KAG:


Or a bush.



I'm not sure what's not clear. Humans and other apes share common ancestry. The phrase "Parent-Child kind of shared or Brother-Sister kind" is meaningless in this context. Here's an image to give you an idea (edited to use an image with a simpler tree):

Fantastic! Quite how I pictured it just so we are sure of what we are talking about. Its actually a Brother-Sister esque kind of relationship with the apes it does hold in this context albeit meaningless like you said.
So according to this ERVs process, the genetic markings where actually passed down to the humans and the apes from the hominoidae who is at the apex right?

ElCount:

Fantastic! Quite how I pictured it just so we are sure of what we are talking about. Its actually a Brother-Sister esque kind of relationship with the apes it does hold in this context albeit meaningless like you said.
So according to this ERVs process, the genetic markings where actually passed down to the humans and the apes from the hominoidae who is at the apex right?

"Brother-Sister esque kind of relationship"? No. On shared ERVs, the presence and the location of those shared retroviral incidents strongly tally with the various splits in the hominoidea family. It's not singular markings from one common ancestral line.

KAG:


"Brother-Sister esque kind of relationship"? No. On shared ERVs, the presence and the location of those shared retroviral incidents strongly tally with the various splits in the hominoidea family. It's not singular markings from one common ancestral line.

Oh cmon! You said "that the particular genetically marked cells can be passed to an offspring"
Is this info still valid or are we just talking about it tallying.

Because I was of the opinion that what made the ERVs unique was its transferability to offsprings

I know why I'm taking this little by little I hope you are not bored? Perhaps you now see why I dropped every other argument and focused on this at least I hope by the end I may have benefited from the argument not just for the sake of it

ElCount:

Oh cmon! You said "that the particular genetically marked cells can be passed to an offspring"
Is this info still valid or are we just talking about it tallying.

Because I was of the opinion that what made the ERVs unique was its transferability to offsprings

I haven't typed anything different.

I know why I'm taking this little by little I hope you are not bored? Perhaps you now see why I dropped every other argument and focused on this at least I hope by the end I may have benefited from the argument not just for the sake of it

Well, get on with it then.

KAG:


I haven't typed anything different.


Well, get on with it then.

Yeah, without wasting anybody's time and making the thread unnecessarily long, here's the question perhaps you already knew where I was going all along but I will ask it anyway. Moving further up the ancestry

[1] Does the Hominoidae direct ancestor have this ERV genetic pattern?

[2] If it has why isn't this pattern shared among its offspring why was it peculiar to just the Hominoidae?

ElCount:

Yeah, without wasting anybody's time and making the thread unnecessarily long, here's the question perhaps you already knew where I was going all along but I will ask it anyway. Moving further up the ancestry

[1] Does the Hominoidae direct ancestor have this ERV genetic pattern?

I had no idea where you're going with any of this. I still don't. In any case, that's not quite right. I'm trying to make sense of what you're trying to ask. See below.

[2] If it has why isn't this pattern shared among its offspring why was it peculiar to just the Hominoidae?

I really don't know what you're trying to ask.

I'm almost certain you haven't understood shared ERVs and how they apply to evolution. I'll give a brief summary. Animals - including humans - often get viral attacks (nice graphic illustration: https://askabiologist.asu.edu/viral-attack-page-2). In many instances, after the virus has inserted itself in the cell, for varying reasons, the infection fails. Due to the failed viral insertion, the attacked cell retains the viral information. If, and only if, said cell is a germline cell, then that cell possibly gets passed on to an offspring, etc. Bear in mind that the odds of two species just randomly sharing just one ERV in the same location is pretty slim (not impossible, because of hotspots).

The same principle applies to old (retro) virus inserrtions and the ancestors of humans and modern apes. Further, shared retroviruses show that the incidence of the locations of the various shared endogenous retroviruses in the different hominid species complement the model had before the genetic evidence was available. So, all hominidea species have some shared ERVs in the same locations. Then, the species in homininae have shared ERVs that ponginae don't, and so on...

Hope that helps.

P.S. Real life may mean I won't be able to respond as soon as I want to do. So, you know...

Bump

KAG:


I had no idea where you're going with any of this. I still don't. In any case, that's not quite right. I'm trying to make sense of what you're trying to ask. See below.



I really don't know what you're trying to ask.

I'm almost certain you haven't understood shared ERVs and how they apply to evolution. I'll give a brief summary. Animals - including humans - often get viral attacks (nice graphic illustration: https://askabiologist.asu.edu/viral-attack-page-2). In many instances, after the virus has inserted itself in the cell, for varying reasons, the infection fails. Due to the failed viral insertion, the attacked cell retains the viral information. If, and only if, said cell is a germline cell, then that cell possibly gets passed on to an offspring, etc. Bear in mind that the odds of two species just randomly sharing just one ERV in the same location is pretty slim (not impossible, because of hotspots).

The same principle applies to old (retro) virus inserrtions and the ancestors of humans and modern apes. Further, shared retroviruses show that the incidence of the locations of the various shared endogenous retroviruses in the different hominid species complement the model had before the genetic evidence was available. So, all hominidea species have some shared ERVs in the same locations. Then, the species in homininae have shared ERVs that ponginae don't, and so on...

Hope that helps.

P.S. Real life may mean I won't be able to respond as soon as I want to do. So, you know...

Its a fair question. Anyway my point is you are missing the bigger picture which is that "the ERV is an evidence of evolution"
Because .e are talking about proof of common ancestry with the ERVs, if you expand the chart to accommodate the Hominidae parent and grand parent the test is gonna fail.

For the ERVs to truly be an evidence of evolution it should be valid when you expand the chart, it should not be true for only a part of the whole.

I hope you get it now, though I'm certain you are going to maintain that I still don't understand how it works

ElCount:

Its a fair question. Anyway my point is you are missing the bigger picture which is that "the ERV is an evidence of evolution"
Because .e are talking about proof of common ancestry with the ERVs, if you expand the chart to accommodate the Hominidae parent and grand parent the test is gonna fail.

The hell are you on about? This is not that difficult to understand. What do you mean "accommodate the Hominidae parent and grand parent"? What test? This isn't about how far we can take the ancestors of primates - it is a red herring, at best. It is about showing the evidence for shared ancestry. That's what the markers in the respective genes indicate. If we can find shared genetic markers in humans and modern apes, then the parsimonous explanation is given by the theory of evolution.

For the ERVs to truly be an evidence of evolution it should be valid when you expand the chart, it should not be true for only a part of the whole.

You're not making sense. One needn't go past what the evidence is showing: that, at a genetic level, humans share something significant with other apes. The best explanation for the incidence of those shared genetic markers is a shared common ancestry.

I hope you get it now, though I'm certain you are going to maintain that I still don't understand how it works

You definitely don't understand any of this. Please do read the brief summary I gave. If need be, read other sources. It's not that difficult to understand the rudiments of what the evidence is showing.

KAG:


The hell are you on about? This is not that difficult to understand. What do you mean "accommodate the Hominidae parent and grand parent"? What test? This isn't about how far we can take the ancestors of primates - it is a red herring, at best. It is about showing the evidence for shared ancestry. That's what the markers in the respective genes indicate. If we can find shared genetic markers in humans and modern apes, then the parsimonous explanation is given by the theory of evolution.

You are missing the point. Ancestry is a continuous thing you can't just stop at the hominids and say ERV has served as a proof of evolution. Evolution theory itself says that all living organisms have one ancestor which is the autotroph that came out of the prebiotic soup by accident, so when you talk about shared ancestry it shouldn't be limited to just the hominids.

Mind you I'm not in anyway questioning the process of ERVs and if it works for the hominids cause it does.

The fact that when you compare the hominids with the canines with regards to the ERVs and get a different outcome implies that it can't be a proof of evolution. Its very much straight forward because in the long run they will have a shared ancestry.

Don't know how else to explain it to you, if you can't see this then...

ElCount:

You are missing the point. Ancestry is a continuous thing you can't just stop at the hominids and say ERV has served as a proof of evolution.

Except you can show shared ancestry by showing the shared genetic markers that could only have come fom common ancestry. An analogy (not to be taken literally): to show you and a cousin are related, one needn't know the entire history of humankind. The shared DNA indicates a shared recent ancestry - and, at least, a shared grandparent. Further, the intricate details of the shared grandparent can remain unknown, and we'd still be able to ascertain your relationship with your cousin.

Evolution theory itself says that all living organisms have one ancestor which is the autotroph that came out of the prebiotic soup by accident, so when you talk about shared ancestry it shouldn't be limited to just the hominids.

Nah, that's not what the theory of evolution states. Evolution is "change in allelle frequencies of a population of organisms. When talking about shared ancestry, it isn't just limited to human ancestry. However, in this instance we're talking about a set of commonalities found in the genes of primates. Commonalities that point to shared ancestry in primates. It's strong evidence for evolution. The red herring of "oh, but let's talk about everything else" hasn't changed that.

Mind you I'm not in anyway questioning the process of ERVs and if it works for the hominids cause it does.

That's a refreshing admission.

The fact that when you compare the hominids with the canines with regards to the ERVs and get a different outcome implies that it can't be a proof of evolution. Its very much straight forward because in the long run they will have a shared ancestry.

Don't know how else to explain it to you, if you can't see this then...

That doesn't make any sense. It's comparing failed viral infections in the germline cells of hominids. Why would you think we'd find the same shared failed viral infections in canines?

In any case, being the great google scholar that I am, I'll provide a link (https://elifesciences.org/content/5/e12704) for more on shared ERVs in mammals.

Got any more objections. Seriously, you should take more time understanding the subject against which you want to argue.

Wow.

KAG you're back?

Where have you been?

Welcome back.

KAG:



Nah, that's not what the theory of evolution states. Evolution is "change in allelle frequencies of a population of organisms. When talking about shared ancestry, it isn't just limited to human ancestry. However, in this instance we're talking about a set of commonalities found in the genes of primates. Commonalities that point to shared ancestry in primates. It's strong evidence for evolution. The red herring of "oh, but let's talk about everything else" hasn't changed that.

Are you saying that Evolution theory does not state that all of life forms have a common ancestor?

jayriginal:
Wow.

KAG you're back?

Where have you been?

Welcome back.

Hey jayriginal. I've been crazy busy with work and relationships. I've managed to find some downtime, so passing through now. I hope you're well, yourself.

ElCount:

Are you saying that Evolution theory does not state that all of life forms have a common ancestor?

Where ancestor is not a singular organism, but a population. So, you're good on shared ERVs?

KAG:


Where ancestor is not a singular organism, but a population. So, you're good on shared ERVs?

Are we still talking about thesame evolution theory? If I may ask according to your evolution theory how did life come into existence?

ElCount:

KAG post=45349264:


Where ancestor is not a singular organism, but a population. So, you're good on shared ERVs?

Are we still talking about thesame evolution theory? If I may ask according to your evolution theory how did life come into existence?

We were talking about the theory of evolution - or, at least, trying to talk about it. The theory of evoultion doesn't deal with how life came into existence. You've been told that not only by me, but by Cloudgoddess and CoolUsername.

KAG:


We were talking about the theory of evolution - or, at least, trying to talk about it. The theory of evoultion doesn't deal with how life came into existence. You've been told that not only by me, but by Cloudgoddess and CoolUsername.

That was a slip of the fingers you knew what I meant. Let me rephrase
How did life or rather all life forms originate or come into existence?

KAG:


Hey jayriginal. I've been crazy busy with work and relationships. I've managed to find some downtime, so passing through now. I hope you're well, yourself.

Yes I'm well thank you.

It's a delight to know you're doing good.

ElCount:

That was a slip of the fingers you knew what I meant. Let me rephrase
How did life or rather all life forms originate or come into existence?

Nobody can really be sure, everyone is just speculating. But based on scientific reasoning, life (self duplication and sustenance) got started from simple inorganic compounds. Some even speculated life got kick started from outer space thought meteors containing organic compounds. One explanations i am certain is wrong is that life was started by a Jewish old man, using Hebrew words (which ironically is his begotten son) to magically poof all life ( from virus to mammals and from fungi to plants) into existence all at once.

ElCount:

That was a slip of the fingers you knew what I meant. Let me rephrase

Unchanged response in general.

"We were talking about the theory of evolution - or, at least, trying to talk about it. The theory of evoultion doesn't deal with how life came into existence. You've been told that not only by me, but by Cloudgoddess and CoolUsername."

How did life or rather all life forms originate or come into existence?

ElCount:

Secondly, you keep reiterating that Abiogenesis has evidence please what is this evidence?

KAG:

Start a new thread and tag me.

ElCount:

I'm not evading, not even close. I just don't engage in an argument for the sake of it. However I may come back to that termite-microbe love story later, I'm just interested in the ERVs now.

Still on the Ape-Human-ERV, one can confidently say that the Apes are intermediary species between the ape ancestors (whoever they are) and humans right?

I'm not starting up any thread to talk about abiogenesis I believe it has no evidence and its not even worth debating about

So much for that. Offer remains, if you want to discuss abiogenesis ("How did life or rather all life forms originate or come into existence?", then start a new thread and tag me. However, this time I can't guarantee I'll be able to respond much, if at all - more work coming on to my plate.

...back to the theory of evolution, then.

wirinet:


Nobody can really be sure, everyone is just speculating. But based on scientific reasoning, life (self duplication and sustenance) got started from simple inorganic compounds. Some even speculated life got kick started from outer space thought meteors containing organic compounds. One explanations i am certain is wrong is that life was started by a Jewish old man, using Hebrew words (which ironically is his begotten son) to magically poof all life ( from virus to mammals and from fungi to plants) into existence all at once.

You are funny, really you are
So your speculations are scientific but that of the creationist is magical, hmmm!
So meteors containing organic compounds and life starting from inorganic compounds are science-based but a belief in the existence of an Intelligent designer is magical?
I mean you exhibit even more faith believing in the big bang theory as well as abiogenesis than you can even imagine.

When I tell you by Faith that God created the world He owns it and He makes the rules and there's no need to prove His existence, you will quickly jump in and say its magic but yours is science even though its all speculations and yet you forgot that the way you just explained it is the way one would explain a Myth. Very classy

KAG:


Unchanged response in general.

"We were talking about the theory of evolution - or, at least, trying to talk about it. The theory of evoultion doesn't deal with how life came into existence. You've been told that not only by me, but by Cloudgoddess and CoolUsername."



So much for that. Offer remains, if you want to discuss abiogenesis ("How did life or rather all life forms originate or come into existence?", then start a new thread and tag me. However, this time I can't guarantee I'll be able to respond much, if at all - more work coming on to my plate.

...back to the theory of evolution, then.

Hehe! I see what you did there! Taking advantage of the disconnect between Abiogenesis and the Evolution theory to slip in the ERVs as evidence because that's the only way it can stand. Believe you me I didn't see that coming, but the thing is my knowledge of evolution says that all organisms are related and have a common ancestor, I could get a lot of links on that here is also one of Charly Darwins' quote from his book origin of species
"...its a truly wonderful fact...That all animals and all plants throughout all TIME and SPACE should be related to each other..."
In otherwards they should have a common ancestor. Perhaps there's been an upgrade who knows will check it out in my spare time.

Anyway I believe we have reached an impasse on the ERVs if and when I decide to talk about abiogenesis I will open a thread as you said.

ElCount:

Hehe! I see what you did there! Taking advantage of the disconnect between Abiogenesis and the Evolution theory to slip in the ERVs as evidence because that's the only way it can stand.

Don't be daft, there was no slipping in: ERVs, in the genetic context point to shared ancestry. It's foolish to think they have anything to do with the origin of life. You are trying really hard to avoid the evidence, but it's not going away.

Believe you me I didn't see that coming, but the thing is my knowledge of evolution says that all organisms are related and have a common ancestor, I could get a lot of links on that here is also one of Charly Darwins' quote from his book origin of species
"...its a truly wonderful fact...That all animals and all plants throughout all TIME and SPACE should be related to each other..."
In otherwards they should have a common ancestor. Perhaps there's been an upgrade who knows will check it out in my spare time.

Yes living organisms share common ancestry. In the same vein, humans and modern apes share recent common ancestry. There's strong evidence for that shared ancestry between humans and modern apes. Shared ERVs is one such genetic evidence. Feel free to discuss that evidence... although you've been doing your best to discuss anything but that.

Anyway I believe we have reached an impasse on the ERVs if and when I decide to talk about abiogenesis I will open a thread as you said.

We haven't reached an impasse on ERVs; we've reached an impasse on your inability to grasp simple concepts (e.g. what ERVs show, and that evolution and abiogenesis are different things). I won't hold my breath on anything else.

ElCount:

You are funny, really you are
So your speculations are scientific but that of the creationist is magical, hmmm!
So meteors containing organic compounds and life starting from inorganic compounds are science-based but a belief in the existence of an Intelligent designer is magical?
I mean you exhibit even more faith believing in the big bang theory as well as abiogenesis than you can even imagine.

When I tell you by Faith that God created the world He owns it and He makes the rules and there's no need to prove His existence, you will quickly jump in and say its magic but yours is science even though its all speculations and yet you forgot that the way you just explained it is the way one would explain a Myth. Very classy

You are so ignorant, i really feel sorry for you.
Scientific speculations are based on interpretations of observable data. Scientist say speculations because there can never be 100% certainty as nobody was present to actually view and record the big bang or the primordial soup. They only have clues left by these events to work on.

Some scientists speculate that life might have been kick started on earth through meteors because meteorites that have been found on earth (including meteorites and comets studied in space) are found to contain organic compounds.

see this report;

The Significance of Organic Compounds in Meteorites
A meteorite is a solid body that has traveled through space and
impacted the Earth. These bodies vary in composition but common
constituents include rock, iron and nickel. Organic compounds have
also been found in meteorites and it has been postulated that
impacts on the early Earth may have delivered the molecules
necessary to start life.
- http://science.opposingviews.com/significance-organic-compounds-meteorites-4219.html

As for evidence of the big bang, a kind nairalander has already taken the effort to educate ignorant peoples like you, by explaining what the theory really means and evidences for it. Take advantage and learn something new.
- https://www.nairaland.com/3080255/physics-seun-understanding-scientific-theories#45221422


Your faith that the universe and life was spoken into existence by an old Jewish man from his throne is not speculation based on any thing, it is solely based on blind faith and wishful thinking.
Every society on earth also has it own blind faith explanation of the beginning of life and the universe, it is part of humans highly active imagination. Every unexplained phenomenon is attributed to a god. The moon, sun and planets were once gods, worshiped by millions of people. Thunder and lightning were once gods.

This statement of yours would qualify for the most senseless statement in history,
your said that, solely by your Faith your God created the world, He owns it and He makes the rules. You now paradoxically state that there's no need to prove His existence. This is even worse than the king wearing invisible cloths no one can see, except the tailor who made the cloths. At the end people will discover that the king is actually naked and the tailor had lied all along.

KAG:


Don't be daft, there was no slipping in: ERVs, in the genetic context point to shared ancestry. It's foolish to think they have anything to do with the origin of life. You are trying really hard to avoid the evidence, but it's not going away.



Yes living organisms share common ancestry. In the same vein, humans and modern apes share recent common ancestry. There's strong evidence for that shared ancestry between humans and modern apes. Shared ERVs is one such genetic evidence. Feel free to discuss that evidence... although you've been doing your best to discuss anything but that.


We haven't reached an impasse on ERVs; we've reached an impasse on your inability to grasp simple concepts (e.g. what ERVs show, and that evolution and abiogenesis are different things). I won't hold my breath on anything else.

What is there to talk about again? All living organisms according to your theory share a common ancestry and here you are with evidence which I can use to show that dogs, birds etc are not related to humans and apes in the form of ERVs and yet you still see it as an evidence for evolution.
Its an impasse to me and there's nothing to talk about again.

wirinet:


You are so ignorant, i really feel sorry for you.
Scientific speculations are based on interpretations of observable data. Scientist say speculations because there can never be 100% certainty as nobody was present to actually view and record the big bang or the primordial soup. They only have clues left by these events to work on.

Some scientists speculate that life might have been kick started on earth through meteors because meteorites that have been found on earth (including meteorites and comets studied in space) are found to contain organic compounds.

see this report;



As for evidence of the big bang, a kind nairalander has already taken the effort to educate ignorant peoples like you, by explaining what the theory really means and evidences for it. Take advantage and learn something new.
- https://www.nairaland.com/3080255/physics-seun-understanding-scientific-theories#45221422


Your faith that the universe and life was spoken into existence by an old Jewish man from his throne is not speculation based on any thing, it is solely based on blind faith and wishful thinking.
Every society on earth also has it own blind faith explanation of the beginning of life and the universe, it is part of humans highly active imagination. Every unexplained phenomenon is attributed to a god. The moon, sun and planets were once gods, worshiped by millions of people. Thunder and lightning were once gods.

This statement of yours would qualify for the most senseless statement in history,
your said that, solely by your Faith your God created the world, He owns it and He makes the rules. You now paradoxically state that there's no need to prove His existence. This is even worse than the king wearing invisible cloths no one can see, except the tailor who made the cloths. At the end people will discover that the king is actually naked and the tailor had lied all along.

You have desperation written all over your post. Let me ask you is anybody forcing you to believe in the God? If no then why all this long epistle. You can go ahead and believe in your dumb theory it doesn't change anything. Your theory lacks evidence its all speculations and it has contributed nothing in the advancement of science because it works backwards.
So take a chill pill and stop acting as if the mere mention of God gives you arthritis

ElCount:

What is there to talk about again? All living organisms according to your theory share a common ancestry and here you are with evidence which I can use to show that dogs, birds etc are not related to humans and apes in the form of ERVs and yet you still see it as an evidence for evolution.

Um, no. Showing common ancestry in humans and modern apes indicates that evolution must have occurred to cause the different hominid species. It's not evidence that other animals aren't related to primates. That's like saying because we've shown the genetic similarities between yourself and your cousin, then it proves you are not the species as White Europeans and East Asians. It would be a specious argument at best, moronic at worst.

In any case, just becuase you somehow missed it in my previous post: Shared ERVs in mammals: https://elifesciences.org/content/5/e12704

Its an impasse to me and there's nothing to talk about again.

ElCount: "Mind you I'm not in anyway questioning the process of ERVs and if it works for the hominids cause it does".

Yeah, we're done here.

ElCount:

Are we still talking about thesame evolution theory? If I may ask according to your evolution theory how did life come into existence?

Theory of Evolution does not address the origin of life!

Well topic was well created, i have learnt a thing or two from here.

.