No missing link ever found

ERVs do not prove that evolution is true
www.youtube.com...

refuting ERVs endogenous retroviruses part 1
www.youtube.com...

refuting ERVs endogenous retroviruses part 2
www.youtube.com...


Some people have claimed that there are viruses inserted into the genomes of all apes, including humans, that got into their genome long before any of the apes of today or humans existed. Probably so far back that it was when they were all still more like monkeys, the so called "Old World" monkeys.

Well there is evidence disproving this and undermining it. Retroviruses have been found in Chimpanzees, Old world monkeys, and African apes that are not found in Humans or Asian Apes

I would ask someone who believes that Apes and Humans share a common ancestor to name that ancestor and explain what it looked like.....

There is no evidence anywhere that one species comes out of another species. Viruses can be uncannily aquired independantly and arive in the same places of the genome depending on the virus. Certain viruses prefer certain places in the genome and certain chromosomes.

You don't have viruses, plants, bugs, weasels, rats, monkeys, and apes n your DNA.

DNA is condensed forces and a manifestation of the I Ching and YHVH in the material plane.

www.sciencedaily.com...

If the virus invades a nonreproductive cell, infection may spread, but viral DNA will die with the host. A retrovirus is called endogenous when it invades the germline and gets passed on to offspring. Because endogenous retroviruses can alter gene function and genome structure, they can influence the evolution of their host species. Over 8% of our genome is made of these infectious remnants—infections that scientists believe occurred before Old World and New World monkeys diverged (25–35 million years ago).

In a new study, Evan Eichler and colleagues scanned finished chimpanzee genome sequence for endogenous retroviral elements, and found one (called PTERV1) that does not occur in humans. Searching the genomes of a subset of apes and monkeys revealed that the retrovirus had integrated into the germline of African great apes and Old World monkeys—but did not infect humans and Asian apes (orangutan, siamang, and gibbon). This undermines the notion that an ancient infection invaded an ancestral primate lineage, since great apes (including humans) share a common ancestor with Old World monkeys.

Eichler and colleagues found over 100 copies of PTERV1 in each African ape (chimp and gorilla) and Old World monkey (baboon and macaque) species. The authors compared the sites of viral integration in each of these primates and found that few if any of these insertion sites were shared among the primates. It appears therefore that the sequences have not been conserved from a common ancestor, but are specific to each lineage

Viruses in Chimps and Gorrillas not in Humans
holysmoke.org...


More context

while gorilla and chimpanzee were infected by a single, though unknown, source.

Yet humans didn't diverge until after gorillas and chimps




Plus finding ones similar in chimps and mice, but not humans really screws things up

J Virol. 1999 Apr;73(4):3301-8. Links
ERV-L elements: a family of endogenous retrovirus-like elements active throughout the evolution of mammals.
Bénit L, Lallemand JB, Casella JF, Philippe H, Heidmann T.
Unité des Rétrovirus Endogènes et Eléments Rétroïdes des Eucaryotes Supérieurs, CNRS UMR 1573, Institut Gustave Roussy, 94805 Villejuif, France.

We have previously identified in the human genome a family of 200 endogenous retrovirus-like elements, the HERV-L elements, disclosing similarities with the foamy retroviruses and which might be the evolutionary intermediate between classical intracellular retrotransposons and infectious retroviruses. Southern blot analysis of a large series of mammalian genomic DNAs shows that HERV-L-related elements-so-called ERV-L-are present among all placental mammals, suggesting that ERV-L elements were already present at least 70 million years ago. Most species exhibit a low copy number of ERV-L elements (from 10 to 30), while simians (not prosimians) and mice (not rats) have been subjected to bursts resulting in increases in the number of copies up to 200. The burst of copy number in primates can be dated to shortly after the prosimian and simian branchpoint, 45 to 65 million years ago, whereas murine species have been subjected to two much more recent bursts (less than 10 million years ago), occurring after the Mus/Rattus split. We have amplified and sequenced 360-bp ERV-L internal fragments of the highly conserved pol gene from a series of 22 mammalian species. These sequences exhibit high percentages of identity (57 to 99%) with the murine fully coding MuERV-L element. Phylogenetic analyses allowed the establishment of a plausible evolutionary scheme for ERV-L elements, which accounts for the high level of sequence conservation and the widespread dispersion among mammals.

biology.plosjournals.org.../journal.pbio.0020234&ct=1
www.genetics.org...

The presence of a retrotransposon at a single locus in multiple taxa remains an extremely powerful phylogenetic marker, but caution is required before concluding that the existence of a particular SINE at a particular locus in multiple individuals is indicative of common ancestry.

Oh I forgot, the missing retroviruses not found in humans must have just turned in "junk" DNA and just disappeared....


the claim that humans share 99 or 98 percent of their genes with chimps is wrong-
www.newscientist.com...

Many people have long believed humans and chimps share 99 of the same DNA, this however has been proven as false and fake. In just the last few years many completely unique sequences in both species have been found
www.sciencemag.org... esourcetype=HWCIT

and-
www.arn.org...



[edit on 27-9-2008 by Hollywood11]

It's interesting that the PTERV talked about here that is found in chimps and gorillas but not humans, thus disproving common ancestory, is why humans are not immune to HIV and apes are. No such thing as "junk" DNA!

More
www.evolutionnews.org...

and
www.evolutionfairytale.com...

no such thing as "junk" DNA, retroviruses serve a purpoe and are simply part of the design of any physical being on the material plane, not because of the so called "evolution"-
www.highclearing.com...

[edit on 27-9-2008 by Hollywood11]

More info debunking the notion that erv's prove evolution
tasc-creationscience.org...

more debunking
groups.yahoo.com...

Endogenous Retroviruses

´´Endogenous retroviruses provide yet another example of molecular
sequence evidence for universal common descent. Endogenous
retroviruses are molecular remnants of a past parasitic viral
infection. Occasionally, copies of a retrovirus genome are found in
its host's genome, and these retroviral gene copies are called
endogenous retroviral sequences. Retroviruses (like the AIDS virus or
HTLV1, which causes a form of leukemia) make a DNA copy of their own
viral genome and insert it into their host's genome. If this happens
to a germ line cell (i.e. the sperm or egg cells) the retroviral DNA
will be inherited by descendants of the host. Again, this process is
rare and fairly random, so finding retrogenes in identical chromosomal
positions of two different species indicates common ancestry.´´
www.talkorigins.org...

Evolutionists claim that retroviral DNA provides irrefutable evidence
for a universal Common descend and specifically between humans and
Chimps (Chimps are suppose to be our closer relative.)

1) First of all it is important to mention that the similarities
within retroviral DNA where not predicted by scientists, this
´´prediction´´ was made after the fact was discovered, for example
evolutionists did not predict that chimps and humans should share a
certain number of Endogenous Retroviruses, they simply use it as
evidence for evolution after the similarities where discovered.

2) An other objection; is that retroviral DNA does not show an
apparent link between mammals and other classes of animals, and in
fact the difference between retro genes in vertebrates and
invertebrates is very significant, and the supposed retro genes in
invertebrates are not even considered ERVs by some scientists.

This is a very important point because if evolutionists claim that
retroviral DNA proves that all mammals have a common ancestor then, if
we use the same logic, retroviral DNA disproves the idea of mammals
having a common ancestor with other classes. For example evolutionary
theory claims that fish and humans have a common ancestor however they
do not share any ERVs as we would expect if evolution is true.

To overcome this claim, evolutionists claim that since fish and humans
share a very old ancestor, they share very old ERVs therefore these
ERVs had enough time to evolve independently in humans and their
ancestors and modern fish and their ancestor, and since the common
ancestor between humans and other mammals, and specifically with other
primates is relatively young, ERVs did not evolve (change) too much.
However evolutionists fail to provide a rate in which and ERV can
change, and they fail to provide a mechanism in which and ERV can
change so drastically and pass it to the next generation, but there is
not evidence supporting this claim. This argument also assumes
evolution to be true, so which one is it?
a) ERVs prove evolution
b) Evolution proves ERV
In other words if evolutionists are using retroviral DNA to prove
evolution, then they can not assume evolution in their arguments.


3) The phylogenetic tree looks something like this

Humans Chimps Gorillas

According to the phylogenetic tree Chimps are closer to Humans than to
Gorillas, they claim to have overvaluing evidence supporting this
claim, if this claim is true, and if evolutionists interpreted ERVs
correctly, then Gorillas and Chimps can not share an ERV, unless, this
ERV is also present in humans, therefore finding and ERV in chimps and
gorillas, but not in humans should falsify evolution, or at least the
argument on ERVs, however there is at least 1 ERV from the family K
that is present in chimps and gorillas, but not in humans, this ERVs
are in orthologous position, therefore this fact should falsify evolution.

Evolutionists claim that this does not falsify evolution because maybe
a retrovirus infected the common ancestor of gorillas, humans and
chimps, but humans lost the ERV recently, however this makes the
argument on ERVs impossible to falsify, besides evolutionists fail to
explain how many of this irregularities are allowed, without
contradicting evolution, they fail to provide a process in which an
ERV can disappear, they fail to provide a rate in which ERVs
disappear, besides if one human somehow lost an ERV, only some of the
descendents of this human should lack this ERV, but not all humans.

From Talk Origins:
Potential Falsification:
It would make no sense, macroevolutionarily, if certain other mammals
(e.g. dogs, cows, platypi, etc.), had these same retrogenes in the
exact same chromosomal locations. For instance, it would be incredibly
unlikely for dogs to also carry the three HERV-K insertions that are
unique to humans, as shown in the upper right of Figure 4.4.1, since
none of the other primates have these retroviral sequences.
www.talkorigins.org...
According to talk origins finding an ERV in dogs and humans but not in
other primates would falsify evolution, however finding an ERV in dogs
and humans but not in other primates is like finding an ERV in chimps
and gorillas but not in humans, and if we ever find an ERV in humans
and dogs but not in other primates evolutionists will simply claim
that all the primates except for humans lost the ERV recently, the
argument on ERVs is simply impossible to falsify.

[edit on 27-9-2008 by Hollywood11]

4) The argument on ERVs assumes that retroviral DNA is junk DNA, this
assumption is known to be wrong in at least some cases, and even
though some ERVs do not have any apparent function, this does not mean
that ERVs had always been useless, and it is also possible that all
ERVs have a function but has not been discovered in some cases, after
all there are countless examples of supposed pseudo genes that
resulted be functional, when farther research was made.
For example in mammals ERVs are a very important part of the
reproductive system, ERVs protect the embryo form the mother's immune
system, Also Retroviral DNA cause the formation of the placental
syncytium in order to limit the exchange of migratory cells between
the developing embryo and the mother. Also some ERVs protect organisms
from diseases, such as HIV, (humans do not have the ERV that protect
others form HIV)
ERVs (like any other protein) need to be in very specific places in
order to be functional, are we to believe that retroviruses attacked
randomly in the one and only place in which they can be functional?
To try to refute the argument evolutionists claim that ERVs where
originally useless, and then they evolved and become functional, but
once again, this arguments assumes evolution, and is based on circular
reasoning.
Chimps and humans share a considerable amount of ERVs in the same
place, so what? God put them in the same place because otherwise ERVs
would have not been functional and reproduction would have been
impossible. A common question asked by evolutionists is: Why did God
created ERVs to look as if evolution were true? But this question is
simply out of place, a better question is: Why did ERVs evolve as if
they where designed?
5) Finally evolutionists claim that if creationists prove that
retroviral infections are not random, the argument would be refuted,
but how do they know that ERVs are in fact retroviral insertions? How
do they know that ERVs came from retroviruses? The only thing that we
really know is that ERVs and retroviruses are similar (almost
identical) but this does not mean that ERVs came originally form
retroviral infections, maybe it is the other way around, maybe
retroviruses came originally form ERVs after all retroviruses can not
live without a host genome, which means that the first generation of
retroviruses came from inside the genome, once you accept this as a
fact or at least as a reasonable possibility, it is logical to assume
that retroviruses came from retroviral DNA. In other words it is my
hypothesis that God created the genome with ERVs and after the fall
some ERVs become infectious retroviruses, this hypothesis explains the
fact that most ERVs do not have an infectious counterpart.
Conclusions
Retroviral DNA in no way proves evolution beyond reasonable doubt,
retroviral DNA is perfectly consistent with creationism, and evolution
is not needed to explain the facts related to Endogenous Retroviruses,
in fact if evolution would have never been proposed by Darwin (or some
one else) Retroviral DNA would not create any controversy in the
scientific community, ERVs are simply proteins that serve specific
functions (just like any other protein.) Evolutionists claim that ERVs
differ from other proteins because ERVs are junk DNA and retroviral
incretions; however these assumptions are known to be wrong, or at
least highly questionable, besides it is impossible to falsify the
argument on ERVs, every single possible scientific discovery would fit
in to the evolutionary model.

You know they say that the most obvious answer is always in front of your face. We are the missing link that's why they can't find it...

reply to post by Hollywood11


Isn't that why it's called the missing link?


Because It's missing...........So it can't be found if it is missing

Each generation is the link between that before and that which follows.

Therefore, to find the 'missing link' we would need an example of every generation that ever existed. And since the majority do not get fossilised, we're not going to find them all!

All we can hope to find is a range is examples from various time periods which show a steady evolutionary pattern.

The alternative to evolution is that species spontaneously appear and disappear throughout geological time - with God having tried thousands of different versions of current species, rejecting each one after a million years or so and trying a different form. In which case there's absolutely no reason to suppose any current species is the one he'll stick with. And that includes us.

This just in, still no evidence of any gods anywhere in any way, shape, or form.

I do not understand why people even bother to debate evolution. It is a theory. It is not declared as fact. Debating it does NOTHING to bolster any opposing argument at all so what is the point. I wish people who doubted evolution would spend more time either coming up with a new theory or proving whatever one they still believe WITH NO PROOF FOR either.

Originally posted by MorningStar8741
This just in, still no evidence of any gods anywhere in any way, shape, or form.

I do not understand why people even bother to debate evolution. It is a theory. It is not declared as fact. Debating it does NOTHING to bolster any opposing argument at all so what is the point. I wish people who doubted evolution would spend more time either coming up with a new theory or proving whatever one they still believe WITH NO PROOF FOR either.

I agree wholeheartedly. hollywood here, really likes to be a troll in the origins boards, and it's starting to piss me off.

reply to post by Good Wolf


Ah, and here I just thought it was someone that just got out of Sunday School and thought they had exciting new proof of their god.

Originally posted by MorningStar8741
reply to post by Good Wolf

 

Ah, and here I just thought it was someone that just got out of Sunday School and thought they had exciting new proof of their god.

If only.

If these people could see out side of their god-box then we probably wouldn't have to deal with them. I mean, why creation?

[edit on 9/27/2008 by Good Wolf]

MMmmm,
As the Op pointed out there is much mis information and Meme's on this subject from both sides.

Personally trying to prove it through ARV is like trying to ask the color of the sky from a test tube of air.

However, please show where in the fossil record the "Missing Link" is?

What is the Missing Link?

You will find that is a discussion that was strong in Anthropology before the findings of Skeletal records such as "Lucy" and the like.

Missing Link is a description of a lack of evidence within the science and fossil records, from before Modern Times.

There is no more missing link, hasn't been for a while and whilst the records are not chronologically complete, the "missing Link" gap was nearly completely not "Missing" anymore after the finds of anthropology since the 1950's.

Spin and media Manipulation, a whole industry and discussion is taken place on a subject that does not even exist.

funny That.

Again please show me within the Accepted Modern Anthropological records where this Missing Link Is?

I always found doing Science in Uni that before doing any experiments or postulating hypothesis it is best first to know the actually known facts on the subject first.

This has not happened within this field unfortunately, though many within it are convinced the world is only a few thousand years old, so it sort of makes sense I suppose that you would then find it easy to believe other untruths and memes such as the missing Link one.

Kind Regards,

Elf

There is no missing link

There is no god

given the actual evidence on hand at the moment, which one seems more plausible?

p.s. that is only one missing link in a very long chain.

[edit on 9/27/08 by MorningStar8741]

Look at it this way, scientists can't even identify what the forerunner to humans was, they can't even prove what creature humans were before they were humans.

So to claim there is a common ancestor for apes and humans when you can't even prove what the last species humans were before they were humans, shows that scientists lack integrity and honesty.

Originally posted by Hollywood11
Look at it this way, scientists can't even identify what the forerunner to humans was, they can't even prove what creature humans were before they were humans.

So to claim there is a common ancestor for apes and humans when you can't even prove what the last species humans were before they were humans, shows that scientists lack integrity and honesty.

We used to be fish Hence our physiography.

But before we became modern humans we were homo erectus. The probable ancestor of both ourselves and homo sapien neanderthalis.

However, are you arguing that God created hundreds of different forms of human (and nearly every other animal on on the planet) and systematically made one extinct and another replace it until we reached our current form? And if so do you accept that there is no reason to suppose we are the 'ultimate' form?

Since God has not replaced the coalecanth or the crocodile whilst trying out dozens of different forms of human, does that not suggest he favours them over us? They are perfect, we are not.

[edit on 27-9-2008 by Essan]

There is no evidence to prove humans came out of homo erectus nor any other known ape.

A Human being is not only the most perfect form on this planet, but in the entire universe. It is unlikely even aliens are as perfectly balanced as a 5 pointed star. Humans also are the most complex and condensed grouping of forces and energies as well. Perhaps one day we will become a 6 pointed star, but this is not evolution in the way scientists concieve.

I don't really know about God creating things, or animal evolution, but human's origns on earth did not involve evolving for millions of years from animals or apes.

[edit on 27-9-2008 by Hollywood11]

reply to post by Hollywood11


Due to our own genetics, I could argue your so called perfection.
As for evidence of being related, aside from our genes and skeletons, what more do you want?

Originally posted by Hollywood11
There is no evidence to prove humans came out of homo erectus nor any other known ape.

Homo erectus was not an ape

A Human being is not only the most perfect form on this planet, but in the entire universe.

There is no evidence of this. But rather a lot of circumstantial evidence to the contrary.

It is unlikely even aliens are as perfectly balanced as a 5 pointed star.

Uh?

Humans also are the most complex and condensed grouping of forces and energies as well. Perhaps one day we will become a 6 pointed star, but this is not evolution in the way scientists concieve.

Uh?

I don't really know about God creating things, or animal evolution, but human's origns on earth did not involve evolving for millions of years from animals or apes.

Your opinion. What makes you say your opinion is right and mine is wrong? Unless you're an omnipotent god

I don't want to really talk about my level or how we might differ, or how I know certain things are not true.

Originally posted by RuneSpider
Due to our own genetics, I could argue your so called perfection.
As for evidence of being related, aside from our genes and skeletons, what more do you want?

Maybe a transitional fossil linking Homo Erectus to human beings? Like an intermediate species between the 2 with the traits of both?