Endogenous retroviruses

Endogenous retroviruses (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Theology] >> Science & Origins

Message

HHV5 -> Endogenous retroviruses (7/21/2008 5:10:55 PM)
I've been thinking - how can you account for endogenous retroviruses in our genome if we were only around for 6000 years?

Jhud -> RE: Endogenous retroviruses (7/21/2008 5:19:59 PM)
quote: I've been thinking - how can you account for endogenous retroviruses in our genome if we were only around for 6000 years? Personally, I have no dog in the 'how old is the earth fight', but what do ERVs have to do with it?

HHV5 -> RE: Endogenous retroviruses (7/21/2008 5:24:42 PM)
It's a lot of ERV sequences to be incorporated into the human genome in 6000 years.

Jhud -> RE: Endogenous retroviruses (7/21/2008 5:26:32 PM)
quote: It's a lot of ERV sequences to be incorporated into the human genome in 6000 years. Well, what is the rate of introduction of ERVs, and how do you know this?

HHV5 -> RE: Endogenous retroviruses (7/21/2008 5:36:29 PM)
The current estimate is about 200 000. No matter what the rate, that's a lot if we assume Adam did not have ERVs. Other primates share orthologous ERV.

HHV5 -> RE: Endogenous retroviruses (7/21/2008 5:37:35 PM)
OK evidently this topic has been discussed in another thread that I read after posting this. Can I delete this thread somehow?

Jhud -> RE: Endogenous retroviruses (7/21/2008 5:40:12 PM)
quote: The current estimate is about 200 000. No matter what the rate, that's a lot if we assume Adam did not have ERVs. Other primates share orthologous ERV. Why would we assume Adam didn't have ERVs?

gluadys -> RE: Endogenous retroviruses (7/21/2008 6:04:42 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Jhud quote: The current estimate is about 200 000. No matter what the rate, that's a lot if we assume Adam did not have ERVs. Other primates share orthologous ERV. Why would we assume Adam didn't have ERVs? No reason in general. But it would be a logical consequence of such statements as that Adam was created genetically perfect or that Adam was a de novo creation who had no biological ancestors.

Jhud -> RE: Endogenous retroviruses (7/21/2008 6:07:00 PM)
quote: No reason in general. But it would be a logical consequence of such statements as that Adam was created genetically perfect or that Adam was a de novo creation who had no biological ancestors. Well, I think whatever one thinks about the particulars of Adam's origin, I don't think anyone could deny that Adam had a mammalian genome; and it is not clear that an ERV neccesarily connotes 'imperfection'.

gluadys -> RE: Endogenous retroviruses (7/21/2008 6:18:05 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Jhud quote: No reason in general. But it would be a logical consequence of such statements as that Adam was created genetically perfect or that Adam was a de novo creation who had no biological ancestors. Well, I think whatever one thinks about the particulars of Adam's origin, I don't think anyone could deny that Adam had a mammalian genome; and it is not clear that an ERV neccesarily connotes 'imperfection'. An ERV is a remnant of an unsuccessful viral infection of a germ-line cell which is passed to an egg or sperm that produces a child. I think most proponents of "genetic perfection" would assume that when Adam was created he had not yet been exposed to any viral infection which would be the source of an ERV. But you had best get input from those who actually subscribe to the concept of "genetically perfect" original creations.

HHV5 -> RE: Endogenous retroviruses (7/21/2008 6:23:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: gluadys quote: ORIGINAL: Jhud quote: No reason in general. But it would be a logical consequence of such statements as that Adam was created genetically perfect or that Adam was a de novo creation who had no biological ancestors. Well, I think whatever one thinks about the particulars of Adam's origin, I don't think anyone could deny that Adam had a mammalian genome; and it is not clear that an ERV neccesarily connotes 'imperfection'. An ERV is a remnant of an unsuccessful viral infection of a germ-line cell which is passed to an egg or sperm that produces a child. I think most proponents of "genetic perfection" would assume that when Adam was created he had not yet been exposed to any viral infection which would be the source of an ERV. But you had best get input from those who actually subscribe to the concept of "genetically perfect" original creations. Well, people can also say he got infected after the fall...by thousands...and thousands...of retroviruses. Or he got infected by a few and they just proliferated like mad in the germ cells without causing apoptosis somehow. Did cells undergo apoptosis before the fall? Is that considered death?

gluadys -> RE: Endogenous retroviruses (7/21/2008 6:49:43 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: HHV5 Well, people can also say he got infected after the fall...by thousands...and thousands...of retroviruses. Or he got infected by a few and they just proliferated like mad in the germ cells without causing apoptosis somehow. The problem with that is it takes more than being infected by a virus to produce an ERV. Only infections to germ-line cells can produce and ERV. And then, not even all of those. I know the male of the species produce a lot of sperm cells over a life-time (and a lot more over a lifespan of 930 years), but to get an ERV, only those that go on to fertilize an egg cell are relevant. Just how many children did Adam have? Scripture, unfortunately fails us on this point. But we can speculate. Assuming Eve was past puberty when she was created, she could give birth to Cain within a year and to Abel within 3 years. We don't have a son named until after these boys had reached maturity and Cain had killed Abel, but she could fill in the time producing daughters. And we are informed that there were more sons and daughters after Seth. We do not have the date of her death, nor the time of her menopause. Nor do we know how many multiple births there were. But assuming an average of 1 child per 2 years for a full 930 years we still come short of 500 offspring. Not anywhere near 200 000. quote: Did cells undergo apoptosis before the fall? Is that considered death? I have no idea.

Jhud -> RE: Endogenous retroviruses (7/21/2008 9:35:24 PM)
quote: An ERV is a remnant of an unsuccessful viral infection of a germ-line cell which is passed to an egg or sperm that produces a child. I think most proponents of "genetic perfection" would assume that when Adam was created he had not yet been exposed to any viral infection which would be the source of an ERV. But you had best get input from those who actually subscribe to the concept of "genetically perfect" original creations. So are you saying that ERVs are never beneficial or useful components of a genome?

gluadys -> RE: Endogenous retroviruses (7/21/2008 9:46:11 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Jhud So are you saying that ERVs are never beneficial or useful components of a genome? That would actually be irrelevant. Even if they were beneficial or useful, they are still remnants of an unsuccessful viral infection in a germ cell which were propagated to the next generation. Was Adam created with active viral infections? Would he not have to exist before suffering a viral infection? Would he be subject to viral infections before the fall? The ERV represents a change in the genome. It could not exist in a genome without a history of viral infection. And by definition, any change in genetic perfection is a change away from perfection.

Method -> RE: Endogenous retroviruses (7/21/2008 11:32:34 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Jhud So are you saying that ERVs are never beneficial or useful components of a genome? So you are saying that they never have detrimental or neutral effects? If one person has an ERV and another does not would they have a detectable difference in some function?

Jhud -> RE: Endogenous retroviruses (7/22/2008 2:34:29 AM)
quote: That would actually be irrelevant. Even if they were beneficial or useful, they are still remnants of an unsuccessful viral infection in a germ cell which were propagated to the next generation. Was Adam created with active viral infections? Would he not have to exist before suffering a viral infection? Would he be subject to viral infections before the fall? The ERV represents a change in the genome. It could not exist in a genome without a history of viral infection. And by definition, any change in genetic perfection is a change away from perfection. Again, are you or are you not saying ERVs are invariably detrimental to a genome? It's a rather simple question.

gluadys -> RE: Endogenous retroviruses (7/22/2008 9:37:22 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Jhud quote: That would actually be irrelevant. Even if they were beneficial or useful, they are still remnants of an unsuccessful viral infection in a germ cell which were propagated to the next generation. Was Adam created with active viral infections? Would he not have to exist before suffering a viral infection? Would he be subject to viral infections before the fall? The ERV represents a change in the genome. It could not exist in a genome without a history of viral infection. And by definition, any change in genetic perfection is a change away from perfection. Again, are you or are you not saying ERVs are invariably detrimental to a genome? It's a rather simple question. I am not saying they are invariably anything other than remnants of an unsuccessful viral infection in a germ cell propagated to following generations.

Jhud -> RE: Endogenous retroviruses (7/22/2008 10:12:17 AM)
quote: I am not saying they are invariably anything other than remnants of an unsuccessful viral infection in a germ cell propagated to following generations. Are they ever beneficial?

HHV5 -> RE: Endogenous retroviruses (7/22/2008 10:24:40 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Jhud quote: I am not saying they are invariably anything other than remnants of an unsuccessful viral infection in a germ cell propagated to following generations. Are they ever beneficial? I'm sure you can find examples here and there of transcriptionally active ERVs that somehow play a regulatory role in gene expression. Or perhaps chromatin remodeling or epigenetics. But most just sit there, taking up resources (ie: ATP). Even if they do not undergo lytic replication, their DNA is still being replicated. Any role (detrimental or beneficial) ERVs have is after-the-fact of infection by retroviruses that inserted themselves into the germ cell chromosomes and subsequently became passed down. An example of a beneficial ERV (let's say it plays a regulatory role) does not negate the fact that (and I'm quoting gluadys) "The ERV represents a change in the genome. It could not exist in a genome without a history of viral infection. And by definition, any change in genetic perfection is a change away from perfection."

Jhud -> RE: Endogenous retroviruses (7/22/2008 10:29:16 AM)
quote: I'm sure you can find examples here and there of transcriptionally active ERVs that somehow play a regulatory role in gene expression. Or perhaps chromatin remodeling or epigenetics. But most just sit there, taking up resources (ie: ATP). Even if they do not undergo lytic replication, their DNA is still being replicated. Any role (detrimental or beneficial) ERVs have is after-the-fact of infection by retroviruses that inserted themselves into the germ cell chromosomes and subsequently became passed down. An example of a beneficial ERV (let's say it plays a regulatory role) does not negate the fact that (and I'm quoting gluadys) "The ERV represents a change in the genome. It could not exist in a genome without a history of viral infection. And by definition, any change in genetic perfection is a change away from perfection." I never understand why evolutionists can't answer simple straight forward questions. Are ERVs ever beneficial? Specific examples if you know your stuff.

Bettawrekonize -> RE: Endogenous retroviruses (7/22/2008 10:38:20 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Jhud I never understand why evolutionists can't answer simple straight forward questions. They remind me of politicians. I guess this reflects the political nature of evolution. If evolution were really scientific, evolutionists wouldn't need to act so much like politicians when trying to respond to criticisms.

HHV5 -> RE: Endogenous retroviruses (7/22/2008 10:46:42 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize quote: ORIGINAL: Jhud I never understand why evolutionists can't answer simple straight forward questions. They remind me of politicians. I guess this reflects the political nature of evolution. If evolution were really scientific, evolutionists wouldn't need to act so much like politicians when trying to respond to criticisms. Reflect back on what you just said and tell me that sounds logical. Politics, like evolution, is not simple. Life is not simple. I suppose we can all live in caves and hunt-and-gather. I wasn't responding to a criticism. I was responding to a question that tries to simplify a complex subject.

HHV5 -> RE: Endogenous retroviruses (7/22/2008 10:50:48 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Jhud quote: I'm sure you can find examples here and there of transcriptionally active ERVs that somehow play a regulatory role in gene expression. Or perhaps chromatin remodeling or epigenetics. But most just sit there, taking up resources (ie: ATP). Even if they do not undergo lytic replication, their DNA is still being replicated. Any role (detrimental or beneficial) ERVs have is after-the-fact of infection by retroviruses that inserted themselves into the germ cell chromosomes and subsequently became passed down. An example of a beneficial ERV (let's say it plays a regulatory role) does not negate the fact that (and I'm quoting gluadys) "The ERV represents a change in the genome. It could not exist in a genome without a history of viral infection. And by definition, any change in genetic perfection is a change away from perfection." I never understand why evolutionists can't answer simple straight forward questions. Are ERVs ever beneficial? Specific examples if you know your stuff. Yes they can be beneficial. For instance, LTRs have regulatory sequences that can regulate nearby genes. (ie: salivary amylase, ZNF80, cytochrome c1, Kruppel-like H-plk and phospholipase A2-L (PLA2L)) Source: Larsson E & Andersson G. Beneficial Role of Human Endogenous Retroviruses: Facts and Hypotheses. Scandinavian Journal of Immunology. 48:329-338 (1998)

Method -> RE: Endogenous retroviruses (7/22/2008 10:52:32 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Jhud I never understand why evolutionists can't answer simple straight forward questions. Are ERVs ever beneficial? Specific examples if you know your stuff. I have answered this question multiple times. ERV's are like any other mutation. They can be beneficial, neutral, or detrimental. Like other mutations their specific placement is blind to the fitness of the host.

Method -> RE: Endogenous retroviruses (7/22/2008 10:53:47 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize They remind me of politicians. I guess this reflects the political nature of evolution. If evolution were really scientific, evolutionists wouldn't need to act so much like politicians when trying to respond to criticisms. Why are beneficial ERV's a criticism of the theory?

Page: [1] 2 3 4 5 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5 ANSI