Alternatives to Modern Evolutionary Theory

[Patrick]

@pevaquark

That one is easy. They had Syncytin-2 and EnvV. Or should we push the goalposts back further and ask how did the ancestor of all of them and prosimians ever reproduce without ERVs suppressing the mothers immune system?

I think it is now appropriate to promote @pevaquark to “Skeptical PS Scientist” with all of the rights and privileges thereof. This is for achievements from and above a Skeptical Biologos Physicist. Yes we are all skeptical of Biologos Physics ever since Deb Haarsma said that if there was (is) a multiverse, God did it.
Congratulations and keep up the good work explaining evolution to tree dwellers.

[swamidass (S. Joshua Swamidass)]

@Patrick

I think it is now appropriate to promote @pevaquark to “Skeptical PS Scientist” with all of the rights and privileges thereof.

He already has these rights and privledges. I’m not sure he wants to be a PS scientist, though we be happy to have him he did.

@Patrick

Congratulations and keep up the good work explaining evolution to tree dwellers.

We are all tree dwellers @Patrick, right?

[Patrick]

@swamidass

We are all tree dwellers @Patrick, right?

I meant to say “tree designers” but given the context “tree dwellers” might be more humorous to an Israeli ID-YEC.

[T_aquaticus]

@colewd

You need enough function to select. The empirical data does not support this hypothesis for many conserved proteins.

What empirical evidence?

@colewd

I have pointed him to the work of Giuseppe Puccio at UD. Here is one piece. Vertebrates: An information analysis | Uncommon Descent

That’s the Sharpshooter fallacy. You are assuming that what did evolve is the only thing that could evolve.

[Timothy_Horton]

@Patrick

I meant to say “tree designers” but given the context “tree dwellers” might be more humorous to an Israeli ID-YEC.

Just had a flashback to an old Benny Hill Show skit. Benny and his mate are out looking for work when they come across a sign “Wanted: Tree Fellers”. The buddy starts to go in to apply but Benny says “It’s no good. The sign says they want tree fellers but there’s only two us us!”

[T_aquaticus]

@scd

but if ervs (or at least a part of them) are functional then we dont need to assume that they are a part of viral insertion, but an integral part of the genome since it was created.

That’s like saying that God could plant fingerprints at crime scenes, so we don’t have to assume that fingerprints are the product of people touching things.

We can observe modern retroviruses producing new insertions in living cells. Why shouldn’t we conclude that retroviral sequences found in genomes are the product of this observed and natural process? The argument you are using is nothing more than the Omphalos argument.

[T_aquaticus]

@scd

actually the syncytin case is more problematic to evolution rather then to creation. the main reason is that a mice cant live without this gene. so how the mice lived before it got this gene in the first place? (yep, i aware about theoretical scenario).

Why is it problematic when ERVs evolve function? These are functional proteins when they are inserted into the genome, so it isn’t surprising at all that some can be co-opted through evolution.

[T_aquaticus]

@scd

again: since its possible that these ervs were functional in the past, then its possible that these ervs are an integral part of the genome, and not the result of viral infection.

How does one negate the other? Why can’t some functional ERVs be the result of viral integration that then evolves to have function?

[scd]

@pevaquark

Or should we push the goalposts back further and ask how did the ancestor of all of them and prosimians ever reproduce without ERVs suppressing the mothers immune system?

i just asking how a creature that need that ervs suppose to live wihtout it.

[T_aquaticus]

@scd

i just asking how a creature that need that ervs suppose to live wihtout it.

This is the Mullerian two step. Evolve something that improves function, and then make it necessary.

… thus a complicated machine was gradually built up whose effective working was dependent upon the interlocking action of very numerous different elementary parts or factors, and many of the characters and factors which, when new, were originally merely an asset finally became necessary because other necessary characters and factors had subsequently become changed so as to be dependent on the former. It must result, in consequence, that a dropping out of, or even a slight change in any one of these parts is very likely to disturb fatally the whole machinery; for this reason we should expect very many, if not most, mutations to result in lethal factors …"
Muller 1918 pp. 463-464. (emphasis in the original)

[pevaquark (Matthew Pevarnik)]

@scd

i just asking how a creature that need that ervs suppose to live wihtout it.

And for the third time: they didn’t even exist before ERVs have acquired any functionality. Lots of babies were made long before Syncytin was integrated into the genome of our ancestors.

[scd]

@T_aquaticus

We can observe modern retroviruses producing new insertions in living cells. Why shouldn’t we conclude that retroviral sequences found in genomes are the product of this observed and natural process?

because we have seen the opposite too:

v-Src

" The src gene was taken up by RSV and incorporated into its genome". so a retrovirus isnt just able to infect, but also able to be infected (or actually created).

or:

Retroviruses from retrotransposons - Genome Biology

@T_aquaticus

This is the Mullerian two step. Evolve something that improves function, and then make it necessary.

can you show how its actually possible in biology without to assume that its actually possible?

[T.j_Runyon]

@Patrick

Yes we are all skeptical of Biologos Physics ever since Deb Haarsma said that if there was (is) a multiverse, God did it.

You’re getting so repetitive and boring

[T_aquaticus]

@scd

" The src gene was taken up by RSV and incorporated into its genome". so a retrovirus isnt just able to infect, but also able to be infected (or actually created).

That doesn’t put the origin of ERVs in doubt. We have an observed and natural process that produces ERVs. We can watch retroviruses producing new insertions in cells. Scientists are completely justified in concluding that ERVs are the product of past retroviral insertion.

@scd

can you show how its actually possible in biology without to assume that its actually possible?

All we need to do is show that it is possible in order to counter the claim that it is impossible.

[T_aquaticus]

@pevaquark

And for the third time: they didn’t even exist before ERVs have acquired any functionality. Lots of babies were made long before Syncytin was integrated into the genome of our ancestors.

Lots of babies are still being made by all of the species who don’t have a placenta and don’t have syncytin.

[Patrick]

@T.j_Runyon

You’re getting so repetitive and boring

Yea, like Biologos. I guess that me and Josh have to get Biologos out of our brains.

[swamidass (S. Joshua Swamidass)]

Don’t rope me into this one!

[Patrick]

That was a test. You’re getting better. Time is healing the wounds. I am glad.

[evograd (Blogging Graduate Student)]

@scd

from the paper:

Are you trying to make a point with those quotes, or did you just see the words “cast doubt” and “incorrect” and get all excited?

[DMath]

@Mercer

Why did you omit the differences the first time?

Responded too fast and took my queues from the comment I was replying to…it was an unintentional omission.