Evidence for evolution, Installment 1: Endogenous retroviral sequences

by seattleniceguy 38 Replies latest jw friends

  • seattleniceguy
    seattleniceguy

    Because I need to continue doing research on this topic, and it always helps me assimilate things if I write them up or otherwise explain them to others, and because I thought others here might be interested, I've decided to start a series. In each installment, I'll present one small piece of evidence for evolution. Hopefully, some of the more knowledgeable people here will chime in with related evidence.

    This week: Endogenous retroviral sequencesSource: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section4.html#retroviruses

    A retrovirus is a virus that makes a DNA copy of its own genome and inserts it into its host's genome. When this happens, the inserted DNA is called an endogenous retroviral sequence. Sometimes, the retrovirus inserts its DNA into the genome of a host's sperm or ovum. When this happens, all future descendants of that host will carry a copy of the retroviral DNA. The DNA becomes a sort of biological marker on that line of creature, forevermore.

    It is rare for a retrovirus to make an insertion into the DNA of sperm or ovum that actually gets used in reproduction. Therefore, when two different species show the exact same endogenous retroviral sequence in the exact same place in their genome, it indicates that they descended from a single forebear.

    When we examine the DNA of animals that appear related, we can tell in which order they broke off from one another by seeing which endogenous retroviral sequences they share. For example, imagine we have the following three species, with the following endogenous retroviral sequences (ERS) in the same places on their genomes:

    Species A: Contains only ERS1
    Species B: Contains ERS1 and ERS2
    Species C: Contains ERS1, ERS2, and ERS3

    This tells us two things. First, we can see that all three species are descended from a single host who was infected with ERS1 eons ago. At some point, Species B broke off as a separate line and was infected with ERS2. Later, Species C broke off from species B, carrying the first two ERS's, and was separately infected with ERS3.

    Are there examples of this type of observation in real life? Yes, there are many.

    The Felidae (i.e. cats) provide another example. The standard phylogenetic tree has small cats diverging later than large cats. The small cats (e.g. the jungle cat, European wildcat, African wildcat, blackfooted cat, and domestic cat) share a specific retroviral gene insertion. In contrast, all other carnivores which have been tested lack this retrogene ( Futuyma 1998 , pp. 293-294; Todaro et al. 1975 ).

    The following chart shows endogenous retroviral sequences and the branches they indicate in primates:

    alt

    When scientists say that two species are related, they are not doing so based solely on the appearance or behavior of the animals. Endogenous retroviral sequences provide an empirical means of establishing the relatedness of species.

    SNG

    (Edited to correct spelling error)

  • AlmostAtheist
    AlmostAtheist

    How can it be known that the retroviral DNA whats-its that appear in two different species didn't arrive in their DNA independantly? Is it a probability-based thing, since they appear in the same place on the genome and would likely not be in the same place if it was two independant infections? Is the retrovirus more likely to infect one section than another, or is it a fairly random thing?

    Dave

  • seattleniceguy
    seattleniceguy

    Good question, Dave. Now I understand the significance of the bolded part of the following quotation from TalkOrigins (emphasis mine):

    Again, this process is rare and fairly random, so finding retrogenes in identical chromosomal positions of two different species indicates common ancestry.

    I think it is statistically improbable that two species would share the same retrogene in the same location. Also, relatedness is not established on the basis of a single shared retrogene. Regarding the relatedness of humans and chimps, the source says:

    There are at least seven different known instances of common retrogene insertions between chimps and humans, and this number is sure to grow as both these organism's genomes are sequenced ( Bonner et al. 1982 ; Dangel et al. 1995 ; Svensson et al. 1995 ; Kjellman et al. 1999 ; Lebedev et al. 2000 ; Sverdlov 2000 ).

    Finally, if indeed it were possible for this to occur by chance, then we should expect to find shared retrogenes in species that are clearly unrelated. For example, if dogs were found to carry one of the retrogenes shared only by chimps and humans, it would show it is possible through other means for two species to carry the same marker. But this is not observed. So the evidence is strong.

    SNG

  • AlanF
    AlanF

    Fascinating information, SNG!

    I know that diehard creationists will pooh-pooh this evidence, as they do all other evidence. And they never come up with a reasonable explanation of why a competent creator would produce a creation that looks exactly like it evolved according to modern theories of evolution.

    AlanF

  • AlmostAtheist
    AlmostAtheist

    [QUOTE]
    And they never come up with a reasonable explanation of why a competent creator would produce a creation that looks exactly like it evolved according to modern theories of evolution.
    [/QUOTE]

    For the same reason he created beams of light billions of light-years long only a few thousand years ago -- to test your faith!

    (And you've failed. Miserably. As have I. Alas)

    Dave

  • seattleniceguy
    seattleniceguy

    Thanks, AlanF! Yes, I'm expecting hooberus to refer us to answersingenesis.com any minute now. Seriously, though, this particular line of evidence is very persuasive. I wonder what a creationist could say to pooh-pooh it.

    I'm fascinated by the fact that creatures are carrying records of their evolutionary travels. It's like they all have little histories embedded inside them. Even the most die-hard fundamentalist carries a physical record in their body that shows in what order they branched off from the other primates. The irony in that is almost thrilling.

    SNG

  • Euphemism
    Euphemism

    Interesting stuff, SNG, and I look forward to more installments.

    What strikes me about this is how the evidence for evolution is intertwined with other areas of biology--in this case, our understanding of retroviruses. Many anti-evolutionists (and I felt this way when I was a Witness) believe they can reject scientific theories that conflict with their beliefs, while accepting the rest of modern science. The problem with that is that if you want to reject the conclusion, often the only way to do that is to reject the premises--which in this case, are based in areas of biology that most anti-evolutionists accept.

  • Satanus
    Satanus

    Expect a booklength rebuttal from a creationist, where main points will be hard to find. What ever happened to greepalmtrees. It seems that she burned too brightly and burned out.

    S

  • GetBusyLiving
    GetBusyLiving

    Thanks for the info SNG. I don't know very much about evolution at all but I find it facinating. Hope you keep up the installments!


    Can anyone give me some good references for recent books on evolution?


    GBL

  • Elsewhere
    Elsewhere
    [QUOTE]
    And they never come up with a reasonable explanation of why a competent creator would produce a creation that looks exactly like it evolved according to modern theories of evolution.
    [/QUOTE]

    For the same reason he created beams of light billions of light-years long only a few thousand years ago -- to test your faith!

    (And you've failed. Miserably. As have I. Alas)

    Dave

    lmao! Too funny!

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit