NewCreature wrote:I don't think it would be wise to start with my assumptions to show my conclusions that would be quite circular. What shall I say I assume this to be true so I will conlude this. Sort of silly. I agree lets just stick to the facts.
While it was once thought that insertion points were quite random viruses show insertion site preference. A lot has been studied about this in particular with HIV.
Let us expand this fact. A retroviral insertion prefers certain base sequences.
But of course a virus is not restricted to this, only more likely to insert here. The way you presented it in your posts you made it seem that the preference leads to few possible insertion sites.
This is not the case. Read on to find out why.
NewCreature wrote:This fact could easily account for viable hosts showing the same viral fragments in the preferred insertion sites.
I asked for scientific assumptions because of statements such as this. It would appear you assumed that preffered sites would limit the number of possible insertion points to the point where this sort of statement can be made.
This is simply not the case. The chances of two disparate insertion events occurring at the same site AND THEN finding it's way into every individual in two separate species is highly unlikely.
NewCreature wrote:Now I don't have time to do your research on this, but if you like I am sure you can frind lots of information on human virus insertion site preference.
Believe me I am aware of this topic. Again preference is based on structure at the integration sites, it could be anywhere along the genome. For example out of lets imagine 1 billion possible insertion points 10 million may be preferred. This is the sort of preference we are
talking about here.
Think of this virus as a home hunter. His preference is a house painted blue, not 123 Flanders Ave. There are many many houses painted blue, and this man is not restricted to them, just three times more likely to select one.
NewCreature wrote:Some scientists are coming to the conclusion that numerous repeats of viral fragments is actually the virus searching for the best insertion point.
Come again? Please point me to the source. I am not sure this statement retained the original content.
NewCreature wrote:I am not seeking to prove any particular thing, I am just doubting the conventional wisdom on HERVs. The idea of a few bits of this DNA proving common decent is quite silly to me.
That is quite evident, and you are entitled to your opinion. Perhaps they don't point to common descent.
NewCreature wrote:But I guess if people want something to be true bad enough they will see proofs all around them. Here is a reasoning that I think you can follow.
Viruses are increasingly being shown to NOT insert randomly.
Nothing is truly random, no one assumed this. Because the insertion is chemically based it is assumed that there could be a preference. But again preference is by structure of the host genome.
Not once has a virus been shown to insert into the same spot in the genome.
NewCreature wrote:The human genome has about 30,000 of these virus like bits of code
The Chimp genome has about 30,000 of these virus like bits of code
They share about 7 of these bits of code.
The "viral" signature of chimps and humans is way over 99% different.
IT is likely that viruses with particular insertion point affinities may line up from time to time.
No, they share more than 7. They share 7 ERV's not shared by any other primate. That's where the number 7 came from.
Also why are you ignoring the patterns of differentiation in these shared bits?
If viral material is shared cross-species the sequences of more closely related species
always are more similar than distantly related ones. Chimp sequences are
always more similar to the Gorilla than that of the Orangutan at shared ERV's.
ERV's are
never shared between Gorillas and Humans which are not also shared with Chimps and Humans.
Imagine we have a dozen philatelists. They each have quite large collections. However we observe some peculiarities.
Those with a rare German Stamp always have a rare French stamp.
Half of them have a rare Italian stamp. These men all have 50 or so stamps in common which no other collector has. In fact all similarities wrap nicely within each other.
Meaning that if collector A shares a stamp with collector B and not with Collector C, then collector A and C do not share a stamp which is also not found in Collector B's collection.
Collector A
1,2,3,4,5
Collector B
2,3,4,8
Collector C
2,3,7
Not
Collector A
1,2,3,4,7
Collector B
2,3,4,8
Collector C
2,3,7
Something strange is going on with these stamp collectors.
NewCreature wrote:IT is also likely that since these bits of code do have use to the organisms that these shared bits could be designed.
This is not a fact. Based on what can you make this conclusion?
NewCreature wrote:I would think a major struggle for the conventional wisdom on ERVs and common decent would be to show how every individual got the genetic material of a single member of a breeding population.
Read the conversations I have had with Byblos in this same thread.
NewCreature wrote:The breeding population should have bred out the individual not the individual breeding out the entire gene pool.
Another assumption. The experiments, mathematics and theories do not support this assumption. Actually I don't know where this idea came from.
Let us assume you are correct.
Any different trait will be removed from the gene pool.
Over time a population will consist of genetic clones.
If this were true then every individual would be a clone of the next identical in every way.
A quick look at the natural world, and this is falsified immediately.
NewCreature wrote:Even the offspring of the common ancestor would not all have gotton the infected area. Perhaps the mate had the same insertion.
Impossible, or close to it. And unecessary, refer to the Byblos conversation. Both mates do not need to share the same insertion for an offspring to have the ERV.
NewCreature wrote:But perhaps you have started with your assumptions the way you encouraged me to. IF you do that you know you will even skew the results of a tiny segment of DNA as prooving that your assumptions are true.
No, I am only presenting facts.
The only thing I am doing here is cleaning up the mess. People skew the facts to fit their assumptions.
I haven't even stated that common descent is what I beleive. Only that the facts being presented here are sometimes not facts at all.