On the role of viruses in placentas.
blogs.discovermagazine.com/loom/2012/02/14/mammals-made-by-viruses/

Bert

bert wrote:On the role of viruses in placentas.
blogs.discovermagazine.com/loom/2012/02/14/mammals-made-by-viruses/

Bert

Strictly speaking, of course, the article should have been entitled "PLACENTAL mammals made by viruses", because the kinds still found in Australia do not have these things, but are nevertheless considered to be mammals. What ALL mammals have in common is lactation.

Interesting discussion there, too. One poster just about suggests viruses are the Designer beloved of creationists I'll make a more modest suggestion: "kinds" are groups of animals with ERVs common to their members and only their members.

Hmm....I see that a guy called Peter Borger, on the discover website, has a bee in his bonnet about ERVs not being viral insertions at all. His main reason seems to be that they are just transposable element involved in the regulatory genome. How that prevents them from originating from viruses is not clear. He goes on to claim that RNA viruses originate from TEs in the genome rather than vice versa. How all this is supposed to be incompatible with an ERV source for the genes is not clear.
The case for ERVs being just that:
http://www.evolutionarymodel.com/ervs.htm
Incidentally, remind me - why is this thread on the creationism forum? Could it be that someone confused "Discover magazine" with the creationist "Discovery magazine"? One poster being a creationist does not mean the whole website is,or even the whole blog.

DavidMcC wrote:Hmm....I see that a guy called Peter Borger, on the discover website, has a bee in his bonnet about ERVs not being viral insertions at all. His main reason seems to be that they are just transposable element involved in the regulatory genome. How that prevents them from originating from viruses is not clear. He goes on to claim that RNA viruses originate from TEs in the genome rather than vice versa. How all this is supposed to be incompatible with an ERV source for the genes is not clear.

What a clown! At one point he asks "Did you guys ever hear about the RNA virus paradox?" Actually, no, I haven't. So I Google it, and the first hit that comes up is this, which in turn points to a series of articles in "The Journal (sic) of Creation" by...Peter Borger.

Maybe there's a reason we've never heard of it...

Shrunk wrote:

DavidMcC wrote:Hmm....I see that a guy called Peter Borger, on the discover website, has a bee in his bonnet about ERVs not being viral insertions at all. His main reason seems to be that they are just transposable element involved in the regulatory genome. How that prevents them from originating from viruses is not clear. He goes on to claim that RNA viruses originate from TEs in the genome rather than vice versa. How all this is supposed to be incompatible with an ERV source for the genes is not clear.

What a clown! At one point he asks "Did you guys ever hear about the RNA virus paradox?" Actually, no, I haven't. So I Google it, and the first hit that comes up is this, which in turn points to a series of articles in "The Journal (sic) of Creation" by...Peter Borger.

Maybe there's a reason we've never heard of it...

Thanks for finding that, Shrunk. Now we know his previously hidden agenda. However, AFAIK, the Discover website does not support his views.

DavidMcC wrote:Incidentally, remind me - why is this thread on the creationism forum? Could it be that someone confused "Discover magazine" with the creationist "Discovery magazine"? One poster being a creationist does not mean the whole website is,or even the whole blog.

Ehm, well, this subforum is the only one I visit. And in a future discussion anyone could benefit from knowing a couple of additional facts of life.

Bert

DavidMcC wrote:Thanks for finding that, Shrunk. Now we know his previously hidden agenda. However, AFAIK, the Discover website does not support his views.

If his agenda was supposed to be "hidden", he did a pretty piss-poor job of hiding it.

Viruses are just chunks of code casted adrift, some of whom became infectious. And the odd infectious agent can happen to produce a trait that confers fitness. No mystery or controversy here.

Shrunk wrote:

DavidMcC wrote:Thanks for finding that, Shrunk. Now we know his previously hidden agenda. However, AFAIK, the Discover website does not support his views.

If his agenda was supposed to be "hidden", he did a pretty piss-poor job of hiding it.

I meant his posts on "Discovery". There, he did not mention anything about religion.

Darwinsbulldog wrote:Viruses are just chunks of code casted adrift, some of whom became infectious. And the odd infectious agent can happen to produce a trait that confers fitness. No mystery or controversy here.

Umm, isn't that the idea that Borger is pushing? The reality is that they are far from "naked DNA" (or RNA), and have the structure of a kind of hyperparasitic organism, adapted to hijack living cells. As I'm sure you know, according to the "RNA-world" theory, non-parasitic RNA replicators were the original life on earth. They must have been very slow to reproduce until some evolved by turning their geometry inside out, converting the "sugar coating" into a sugar "back-bone", leaving the coding material free to make cell membranes and fill the cell with the chemicals they need to grow and divide.

I assume that the coat had a function in the pre-cellular world, and that that function was to protect the RNA during the long wait for useful molecules to approach.

DavidMcC wrote:

Darwinsbulldog wrote:Viruses are just chunks of code casted adrift, some of whom became infectious. And the odd infectious agent can happen to produce a trait that confers fitness. No mystery or controversy here.

Umm, isn't that the idea that Borger is pushing? The reality is that they are far from "naked DNA" (or RNA), and have the structure of a kind of hyperparasitic organism, adapted to hijack living cells. As I'm sure you know, according to the "RNA-world" theory, non-parasitic RNA replicators were the original life on earth. They must have been very slow to reproduce until some evolved by turning their geometry inside out, converting the "sugar coating" into a sugar "back-bone", leaving the coding material free to make cell membranes and fill the cell with the chemicals they need to grow and divide.

Yups. I didn't mean they were Naked, naked-they had a bikini on. Some RNA has a half-life of minutes, so of course they would be protected by a coating. I jist meant that they were not a chunk of cell breaking away. And the infection of mammals with placental "viruses" happened way long after the OOL.

Darwinsbulldog wrote:

DavidMcC wrote:

Darwinsbulldog wrote:Viruses are just chunks of code casted adrift, some of whom became infectious. And the odd infectious agent can happen to produce a trait that confers fitness. No mystery or controversy here.

Umm, isn't that the idea that Borger is pushing? The reality is that they are far from "naked DNA" (or RNA), and have the structure of a kind of hyperparasitic organism, adapted to hijack living cells. As I'm sure you know, according to the "RNA-world" theory, non-parasitic RNA replicators were the original life on earth. They must have been very slow to reproduce until some evolved by turning their geometry inside out, converting the "sugar coating" into a sugar "back-bone", leaving the coding material free to make cell membranes and fill the cell with the chemicals they need to grow and divide.

Yups. I didn't mean they were Naked, naked-they had a bikini on. Some RNA has a half-life of minutes, so of course they would be protected by a coating. I jist meant that they were not a chunk of cell breaking away. And the infection of mammals with placental "viruses" happened way long after the OOL.

OK, but it was not obvious to me that you meant that.

DavidMcC wrote: I meant his posts on "Discovery". There, he did not mention anything about religion.

Evolution denial is always about religion.

Shrunk wrote:

DavidMcC wrote: I meant his posts on "Discovery". There, he did not mention anything about religion.

Evolution denial is always about religion.

Sure, but even our site has this kind of poster, so I don't know why that particular thread went straight to the creationism forum, without any mention of Borger being the problem. The main topic could have been purely about the scientific merits of the ERV model vs. other scientific models of the same mammalian genes.

DavidMcC wrote:

Shrunk wrote:

DavidMcC wrote: I meant his posts on "Discovery". There, he did not mention anything about religion.

Evolution denial is always about religion.

Sure, but even our site has this kind of poster, so I don't know why that particular thread went straight to the creationism forum, without any mention of Borger being the problem. The main topic could have been purely about the scientific merits of the ERV model vs. other scientific models of the same mammalian genes.

It seems because bert put it here. I agree, it belongs in the real science section.

DavidMcC wrote:

Darwinsbulldog wrote:

DavidMcC wrote:

Darwinsbulldog wrote:Viruses are just chunks of code casted adrift, some of whom became infectious. And the odd infectious agent can happen to produce a trait that confers fitness. No mystery or controversy here.

Umm, isn't that the idea that Borger is pushing? The reality is that they are far from "naked DNA" (or RNA), and have the structure of a kind of hyperparasitic organism, adapted to hijack living cells. As I'm sure you know, according to the "RNA-world" theory, non-parasitic RNA replicators were the original life on earth. They must have been very slow to reproduce until some evolved by turning their geometry inside out, converting the "sugar coating" into a sugar "back-bone", leaving the coding material free to make cell membranes and fill the cell with the chemicals they need to grow and divide.

Yups. I didn't mean they were Naked, naked-they had a bikini on. Some RNA has a half-life of minutes, so of course they would be protected by a coating. I jist meant that they were not a chunk of cell breaking away. And the infection of mammals with placental "viruses" happened way long after the OOL.

OK, but it was not obvious to me that you meant that.

Well, of course it all happened in 7 days so what's a few hours difference between friends!