A Reply to Michael Head.

 
From https://www.facebook.com/groups/31425129128/posts/10167824225619129/?comment_id=10167824600564129&reply_comment_id=10167826514364129&notif_id=1777207616870365&notif_t=group_comment_mention

Michael Head says,

I bet you won’t put this on your blog:

ERVS DO NOT PROVE EVOLUTION - THEY PROVE A CREATOR

Evolutionists often claim that endogenous retroviruses (ERVs)—viral-like sequences found in our DNA—prove common ancestry. The argument goes that because humans and apes share ERVs in the same locations, this must mean we inherited them from a shared ancestor. But this is an assumption, not proof. Shared genetic features can just as easily point to a common Designer rather than a common ancestor. After all, when engineers build different machines, they often use the same parts in multiple models. Similarity is not exclusive to evolution—it can just as strongly support intentional design.

Creationists and intelligent designer spotters often claim that ERVs are not the inherited remnants of retroviral DNA integrations with host DNA, but were designed originally into our genomes. But this is an assumption, not proof. Indeed, it is a hypothesis that doesn't hold water. It is not possible to answer the questions that such a hypothesis naturally raises. 

a) What is reverse transcriptase designed to do? 
b) What is integrase designed to do? 
c) Why were ERVs designed with a viral codon bias?
d) What is the purpose of re-transcribable promoters?
e) What were the HERVs that produced Phoenix designed for?
f) What is the purpose of both exogenous and endogenous KoRV? 
g) What is the purpose of giving common ERVs common disabling mutations?
h) What is the purpose of giving some people certain HERVs and not others?
i) What is the purpose of creating different syncytia in different placental lineages?
j) Why would a designer need alter designed genomes?
k) Why use reverse transcription, an error-prone process? 
l) Why use integrase to insert potentially erroneous DNA in random locations?
m) Why did it take humans to create CRISPR/Cas9 for precise gene editing?

For a fuller account, with explanatory notes and links, see https://barryhisblog.blogspot.com/p/in-science-we-apply-principle-of.html

What’s more, ERVs are not useless “genetic fossils.” Modern research shows they have vital functions, including regulating the immune system, aiding in embryonic development, and controlling gene expression. If ERVs were truly the random leftovers of ancient viral infections, it would make little sense for them to be so essential to life. The fact that they serve critical purposes undermines the evolutionary idea of them being nothing but junk DNA and instead points toward foresight and planning.

Modern research shows that some components of some ERVs serve useful, and even vital functions for their hosts. This is research that has been conducted by "evolutionist" scientists (not by creationist "scientists" who, unaccountably, do not do this sort of research). These "evolutionists" do not appear to be troubled by their findings, publishing them openly, thereby, incidentally, giving the lie to the conspiracy theory that evolutionary science is a vast global multi-generational plot to pull the wool over peoples eyes, and giving the lie to the claim that this proof of evolution depends on all endogenous retroviral material being "junk". Components may have function, but never a complete, intact endogenous provirus. These would prevent development from ever occurring. The process by which genetic material is repurposed is called exaptation, recognised in other contexts as well as in the viral context. How much more likely is it that a useful genetic variant can arise from modifications to existing genetic structures than them arising from scratch?

See https://barryhisblog.blogspot.com/p/the-not-junk-efence.html
And https://barryhisblog.blogspot.com/2025/01/ok-ill-admit-it-ervs-are-junk-dna-well.html

When viewed through the lens of creation, ERVs make perfect sense. God, the Master Designer, could reuse effective genetic modules across different creatures to fulfill similar biological roles. What evolutionists interpret as “proof of ancestry” is equally, if not more convincingly, evidence of a Creator using His design blueprint across life. Rather than being accidents of evolution, ERVs highlight the wisdom and purpose woven into our DNA—reminding us that we are fearfully and wonderfully made (Psalm 139:14).

I don't think the writers of the psalms were familiar with molecular biology and virology.

——-

Scientists thought they found genes that were similar in chimps and humans in similar locations the explanation was that the genes were the result of an ancient viral infection in a common ancestor. This explanation ( theory) was based on homology between viral RNA and human DNA and the "fact" that these genes were non functional. The only logical explanation was that these genes were the result of a viral infection hence the name endogenous retro viruses. May 2021 the article Switching Sides revealed that the genes were not homologous with viruses but lacked all genes for making viral proteins but only promotors commonly found in all living organisms called Long Terminal Repeating segments called LTRs. The fact that these genes were non functional turned out not to be a fact. Due to epigenesis these genes are turned off after their job in the developing embryo is done. The experimental evidence is that these genes are vital in the proper development of the human embryo and immune system. The name Endogenous retroviruses is a misnomer these genes should not be called ERVs but LTRs

These are not "similar" genes in "similar" locations. They include absolutely identical genes and minor mutational variants of the same genes. And they appear, not in "similar" locations, but in precisely corresponding loci, corresponding down to single base-pair resolution. 

The explanation comes from the comparison of proviral DNA (integrations of reverse transcribed viral RNA) and endogenous viral DNA (ERVs). Again, it does not come from the fact, (but it is a fact without scare-quotes,) that much endogenous viral DNA has no function. We conclude that ERVs are of viral origin because,

1) The detailed structures of both proviral DNA and endogenous retroviral DNA are the same, and are oriented to, and only make sense in the context of retroviral replication.

2) Both exhibit the same viral codon bias.

3) Replication-competent retroviruses can be reconstructed from ERVs using a simple, objective reconstructive procedure.

4) We see the same proviral genetics in exogenous retroviruses, their proviruses in somatic cells and in ERVs

5) Proviruses and ERVs all exhibit the same distinctive genetic "scars" as one another, target site replications on either side of the integration site.

The above is all gone into greater detail at https://barryhisblog.blogspot.com/p/why-do-virologists-and-geneticists.html

Both placental genetics and the genetics for superinfection exclusion (re. switching sides), are present in non endogenised integrations - to the "benefit" of the retroviruses themselves and not to the benefit of hosts. See,

See https://docs.google.com/document/d/1nfltQc8kSg38bCZvxX_8HgV7jYPHKVcUgT5ojEU7J6Y/edit?usp=sharing 

and https://barryhisblog.blogspot.com/2025/01/superinfection-exclusion.html

and https://docs.google.com/document/d/1_UU2oNVBeNoVwAEm8zuRV9igwQDDOXhHwblLGNHppCo/edit?usp=sharing

——-

This is just a rehase of the 1970s studies that only looked at aligned sequences of the protein coding DNA. The non protein coding DNA is not non coding, useless, or ignorable. The non protein coding DNA is vitally important in the regulation of protein coding DNA. LTRs Long repeative segments of DNA are promotors not just gap fillers. ERVs once thought of as evidence of common descent turned out to be solo LTRs and were found to be vitally important in the development of the human embryo and immune systems.

——

You’re saying humans and chimps sharing 203,000 ERVs in the same sites is “concrete evidence” for common descent. But slow down—this isn’t the airtight case you think it is.

First, the claim itself assumes what it’s trying to prove. You’re interpreting ERVs through the lens of common ancestry and then declaring them proof of common ancestry. That’s circular reasoning.

Second, ERVs aren’t just “fossil viruses.” Increasingly, research is showing they have functional roles—in immunity, gene regulation, reproduction, and embryonic development. If they are designed features, placed with purpose, then their presence in the same locations isn’t “accidental leftovers” from an infection—it’s evidence of a shared Designer using the same genomic tools across species. Just like an engineer reuses code or parts across multiple machines, a Creator can use the same sequences across multiple organisms.

Third, the “exact same sites” line is overstated. There are significant differences between human and chimp ERVs—different integrations, different deletions, and different sequences. Evolutionary literature itself acknowledges
 That alone shows the story isn’t nearly as neat as it’s sold.

Finally, let’s be blunt: ERVs do not magically erase the problems with evolutionary theory. They don’t explain the origin of viruses, the origin of the genetic system that supposedly “absorbs” them, or how non-living viral fragments get harnessed into highly functional roles without foresight. To claim this is “concrete evidence” of evolution is like pointing to car parts in a Ford and a Chevy and saying, “See, they evolved from a common ancestor.” No—it’s evidence of common engineering.

Re. "circular reasoning", see https://barryhisblog.blogspot.com/p/isnt-this-just-circular-reasoning.html

incomplete lineage sorting, independent insertions, and functional divergence are all accounted for by the facts and the origin of retroviruses and of  the genetic system are irrelevant to the proof from ERVs. The only viable explanation for common ERVs remains common ancestry.

So no, 203,000 ERVs are not a smoking gun for evolution. They’re a mirror reflecting the assumptions you bring to the data. If you assume evolution, you’ll see evolution. If you allow for design, you’ll see design. But one thing is certain: this is not “concrete evidence”—it’s contested interpretation dressed up as certainty.

The only viable explanation for common ERVs remains common ancestry.

This URL: https://barryhisblog.blogspot.com/2026/04/a-reply-to-michael-head.html