequence does not really matter like much non-coding DNA.

We have found that humans share the exact same location of many retrovirus sequences with many apes and the more similar the species the less mutation difference there is between the different versions of the shared retrovirus sequences in certain shared retroviruses studied by geneticists. These mutation differences happen after the species split and the longer two species have been separate the more mutations and therefore the more difference.
http://www.politicalforum.com...
http://www.politicalforum.com...

Also, since only 1-2% of human DNA is different and 5-10% of human is retrovirus mathematically most retrovirus sequences have to be shared between humans and apes even if all the DNA difference was retrovirus DNA. In fact scientists have found that only 5-10% of DNA difference between humans and apes are retrovirus so only about .1% of DNA is retrovirus and different from chimps, so 99% of retrovirus DNA is shared between humans and apes in the same locations which is incredible to have such a match up in such a long DNA sequence.

We know that retroviruses don't only get inserted in specific locations in the DNA because they are everywhere in human DNA and in all sorts of random locations. Evolution easily explains this because we and chimpanzees inherited most of our DNA from a common ancestor.

Source:
http://www.evolutionarymodel.com...

Viruses and retroviruses don't exist. The human endocrine system is iodine based. There is no memory of past infections. All the above research is a load of nonsense.

http://neue-medizin.com...
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,575
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/13/2016 4:27:49 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/13/2016 12:50:54 PM, Akhenaten wrote:
At 3/11/2016 5:22:35 PM, distraff wrote:
I have always found evolution very interesting. I recently read about the role of retroviruses in evolution. Some viruses when they spread through the body will attack a cell and insert their DNA into the cell's DNA. The DNA that is inserted is used to build proteins to take over the cell and use it to jump on to other cells. If these get into reproductive cells then they will be inherited.

In fact 5-10% of human DNA is retrovirus DNA and it is unlikely we would have so many if we had only been around for 6,000 years. We know they are retrovirus because they have the exact same sequence of retrovirus genes that are used to build the retrovirus, take over the cell, and take over more cells. They are bordered by identical LTR sequences which are the parts of the host cell DNA that were torn apart and rebuilt and is the collateral damage evidence of the insertion.
http://www.politicalforum.com...
http://www.politicalforum.com...

Some retrovirus DNA is used by the body for non-coding purposes to sort of be there to help the coding DNA get turned into proteins. Originally they were used by the virus to code proteins to invade the body, but now they are being used by the body in a way that their sequence does not really matter like much non-coding DNA.

We have found that humans share the exact same location of many retrovirus sequences with many apes and the more similar the species the less mutation difference there is between the different versions of the shared retrovirus sequences in certain shared retroviruses studied by geneticists. These mutation differences happen after the species split and the longer two species have been separate the more mutations and therefore the more difference.
http://www.politicalforum.com...
http://www.politicalforum.com...

Also, since only 1-2% of human DNA is different and 5-10% of human is retrovirus mathematically most retrovirus sequences have to be shared between humans and apes even if all the DNA difference was retrovirus DNA. In fact scientists have found that only 5-10% of DNA difference between humans and apes are retrovirus so only about .1% of DNA is retrovirus and different from chimps, so 99% of retrovirus DNA is shared between humans and apes in the same locations which is incredible to have such a match up in such a long DNA sequence.

We know that retroviruses don't only get inserted in specific locations in the DNA because they are everywhere in human DNA and in all sorts of random locations. Evolution easily explains this because we and chimpanzees inherited most of our DNA from a common ancestor.

Source:
http://www.evolutionarymodel.com...

Viruses and retroviruses don't exist. The human endocrine system is iodine based. There is no memory of past infections. All the above research is a load of nonsense.

http://neue-medizin.com...

Yes, that would be the very same Dr. Stefan Lanka, who claimed that Measles wasn't a virus and boldly put forth a bet of $100K, which he was forced to pay by the courts when overwhelming peer-reviewed evidence was presented to him.

Poor Lanka is now on the shelf with the other woo woo's.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
distraff
Posts: 1,002
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/13/2016 6:55:44 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/13/2016 12:50:54 PM, Akhenaten wrote:
At 3/11/2016 5:22:35 PM, distraff wrote:
I have always found evolution very interesting. I recently read about the role of retroviruses in evolution. Some viruses when they spread through the body will attack a cell and insert their DNA into the cell's DNA. The DNA that is inserted is used to build proteins to take over the cell and use it to jump on to other cells. If these get into reproductive cells then they will be inherited.

In fact 5-10% of human DNA is retrovirus DNA and it is unlikely we would have so many if we had only been around for 6,000 years. We know they are retrovirus because they have the exact same sequence of retrovirus genes that are used to build the retrovirus, take over the cell, and take over more cells. They are bordered by identical LTR sequences which are the parts of the host cell DNA that were torn apart and rebuilt and is the collateral damage evidence of the insertion.
http://www.politicalforum.com...
http://www.politicalforum.com...

Some retrovirus DNA is used by the body for non-coding purposes to sort of be there to help the coding DNA get turned into proteins. Originally they were used by the virus to code proteins to invade the body, but now they are being used by the body in a way that their sequence does not really matter like much non-coding DNA.

We have found that humans share the exact same location of many retrovirus sequences with many apes and the more similar the species the less mutation difference there is between the different versions of the shared retrovirus sequences in certain shared retroviruses studied by geneticists. These mutation differences happen after the species split and the longer two species have been separate the more mutations and therefore the more difference.
http://www.politicalforum.com...
http://www.politicalforum.com...

Also, since only 1-2% of human DNA is different and 5-10% of human is retrovirus mathematically most retrovirus sequences have to be shared between humans and apes even if all the DNA difference was retrovirus DNA. In fact scientists have found that only 5-10% of DNA difference between humans and apes are retrovirus so only about .1% of DNA is retrovirus and different from chimps, so 99% of retrovirus DNA is shared between humans and apes in the same locations which is incredible to have such a match up in such a long DNA sequence.

We know that retroviruses don't only get inserted in specific locations in the DNA because they are everywhere in human DNA and in all sorts of random locations. Evolution easily explains this because we and chimpanzees inherited most of our DNA from a common ancestor.

Source:
http://www.evolutionarymodel.com...

Viruses and retroviruses don't exist. The human endocrine system is iodine based. There is no memory of past infections. All the above research is a load of nonsense.

http://neue-medizin.com...

You made that claim without any evidence. Maybe the religion forum is the right place for you.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/13/2016 7:17:52 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/11/2016 5:22:35 PM, distraff wrote:
I have always found evolution very interesting. I recently read about the role of retroviruses in evolution. Some viruses when they spread through the body will attack a cell and insert their DNA into the cell's DNA. The DNA that is inserted is used to build proteins to take over the cell and use it to jump on to other cells. If these get into reproductive cells then they will be inherited.

In fact 5-10% of human DNA is retrovirus DNA and it is unlikely we would have so many if we had only been around for 6,000 years. We know they are retrovirus because they have the exact same sequence of retrovirus genes that are used to build the retrovirus, take over the cell, and take over more cells. They are bordered by identical LTR sequences which are the parts of the host cell DNA that were torn apart and rebuilt and is the collateral damage evidence of the insertion.
http://www.politicalforum.com...
http://www.politicalforum.com...

Some retrovirus DNA is used by the body for non-coding purposes to sort of be there to help the coding DNA get turned into proteins. Originally they were used by the virus to code proteins to invade the body, but now they are being used by the body in a way that their sequence does not really matter like much non-coding DNA.

We have found that humans share the exact same location of many retrovirus sequences with many apes and the more similar the species the less mutation difference there is between the different versions of the shared retrovirus sequences in certain shared retroviruses studied by geneticists. These mutation differences happen after the species split and the longer two species have been separate the more mutations and therefore the more difference.
http://www.politicalforum.com...
http://www.politicalforum.com...

Also, since only 1-2% of human DNA is different and 5-10% of human is retrovirus mathematically most retrovirus sequences have to be shared between humans and apes even if all the DNA difference was retrovirus DNA. In fact scientists have found that only 5-10% of DNA difference between humans and apes are retrovirus so only about .1% of DNA is retrovirus and different from chimps, so 99% of retrovirus DNA is shared between humans and apes in the same locations which is incredible to have such a match up in such a long DNA sequence.

We know that retroviruses don't only get inserted in specific locations in the DNA because they are everywhere in human DNA and in all sorts of random locations. Evolution easily explains this because we and chimpanzees inherited most of our DNA from a common ancestor.

Source:
http://www.evolutionarymodel.com...

retrovirus insertion is not a normal distribution over the entire DNA genome of humans or any animals. Many times their are regions that are more sensitive to retrovirus insertion.
http://nar.oxfordjournals.org...
http://www.sciencedirect.com...

Many times when examining endogenous retrovirus among species, similar strands are rejected as common ancestry and instead labeled independent or simultaneous infection.

And ERV's don't match a nested hierarchy of accepted ancestry.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
"We performed two analyses to determine whether these 12 shared map intervals might indeed be orthologous. First, we examined the distribution of shared sites between species (Table S3). We found that the distribution is inconsistent with the generally accepted phylogeny of catarrhine primates. This is particularly relevant for the human/great ape lineage. For example, only one interval is shared by gorilla and chimpanzee; however, two intervals are shared by gorilla and baboon; while three intervals are apparently shared by macaque and chimpanzee. Our Southern analysis shows that human and orangutan completely lack PTERV1 sequence (see Figure 2A). If these sites were truly orthologous and, thus, ancestral in the human/ape ancestor, it would require that at least six of these sites were deleted in the human lineage. Moreover, the same exact six sites would also have had to have been deleted in the orangutan lineage if the generally accepted phylogeny is correct. Such a series of independent deletion events at the same precise locations in the genome is unlikely (Figure S3)."
LittleBallofHATE
Posts: 284
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/13/2016 8:26:58 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/11/2016 5:22:35 PM, distraff wrote:
I have always found evolution very interesting. I recently read about the role of retroviruses in evolution. Some viruses when they spread through the body will attack a cell and insert their DNA into the cell's DNA. The DNA that is inserted is used to build proteins to take over the cell and use it to jump on to other cells. If these get into reproductive cells then they will be inherited.

In fact 5-10% of human DNA is retrovirus DNA and it is unlikely we would have so many if we had only been around for 6,000 years. We know they are retrovirus because they have the exact same sequence of retrovirus genes that are used to build the retrovirus, take over the cell, and take over more cells. They are bordered by identical LTR sequences which are the parts of the host cell DNA that were torn apart and rebuilt and is the collateral damage evidence of the insertion.
http://www.politicalforum.com...
http://www.politicalforum.com...

Some retrovirus DNA is used by the body for non-coding purposes to sort of be there to help the coding DNA get turned into proteins. Originally they were used by the virus to code proteins to invade the body, but now they are being used by the body in a way that their sequence does not really matter like much non-coding DNA.

We have found that humans share the exact same location of many retrovirus sequences with many apes and the more similar the species the less mutation difference there is between the different versions of the shared retrovirus sequences in certain shared retroviruses studied by geneticists. These mutation differences happen after the species split and the longer two species have been separate the more mutations and therefore the more difference.
http://www.politicalforum.com...
http://www.politicalforum.com...

Also, since only 1-2% of human DNA is different and 5-10% of human is retrovirus mathematically most retrovirus sequences have to be shared between humans and apes even if all the DNA difference was retrovirus DNA. In fact scientists have found that only 5-10% of DNA difference between humans and apes are retrovirus so only about .1% of DNA is retrovirus and different from chimps, so 99% of retrovirus DNA is shared between humans and apes in the same locations which is incredible to have such a match up in such a long DNA sequence.

We know that retroviruses don't only get inserted in specific locations in the DNA because they are everywhere in human DNA and in all sorts of random locations. Evolution easily explains this because we and chimpanzees inherited most of our DNA from a common ancestor.

Source:
http://www.evolutionarymodel.com...

Sounds plausible...to the ignorant. Answer me this, genius. How do you explain orphan genes?
I would agree with you, but then we'd BOTH be wrong.
LittleBallofHATE
Posts: 284
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/13/2016 8:35:56 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/13/2016 8:26:58 PM, LittleBallofHATE wrote:
At 3/11/2016 5:22:35 PM, distraff wrote:
I have always found evolution very interesting. I recently read about the role of retroviruses in evolution. Some viruses when they spread through the body will attack a cell and insert their DNA into the cell's DNA. The DNA that is inserted is used to build proteins to take over the cell and use it to jump on to other cells. If these get into reproductive cells then they will be inherited.

In fact 5-10% of human DNA is retrovirus DNA and it is unlikely we would have so many if we had only been around for 6,000 years. We know they are retrovirus because they have the exact same sequence of retrovirus genes that are used to build the retrovirus, take over the cell, and take over more cells. They are bordered by identical LTR sequences which are the parts of the host cell DNA that were torn apart and rebuilt and is the collateral damage evidence of the insertion.
http://www.politicalforum.com...
http://www.politicalforum.com...

Some retrovirus DNA is used by the body for non-coding purposes to sort of be there to help the coding DNA get turned into proteins. Originally they were used by the virus to code proteins to invade the body, but now they are being used by the body in a way that their sequence does not really matter like much non-coding DNA.

We have found that humans share the exact same location of many retrovirus sequences with many apes and the more similar the species the less mutation difference there is between the different versions of the shared retrovirus sequences in certain shared retroviruses studied by geneticists. These mutation differences happen after the species split and the longer two species have been separate the more mutations and therefore the more difference.
http://www.politicalforum.com...
http://www.politicalforum.com...

Also, since only 1-2% of human DNA is different and 5-10% of human is retrovirus mathematically most retrovirus sequences have to be shared between humans and apes even if all the DNA difference was retrovirus DNA. In fact scientists have found that only 5-10% of DNA difference between humans and apes are retrovirus so only about .1% of DNA is retrovirus and different from chimps, so 99% of retrovirus DNA is shared between humans and apes in the same locations which is incredible to have such a match up in such a long DNA sequence.

We know that retroviruses don't only get inserted in specific locations in the DNA because they are everywhere in human DNA and in all sorts of random locations. Evolution easily explains this because we and chimpanzees inherited most of our DNA from a common ancestor.

Source:
http://www.evolutionarymodel.com...

Sounds plausible...to the ignorant. Answer me this, genius. How do you explain orphan genes?

And here is why I don't buy your BS.

An important category of "rogue" genetic data that utterly defies evolutionary predictions is the common occurrence of taxonomically restricted genes, otherwise known as "orphan genes." These are now being discovered in the sequencing of all genomes.

Many multicellular animals share similar sets of genes that produce proteins that perform related biochemical functions. This is a common feature of purposefully engineered systems. In addition to these standard genes, all organisms thus far tested also have unique sets of genes specific to that type of creature.

The authors of a recent review paper, published in Trends in Genetics, on the subject of orphan genes stated, "Comparative genome analyses indicate that every taxonomic group so far studied contains 10"20% of genes that lack recognizable homologs [similar counterparts] in other species."1

These orphan genes are also being found to be particularly important for specific biological adaptations that correspond with ecological niches in relation to the creature's interaction with its environment.2 The problem for the evolutionary model of animal origins is the fact that these DNA sequences appear suddenly and fully functional without any trace of evolutionary ancestry (DNA sequence precursors in other seemingly related organisms). And several new studies in both fish and insect genomes are now highlighting this important fact.

http://www.icr.org...
I would agree with you, but then we'd BOTH be wrong.
Akhenaten
Posts: 854
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2016 12:27:37 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/13/2016 4:27:49 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:


Yes, that would be the very same Dr. Stefan Lanka, who claimed that Measles wasn't a virus and boldly put forth a bet of $100K, which he was forced to pay by the courts when overwhelming peer-reviewed evidence was presented to him.

Poor Lanka is now on the shelf with the other woo woo's.

That just proves that you can't get any justice from the court system.
distraff
Posts: 1,002
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2016 12:36:47 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/13/2016 8:26:58 PM, LittleBallofHATE wrote:
At 3/11/2016 5:22:35 PM, distraff wrote:
I have always found evolution very interesting. I recently read about the role of retroviruses in evolution. Some viruses when they spread through the body will attack a cell and insert their DNA into the cell's DNA. The DNA that is inserted is used to build proteins to take over the cell and use it to jump on to other cells. If these get into reproductive cells then they will be inherited.

In fact 5-10% of human DNA is retrovirus DNA and it is unlikely we would have so many if we had only been around for 6,000 years. We know they are retrovirus because they have the exact same sequence of retrovirus genes that are used to build the retrovirus, take over the cell, and take over more cells. They are bordered by identical LTR sequences which are the parts of the host cell DNA that were torn apart and rebuilt and is the collateral damage evidence of the insertion.
http://www.politicalforum.com...
http://www.politicalforum.com...

Some retrovirus DNA is used by the body for non-coding purposes to sort of be there to help the coding DNA get turned into proteins. Originally they were used by the virus to code proteins to invade the body, but now they are being used by the body in a way that their sequence does not really matter like much non-coding DNA.

We have found that humans share the exact same location of many retrovirus sequences with many apes and the more similar the species the less mutation difference there is between the different versions of the shared retrovirus sequences in certain shared retroviruses studied by geneticists. These mutation differences happen after the species split and the longer two species have been separate the more mutations and therefore the more difference.
http://www.politicalforum.com...
http://www.politicalforum.com...

Also, since only 1-2% of human DNA is different and 5-10% of human is retrovirus mathematically most retrovirus sequences have to be shared between humans and apes even if all the DNA difference was retrovirus DNA. In fact scientists have found that only 5-10% of DNA difference between humans and apes are retrovirus so only about .1% of DNA is retrovirus and different from chimps, so 99% of retrovirus DNA is shared between humans and apes in the same locations which is incredible to have such a match up in such a long DNA sequence.

We know that retroviruses don't only get inserted in specific locations in the DNA because they are everywhere in human DNA and in all sorts of random locations. Evolution easily explains this because we and chimpanzees inherited most of our DNA from a common ancestor.

Source:
http://www.evolutionarymodel.com...

Sounds plausible...to the ignorant. Answer me this, genius. How do you explain orphan genes?

We are not discussing orphan genes. If you don't have any rebuttal to my arguments, and instead choose to insult instead then you would probably do better posting in the religion forum instead.
distraff
Posts: 1,002
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2016 12:41:36 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/13/2016 8:35:56 PM, LittleBallofHATE wrote:
At 3/13/2016 8:26:58 PM, LittleBallofHATE wrote:
At 3/11/2016 5:22:35 PM, distraff wrote:
I have always found evolution very interesting. I recently read about the role of retroviruses in evolution. Some viruses when they spread through the body will attack a cell and insert their DNA into the cell's DNA. The DNA that is inserted is used to build proteins to take over the cell and use it to jump on to other cells. If these get into reproductive cells then they will be inherited.

In fact 5-10% of human DNA is retrovirus DNA and it is unlikely we would have so many if we had only been around for 6,000 years. We know they are retrovirus because they have the exact same sequence of retrovirus genes that are used to build the retrovirus, take over the cell, and take over more cells. They are bordered by identical LTR sequences which are the parts of the host cell DNA that were torn apart and rebuilt and is the collateral damage evidence of the insertion.
http://www.politicalforum.com...
http://www.politicalforum.com...

Some retrovirus DNA is used by the body for non-coding purposes to sort of be there to help the coding DNA get turned into proteins. Originally they were used by the virus to code proteins to invade the body, but now they are being used by the body in a way that their sequence does not really matter like much non-coding DNA.

We have found that humans share the exact same location of many retrovirus sequences with many apes and the more similar the species the less mutation difference there is between the different versions of the shared retrovirus sequences in certain shared retroviruses studied by geneticists. These mutation differences happen after the species split and the longer two species have been separate the more mutations and therefore the more difference.
http://www.politicalforum.com...
http://www.politicalforum.com...

Also, since only 1-2% of human DNA is different and 5-10% of human is retrovirus mathematically most retrovirus sequences have to be shared between humans and apes even if all the DNA difference was retrovirus DNA. In fact scientists have found that only 5-10% of DNA difference between humans and apes are retrovirus so only about .1% of DNA is retrovirus and different from chimps, so 99% of retrovirus DNA is shared between humans and apes in the same locations which is incredible to have such a match up in such a long DNA sequence.

We know that retroviruses don't only get inserted in specific locations in the DNA because they are everywhere in human DNA and in all sorts of random locations. Evolution easily explains this because we and chimpanzees inherited most of our DNA from a common ancestor.

Source:
http://www.evolutionarymodel.com...

Sounds plausible...to the ignorant. Answer me this, genius. How do you explain orphan genes?

And here is why I don't buy your BS.

An important category of "rogue" genetic data that utterly defies evolutionary predictions is the common occurrence of taxonomically restricted genes, otherwise known as "orphan genes." These are now being discovered in the sequencing of all genomes.

Many multicellular animals share similar sets of genes that produce proteins that perform related biochemical functions. This is a common feature of purposefully engineered systems. In addition to these standard genes, all organisms thus far tested also have unique sets of genes specific to that type of creature.

The authors of a recent review paper, published in Trends in Genetics, on the subject of orphan genes stated, "Comparative genome analyses indicate that every taxonomic group so far studied contains 10"20% of genes that lack recognizable homologs [similar counterparts] in other species."1

These orphan genes are also being found to be particularly important for specific biological adaptations that correspond with ecological niches in relation to the creature's interaction with its environment.2 The problem for the evolutionary model of animal origins is the fact that these DNA sequences appear suddenly and fully functional without any trace of evolutionary ancestry (DNA sequence precursors in other seemingly related organisms). And several new studies in both fish and insect genomes are now highlighting this important fact.

http://www.icr.org...

You actually made some good argument. Unfortunately they had nothing to do with retroviruses. You should really make your own thread about orphan genes or point me to the thread where you discuss it.
LittleBallofHATE
Posts: 284
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2016 2:05:21 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/14/2016 12:41:36 AM, distraff wrote:
At 3/13/2016 8:35:56 PM, LittleBallofHATE wrote:
At 3/13/2016 8:26:58 PM, LittleBallofHATE wrote:
At 3/11/2016 5:22:35 PM, distraff wrote:
I have always found evolution very interesting. I recently read about the role of retroviruses in evolution. Some viruses when they spread through the body will attack a cell and insert their DNA into the cell's DNA. The DNA that is inserted is used to build proteins to take over the cell and use it to jump on to other cells. If these get into reproductive cells then they will be inherited.

In fact 5-10% of human DNA is retrovirus DNA and it is unlikely we would have so many if we had only been around for 6,000 years. We know they are retrovirus because they have the exact same sequence of retrovirus genes that are used to build the retrovirus, take over the cell, and take over more cells. They are bordered by identical LTR sequences which are the parts of the host cell DNA that were torn apart and rebuilt and is the collateral damage evidence of the insertion.
http://www.politicalforum.com...
http://www.politicalforum.com...

Some retrovirus DNA is used by the body for non-coding purposes to sort of be there to help the coding DNA get turned into proteins. Originally they were used by the virus to code proteins to invade the body, but now they are being used by the body in a way that their sequence does not really matter like much non-coding DNA.

We have found that humans share the exact same location of many retrovirus sequences with many apes and the more similar the species the less mutation difference there is between the different versions of the shared retrovirus sequences in certain shared retroviruses studied by geneticists. These mutation differences happen after the species split and the longer two species have been separate the more mutations and therefore the more difference.
http://www.politicalforum.com...
http://www.politicalforum.com...

Also, since only 1-2% of human DNA is different and 5-10% of human is retrovirus mathematically most retrovirus sequences have to be shared between humans and apes even if all the DNA difference was retrovirus DNA. In fact scientists have found that only 5-10% of DNA difference between humans and apes are retrovirus so only about .1% of DNA is retrovirus and different from chimps, so 99% of retrovirus DNA is shared between humans and apes in the same locations which is incredible to have such a match up in such a long DNA sequence.

We know that retroviruses don't only get inserted in specific locations in the DNA because they are everywhere in human DNA and in all sorts of random locations. Evolution easily explains this because we and chimpanzees inherited most of our DNA from a common ancestor.

Source:
http://www.evolutionarymodel.com...

Sounds plausible...to the ignorant. Answer me this, genius. How do you explain orphan genes?

And here is why I don't buy your BS.

An important category of "rogue" genetic data that utterly defies evolutionary predictions is the common occurrence of taxonomically restricted genes, otherwise known as "orphan genes." These are now being discovered in the sequencing of all genomes.

Many multicellular animals share similar sets of genes that produce proteins that perform related biochemical functions. This is a common feature of purposefully engineered systems. In addition to these standard genes, all organisms thus far tested also have unique sets of genes specific to that type of creature.

The authors of a recent review paper, published in Trends in Genetics, on the subject of orphan genes stated, "Comparative genome analyses indicate that every taxonomic group so far studied contains 10"20% of genes that lack recognizable homologs [similar counterparts] in other species."1

These orphan genes are also being found to be particularly important for specific biological adaptations that correspond with ecological niches in relation to the creature's interaction with its environment.2 The problem for the evolutionary model of animal origins is the fact that these DNA sequences appear suddenly and fully functional without any trace of evolutionary ancestry (DNA sequence precursors in other seemingly related organisms). And several new studies in both fish and insect genomes are now highlighting this important fact.

http://www.icr.org...

You actually made some good argument. Unfortunately they had nothing to do with retroviruses. You should really make your own thread about orphan genes or point me to the thread where you discuss it.

We are discussing evolution. Does not genetics play an important role in that? I asked you to explain orphan genes. Can you do so?
I would agree with you, but then we'd BOTH be wrong.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,575
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2016 3:28:55 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/14/2016 12:27:37 AM, Akhenaten wrote:
At 3/13/2016 4:27:49 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:


Yes, that would be the very same Dr. Stefan Lanka, who claimed that Measles wasn't a virus and boldly put forth a bet of $100K, which he was forced to pay by the courts when overwhelming peer-reviewed evidence was presented to him.

Poor Lanka is now on the shelf with the other woo woo's.

That just proves that you can't get any justice from the court system.

No, it shows Lanka was dead wrong.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
distraff
Posts: 1,002
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2016 6:13:31 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/14/2016 2:05:21 AM, LittleBallofHATE wrote:
At 3/14/2016 12:41:36 AM, distraff wrote:
At 3/13/2016 8:35:56 PM, LittleBallofHATE wrote:
At 3/13/2016 8:26:58 PM, LittleBallofHATE wrote:
At 3/11/2016 5:22:35 PM, distraff wrote:
I have always found evolution very interesting. I recently read about the role of retroviruses in evolution. Some viruses when they spread through the body will attack a cell and insert their DNA into the cell's DNA. The DNA that is inserted is used to build proteins to take over the cell and use it to jump on to other cells. If these get into reproductive cells then they will be inherited.

In fact 5-10% of human DNA is retrovirus DNA and it is unlikely we would have so many if we had only been around for 6,000 years. We know they are retrovirus because they have the exact same sequence of retrovirus genes that are used to build the retrovirus, take over the cell, and take over more cells. They are bordered by identical LTR sequences which are the parts of the host cell DNA that were torn apart and rebuilt and is the collateral damage evidence of the insertion.
http://www.politicalforum.com...
http://www.politicalforum.com...

Some retrovirus DNA is used by the body for non-coding purposes to sort of be there to help the coding DNA get turned into proteins. Originally they were used by the virus to code proteins to invade the body, but now they are being used by the body in a way that their sequence does not really matter like much non-coding DNA.

We have found that humans share the exact same location of many retrovirus sequences with many apes and the more similar the species the less mutation difference there is between the different versions of the shared retrovirus sequences in certain shared retroviruses studied by geneticists. These mutation differences happen after the species split and the longer two species have been separate the more mutations and therefore the more difference.
http://www.politicalforum.com...
http://www.politicalforum.com...

Also, since only 1-2% of human DNA is different and 5-10% of human is retrovirus mathematically most retrovirus sequences have to be shared between humans and apes even if all the DNA difference was retrovirus DNA. In fact scientists have found that only 5-10% of DNA difference between humans and apes are retrovirus so only about .1% of DNA is retrovirus and different from chimps, so 99% of retrovirus DNA is shared between humans and apes in the same locations which is incredible to have such a match up in such a long DNA sequence.

We know that retroviruses don't only get inserted in specific locations in the DNA because they are everywhere in human DNA and in all sorts of random locations. Evolution easily explains this because we and chimpanzees inherited most of our DNA from a common ancestor.

Source:
http://www.evolutionarymodel.com...

Sounds plausible...to the ignorant. Answer me this, genius. How do you explain orphan genes?

And here is why I don't buy your BS.

An important category of "rogue" genetic data that utterly defies evolutionary predictions is the common occurrence of taxonomically restricted genes, otherwise known as "orphan genes." These are now being discovered in the sequencing of all genomes.

Many multicellular animals share similar sets of genes that produce proteins that perform related biochemical functions. This is a common feature of purposefully engineered systems. In addition to these standard genes, all organisms thus far tested also have unique sets of genes specific to that type of creature.

The authors of a recent review paper, published in Trends in Genetics, on the subject of orphan genes stated, "Comparative genome analyses indicate that every taxonomic group so far studied contains 10"20% of genes that lack recognizable homologs [similar counterparts] in other species."1

These orphan genes are also being found to be particularly important for specific biological adaptations that correspond with ecological niches in relation to the creature's interaction with its environment.2 The problem for the evolutionary model of animal origins is the fact that these DNA sequences appear suddenly and fully functional without any trace of evolutionary ancestry (DNA sequence precursors in other seemingly related organisms). And several new studies in both fish and insect genomes are now highlighting this important fact.

http://www.icr.org...

You actually made some good argument. Unfortunately they had nothing to do with retroviruses. You should really make your own thread about orphan genes or point me to the thread where you discuss it.

We are discussing evolution. Does not genetics play an important role in that? I asked you to explain orphan genes. Can you do so?

This topic is not about evolution in general. It is about evolution and retroviruses. Do you have anything to contribute to this topic?

If you really want to discuss orphan genes make a thread about it.
distraff
Posts: 1,002
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2016 6:31:11 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/14/2016 2:05:21 AM, LittleBallofHATE wrote:
At 3/14/2016 12:41:36 AM, distraff wrote:
At 3/13/2016 8:35:56 PM, LittleBallofHATE wrote:
At 3/13/2016 8:26:58 PM, LittleBallofHATE wrote:
At 3/11/2016 5:22:35 PM, distraff wrote:
I have always found evolution very interesting. I recently read about the role of retroviruses in evolution. Some viruses when they spread through the body will attack a cell and insert their DNA into the cell's DNA. The DNA that is inserted is used to build proteins to take over the cell and use it to jump on to other cells. If these get into reproductive cells then they will be inherited.

In fact 5-10% of human DNA is retrovirus DNA and it is unlikely we would have so many if we had only been around for 6,000 years. We know they are retrovirus because they have the exact same sequence of retrovirus genes that are used to build the retrovirus, take over the cell, and take over more cells. They are bordered by identical LTR sequences which are the parts of the host cell DNA that were torn apart and rebuilt and is the collateral damage evidence of the insertion.
http://www.politicalforum.com...
http://www.politicalforum.com...

Some retrovirus DNA is used by the body for non-coding purposes to sort of be there to help the coding DNA get turned into proteins. Originally they were used by the virus to code proteins to invade the body, but now they are being used by the body in a way that their sequence does not really matter like much non-coding DNA.

We have found that humans share the exact same location of many retrovirus sequences with many apes and the more similar the species the less mutation difference there is between the different versions of the shared retrovirus sequences in certain shared retroviruses studied by geneticists. These mutation differences happen after the species split and the longer two species have been separate the more mutations and therefore the more difference.
http://www.politicalforum.com...
http://www.politicalforum.com...

Also, since only 1-2% of human DNA is different and 5-10% of human is retrovirus mathematically most retrovirus sequences have to be shared between humans and apes even if all the DNA difference was retrovirus DNA. In fact scientists have found that only 5-10% of DNA difference between humans and apes are retrovirus so only about .1% of DNA is retrovirus and different from chimps, so 99% of retrovirus DNA is shared between humans and apes in the same locations which is incredible to have such a match up in such a long DNA sequence.

We know that retroviruses don't only get inserted in specific locations in the DNA because they are everywhere in human DNA and in all sorts of random locations. Evolution easily explains this because we and chimpanzees inherited most of our DNA from a common ancestor.

Source:
http://www.evolutionarymodel.com...

Sounds plausible...to the ignorant. Answer me this, genius. How do you explain orphan genes?

And here is why I don't buy your BS.

An important category of "rogue" genetic data that utterly defies evolutionary predictions is the common occurrence of taxonomically restricted genes, otherwise known as "orphan genes." These are now being discovered in the sequencing of all genomes.

Many multicellular animals share similar sets of genes that produce proteins that perform related biochemical functions. This is a common feature of purposefully engineered systems. In addition to these standard genes, all organisms thus far tested also have unique sets of genes specific to that type of creature.

The authors of a recent review paper, published in Trends in Genetics, on the subject of orphan genes stated, "Comparative genome analyses indicate that every taxonomic group so far studied contains 10"20% of genes that lack recognizable homologs [similar counterparts] in other species."1

These orphan genes are also being found to be particularly important for specific biological adaptations that correspond with ecological niches in relation to the creature's interaction with its environment.2 The problem for the evolutionary model of animal origins is the fact that these DNA sequences appear suddenly and fully functional without any trace of evolutionary ancestry (DNA sequence precursors in other seemingly related organisms). And several new studies in both fish and insect genomes are now highlighting this important fact.

http://www.icr.org...

You actually made some good argument. Unfortunately they had nothing to do with retroviruses. You should really make your own thread about orphan genes or point me to the thread where you discuss it.

We are discussing evolution. Does not genetics play an important role in that? I asked you to explain orphan genes. Can you do so?

By the way your claim that orphan genes refute evolution has been refuted a long time ago:
http://ncse.com...
distraff
Posts: 1,002
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2016 7:02:01 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/13/2016 8:35:56 PM, LittleBallofHATE wrote:
At 3/13/2016 8:26:58 PM, LittleBallofHATE wrote:
At 3/11/2016 5:22:35 PM, distraff wrote:
I have always found evolution very interesting. I recently read about the role of retroviruses in evolution. Some viruses when they spread through the body will attack a cell and insert their DNA into the cell's DNA. The DNA that is inserted is used to build proteins to take over the cell and use it to jump on to other cells. If these get into reproductive cells then they will be inherited.

In fact 5-10% of human DNA is retrovirus DNA and it is unlikely we would have so many if we had only been around for 6,000 years. We know they are retrovirus because they have the exact same sequence of retrovirus genes that are used to build the retrovirus, take over the cell, and take over more cells. They are bordered by identical LTR sequences which are the parts of the host cell DNA that were torn apart and rebuilt and is the collateral damage evidence of the insertion.
http://www.politicalforum.com...
http://www.politicalforum.com...

Some retrovirus DNA is used by the body for non-coding purposes to sort of be there to help the coding DNA get turned into proteins. Originally they were used by the virus to code proteins to invade the body, but now they are being used by the body in a way that their sequence does not really matter like much non-coding DNA.

We have found that humans share the exact same location of many retrovirus sequences with many apes and the more similar the species the less mutation difference there is between the different versions of the shared retrovirus sequences in certain shared retroviruses studied by geneticists. These mutation differences happen after the species split and the longer two species have been separate the more mutations and therefore the more difference.
http://www.politicalforum.com...
http://www.politicalforum.com...

Also, since only 1-2% of human DNA is different and 5-10% of human is retrovirus mathematically most retrovirus sequences have to be shared between humans and apes even if all the DNA difference was retrovirus DNA. In fact scientists have found that only 5-10% of DNA difference between humans and apes are retrovirus so only about .1% of DNA is retrovirus and different from chimps, so 99% of retrovirus DNA is shared between humans and apes in the same locations which is incredible to have such a match up in such a long DNA sequence.

We know that retroviruses don't only get inserted in specific locations in the DNA because they are everywhere in human DNA and in all sorts of random locations. Evolution easily explains this because we and chimpanzees inherited most of our DNA from a common ancestor.

Source:
http://www.evolutionarymodel.com...

Sounds plausible...to the ignorant. Answer me this, genius. How do you explain orphan genes?

You know what? I am going to respond to this nonsense since you are the only one posting here anyway.

And here is why I don't buy your BS.

An important category of "rogue" genetic data that utterly defies evolutionary predictions is the common occurrence of taxonomically restricted genes, otherwise known as "orphan genes." These are now being discovered in the sequencing of all genomes.

Many multicellular animals share similar sets of genes that produce proteins that perform related biochemical functions. This is a common feature of purposefully engineered systems. In addition to these standard genes, all organisms thus far tested also have unique sets of genes specific to that type of creature.

The authors of a recent review paper, published in Trends in Genetics, on the subject of orphan genes stated, "Comparative genome analyses indicate that every taxonomic group so far studied contains 10"20% of genes that lack recognizable homologs [similar counterparts] in other species."1

These orphan genes are also being found to be particularly important for specific biological adaptations that correspond with ecological niches in relation to the creature's interaction with its environment.2 The problem for the evolutionary model of animal origins is the fact that these DNA sequences appear suddenly and fully functional without any trace of evolutionary ancestry (DNA sequence precursors in other seemingly related organisms). And several new studies in both fish and insect genomes are now highlighting this important fact.

http://www.icr.org...

1: The authors themselves admit that they have not yet gone through the entire genome so many of these orphan genes may have a relative. In fact many previously thought orphan genes have been found to have a relative. However it is very likely that some orphan genes are really orphan genes.
2: Actually most of these orphan genes are non-coding which means they are not real genes. You never specified the percent of genes that are protein coding orphan genes.
3: Since many of these taxonomies diverged hundreds of millions of years ago it could have easily happened that mutations mutated the related genes until they are no longer similar. The gene itself could have been removed. A sizable percent of human nucleotides are different than those of other animals which is a lot of DNA and some DNA is going to get hit harder than others.

I would argue that if evolution is true, then we should expect to see some organ genes since mutations will change genetic material over billions of years.