Announcement

Collapse

Natural Science 301 Guidelines

This is an open forum area for all members for discussions on all issues of science and origins. This area will and does get volatile at times, but we ask that it be kept to a dull roar, and moderators will intervene to keep the peace if necessary. This means obvious trolling and flaming that becomes a problem will be dealt with, and you might find yourself in the doghouse.

As usual, Tweb rules apply. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Micro- vis-à-vis Macro-Evolution

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by jordanriver View Post
    No. It fixes itself.
    But that wasn't the point.

    That was not point of 3 examples I cited.
    How does "it fix itself", and what WAS your point?

    Why use viral genes?

    I believe that RT can cause all kinds of difficulties.

    Question: Do you believe in Grand Design in the sense that nature was designed to "fix itself", or creation of baramins occurred 6-10 thousand years ago with organism given the ability to "fix themselves"?

    K54

    P.S. You already admitted you believe there's no barrier to prevent micro from becoming macro. so you've already answered the OP.

    Now I need to figure out what you mean by "Darwinism" and why you oppose it (e.g., why you used scare quotes around "science" a few pages ago.)

    Comment


    • Originally posted by klaus54 View Post
      .... and what WAS your point?
      I was waiting for lao Tzu (Jesse) to reply but I guess he's not returning.

      The point, since my Post 104 was a SPECIFIC RESPONSE-reply to your claim in your Post 99 where you stated:
      posted by klaus54 in Post 99
      "..."Moving the goalposts" makes kicking field goals much easier, dunnit?"
      I don't understand how you missed the POINT of my reply when I clearly opened by saying

      posted by ME in post 104
      "...speaking of moving the goal posts..."
      should I have boldened 'goal posts' and put it in Caps , like GOAL POSTS ?

      and underlined it too, like GOAL POSTS ?


      goal posts, i.e. FALSIFIABILITY., i.e., is it TESTABLE
      To say that crony capitalism is not true/free market capitalism, is like saying a grand slam is not true baseball, or like saying scoring a touchdown is not true American football ...Stefan Mykhaylo D

      Comment


      • Originally posted by jordanriver View Post
        not at all Jesse. When I said its been a long time since a met a Darwinist who knew more than me I was referring to you of course.
        and Roy
        Ha! There's a number of posters on this board who aren't better than me at biology ... they're much better than me. Roy is one of them, and rwatts, and sylas who used to write for Talkorigins, and well, some actual working biologists, too. I don't know what Dr. Roy did his doctoring in, but I suspect that like me, it wasn't in biology. I'm a mathematician.

        Crevo debates are a specialty that attracts outsiders, though, as there's very little call for it inside biology itself. Outside of PRATTs, it mostly involves correcting the latest misinformation by looking up the topics in the literature put out by real biologists, who, naturally enough, spend their time creating that literature instead of defending it from attacks by non-specialists on religious bulletin boards.

        I've never run into a creationist claim that wasn't already answered in the literature. It could happen, but until it does, it can't add anything to the actual science.

        ok, Look, those ERVs can move, so location is not everything. They can be "cut-and-pasted" from their original location. And it stands to reason, IMHO, that if there is an I.D., then they might POSSIBLY have that mechanism as a STATEGY to prevent extinction.
        They can move, and more, they can be duplicated with each of the copies undergoing its own mutations. In the paper you cited, they used those measures to determine how recently the ERV had been inserted so as to narrow down their analysis to ERVs that had been inserted after the Pan-Homo split.

        But it should be noted that even when they move, they generally travel with their nearest neighbors, allowing us to trace their journeys. The fusion region in human chromosome 2 is a celebrated example. In that case, two whole chromosomes that are still present in the Pan line joined together, bringing everybody along for the ride while preserving their sequences.

        try to address the rest later.
        Take your time. No hurry at all. I'm too busy to follow fast-moving threads anymore. Sorry if my absence made you think I'd abandoned the conversation.

        oh, those sockpuppets were to let people know I was already a poster , but you seemed to be the only to figure it out.

        I had a political name , and my politics changed so I had get rid of it.
        They were also highly creative and original. Did you make them yourself?

        As ever, Jesse

        Comment


        • Originally posted by lao tzu View Post

          They can move, and more, they can be duplicated with each of the copies undergoing its own mutations. In the paper you cited, they used those measures to determine how recently the ERV had been inserted so as to narrow down their analysis to ERVs that had been inserted after the Pan-Homo split.

          But it should be noted that even when they move, they generally travel with their nearest neighbors, allowing us to trace their journeys. The fusion region in human chromosome 2 is a celebrated example. In that case, two whole chromosomes that are still present in the Pan line joined together, bringing everybody along for the ride while preserving their sequences.



          They were also highly creative and original. Did you make them yourself?

          As ever, Jesse
          yeah, but my favorite was a scan from a Batman comic, of "socko" a temporary replacement for "scarface" the dummy.
          (yeah, I am an odd person, I admit it)

          ok, those ERVs.

          Ok, ERVs are retrotransposons and there are examples of them not only moving, but moving to specific "preferential" locations, like in these rice genomes:

          "SMARTs preferentially insert into/near genes and can affect gene structure

          The availability of a large collection of full-length cDNA sequences [38] and extensive rice genome annotation resources [39], [40] allowed us to determine the integration sites of the small elements relative to genes. A total of 262 SMARTs in Nipponbare including 33 complete copies and seven solo LTRs were examined. Of these sequences, 74 (28.2%) were in introns of annotated rice genes. Three and eight were located in exons and untranslated regions (UTRs), respectively. In addition, 53 (20.2%) were found within one kb upstream or downstream of annotated genes. 28.6% of the sequences were harbored in single-copy regions with no annotated genes. The remaining sequences were located in either transposons or multiple-copy regions (Table 3). Taken together, about 53% of the SMARTs in Nipponbare were located within or near genes. This suggests that SMARTs preferentially integrate, or are retained in genic regions, especially introns.

          http://www.plosone.org/article/info%...l.pone.0032010

          ALSO, this paper informs me that vertical transfer isn't the only mode, but also HORIZONTAL transfer:

          "Given that retrotransposons are thought to evolve more rapidly than genes [36], we cannot rule out the possibility of horizontal transfer of the small retrotransposons within the grass family. Horizontal transfer has been reported for both Mutator-like elements (MULEs) and LTR retrotransposons within the rice genus and other genera in the grass family [46], [47]. In this study, no FRetro129 homologs were found in genomes outside the grass species. It is possible, however, that ancient homologs of FRetro129 were either lost or are highly diverged in these genomes."
          so, for all we know, the "matching+location" human and chimp ERVs could be the result of HGT and since we have such a close match with the chimps, then the insertion would target the same gene.
          >>> just sayin'

          here is some more citation I have of moving transposons and HGT
          MAMMALIAN GENOMICS Anatoly Ruvinsky, Jennifer A. Marshall Graves ISBN 0851999107
          p 283
          Although a large percentage of mammalian endogenous retroviral sequences are degenerate copies, a number of these sequences are intact and capabl of transcription and transposition. This host-independent transposition reaction involves the excision, or replication, and reinsertion into a different location within a host genome through a 'cut and paste' or 'copy and paste' mechanism. The aforementioned mechanisms are responsible for the transposition of a distinct region of target DNA into a non-homologous site (Berg and Howe, 1989; Craig, 2002). The mechanism of transposition of TEs has been discussed in great detail in other sources (see Berg and Howe, 1989).
          There are numerous examples of endogenous retroviral sequence expression in the human (Lower et al., 1996; Andersson et al., 2002), mouse (Thomas et al., 1984) and marsupial (our unpublished data and O'Neil et al., 1998) genomes. It is important to note that although some retroviruses may be expressed, they themselves may not be the target of the enzymes which they encode and could be working in trans to mobilize other retroelements (Coffin et al., 1997). Sequence analysis of these active retroviruses has shown that they have diverged from their modern-day exogenous counterparts. Endogenous and exogenous retroviruses are obviously subject to different selective pressures. The selective forces influencing the activity of exogenous retroviruses are complex and do not necessarily depend on the fitness of the host. Endogenous retroviruses, on the other hand, have been subject to selective pressures that have largely rendered them compatible with the host (Coffin et al., 1997).
          Fig. 11.1 shows transmission of TEs superimposed on a species phylogeny. Verticle transmission, horizontal transfer and stochastic loss can create a complicated phylogenetic distribution (bottom) for TEs within a given species complex.
          AND they can cause cancer, another citation how they cut-and-paste and change location

          STRESS-INDUCED MUTAGENESIS David Mittelman ISBN 9781461462798

          p 63-64
          A high-throughput method for cancer gene discovery in the mouse has involved retroviral insertional mutagenesis (RIM) (Kool and Berns 2009). Retroviruses can induce cancer as part of their normal viral cycles. For example, proviral DNA can integrate into the mouse genome to deregulate expression of an oncogene, or inactivate a tumor suppressor gene. The retroviral integration sites in tumors thus mark the location of candidate cancer genes.
          Transposon-based insertional mutagenesis (TIM) provides an alternative high-throughput approach for cancer gene discovery (Ivics and Izsvak 2010). Most transposable elements, excluding retrotransposons, use a "cut-and-paste" mechanism where the transposable element-encoded transposase catalyzes the excision of the transposon from an original location in the genome and promotes reintegration elsewhere. There are two types of transposons: autonomous transposons encode and active transposase and are thus capable of transposing on their own, while nonautonomous transposons lack a functional transposase, but retain the cis-acting DNA sequences that are necessary for transposition. Nonautonomous transposons are therefore active only when the transposase is supplied in trans. This, in principle, allows one to control the issue in which TIM occurs by limiting where the transposase is expressed. Therefore, TIM can be used to selectively model many types of cancer (Copeland and Jenkins 2010).
          well, I had to type all that out, so I might as well cite the thing
          To say that crony capitalism is not true/free market capitalism, is like saying a grand slam is not true baseball, or like saying scoring a touchdown is not true American football ...Stefan Mykhaylo D

          Comment


          • Originally posted by lao tzu View Post
            I don't know what Dr. Roy did his doctoring in, but I suspect that like me, it wasn't in biology. I'm a mathematician.
            It wasn't. I'm a mathemagician too, and I doctored in software engineering.

            But you flatter me too much. Sylas, Steve, Roland, GH, (formerly) bandicoot and someone called Jesse frequently put me to shame regarding biology.

            Roy
            Last edited by Roy; 08-20-2014, 12:01 PM.
            Jorge: Functional Complex Information is INFORMATION that is complex and functional.

            MM: First of all, the Bible is a fixed document.
            MM on covid-19: We're talking about an illness with a better than 99.9% rate of survival.

            seer: I believe that so called 'compassion' [for starving Palestinian kids] maybe a cover for anti Semitism, ...

            Comment


            • Originally posted by jordanriver View Post
              I was waiting for lao Tzu (Jesse) to reply but I guess he's not returning.

              The point, since my Post 104 was a SPECIFIC RESPONSE-reply to your claim in your Post 99 where you stated:


              I don't understand how you missed the POINT of my reply when I clearly opened by saying



              should I have boldened 'goal posts' and put it in Caps , like GOAL POSTS ?

              and underlined it too, like GOAL POSTS ?


              goal posts, i.e. FALSIFIABILITY., i.e., is it TESTABLE
              The point of this thread was to poll creationists as to where or what is the micro/macro boundary. You admitted there was NONE.

              You answered to the question, so I have no idea why you started blathering about ERVs.

              If you want to continue to nitpick a particular evolutionary topic, please start your own thread.

              K54

              K54

              Comment


              • Originally posted by klaus54 View Post
                The point of this thread was to poll creationists as to where or what is the micro/macro boundary. You admitted there was NONE.

                You answered to the question, so I have no idea why you started blathering about ERVs.

                If you want to continue to nitpick a particular evolutionary topic, please start your own thread.

                K54

                K54
                Because in YOUR POST 99 YOU accused the other side of "moving the goalposts"

                I understand the point of your thread and I answered for you.

                But then YOU complained about goal posts being moved, so I had no choice but to remind you , that your side also has a history of moving the goal posts.




                ,,,,well, ok, that was hyperbole, its not like I was actually forced to do anything ...more like compelled.
                To say that crony capitalism is not true/free market capitalism, is like saying a grand slam is not true baseball, or like saying scoring a touchdown is not true American football ...Stefan Mykhaylo D

                Comment


                • I think i'll leave your thread alone, then.
                  To say that crony capitalism is not true/free market capitalism, is like saying a grand slam is not true baseball, or like saying scoring a touchdown is not true American football ...Stefan Mykhaylo D

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by jordanriver View Post
                    Because in YOUR POST 99 YOU accused the other side of "moving the goalposts"

                    I understand the point of your thread and I answered for you.

                    But then YOU complained about goal posts being moved, so I had no choice but to remind you , that your side also has a history of moving the goal posts.




                    ,,,,well, ok, that was hyperbole, its not like I was actually forced to do anything ...more like compelled.
                    I made the goalpost remark since had already stated you saw no micro/macro boundary then proceeded to nitpick evolutionary theory but not after you used scare quotes around "Darwinists" and "science".

                    You are just one confusing person.

                    But you were only one of two that addressed the OP, and for that I'm thankful.

                    (The other person who answered gave the undefinable notion of "baramin".)

                    K54

                    Comment

                    Related Threads

                    Collapse

                    Topics Statistics Last Post
                    Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-18-2024, 12:15 PM
                    48 responses
                    135 views
                    0 likes
                    Last Post Sparko
                    by Sparko
                     
                    Started by Sparko, 03-07-2024, 08:52 AM
                    16 responses
                    74 views
                    0 likes
                    Last Post shunyadragon  
                    Started by rogue06, 02-28-2024, 11:06 AM
                    6 responses
                    46 views
                    0 likes
                    Last Post shunyadragon  
                    Working...
                    X