realy? how did you get this? what is your evidence?
ammm. according to this evidence the opossite is true:
“Second, the PTERV1 phylogenetic tree is inconsistent with the generally accepted species tree for primates, suggesting a horizontal transmission as opposed to a vertical transmission from a common ape ancestor. An alternative explanation may be that the primate phylogeny is grossly incorrect, as has been proposed by a minority of anthropologists.”
You might have been right if I had never designed a power plant. As it is they are still working.
Lets agree that we will never agree and continue to live pleasantly.
Greetings, Jan.
You have been shown this time and time again by many people. If you are not going to read it then you should not be in this discussion.
No. Those articles say the opposite of what you are supposed to be proving. They talk about one endogenous retrovirus which is not found in humans, though it is found in chimpanzees, bonobos, and gorillas. You are supposed to be showing how an endogenous retrovirus which is in humans and in chimpanzees, bonobos, and gorillas, was inherited from humans by chimpanzees, bonobos, and gorillas. Those articles don’t provide any evidence for that, and they provide evidence contradicting your claims. So you clearly haven’t read the articles. This proves once again that you literally do not know what you are talking about.
That one says nothing about the topic under discussion. It describes a new theory which isn’t yet supported by evidence, but which wouldn’t contradict the point under discussion here even if it was true.
I am right regardless of how many power plants you have designed. The fact is you do not understand electromagetism,which is why you did not understand why Venus does not have a magnetosphere. You also falsely attributed to scientists a view they do not hold. If you have ever designed any working power plants, I can guarantee they do not operate on the basis of false ideas of electromagetism.
it show that there is no hierarchy in the phylogoenetic tree. and therefore prove my point that we can always change the tree. so a human before an ape its possible according to evolution. we can say that the shared ervs of human with apes support that apes evolved from human.
Neither of them say that at all. You still haven’t explained how it’s possible to claim that endogenous retroviruses were inherited by apes from humans. Where is all the evidence? Returning to the original post in this thread, no one has yet shown any fossils “out of order”. And now you’re reduced to saying “Well even if we did one then it wouldn’t make any difference”. This is an admission by you that there are no fossils “out of order”.
I suspect you did not read the entire article by Barbulescu et al. Here are the details you missed:
In principle, the following gene conversion scenario could have resulted in the removal of the provirus in the human lineage. First, the preintegration locus underwent a duplication event in the common ancestor of Homo, Pan, and Gorilla. Second, the provirus formed in one of the two copies of the locus by viral infection of the common ancestor. Next, the Gorilla lineage diverged from the Pan-Homo common ancestor. Then, the Pan and Homo lineages diverged. Afterwards, a recombination event reversed the original locus duplication, restoring a single copy of the locus without the provirus in the Homo lineage. However, the PCR and sequencing assays uniformly failed to detect any evidence for the presence of such a duplicated locus in Gorilla or Pan. Therefore, in addition to the removal of the provirus specifically in the Homo lineage, the scenario also requires recombination events in the Pan and Gorilla lineages to eliminate the provirus-free copy of the locus. Since the Gorilla lineage diverged before the Pan and Homo lineages separated, this means that independent recombination events would have had to occur in both the Pan and Gorilla lineages. While this scenario can never be formally excluded, there is a more parsimonious alternative that involves three fewer recombination events.
The alternative is an allelic segregation model (Figure 2d) in which the provirus formed in the most recent common ancestor of Homo, Pan, and Gorilla just before the three lineages separated. The provirus allele was fixed in the Gorilla lineage. Both alleles were then maintained in the Pan-Homo common ancestor until the individual lineages diverged. The provirus allele was fixed in the Pan lineage, while the preintegration site allele was fixed in the Homo lineage. The allelic segregation model is more parsimonious than the gene conversion scenario because it does not require the locus duplication event in the common ancestor or the two independent losses of the duplicated locus in the Gorilla and Pan lineages. In addition, the possibility that humans diverged first, the provirus formed next, and the gorilla-chimpanzee divergence occurred last is extremely unlikely given the greatest sequence similarity between chimpanzees and humans at most loci [1, 2, 3, 4]. Rather, the presence of HERV-K-GC1 in gorillas and chimpanzees, but not humans, is best explained by the maintenance of the preintegration site in the human lineage since before the time when the provirus formed in the common ancestor of chimpanzees and gorillas. This leads to the conclusion that, for some fraction of the genome, the gorilla and chimpanzee genomes are more closely related to each other than either is to humans.
Yes, Barbulescu et al. state that incomplete lineage sorting is the best, most parsimonious explanation of the genetic data. You only call the primate phylogeny “a good joke” because you have not yet understood incomplete lineage sorting in spite of the efforts of many of your friends here. But I believe you can if you will just try: Dennis Venema gave a very clear and helpful explanation in this Biologos article.
the same “evidence” that apes shared erv with humans.
i ask you if you agree about the definition that such a fossil is a “fossil that appear before its suppose ancestor”. so do you agree with this definition or do you have another definition?
its an excuse that try to explain the contradiction we found. it may be possible or not. but my main point is that even scientists dont know what is the real phylogeny. and therefore they will not have any problem to change the phylogeny and claim that apes evolve from humans if we will find such a fossil. i also gave other possibilities that includ pushing back the apes or convergent evolution or a hox made by creationists or any other thing.
It’s actually not a contradiction, my friend dcs. As Dennis Venema’s article explained, the primate genomic data strongly support the standard primate phylogeny. The fact that you call ILS “an excuse” shows me that you probably have not considered the evidence in his article.
I also included a link to our previous conversation because I provided evidence that we can see incomplete lineage sorting in DNA analysis today. If you, your siblings, your cousins, and your second cousins all provided DNA samples, you would see the same DNA sorting that occurs at the population level with ILS.
Incomplete lineage sorting: it’s happening today. If you and your relatives had your DNA analyzed, you would see how your own family’s DNA sorts in a manner consist with ILS. Think about that, my friend dcs.
Please demonstrate that the same evidence can legitimately be understood to indicate that apes inherited ERVs from humans. Please ensure you explain the biological processes involved and list all the relevant evidence, including the fossil evidence.
I already answered that question and gave you two very simple, very clear, examples of the type of thing which would count as a “fossil out of order”. Unsurprisingly, you can’t find any.
The author seems incredulous that new information is still being discovered about our planet and its living organisms. Science is dynamic. Scientists understand that. There is no “one and done” to evolutionary theory. New findings provide an opportunity to confirm/rework ideas.
Ultimately, the information supporting evolutionary theory converges from many different disciplines. There is nothing in this article that acknowledges the dynamic nature of science. The verbiage of the author implies more of an adolescent gotcha tone, than a scientifically analytical one.
The Wollemi pine referenced was not a pin in the coffin of evolution, but an exciting find that filled in holes between tree species. Again, the author seems to think that since we haven’t found fossil evidence for this particular tree in 150 my, that evolutionary theory has been negated. Again, absence of evidence does not give evidence of absence, This tree survived in a prehistoric forest under many, many adverse conditions throughout time. It is rare and interesting. A scientific coup, not a devastating blow.
When reading YEC articles, I always go to the footnotes and examine sources. I have found too many misleading comments or recontextualized quotes manipulated to say something the original author never intended. The footnotes on this article are primarily referencing themselves. And, notice as well, the title of the “journal articles” referenced. Most scientific articles have a very factual title (I.e, “Archean molecular fossils and the rise of modern eukaryotes”). The Journal of Creation articles reference use inflammatory words like “supposed” and “sensational” in their titles to lead an audience to their conclusions.
Finally, I see nothing here that indicates “out of order.” I see new findings that indicate organisms lived earlier than was previously thought or organisms that have survived in remote, one-off type locations.
The article isn’t convincing of its premise, but relies on emotional language and the ignorance of its readers to make its point.
(Clarification: I do not think of YECs as ignorant. I know many who are brilliant in their own fields. The fact is scientific knowledge is broad and deep and increasing at such a rate that it is hard to keep up with. That is why we have specialties. Most YECs see a site like this as supportive to their faith, which gives the author credibility. Most also do not have the time or energy to do the fact checking that those of us who post on this board do )
Here we present well-preserved and securely dated tetrapod tracks from Polish marine tidal flat sediments of early Middle Devonian (Eifelian stage) age that are approximately 18 million years older than the earliest tetrapod body fossils and 10 million years earlier than the oldest elpistostegids.
Sure. We’ve gone around and around on this, Dcscccc… This finding is part of the normal progression of science and does not turn evolution on its head. This just means we move the appearance of tetrapods back by what amounts to a change of 5% (18 mya out of something like 374 mya). It’s new and unexpected, sure, but not completely outside the realm of possibility for evolutionary theory.
When you can show something like rabbits reliably dated to the Cambrian, the conversation can move forward. But you can’t, so I suppose we’ll keep going back to examples like this one…
)