How does UD do it? How do they fit so much crap into a single post? Uuuuuuuugh! Its going to take me forever to clean this up! But, Im ERV. If anyone is going to clean up a UD ERV crapfest, its me. So Im going to hack at this bit by bit.
While typing up this weeks chunk of ID vs ERVs, I realized this whole ordeal wont be nearly as difficult to wade through as I previously anticipated. Kinda like how when you were little and you figured out that King Hippo is a fuckovalot easier to beat if you hit him in the stomach-- if you find a pattern.
This UD article has a big belly too.
The fundamental flaw in this whole idiotic article is that UD makes the inaccurate claim that 'Evilutionists say junk DNA is worthless!', then lists papers published by Evilutionists that establish junk DNA has a function, something Evilutionists dont deny in the first place. UD repeats this pattern over and over and OVER.
T.O.-- In many ways, transposons are very similar to viruses. However, they lack genes for viral coat proteins, cannot cross cellular boundaries, and thus they replicate only in the genome of their host. They can be thought of as intragenomic parasites.…finding the same transposon in the same chromosomal location in two different organisms is strong direct evidence of common ancestry, since they insert fairly randomly and generally cannot be transmitted except by inheritance….
UD-- So is there evidence that Transposons have function?
Time-out Tampa Bay! Oh wait, crap, thats football... Anyway, what in that T.O. quote implied Evilutionists say some transposons havent been co-opted by the host organism into a biological function? Ohh, I see where theyre going with this:
UD-- ...published in the October issue of Developmental Cell, suggests that retrotransposons may not be just the “junk DNA” once thought...
Ohhhh we're back to the fundamental claim about 'junk DNA' that we've established is bull shit.
UD is also showing their parrot colors-- repeating words theyve heard in an attempt to look like theyre knowledgeable on a topic... but using the words improperly. 'Transposon' and 'retrotransposon' are not interchangable terms. All retrotransposons are transposons, not all transposons are retrotransposons.
Round 1 goes to T.O.
T.O.-- …current evidence suggests that only a very few Alu sequences are active sources of transcripts; perhaps transcription from most copies is inhibited by the chromosomal environment of the insertion
Further, the excellent health of individuals who lack particular Alu insertions supports the view that these insertions do not serve any important function in human physiology.
Yet again, nothing wrong with that quoted paragraph from T.O. Nothing. As I wrote before, 1 in 30 people have a novel Alu site, so there are good odds that you and I arent Alu identical... Yet we are both sitting here, typing/reading a computer monitor, no adverse effects from our differential Alu profile.
Let me also emphasize that last point-- Alus do not serve any important function in human physiology.
UD-- Alu can turn a single gene into multiple proteins
They [Alu] affect Micro-RNA processing
Duh. But thats not human physiology. Thats human genetics. Alus change human genetics. DUH. Alus have been a cornerstone of the evolution of human genetics, as I wrote earlier.
Round 2 goes to T.O.
T.O.-- LINEs thus have several properties expected of “selfish” DNA sequences that can spread in the host DNA simply because they encode their own machinery for spreading.
UD-- In other words, they don’t serve a purpose other than to copy themselves, according to Talk Origins.
Thats not the T.O. quoted phrase 'in other words'. T.O. is precisely right. Thats the definition of LINEs (notice T.O. properly says LINEs, not LINES, whatever). Particularly weak round, even by UDs lowered standards.
Round 3 to T.O.
Match to T.O. by T.K.O.
Alas, like King Hippo, even after you beat the shit out of UD, they jump up and scream "Ha Ha Ha! I'm the king! Ha Ha Ha!"
Ugh. More to go, more to come.