Total Posts:75|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Is there scientific disagreement about ERVs?

Burzmali
Posts: 1,310
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/19/2016 7:25:52 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
Preface: I'm only interested in contentions about endogenous retroviruses (ERVs) from the scientific community. I never like to declare that anyone is excluded from a thread, so I welcome input from creationists. However, I'm looking for actual scientific criticism of ERVs. If there's an argument from Answers in Genesis that you think is valid, it needs to be backed by peer-reviewed biology articles and you should just link straight to those and present the argument yourself.

TL;DR - creationists are welcome, but I will not follow any links to creationist material.

With that out of the way, I've always found ERVs among the strongest evidence for evolution. The handful of times that I've mentioned them in the past, I've been bombarded with AiG links and other creationist blog posts about how they aren't valid. So I'm wondering if there is any actual scientific criticism regarding them in relation to evolution.
v3nesl
Posts: 4,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/19/2016 9:19:12 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/19/2016 7:25:52 PM, Burzmali wrote:
Preface: I'm only interested in contentions about endogenous retroviruses (ERVs) from the scientific community. I never like to declare that anyone is excluded from a thread, so I welcome input from creationists. However, I'm looking for actual scientific criticism of ERVs. If there's an argument from Answers in Genesis that you think is valid, it needs to be backed by peer-reviewed biology articles and you should just link straight to those and present the argument yourself.

TL;DR - creationists are welcome, but I will not follow any links to creationist material.

With that out of the way, I've always found ERVs among the strongest evidence for evolution. The handful of times that I've mentioned them in the past, I've been bombarded with AiG links and other creationist blog posts about how they aren't valid. So I'm wondering if there is any actual scientific criticism regarding them in relation to evolution.

Well, if you're serious, you shouldn't start by assuming they are viral at all. This is a subset of the "junk DNA" argument: If there are sections of DNA that are indeed essentially useless, and this junk is similar in different species, then it does indeed strongly suggest inheritance. But if the junk turns out to be useful, then design becomes an equally valid explanation for their presence in multiple species.

And really proving that something is useless - that's pretty hard to do. I have this antique cabinet in my house. It has these hinges on the two sides. Bizarre, and a pain in the backside when you want to move the cabinet. But I recently found out that the hinges are there because the cabinets were mail order from Sears, so the hinges enabled the cabinet to fold flat for shipping. So a feature that seems like junk or even bad design had a valid purpose after all.

So scientists have to be careful: They've gotten burned on 'junk DNA' already. The fact that you can't figure out the purpose of something doesn't mean it has no purpose. And note - the fact that you can remove a feature with no downside does not mean it has no purpose. I could fuse the hinges on my cabinet and make it a better cabinet. But the hinges had a purpose - they were most definitely not extraneous.

And here's my problem with the junk DNA arguments in general: The coding efficiency and fault tolerance of DNA is so mind bogglingly sophisticated, that junk is the last thing you would expect to find, if you weren't predisposed to be looking for evidence of evolution. So it's probably another example of evolution slowing useful research into the technologies of life.
This space for rent.
Burzmali
Posts: 1,310
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/19/2016 10:15:19 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/19/2016 9:19:12 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 1/19/2016 7:25:52 PM, Burzmali wrote:
Preface: I'm only interested in contentions about endogenous retroviruses (ERVs) from the scientific community. I never like to declare that anyone is excluded from a thread, so I welcome input from creationists. However, I'm looking for actual scientific criticism of ERVs. If there's an argument from Answers in Genesis that you think is valid, it needs to be backed by peer-reviewed biology articles and you should just link straight to those and present the argument yourself.

TL;DR - creationists are welcome, but I will not follow any links to creationist material.

With that out of the way, I've always found ERVs among the strongest evidence for evolution. The handful of times that I've mentioned them in the past, I've been bombarded with AiG links and other creationist blog posts about how they aren't valid. So I'm wondering if there is any actual scientific criticism regarding them in relation to evolution.

Well, if you're serious, you shouldn't start by assuming they are viral at all. This is a subset of the "junk DNA" argument: If there are sections of DNA that are indeed essentially useless, and this junk is similar in different species, then it does indeed strongly suggest inheritance. But if the junk turns out to be useful, then design becomes an equally valid explanation for their presence in multiple species.

I'm unaware of anyone just assuming that these sequences are viral. There's a lot of evidence to support it, such as the fact that many (like HERV-Ks in humans) are still active and capable of altering the genome. What makes you think the ERV evidence is a "junk DNA" argument and that it's an assumption rather than a conclusion supported by evidence?
v3nesl
Posts: 4,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/20/2016 3:14:12 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/19/2016 10:15:19 PM, Burzmali wrote:
At 1/19/2016 9:19:12 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 1/19/2016 7:25:52 PM, Burzmali wrote:
Preface: I'm only interested in contentions about endogenous retroviruses (ERVs) from the scientific community. I never like to declare that anyone is excluded from a thread, so I welcome input from creationists. However, I'm looking for actual scientific criticism of ERVs. If there's an argument from Answers in Genesis that you think is valid, it needs to be backed by peer-reviewed biology articles and you should just link straight to those and present the argument yourself.

TL;DR - creationists are welcome, but I will not follow any links to creationist material.

With that out of the way, I've always found ERVs among the strongest evidence for evolution. The handful of times that I've mentioned them in the past, I've been bombarded with AiG links and other creationist blog posts about how they aren't valid. So I'm wondering if there is any actual scientific criticism regarding them in relation to evolution.

Well, if you're serious, you shouldn't start by assuming they are viral at all. This is a subset of the "junk DNA" argument: If there are sections of DNA that are indeed essentially useless, and this junk is similar in different species, then it does indeed strongly suggest inheritance. But if the junk turns out to be useful, then design becomes an equally valid explanation for their presence in multiple species.

I'm unaware of anyone just assuming that these sequences are viral. There's a lot of evidence to support it, such as the fact that many (like HERV-Ks in humans) are still active and capable of altering the genome. What makes you think the ERV evidence is a "junk DNA" argument and that it's an assumption rather than a conclusion supported by evidence?

Did anyone see the DNA segment being inserted? Is there any way to confirm they were inserted by a retrovirus? If not, then when you use unproven conclusions to make further conclusions, that's 'assumption'. Don't understand, this doesn't mean it's unreasonable or anything, but it is assumption, and you have to remain aware of how far down the turtles go.
This space for rent.
Enji
Posts: 1,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/20/2016 4:58:39 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/19/2016 7:25:52 PM, Burzmali wrote:
Preface: I'm only interested in contentions about endogenous retroviruses (ERVs) from the scientific community. I never like to declare that anyone is excluded from a thread, so I welcome input from creationists. However, I'm looking for actual scientific criticism of ERVs. If there's an argument from Answers in Genesis that you think is valid, it needs to be backed by peer-reviewed biology articles and you should just link straight to those and present the argument yourself.

TL;DR - creationists are welcome, but I will not follow any links to creationist material.

With that out of the way, I've always found ERVs among the strongest evidence for evolution. The handful of times that I've mentioned them in the past, I've been bombarded with AiG links and other creationist blog posts about how they aren't valid. So I'm wondering if there is any actual scientific criticism regarding them in relation to evolution.

Presence and position of ERVs is hard enough for creationists to explain. Most creationist criticisms focus only on their presence which they justify through arguments about functionality, but position is much more important regarding evolutionary implications (why is it that ERVs are shared in a hierarchical structure, for example).

Creationists treat the 5' and 3' LTR sequences as a curiosity - generally they group them together with the LINE insertion when attempting to explain their presence, but they never bring your focus to them and you never see an explanation for why they exist. But explaining why LTRs are present in genes with the ERV and not those without --something easily explained by the observed mechanisms of ERV insertion-- is essential when claiming that such sequences aren't the result of ERV insertion.

Finally, creationists can't account for accumulating mutations in LINEs and LTRs, which can be grouped by synapomorphy to form a well-supported nested hierarchy. Nor why this nested hierarchy based on orthologous comparison of ERV sequence matches the nested hierarchy based on the position of an ERV in a gene.

And of course, the evidence becomes even more compelling when you consider other types of genetic data like well conserved protein coding regions, or trees based on morphological characters. The evolutionary model explains both the data itself and the consilence of independent sets of data very well. What creationists need is a comprehensive working model which explains these patterns at least as well as evolution. I wouldn't hold your breath waiting for one, however.

There's one exception to the hierarchical structure of ERV position and presence, and its presence is explained here: http://www.sciencedirect.com...
Burzmali
Posts: 1,310
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/20/2016 5:00:55 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/20/2016 3:14:12 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 1/19/2016 10:15:19 PM, Burzmali wrote:
At 1/19/2016 9:19:12 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 1/19/2016 7:25:52 PM, Burzmali wrote:
Preface: I'm only interested in contentions about endogenous retroviruses (ERVs) from the scientific community. I never like to declare that anyone is excluded from a thread, so I welcome input from creationists. However, I'm looking for actual scientific criticism of ERVs. If there's an argument from Answers in Genesis that you think is valid, it needs to be backed by peer-reviewed biology articles and you should just link straight to those and present the argument yourself.

TL;DR - creationists are welcome, but I will not follow any links to creationist material.

With that out of the way, I've always found ERVs among the strongest evidence for evolution. The handful of times that I've mentioned them in the past, I've been bombarded with AiG links and other creationist blog posts about how they aren't valid. So I'm wondering if there is any actual scientific criticism regarding them in relation to evolution.

Well, if you're serious, you shouldn't start by assuming they are viral at all. This is a subset of the "junk DNA" argument: If there are sections of DNA that are indeed essentially useless, and this junk is similar in different species, then it does indeed strongly suggest inheritance. But if the junk turns out to be useful, then design becomes an equally valid explanation for their presence in multiple species.

I'm unaware of anyone just assuming that these sequences are viral. There's a lot of evidence to support it, such as the fact that many (like HERV-Ks in humans) are still active and capable of altering the genome. What makes you think the ERV evidence is a "junk DNA" argument and that it's an assumption rather than a conclusion supported by evidence?

Did anyone see the DNA segment being inserted? Is there any way to confirm they were inserted by a retrovirus? If not, then when you use unproven conclusions to make further conclusions, that's 'assumption'. Don't understand, this doesn't mean it's unreasonable or anything, but it is assumption, and you have to remain aware of how far down the turtles go.

So if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's still an assumption that it's a duck because we didn't see it hatch from an egg laid by a duck?
v3nesl
Posts: 4,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/20/2016 6:37:56 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/20/2016 5:00:55 PM, Burzmali wrote:
At 1/20/2016 3:14:12 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 1/19/2016 10:15:19 PM, Burzmali wrote:
At 1/19/2016 9:19:12 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 1/19/2016 7:25:52 PM, Burzmali wrote:
Preface: I'm only interested in contentions about endogenous retroviruses (ERVs) from the scientific community. I never like to declare that anyone is excluded from a thread, so I welcome input from creationists. However, I'm looking for actual scientific criticism of ERVs. If there's an argument from Answers in Genesis that you think is valid, it needs to be backed by peer-reviewed biology articles and you should just link straight to those and present the argument yourself.

TL;DR - creationists are welcome, but I will not follow any links to creationist material.

With that out of the way, I've always found ERVs among the strongest evidence for evolution. The handful of times that I've mentioned them in the past, I've been bombarded with AiG links and other creationist blog posts about how they aren't valid. So I'm wondering if there is any actual scientific criticism regarding them in relation to evolution.

Well, if you're serious, you shouldn't start by assuming they are viral at all. This is a subset of the "junk DNA" argument: If there are sections of DNA that are indeed essentially useless, and this junk is similar in different species, then it does indeed strongly suggest inheritance. But if the junk turns out to be useful, then design becomes an equally valid explanation for their presence in multiple species.

I'm unaware of anyone just assuming that these sequences are viral. There's a lot of evidence to support it, such as the fact that many (like HERV-Ks in humans) are still active and capable of altering the genome. What makes you think the ERV evidence is a "junk DNA" argument and that it's an assumption rather than a conclusion supported by evidence?

Did anyone see the DNA segment being inserted? Is there any way to confirm they were inserted by a retrovirus? If not, then when you use unproven conclusions to make further conclusions, that's 'assumption'. Don't understand, this doesn't mean it's unreasonable or anything, but it is assumption, and you have to remain aware of how far down the turtles go.

So if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's still an assumption that it's a duck because we didn't see it hatch from an egg laid by a duck?

We've seen ducks born, that's how we know about duck eggs. This is the problem with the analogy: Evolution is a process never observed. It is only speculated that the observed reproductive errors can accumulate to produce novel species. So you can't say that it walks like a duck if you've never seen a duck.
This space for rent.
Burzmali
Posts: 1,310
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/20/2016 8:55:17 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/20/2016 6:37:56 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 1/20/2016 5:00:55 PM, Burzmali wrote:
At 1/20/2016 3:14:12 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 1/19/2016 10:15:19 PM, Burzmali wrote:
At 1/19/2016 9:19:12 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 1/19/2016 7:25:52 PM, Burzmali wrote:
Preface: I'm only interested in contentions about endogenous retroviruses (ERVs) from the scientific community. I never like to declare that anyone is excluded from a thread, so I welcome input from creationists. However, I'm looking for actual scientific criticism of ERVs. If there's an argument from Answers in Genesis that you think is valid, it needs to be backed by peer-reviewed biology articles and you should just link straight to those and present the argument yourself.

TL;DR - creationists are welcome, but I will not follow any links to creationist material.

With that out of the way, I've always found ERVs among the strongest evidence for evolution. The handful of times that I've mentioned them in the past, I've been bombarded with AiG links and other creationist blog posts about how they aren't valid. So I'm wondering if there is any actual scientific criticism regarding them in relation to evolution.

Well, if you're serious, you shouldn't start by assuming they are viral at all. This is a subset of the "junk DNA" argument: If there are sections of DNA that are indeed essentially useless, and this junk is similar in different species, then it does indeed strongly suggest inheritance. But if the junk turns out to be useful, then design becomes an equally valid explanation for their presence in multiple species.

I'm unaware of anyone just assuming that these sequences are viral. There's a lot of evidence to support it, such as the fact that many (like HERV-Ks in humans) are still active and capable of altering the genome. What makes you think the ERV evidence is a "junk DNA" argument and that it's an assumption rather than a conclusion supported by evidence?

Did anyone see the DNA segment being inserted? Is there any way to confirm they were inserted by a retrovirus? If not, then when you use unproven conclusions to make further conclusions, that's 'assumption'. Don't understand, this doesn't mean it's unreasonable or anything, but it is assumption, and you have to remain aware of how far down the turtles go.

So if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's still an assumption that it's a duck because we didn't see it hatch from an egg laid by a duck?

We've seen ducks born, that's how we know about duck eggs. This is the problem with the analogy: Evolution is a process never observed. It is only speculated that the observed reproductive errors can accumulate to produce novel species. So you can't say that it walks like a duck if you've never seen a duck.

We have observed retroviruses integrating with host DNA, though. And we have seen how that incorporated DNA then is treated and how the processes behave around it. And we see the same treatment and processes with many (not all, granted) ERVs. That's one of the hallmarks of HERV-Ks.

And I'll remind you that this thread is expressly about scientific criticism of ERVs as evidence of evolution. The argument you're trying to make could be interesting. Is it supported by any peer-reviewed biology research? As an example, is there any research indicating that some segments that were once thought to be ERVs actually have turned out to be something else? That would be a pretty good example of the scientific community assuming something is a duck and it turned out to be a goose with a funny honk.
v3nesl
Posts: 4,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/20/2016 10:36:42 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/20/2016 8:55:17 PM, Burzmali wrote:
...

We have observed retroviruses integrating with host DNA, though.

Yup, fair enough. I don't know that you can conclude that this is the only means of getting virus-like bits of DNA, though.

... As an example, is there any research indicating that some segments that were once thought to be ERVs actually have turned out to be something else?

I think I remember reading that [some] ERV sections turned out to be used in the embryonic stage. I couldn't swear to it, though, and I definitely have no idea where to look for it.

So, this isn't something I know a lot about. I looked at it several years ago, and a lot leaks out of my brain in several years.
This space for rent.
Burzmali
Posts: 1,310
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/20/2016 10:44:25 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/20/2016 10:36:42 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 1/20/2016 8:55:17 PM, Burzmali wrote:
...

We have observed retroviruses integrating with host DNA, though.

Yup, fair enough. I don't know that you can conclude that this is the only means of getting virus-like bits of DNA, though.

I'm happy to read some scientific research on other explanations for how DNA coding for viral proteins can wind up in an organism's genome. My own searches aren't turning anything up, though. That's pretty much the whole point of this thread.

... As an example, is there any research indicating that some segments that were once thought to be ERVs actually have turned out to be something else?

I think I remember reading that [some] ERV sections turned out to be used in the embryonic stage. I couldn't swear to it, though, and I definitely have no idea where to look for it.

So, this isn't something I know a lot about. I looked at it several years ago, and a lot leaks out of my brain in several years.

Even if an ERV is expressed and the product is beneficial to the host, that doesn't impact the argument. As I mentioned before, the ERV evidence isn't related to the idea of "junk DNA," as far as I know. It's about where the segments appear, how they mutate, and the other ways they're affected and handled in the organism.
v3nesl
Posts: 4,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2016 1:49:13 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/20/2016 10:44:25 PM, Burzmali wrote:
At 1/20/2016 10:36:42 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 1/20/2016 8:55:17 PM, Burzmali wrote:
...

Even if an ERV is expressed and the product is beneficial to the host, that doesn't impact the argument. As I mentioned before, the ERV evidence isn't related to the idea of "junk DNA," as far as I know.

It is as far as favoring evolution over design. If ERVs serve a purpose, then design can explain their presence, and explain why you might find them in similar places in similar species. It's only if ERVs serve no purpose that their presence in similar places in similar species suggests blind inheritance and not intent.

Most evo's won't even consider design, so they don't proceed to ask the question of how design might be done. If you are willing to go down that path, you quickly see how likely it is that design of a multi-part system like the ecosystem will show shared features that will be very hard to distinguish from blind inheritance. Making something new out of something else is routine design activity in humans, so you get a sort of inheritance, but it's not inheritance through mutation and natural selection. It's deliberate inheritance and deliberate selection.

It's about where the segments appear, how they mutate, and the other ways they're affected and handled in the organism.
This space for rent.
Burzmali
Posts: 1,310
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2016 5:18:42 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/21/2016 1:49:13 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 1/20/2016 10:44:25 PM, Burzmali wrote:
At 1/20/2016 10:36:42 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 1/20/2016 8:55:17 PM, Burzmali wrote:
...

Even if an ERV is expressed and the product is beneficial to the host, that doesn't impact the argument. As I mentioned before, the ERV evidence isn't related to the idea of "junk DNA," as far as I know.

It is as far as favoring evolution over design. If ERVs serve a purpose, then design can explain their presence, and explain why you might find them in similar places in similar species. It's only if ERVs serve no purpose that their presence in similar places in similar species suggests blind inheritance and not intent.

Most evo's won't even consider design, so they don't proceed to ask the question of how design might be done. If you are willing to go down that path, you quickly see how likely it is that design of a multi-part system like the ecosystem will show shared features that will be very hard to distinguish from blind inheritance. Making something new out of something else is routine design activity in humans, so you get a sort of inheritance, but it's not inheritance through mutation and natural selection. It's deliberate inheritance and deliberate selection.

Saying they "serve a purpose" is an assumption. Having a beneficial effect is what we might observe about an ERV. If we observe that, it doesn't change the fact that the location and modification of that ERV is the actual support for evolution. The beneficial effect we might observe doesn't favor design over evolution. So that leaves us with three aspects of an individual ERV (benefit, locus, modification), two of which support evolution and one that is ambiguous if we're being generous. When combined with the multitude of ERVs that we observe throughout life, most of which have mutated to the point that they no longer express the way they did when originally inserted, it doesn't look good for design at all.

It's about where the segments appear, how they mutate, and the other ways they're affected and handled in the organism.
Burzmali
Posts: 1,310
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2016 6:07:22 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/21/2016 5:46:00 PM, Danb6177 wrote:
I thought that ERV's worked as promoters for genes. Hasn't this research been concluded?

That's with regard to the effects of some ERVs in an organism's genome, and how they can be involved in gene expressions. My question is about whether there is disagreement within the scientific community about ERVs as evidence of evolution. So far, the closest thing this thread has produced is an investigation into a single instance of a possible inconsistency, and speculation about how one aspect of some ERVs might be explained by design.
Danb6177
Posts: 433
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2016 7:41:14 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/21/2016 6:07:22 PM, Burzmali wrote:
At 1/21/2016 5:46:00 PM, Danb6177 wrote:
I thought that ERV's worked as promoters for genes. Hasn't this research been concluded?

That's with regard to the effects of some ERVs in an organism's genome, and how they can be involved in gene expressions. My question is about whether there is disagreement within the scientific community about ERVs as evidence of evolution. So far, the closest thing this thread has produced is an investigation into a single instance of a possible inconsistency, and speculation about how one aspect of some ERVs might be explained by design.

Gotcha..I would think that since science moves itself to prove evolution and not to refute it you will find no such disagreement from science.
medv4380
Posts: 200
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2016 8:41:05 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/19/2016 7:25:52 PM, Burzmali wrote:
Preface: I'm only interested in contentions about endogenous retroviruses (ERVs) from the scientific community. I never like to declare that anyone is excluded from a thread, so I welcome input from creationists. However, I'm looking for actual scientific criticism of ERVs. If there's an argument from Answers in Genesis that you think is valid, it needs to be backed by peer-reviewed biology articles and you should just link straight to those and present the argument yourself.

TL;DR - creationists are welcome, but I will not follow any links to creationist material.

With that out of the way, I've always found ERVs among the strongest evidence for evolution. The handful of times that I've mentioned them in the past, I've been bombarded with AiG links and other creationist blog posts about how they aren't valid. So I'm wondering if there is any actual scientific criticism regarding them in relation to evolution.

Why would you think that ERV's are evidence for evolution? All they show a virus can infect a host in such a way as to not kill it, and be transmitted via the germ line cells. I've never run into a creationist who though that mutation, or even viral mutation was impossible. They object to the all living things are descended from a single organism, and they object to one kind(Dinosaurs) mutating over time into another kind(Birds). In fact many of them believe firmly in evolution since it's the only way to get Noah's story to work. They just like to call it Micro-Evolution, and argue over the semantics of the word 'kind'.
Enji
Posts: 1,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2016 9:07:48 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
Like I mentioned above, Creationist appeal to function to justify the presence of ERVs. Even if such an explanation was sufficient to account for the sharing of ERVs in a nested hierarchical pattern (a natural result of branching evolutionary processes), it doesn't explain LTR-LTR sequence divergence proportional with the degree of phylogenetic separation between taxa, nor phylogenetic signal from accumulated mutations in ERV and LTR sequences. The consilience of these three independent lines of evidence from ERVs with separate lines of evidence for evolution is also something which creationists struggle to explain.
Burzmali
Posts: 1,310
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2016 10:39:20 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/21/2016 8:41:05 PM, medv4380 wrote:
At 1/19/2016 7:25:52 PM, Burzmali wrote:
Preface: I'm only interested in contentions about endogenous retroviruses (ERVs) from the scientific community. I never like to declare that anyone is excluded from a thread, so I welcome input from creationists. However, I'm looking for actual scientific criticism of ERVs. If there's an argument from Answers in Genesis that you think is valid, it needs to be backed by peer-reviewed biology articles and you should just link straight to those and present the argument yourself.

TL;DR - creationists are welcome, but I will not follow any links to creationist material.

With that out of the way, I've always found ERVs among the strongest evidence for evolution. The handful of times that I've mentioned them in the past, I've been bombarded with AiG links and other creationist blog posts about how they aren't valid. So I'm wondering if there is any actual scientific criticism regarding them in relation to evolution.

Why would you think that ERV's are evidence for evolution? All they show a virus can infect a host in such a way as to not kill it, and be transmitted via the germ line cells. I've never run into a creationist who though that mutation, or even viral mutation was impossible. They object to the all living things are descended from a single organism, and they object to one kind(Dinosaurs) mutating over time into another kind(Birds). In fact many of them believe firmly in evolution since it's the only way to get Noah's story to work. They just like to call it Micro-Evolution, and argue over the semantics of the word 'kind'.

As I mentioned to v3nesl, it's the location and modification of the ERVs that is the key. Enji has gone more into detail, too. In retrospect, I probably should have posted a link to a primer on how ERVs support evolution.

Anyway, imagine a population of the hypothetical common ancestor of life on Earth. A retrovirus infects some members of that population. The provirus sticks in the genome and becomes just a regular part of the population's DNA, or an EVR. Fast forward a couple million years. That first population has evolved into a few different populations of organisms. One of those populations is again infected by a retrovirus that becomes an EVR. That population that now has 2 EVRs in its genome evolves into a number of different organisms again over the next few million years. Repeat until present day.

What you would expect to see now is that the first EVR is still present in the genome of all living organisms. The second EVR will be in everything that evolved from the second population. Plants and animals will have the same EVRs up until the point where plants split off. Etc. Furthermore, the EVRs should be found at the same insertion points in organisms that share them and they'll exhibit the same modifications up to the point where the populations split off. And that's exactly what we find. This is unexplainable in a pure design model. But like so much other evidence, it is well explained as part of evolutionary theory.
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/22/2016 5:19:55 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/20/2016 3:14:12 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 1/19/2016 10:15:19 PM, Burzmali wrote:
At 1/19/2016 9:19:12 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 1/19/2016 7:25:52 PM, Burzmali wrote:
Preface: I'm only interested in contentions about endogenous retroviruses (ERVs) from the scientific community. I never like to declare that anyone is excluded from a thread, so I welcome input from creationists. However, I'm looking for actual scientific criticism of ERVs. If there's an argument from Answers in Genesis that you think is valid, it needs to be backed by peer-reviewed biology articles and you should just link straight to those and present the argument yourself.

TL;DR - creationists are welcome, but I will not follow any links to creationist material.

With that out of the way, I've always found ERVs among the strongest evidence for evolution. The handful of times that I've mentioned them in the past, I've been bombarded with AiG links and other creationist blog posts about how they aren't valid. So I'm wondering if there is any actual scientific criticism regarding them in relation to evolution.

Well, if you're serious, you shouldn't start by assuming they are viral at all. This is a subset of the "junk DNA" argument: If there are sections of DNA that are indeed essentially useless, and this junk is similar in different species, then it does indeed strongly suggest inheritance. But if the junk turns out to be useful, then design becomes an equally valid explanation for their presence in multiple species.

I'm unaware of anyone just assuming that these sequences are viral. There's a lot of evidence to support it, such as the fact that many (like HERV-Ks in humans) are still active and capable of altering the genome. What makes you think the ERV evidence is a "junk DNA" argument and that it's an assumption rather than a conclusion supported by evidence?

Did anyone see the DNA segment being inserted? Is there any way to confirm they were inserted by a retrovirus? If not, then when you use unproven conclusions to make further conclusions, that's 'assumption'. Don't understand, this doesn't mean it's unreasonable or anything, but it is assumption, and you have to remain aware of how far down the turtles go.

I think the problem with regards to ERVs, isnt that it came from a virus. Even if it were simply a mutation, it would still provide problems for creationists.
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/22/2016 5:30:42 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/21/2016 1:49:13 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 1/20/2016 10:44:25 PM, Burzmali wrote:
At 1/20/2016 10:36:42 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 1/20/2016 8:55:17 PM, Burzmali wrote:
...

Even if an ERV is expressed and the product is beneficial to the host, that doesn't impact the argument. As I mentioned before, the ERV evidence isn't related to the idea of "junk DNA," as far as I know.

It is as far as favoring evolution over design. If ERVs serve a purpose, then design can explain their presence, and explain why you might find them in similar places in similar species. It's only if ERVs serve no purpose that their presence in similar places in similar species suggests blind inheritance and not intent.

Most evo's won't even consider design, so they don't proceed to ask the question of how design might be done. If you are willing to go down that path, you quickly see how likely it is that design of a multi-part system like the ecosystem will show shared features that will be very hard to distinguish from blind inheritance. Making something new out of something else is routine design activity in humans, so you get a sort of inheritance, but it's not inheritance through mutation and natural selection. It's deliberate inheritance and deliberate selection.

It's about where the segments appear, how they mutate, and the other ways they're affected and handled in the organism.

Discussing how design might be done, requires an assumption that it was already designed, or at the very least, assuming that Design was even probable, neither of which are substantiated. Science is a bottom-up process.

But im fine with "What ifs" and discussing things that are unsubstantiated. So, how do you even proceed to demonstrate that something is deliberately inherited and deliberately selected?
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/22/2016 5:33:11 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/21/2016 8:41:05 PM, medv4380 wrote:
At 1/19/2016 7:25:52 PM, Burzmali wrote:
Preface: I'm only interested in contentions about endogenous retroviruses (ERVs) from the scientific community. I never like to declare that anyone is excluded from a thread, so I welcome input from creationists. However, I'm looking for actual scientific criticism of ERVs. If there's an argument from Answers in Genesis that you think is valid, it needs to be backed by peer-reviewed biology articles and you should just link straight to those and present the argument yourself.

TL;DR - creationists are welcome, but I will not follow any links to creationist material.

With that out of the way, I've always found ERVs among the strongest evidence for evolution. The handful of times that I've mentioned them in the past, I've been bombarded with AiG links and other creationist blog posts about how they aren't valid. So I'm wondering if there is any actual scientific criticism regarding them in relation to evolution.

Why would you think that ERV's are evidence for evolution? All they show a virus can infect a host in such a way as to not kill it, and be transmitted via the germ line cells. I've never run into a creationist who though that mutation, or even viral mutation was impossible. They object to the all living things are descended from a single organism, and they object to one kind(Dinosaurs) mutating over time into another kind(Birds). In fact many of them believe firmly in evolution since it's the only way to get Noah's story to work. They just like to call it Micro-Evolution, and argue over the semantics of the word 'kind'.

Rejecting ERVs is like rejecting paternity tests. Sure, you can say "No, the reason this child shares 50% of my genome is out of pure coincidence." But everyone else with a brain and the ability to rationally deduce things, will understand that the child is highly likely to be yours, so highly likely that we might as well say it is.
v3nesl
Posts: 4,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/22/2016 7:27:14 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/21/2016 8:41:05 PM, medv4380 wrote:
At 1/19/2016 7:25:52 PM, Burzmali wrote:
Preface: I'm only interested in contentions about endogenous retroviruses (ERVs) from the scientific community. I never like to declare that anyone is excluded from a thread, so I welcome input from creationists. However, I'm looking for actual scientific criticism of ERVs. If there's an argument from Answers in Genesis that you think is valid, it needs to be backed by peer-reviewed biology articles and you should just link straight to those and present the argument yourself.

TL;DR - creationists are welcome, but I will not follow any links to creationist material.

With that out of the way, I've always found ERVs among the strongest evidence for evolution. The handful of times that I've mentioned them in the past, I've been bombarded with AiG links and other creationist blog posts about how they aren't valid. So I'm wondering if there is any actual scientific criticism regarding them in relation to evolution.

Why would you think that ERV's are evidence for evolution? All they show a virus can infect a host in such a way as to not kill it, and be transmitted via the germ line cells.

If an outside event 'marks' the gene, and that same mark shows up in multiple species, it strongly suggests that one descended from the other. It is indeed good evidence for evolution (or at least descent) if the story is as you present it. The problem is that there's no direct evidence that the ERVs come from such an external event. The alternate explanation is that both viruses and species where designed by the same designer and virus-like technology was useful to the larger species as well.

That's my understanding, anyway, but that might be worth what you paid for it.

I've never run into a creationist who though that mutation, or even viral mutation was impossible.

No, for sure, they happen. But observable mutations are statistically a net loss to species (we generally call them 'genetic illness' in humans), and viral code insertion is really a sort of genetics. ID'ers draw a bright line of distinction between manipulations of pre-existing information and the creation of new information.

They object to the all living things are descended from a single organism, and they object to one kind(Dinosaurs) mutating over time into another kind(Birds).

Right, and the former derives from the latter. It's really not a creationist thing, just a 'strict cause and effect' belief. We doubt evolution because we don't believe in magic.

In fact many of them believe firmly in evolution since it's the only way to get Noah's story to work. They just like to call it Micro-Evolution, and argue over the semantics of the word 'kind'.

As I say, there is technically a world of difference between juggling pre-existing info and auto self-creation. It's the difference between the random landing of heads or tails and having a third face show up on a penny. So this micro/macro thing, as presented by evolutionists, is a bit of a straw man, in my opinion.
This space for rent.
v3nesl
Posts: 4,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/22/2016 7:32:48 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/22/2016 5:33:11 PM, tkubok wrote:
At 1/21/2016 8:41:05 PM, medv4380 wrote:
At 1/19/2016 7:25:52 PM, Burzmali wrote:
Preface: I'm only interested in contentions about endogenous retroviruses (ERVs) from the scientific community. I never like to declare that anyone is excluded from a thread, so I welcome input from creationists. However, I'm looking for actual scientific criticism of ERVs. If there's an argument from Answers in Genesis that you think is valid, it needs to be backed by peer-reviewed biology articles and you should just link straight to those and present the argument yourself.

TL;DR - creationists are welcome, but I will not follow any links to creationist material.

With that out of the way, I've always found ERVs among the strongest evidence for evolution. The handful of times that I've mentioned them in the past, I've been bombarded with AiG links and other creationist blog posts about how they aren't valid. So I'm wondering if there is any actual scientific criticism regarding them in relation to evolution.

Why would you think that ERV's are evidence for evolution? All they show a virus can infect a host in such a way as to not kill it, and be transmitted via the germ line cells. I've never run into a creationist who though that mutation, or even viral mutation was impossible. They object to the all living things are descended from a single organism, and they object to one kind(Dinosaurs) mutating over time into another kind(Birds). In fact many of them believe firmly in evolution since it's the only way to get Noah's story to work. They just like to call it Micro-Evolution, and argue over the semantics of the word 'kind'.

Rejecting ERVs is like rejecting paternity tests.

No, it's not, another straw man from evolutionists. Maybe I do the Socratic thing and answer this with a question: If human cloning becomes common technology, will we be able to trust paternity tests?

The answer, obviously, is "no". So human DNA testing is reliable because we know the mechanisms of sexual reproduction, and know that this is the only means of human genesis. Evolution proposes a different mechanism, and one that has never been observed or replicated. So, determining unknown descent by unknown means - good luck with that.
This space for rent.
distraff
Posts: 1,005
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/22/2016 7:53:19 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/19/2016 9:19:12 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 1/19/2016 7:25:52 PM, Burzmali wrote:
Preface: I'm only interested in contentions about endogenous retroviruses (ERVs) from the scientific community. I never like to declare that anyone is excluded from a thread, so I welcome input from creationists. However, I'm looking for actual scientific criticism of ERVs. If there's an argument from Answers in Genesis that you think is valid, it needs to be backed by peer-reviewed biology articles and you should just link straight to those and present the argument yourself.

TL;DR - creationists are welcome, but I will not follow any links to creationist material.

With that out of the way, I've always found ERVs among the strongest evidence for evolution. The handful of times that I've mentioned them in the past, I've been bombarded with AiG links and other creationist blog posts about how they aren't valid. So I'm wondering if there is any actual scientific criticism regarding them in relation to evolution.

Well, if you're serious, you shouldn't start by assuming they are viral at all. This is a subset of the "junk DNA" argument: If there are sections of DNA that are indeed essentially useless, and this junk is similar in different species, then it does indeed strongly suggest inheritance. But if the junk turns out to be useful, then design becomes an equally valid explanation for their presence in multiple species.

And really proving that something is useless - that's pretty hard to do. I have this antique cabinet in my house. It has these hinges on the two sides. Bizarre, and a pain in the backside when you want to move the cabinet. But I recently found out that the hinges are there because the cabinets were mail order from Sears, so the hinges enabled the cabinet to fold flat for shipping. So a feature that seems like junk or even bad design had a valid purpose after all.

So scientists have to be careful: They've gotten burned on 'junk DNA' already. The fact that you can't figure out the purpose of something doesn't mean it has no purpose. And note - the fact that you can remove a feature with no downside does not mean it has no purpose. I could fuse the hinges on my cabinet and make it a better cabinet. But the hinges had a purpose - they were most definitely not extraneous.

And here's my problem with the junk DNA arguments in general: The coding efficiency and fault tolerance of DNA is so mind bogglingly sophisticated, that junk is the last thing you would expect to find, if you weren't predisposed to be looking for evidence of evolution. So it's probably another example of evolution slowing useful research into the technologies of life.

ERVs have nothing to do with whether or not they are functional. The question is how they got into the genetic code.

Here is a good source about ERVs and evolution.
http://www.evolutionarymodel.com...

ERVs are a set of genes that are inserted into a cell to take it over. Since this process is pretty uniform among retroviruses their toolbox or genes that is inserted into the cell is very similar.
http://evolutionarymodel.com...

The insertion consists of the gag pol and env genes which have specific sequences for the job they do. These are bordered by two identical line sequences which are really the original cell DNA that was ripped apart and matched with nucleotides from the virus.

We find many of these sequences in our own DNA and we see many of these sequences inserted into human DNA all the time. It is pretty obvious where this specific sequences came from.
v3nesl
Posts: 4,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/22/2016 8:16:50 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/21/2016 5:46:00 PM, Danb6177 wrote:
I thought that ERV's worked as promoters for genes. Hasn't this research been concluded?

Yeah, here's a link for anyone interested: http://creation.com...

I didn't realize they are some 5% of DNA, which kind of rules out the evo story right there, in my mind. Evolution always hits this catch-22: You need to find what-would-be-mistakes-in-design to make the case that life wasn't design, but selection must weed out what-would-be-mistakes-in-design or the species won't remain functional. So 5% random viral insertion in the string that codes an entire human? That doesn't seem possible. It would have to be more like .00005%, I would think.
This space for rent.
distraff
Posts: 1,005
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/22/2016 8:49:59 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/20/2016 3:14:12 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 1/19/2016 10:15:19 PM, Burzmali wrote:
At 1/19/2016 9:19:12 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 1/19/2016 7:25:52 PM, Burzmali wrote:
Preface: I'm only interested in contentions about endogenous retroviruses (ERVs) from the scientific community. I never like to declare that anyone is excluded from a thread, so I welcome input from creationists. However, I'm looking for actual scientific criticism of ERVs. If there's an argument from Answers in Genesis that you think is valid, it needs to be backed by peer-reviewed biology articles and you should just link straight to those and present the argument yourself.

TL;DR - creationists are welcome, but I will not follow any links to creationist material.

With that out of the way, I've always found ERVs among the strongest evidence for evolution. The handful of times that I've mentioned them in the past, I've been bombarded with AiG links and other creationist blog posts about how they aren't valid. So I'm wondering if there is any actual scientific criticism regarding them in relation to evolution.

Well, if you're serious, you shouldn't start by assuming they are viral at all. This is a subset of the "junk DNA" argument: If there are sections of DNA that are indeed essentially useless, and this junk is similar in different species, then it does indeed strongly suggest inheritance. But if the junk turns out to be useful, then design becomes an equally valid explanation for their presence in multiple species.

I'm unaware of anyone just assuming that these sequences are viral. There's a lot of evidence to support it, such as the fact that many (like HERV-Ks in humans) are still active and capable of altering the genome. What makes you think the ERV evidence is a "junk DNA" argument and that it's an assumption rather than a conclusion supported by evidence?

Did anyone see the DNA segment being inserted? Is there any way to confirm they were inserted by a retrovirus? If not, then when you use unproven conclusions to make further conclusions, that's 'assumption'. Don't understand, this doesn't mean it's unreasonable or anything, but it is assumption, and you have to remain aware of how far down the turtles go.

We can't prove that with observation but we can with logic.

Below is an example of retrovirus insertion.
http://www.evolutionarymodel.com...
http://www.evolutionarymodel.com...

Notice that in step one there are some DNA sequences (U,V,W,X,Y,Z) spelled out on the cell's DNA. Then in step 2 a specific set of genes meant to take over the cell and use it to create more viruses is inserted. Notice that some of the DNA in the cell is separated (U,V,W,X,Y,Z). In step 3 they are matched up with corresponding DNA from the virus and they are to the left and right of the viral DNA in black. Also notice that the left and right side are exactly the same sequence. These are called LTR sequences bordering the DNA insertion.

In the human DNA we find many of these specific retrovirus gene packets (R, US, POL, GAG, ENV, U3, R) and so we can know by looking for this specific gene packet that this came from a retrovirus. Also the LTR sequences on each side is the smoking gun that an insertion happened.
distraff
Posts: 1,005
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/22/2016 8:52:02 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/20/2016 6:37:56 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 1/20/2016 5:00:55 PM, Burzmali wrote:
At 1/20/2016 3:14:12 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 1/19/2016 10:15:19 PM, Burzmali wrote:
At 1/19/2016 9:19:12 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 1/19/2016 7:25:52 PM, Burzmali wrote:
Preface: I'm only interested in contentions about endogenous retroviruses (ERVs) from the scientific community. I never like to declare that anyone is excluded from a thread, so I welcome input from creationists. However, I'm looking for actual scientific criticism of ERVs. If there's an argument from Answers in Genesis that you think is valid, it needs to be backed by peer-reviewed biology articles and you should just link straight to those and present the argument yourself.

TL;DR - creationists are welcome, but I will not follow any links to creationist material.

With that out of the way, I've always found ERVs among the strongest evidence for evolution. The handful of times that I've mentioned them in the past, I've been bombarded with AiG links and other creationist blog posts about how they aren't valid. So I'm wondering if there is any actual scientific criticism regarding them in relation to evolution.

Well, if you're serious, you shouldn't start by assuming they are viral at all. This is a subset of the "junk DNA" argument: If there are sections of DNA that are indeed essentially useless, and this junk is similar in different species, then it does indeed strongly suggest inheritance. But if the junk turns out to be useful, then design becomes an equally valid explanation for their presence in multiple species.

I'm unaware of anyone just assuming that these sequences are viral. There's a lot of evidence to support it, such as the fact that many (like HERV-Ks in humans) are still active and capable of altering the genome. What makes you think the ERV evidence is a "junk DNA" argument and that it's an assumption rather than a conclusion supported by evidence?

Did anyone see the DNA segment being inserted? Is there any way to confirm they were inserted by a retrovirus? If not, then when you use unproven conclusions to make further conclusions, that's 'assumption'. Don't understand, this doesn't mean it's unreasonable or anything, but it is assumption, and you have to remain aware of how far down the turtles go.

So if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's still an assumption that it's a duck because we didn't see it hatch from an egg laid by a duck?

We've seen ducks born, that's how we know about duck eggs. This is the problem with the analogy: Evolution is a process never observed. It is only speculated that the observed reproductive errors can accumulate to produce novel species. So you can't say that it walks like a duck if you've never seen a duck.

We have also seen retroviruses inserted. If we saw a duck we can know it was born from a duck because we have seen this in other ducks. In the same way, we can know these sequences were inserted by retroviruses because we have seen this happen before with other sequences.
distraff
Posts: 1,005
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/22/2016 8:53:20 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/21/2016 10:39:20 PM, Burzmali wrote:
At 1/21/2016 8:41:05 PM, medv4380 wrote:
At 1/19/2016 7:25:52 PM, Burzmali wrote:
Preface: I'm only interested in contentions about endogenous retroviruses (ERVs) from the scientific community. I never like to declare that anyone is excluded from a thread, so I welcome input from creationists. However, I'm looking for actual scientific criticism of ERVs. If there's an argument from Answers in Genesis that you think is valid, it needs to be backed by peer-reviewed biology articles and you should just link straight to those and present the argument yourself.

TL;DR - creationists are welcome, but I will not follow any links to creationist material.

With that out of the way, I've always found ERVs among the strongest evidence for evolution. The handful of times that I've mentioned them in the past, I've been bombarded with AiG links and other creationist blog posts about how they aren't valid. So I'm wondering if there is any actual scientific criticism regarding them in relation to evolution.

Why would you think that ERV's are evidence for evolution? All they show a virus can infect a host in such a way as to not kill it, and be transmitted via the germ line cells. I've never run into a creationist who though that mutation, or even viral mutation was impossible. They object to the all living things are descended from a single organism, and they object to one kind(Dinosaurs) mutating over time into another kind(Birds). In fact many of them believe firmly in evolution since it's the only way to get Noah's story to work. They just like to call it Micro-Evolution, and argue over the semantics of the word 'kind'.

As I mentioned to v3nesl, it's the location and modification of the ERVs that is the key. Enji has gone more into detail, too. In retrospect, I probably should have posted a link to a primer on how ERVs support evolution.

Anyway, imagine a population of the hypothetical common ancestor of life on Earth. A retrovirus infects some members of that population. The provirus sticks in the genome and becomes just a regular part of the population's DNA, or an EVR. Fast forward a couple million years. That first population has evolved into a few different populations of organisms. One of those populations is again infected by a retrovirus that becomes an EVR. That population that now has 2 EVRs in its genome evolves into a number of different organisms again over the next few million years. Repeat until present day.

What you would expect to see now is that the first EVR is still present in the genome of all living organisms. The second EVR will be in everything that evolved from the second population. Plants and animals will have the same EVRs up until the point where plants split off. Etc. Furthermore, the EVRs should be found at the same insertion points in organisms that share them and they'll exhibit the same modifications up to the point where the populations split off. And that's exactly what we find. This is unexplainable in a pure design model. But like so much other evidence, it is well explained as part of evolutionary theory.

I recommend you read through my source and it does a good job explaining why this is evidence for evolution.
http://www.evolutionarymodel.com...
v3nesl
Posts: 4,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/22/2016 9:03:35 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/22/2016 8:53:20 PM, distraff wrote:
...

I recommend you read through my source and it does a good job explaining why this is evidence for evolution.
http://www.evolutionarymodel.com...

How about you read my link and then write a post that shows me you understood it?
This space for rent.
Enji
Posts: 1,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/22/2016 9:13:37 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/22/2016 8:16:50 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 1/21/2016 5:46:00 PM, Danb6177 wrote:
I thought that ERV's worked as promoters for genes. Hasn't this research been concluded?

Yeah, here's a link for anyone interested: http://creation.com...

I didn't realize they are some 5% of DNA, which kind of rules out the evo story right there, in my mind. Evolution always hits this catch-22: You need to find what-would-be-mistakes-in-design to make the case that life wasn't design, but selection must weed out what-would-be-mistakes-in-design or the species won't remain functional. So 5% random viral insertion in the string that codes an entire human? That doesn't seem possible. It would have to be more like .00005%, I would think.
You expect ERV sequences to be 100,000 times less likely than observed if evolution were true. There are less than 100,000 ERV sequences and fragments in the human genome; therefore, according to your expectations of evolution, you think there should be less than one ERV sequence in the entire human genome. In other words, according to you, the mere existence of ERV sequences disproves the evolutionary model. Of course, your expectations of what is possible have no scientific basis; you just pulled numbers out of your *ss.