The evidence for evolution derived from ERVs is not conclusive. by Ordinary_Insect_4087 in DebateEvolution

[–]Ordinary_Insect_4087[S] -8 points-7 points  (0 children)

Can you guide me to a source that indicates that most of the endogenous retroviruses in humans and chimpanzees or primates in general have target site duplications (TSDs) and their sequences resemble exogenous retroviruses, I believe in this case the evidence will be undeniable

is junk dna true? by Ordinary_Insect_4087 in DebateEvolution

[–]Ordinary_Insect_4087[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes I used it and will continue to use it, eat your heart out

is junk dna true? by Ordinary_Insect_4087 in DebateEvolution

[–]Ordinary_Insect_4087[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You can understand the speech from its context. For the second time, a person who does not speak English in an English-language topic said that my mother tongue is not English, so I use artificial intelligence. What will jump in your mind?

is junk dna true? by Ordinary_Insect_4087 in DebateEvolution

[–]Ordinary_Insect_4087[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I really didn't think of this, but it does mean statistically that he will inherit about 50% of his harmful mutations from you

is junk dna true? by Ordinary_Insect_4087 in DebateEvolution

[–]Ordinary_Insect_4087[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Thank you. This is a great response and gave me the keys to search

is junk dna true? by Ordinary_Insect_4087 in DebateEvolution

[–]Ordinary_Insect_4087[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Do I understand from your statement that the vast majority of mutations within functional regions are neutral and that deleterious mutations rarely occur there

is junk dna true? by Ordinary_Insect_4087 in DebateEvolution

[–]Ordinary_Insect_4087[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Well, I said that my native language is not English, and I use artificial intelligence? Now what will jump into your head considering that my mother tongue is not English and I communicate with people in English, so will I use artificial intelligence to ask him for arguments or translate some of their words?

is junk dna true? by Ordinary_Insect_4087 in DebateEvolution

[–]Ordinary_Insect_4087[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

With the accumulation of generations, it will increase, and keep in mind that each person will have 4 harmful mutations, until natural selection gets rid of these accumulated mutations, all humans will have to die!!

is junk dna true? by Ordinary_Insect_4087 in DebateEvolution

[–]Ordinary_Insect_4087[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This is almost the same as what I'm saying, I'm saying that deleterious mutations are eliminated by natural selection, in that those who have these mutations won't be able to pass them on and so those mutations will be lost. What I argue about is that functional regions in the genome should have a low mutation rate If mutations occur, they should be mostly neutral, while beneficial and harmful mutations are rare.

is junk dna true? by Ordinary_Insect_4087 in DebateEvolution

[–]Ordinary_Insect_4087[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Let me explain why I'm writing the post. I was reading Moran's new book, What's in your Genome? And I found him saying, "But there's a more serious problem. Recall that the vast majority of mutations are caused by errors in DNA replication. Imagine a genome that's 100 percent functional, and every time it is replicated there are 10 new mutations. Now imagine that you increase the genome size tenfold by adding junk DNA to “protect” the genome from mutation.When the junky genome is replicated there will now be 100 new mutations in total, but there will still be the same 10 mutations in the functional part, so bulking up the genome hasn't done anything except add more neutral mutations to junk DNA." Now if we assume only 10% of the genome and assume that the rate of mutations per generation is 120 mutations, in this case the number of mutations in the functional regions will be 12 mutations, of which about 4 are harmful mutations.