Goat wrote: WHy are you misrepresenting what is said? What has been said is that Chimps and humans share a common ancestor.. and therefore are ‘cousin’ species. Trying to say that anybody is saying any differently is a straw man. I’m not saying that anybody here is claiming that chimps are the forefathers of humans. …
nygreenguy wrote: otseng wrote: I’ve given several examples of functions for ERV. So, how can a virus infect a reproductive cell, mutate to become inactive, yet also mutate to have a beneficial function in the host organism? ERV are supposed to be at best functionless, not impart a beneficial function. Argument to incredulity? ERV has …
nygreenguy wrote: otseng wrote: I do not object to Linnaean taxonomy when its use is limited to its original intent. It was simply classification based on morphological features. However, nowadays, it has been hijacked to imply lineage. This sort of anti-science rhetoric is offensive. Classification based upon morphology is limited in its application. It totally …
McCulloch wrote:Since the endogenous retrovirus is not necessary for reproduction, there is no selective pressure to keep it free from mutations, and so retroviruses will acquire mutations at about the same rate as other non-essential non-coding DNA. Eventually, retroviruses are rendered inactive because of these mutations, and they sit quietly in the genome, a testament …
McCulloch wrote: Did humans descend from other primates? No. I’ll give my arguments in a later post. Are humans primates or should there be special biological taxonomy for humanity? I do not object to Linnaean taxonomy when its use is limited to its original intent. It was simply classification based on morphological features. However, nowadays, …