Go Back   Matt-Hughes.com Official Forums > General Discussions > The Woodshed

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Old 11-08-2009, 03:39 AM
VCURamFan's Avatar
VCURamFan VCURamFan is offline
MMA, VCU, & Doctor Who
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Basketball Capital of the World
Posts: 14,324
Send a message via AIM to VCURamFan
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rearnakedchoke View Post
i think this is the best answer ... agree 100%
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #52  
Old 11-08-2009, 04:00 AM
NateR's Avatar
NateR NateR is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 5,739
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by shon8121 View Post
Lets look at Endogenous Retroviruses first:
Endogenous retroviruses (ERVs) are retroviruses derived from ancient viral infections of germ cells in humans, mammals and other vertebrates; as such their proviruses are passed on to the next generation and now remain in the genome. Retroviruses are viruses that reverse-transcribe their RNA into DNA for integration into the host's genome. Most retroviruses (such as HIV-1) infect somatic cells, but some can also infect germline cells (cells that make eggs and sperm) and once they have done so and have been transmitted to the next generation, they are termed endogenous. Endogenous retroviruses can persist in the genome of their host for long periods. However, they are generally only infectious for a short time after integration as they acquire 'knockout' mutations during host DNA replication. There are many thousands of endogenous retroviruses within human DNA (HERVs comprise nearly 8% of the human genome, with 98,000 elements and fragments). All appear to be defective, containing nonsense mutations or major deletions, and cannot produce infectious virus particles. This is because most are just long-lasting traces of the original virus, having first integrated many millions of years ago.
Interesting read, but I've bolded where it crosses over into speculation. If you understood anything about dating methods, you would know that none of them are truly reliable.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #53  
Old 11-08-2009, 04:04 AM
NateR's Avatar
NateR NateR is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 5,739
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by shon8121 View Post
so you have a lot of work to do. Good luck.
BTW, last I checked this is your thread. You started this topic and you are the one trying to convince all of us. So the burden of proof is 100% on your shoulders.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #54  
Old 11-08-2009, 04:14 AM
Chuck
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Adia View Post
Something tells me this and a few other threads are being "rehashed" with a particular motive in mind....n'est ce pas? ;)
BINGO!!!!

Our newest visitor is simply a troll..... a little free time on the weekend with nothing to do..

bursts onto the board as a "critical thinker" only to stir up crap and regurgitate other peoples opinions and theories....

Hardly a thinker at all...............
Reply With Quote
  #55  
Old 11-08-2009, 04:16 AM
Vizion's Avatar
Vizion Vizion is offline
Hughes fanboy
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 2,217
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chuck View Post
Our newest visitor is simply a troll..... a little free time on the weekend with nothing to do..

bursts onto the board as a "critical thinker" only to stir up crap and regurgitate other peoples opinions and theories....

Hardly a thinker at all...............
a Troll indeed.
__________________


Please consider England in your prayers!

http://www.intercessuk.org/iuk3/
Reply With Quote
  #56  
Old 11-08-2009, 04:52 AM
mscomc
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by shon8121 View Post
As I've heard its an interesting show, I in fact do not watch CSI.

Common designer? Ok... I guess you didn't research the terms I gave you. But recall, this is NOT about Evolution verses the Literal Biblical Interpretation of Genesis. So lets stop acting like its Christianity verses Atheism.

Lets look at Endogenous Retroviruses first:
Endogenous retroviruses (ERVs) are retroviruses derived from ancient viral infections of germ cells in humans, mammals and other vertebrates; as such their proviruses are passed on to the next generation and now remain in the genome. Retroviruses are viruses that reverse-transcribe their RNA into DNA for integration into the host's genome. Most retroviruses (such as HIV-1) infect somatic cells, but some can also infect germline cells (cells that make eggs and sperm) and once they have done so and have been transmitted to the next generation, they are termed endogenous. Endogenous retroviruses can persist in the genome of their host for long periods. However, they are generally only infectious for a short time after integration as they acquire 'knockout' mutations during host DNA replication. There are many thousands of endogenous retroviruses within human DNA (HERVs comprise nearly 8% of the human genome, with 98,000 elements and fragments). All appear to be defective, containing nonsense mutations or major deletions, and cannot produce infectious virus particles. This is because most are just long-lasting traces of the original virus, having first integrated many millions of years ago.

What does this mean? Endogenous Retroviruses insert randomly and are passed on from parent to child. For example, the Great Apes and Humans share a great many of these Endongeous Retroviruses that are inserted into random points in our DNA. They cannot insert randomly into the same line of DNA between all Species of Apes. Humans are included in that definition because we are indeed classified as Primates. I know you guys like talking about random chance and the astronomical number of possibilities and stuff... but this happening by chance would be beyond even your calculations.

Shall I move onto the next DNA evidence?
Here man, I'll see if I can throw some info your way, since some people are just calling you a troll, (not nice by the way guys)..... since you brought up endogenous retroviruses, and i know little about em To be more specific about what your wrote (no offence by the way)

Ok so as many of you may know, in the entire Human genome, only about 2-3% of the DNA is gene-coding, in other words, it makes a protein.

Now the rest of genome, is filled with what we call "junk" DNA. DONT GET THIS CONFUSED WITH, DNA THAT DOESNT DO ANYTHING...things like Introns, promoting regions (nessesscary for gene activation), repressors, enhancers, inhibitors etc etc... intergenic DNA.....and lastly Restrotransposable Elements (Shon, i beleive this is what you mean).. We call this stuff Junk DNA because we are still not to sure what MOST of it does exactly. We know that Introns are involved in things like splicing etc etc...but for the most part we are still in the dark. Now Retrotransposable Elements actually make up 45% of the human GENOME. And here is what they do....

The retrotransposon DNA is initially transcribed via RNA polymerase (the same enzyme for normal genes) and turns into an mRNA intermediate...That mRNA intermediate in itself is unqiue because withing the mRNA it also coded for a REVERSE TRANSCRIPTASE. This enzyme will turn the mRNA back into DNA and then via an enzyme called TRANSPOSASE this new DNA is re-inserted back into the DNA in the Nucleus. So, if our genome had 1000 kilo base pairs to begin with, and the transposon was 100 kilo base pairs, now we have 1100 kilo base pairs. Barbara McClintock
won the Nobel prize in 1983 for discovering this.

Now, more importantly, is where does this insert, insert itself? It is right next to the gene from which it came, it is randomly inserted into another region of "junk" DNA or can it disrupt protein coding genes by causing a mutation? Can it mutate a current protein coding region and enhance that protein for the better or worse?

The answer? All of the above are possible. So lets the take the most interesting one, inserting into a protein coding sequence. If you disrupt the gene order, this is a mutation, but now it is a mutation due to increased Genome size, and NOT something like Ionizing radiation. And, lets not forget, the transposon itself can become mutated before it even re-inserts itself, causing a "double" mutation if you will.

Soooo what does all this mumbo jumbo mean? What are the potential effects on Human metabolism?

Well lets go in a list:

1) It is beleived that a transposable elements may have inserted itself in the place that coded for Cellulose metabolism. Therefore, now we cant use Cellulose as a source of Carbs, BUT.....in place, we can now form Fiber in the G.I tract to help us push out feces...... This is may be why the appendix and cecum have NO physiological function anymore. Some may consider this an evolution ( I would)

2) The UCP's , or Uncoupling proteins are a type of mitochondrial protein that regulate the proton gradient during Oxidative Phosphorylation, the final step in the converson of glucose to make ATP----celluar energy. Now UCP3 has typically been linked to obesity (slow metabolsim) or fitness (very fast metabolsim). Traditionally, a single base mutation, like the one we are born with, or the one you get from environemnt like: Ionizing radiation, toxic waste, solvents etc etc, has been linked to a much slower metabolism, and a hard time metabolizing fat.

BUT......for some reason (we still dont know yet), certain retrotransposons have been found near the gene that codes for UCP3. And people with this new insertion, have been found to metabolize fat very easily....Im talking you can eat 5 big macs a day and not gain a pound....im sure we all know people like that. This would imply that this time, the insertion is acting as a promoting or enhancing region in the DNA to combatt fat. Because if you study the intricate details of Fat Metabolism at the molecular level, you would see that as humans, we are not very efficient when it comes to dealing with fat

-----So bottom line, this kind of cellular process is evolving us, as the genome can get bigger and bigger as a result from these. But is the evolution good? is relatively un-noticeable? can this really explain for the hypothesized chain of human evolution?-------That i disagree with.....at best i say it is micro-evolution, which i dont think anyone on this site disagrees with.
Reply With Quote
  #57  
Old 11-08-2009, 05:13 AM
Black Mamba
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Now the rest of genome, is filled with what we call "junk" DNA. DONT GET THIS CONFUSED WITH, DNA THAT DOESNT DO ANYTHING...things like Introns, promoting regions (nessesscary for gene activation), repressors, enhancers, inhibitors etc etc... intergenic DNA.....and lastly Restrotransposable Elements (Shon, i beleive this is what you mean).. We call this stuff Junk DNA because we are still not to sure what MOST of it does exactly. We know that Introns are involved in things like splicing etc etc...but for the most part we are still in the dark. Now Retrotransposable Elements actually make up 45% of the human GENOME. And here is what they do....

The retrotransposon DNA is initially transcribed via RNA polymerase (the same enzyme for normal genes) and turns into an mRNA intermediate...That mRNA intermediate in itself is unqiue because withing the mRNA it also coded for a REVERSE TRANSCRIPTASE. This enzyme will turn the mRNA back into DNA and then via an enzyme called TRANSPOSASE this new DNA is re-inserted back into the DNA in the Nucleus. So, if our genome had 1000 kilo base pairs to begin with, and the transposon was 100 kilo base pairs, now we have 1100 kilo base pairs. Barbara McClintock
won the Nobel prize in 1983 for discovering this.
Yay! I'm able to follow what you just said (the stuff in bold). I had to know a large chunk of that last semester and it was mind blowing. All the different RNAs, RNA polymerase, introns, exons, had to keep straight at ALL times the difference between transcription and transcribe....I kept all my notes from my intro cell/molecular bio course too.

Opps, I didn't mean to get the thread off topic either. So to get back on topic, I will say this: I'm taking an intro organismal bio course which approaches this topic from an evolutionary aspect. In some retrospects I agree with evolution and others I don't. I can't get into much detail because I have yet to take an actual genetic/evolution course but that's coming.
Reply With Quote
  #58  
Old 11-08-2009, 05:15 AM
mscomc
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Black Mamba View Post
Yay! I'm able to follow what you just said (the stuff in bold). I had to know a large chunk of that last semester and it was mind blowing. All the different RNAs, RNA polymerase, introns, exons, had to keep straight at ALL times the difference between transcription and transcribe....I kept all my notes from my intro cell/molecular bio course too.

Opps, I didn't mean to get the thread off topic either. So to get back on topic, I will say this: I'm taking an intro organismal bio course which approaches this topic from an evolutionary aspect. In some retrospects I agree with evolution and others I don't. I can't get into much detail because I have yet to take an actual genetic/evolution course but that's coming.
ooooo dont forget to TRANSLATE, and post-translate and god only knows how many others.....hahahaah
Reply With Quote
  #59  
Old 11-08-2009, 05:29 AM
KENTUCKYREDBONE
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Like most on here I can accept adaptation and selective breeding but not one species turning into another! This Darwin view can in no way be proved and has turned into a religion of its own! To me Darwinism is almost occult like!
Reply With Quote
  #60  
Old 11-08-2009, 06:10 AM
Buzzard
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by NateR View Post
Wow, do you really believe any of this nonsense that you are typing?
Do you really believe the nonsense that you type?

Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasRN View Post
But you see, we've had this discussion many times on this forum over the last several years. It's old. It's boring. So bring something new to the table or it's just not worth rehashing again and again.


~Amy
What I think is boorish and boring is the fact that instead of attacking the argument, NateR immediately went to the name calling and denial card. I think maybe some of the words used are too big for him to comprehend.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NateR View Post
Exactly, there were no human beings alive to witness these "events" so they can NEVER be declared as fact. Claiming that these are facts does nothing but reveal a fundamental ignorance of the scope and limitations of true science.
How do you then resolve many of your religious views? Surely there are no facts behind them.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NateR View Post
There's no point because I'm just going to deny them.

Again, your comments only reveal a high level of ignorance on what true science really is.

I think you are showing the ignorance here.

Can I scientifically prove that there were humans present at my birth? No. Because that is outside the scope of empirical science. In order for it to be scientifically provable, it MUST be observable and repeatable. Macro-Evolution is neither of those, thus it is not true science.
I think you are well out of your league here. So am I but at least I am here to listen and hopefully learn something here.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NateR View Post
Do I believe that the "consensus of Eminent Scientists" are wrong? Yes.

What are your beliefs on this subject then, and how did you get them? Also, what are your beliefs regarding other scientific findings?

All you are providing here is an Argument of Authority. In other words, since these men have degrees given to them by other men, then they MUST be right? That's a logical fallacy. They are just as capable of being wrong about events they were not alive to witness as anyone else.

Do you also hold that to be true in your religious views? Itr seems that many things in the bible were written about "after the fact".



Oh really? Exactly which scientist has been alive for millions of years observing it? I'd like to meet that guy.




I don't deny facts, I just deny speculation, guesswork and opinions masquerading as facts. There is a difference and if you were truly a "critical thinker" then you would know that.

Why do you accept your religious views as facts if you do so? Not trying to be rude, just wanting to see if you are consistent in your views.


No, TexasRN had it right, it's just a discussion we've had so many other times before that I'm simply tired of drudging through the same nonsense over and over.
Is it possibly because you don't like being wrong or less informed than others and you unable to accept it?

Quote:
Originally Posted by NateR View Post
Interesting read, but I've bolded where it crosses over into speculation. If you understood anything about dating methods, you would know that none of them are truly reliable.
I know one true dating method that is reliable. Get her drunk.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chuck View Post
BINGO!!!!

Our newest visitor is simply a troll..... a little free time on the weekend with nothing to do..

bursts onto the board as a "critical thinker" only to stir up crap and regurgitate other peoples opinions and theories....

Hardly a thinker at all...............
I think that you are quite wrong here Chuck. I don't see him as a troll at all. His opinions differ quite immensely from most of the members here, but it is a refreshing change, especially for me. If everyone had the same opinions on everything what a truly boring place this would be.

I guess I should wait for the next visit from my very own innernets stalker. Wait for it, wait for it.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 04:09 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.