Eric Snow, I have extracted text from your comment and placed them in square braces ([])
[The evolutionists' citation of ERVs are just one more tiresome homological argument.]
Evolutionists? Virologists, geneticists and molecular biologists, Eric. All of them. And this is not an example of homology but of orthology, orthologous meaning having features that are common due to common inheritance. This is not just similarity, but frequent cases of identical features, always found in precisely corresponding ERV locations, down to single base-pair locus resolution. They even have identical disabling (from the POV of a virus) mutations. Identical.
[One rules out God in the premises..."]
Who does this? I've never come across anyone in my many years of deep study of this subject. I refer you to Graeme Finlay as an example of a Christian preacher who is a world renowned expert on these and other genetic markers, and their value in research aimed at using this knowledge in exploring avenues for cancer treatment. https://barryhisblog.blogspot.com/2025/01/book-human-evolution-graeme-finlay.html
[Let's now examine more closely the philosophy of evolutionists here concerning ERVs. They maintain that some kind of similarity, in this case, apparent ERVs in the DNA, is "proof" that God didn't directly make the animals in question."]
Yes let's. Identical features, loci and mutations are a lot more than "some kind of similarity". Any impartial observer would use the word "identical". And even the author of Genesis 1 maintains that God did not make animals directly. He claims that the earth and the waters brought them forth. https://barryhisblog.blogspot.com/2026/02/magic.html
[ERVs and supposed junk DNA]
Again, nobody claims that ERVs are junk. Least of all do they claim that their being junk is a necessary part of their proof of common ancestry. This is a common creationist claim, always refuted, and one gets tired of playing whack-a-creationist-mole. See 'The Not Junk' Anti-ERV Defence (Fig Leaves), https://barryhisblog.blogspot.com/p/the-not-junk-efence.html
[The genes that were believed to be from a virus's RNA actually turned out to be solo LTRs instead, with no genes to replicate proteins with. Instead they are promotors that compose around 8% of the human species' genome that is found in all organisms, such as those in maize/corn. In addition, the LTRs, which aren't ERVs, are very important in functioning. They aren't junk.]
The majority of ERV are indeed solo LTRs, but there remain very many full or fuller ERVs which need to be accounted for. Anyway, solo LTRs are still referred to as ERVs with good reason. This is an inevitably technical point. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1_UU2oNVBeNoVwAEm8zuRV9igwQDDOXhHwblLGNHppCo/edit?usp=sharing "This article addresses the specific claim that solo LTRs are not derived from retroviral integrations, and evaluates that claim using genomic structure and known DNA repair mechanisms. I shall proceed by explaining that the genomic structure of solo LTRs is consistent with recombination-derived remnants of proviruses..."
LTRs are required by retroviruses to promote the host transcription of retroviral genes.
[The LTR promotors that were originally thought to be ERVs are crucial to the correct development of the fetuses of human beings and their immune system. They aren't non-functional. They aren't junk or useless. To claim otherwise is based on an a priori, rationalistic view that God didn't make anything.]
No. Syncytins, and not LTRs are the genes involved in producing placental syncytiotrophoblasts. These derive from retroviral 'env' (envelope) genes. Again technical, but if you want to know more, go to "A Dirty Little Trick" @ https://docs.google.com/document/d/1nfltQc8kSg38bCZvxX_8HgV7jYPHKVcUgT5ojEU7J6Y/edit?usp=sharing
Re. "God didn't make anything", I'm reminded of a report of a conversation between Neils Bohr an Albert Einstein. Einstein: God does not play dice with the universe. Bohr: Albert, stop trying to tell God what to do! Bohr was right. The "claim" is not that God didn't make anything, but that he could not have made things in the way that ancient, ignorant old men imagined.
[The alleged infections by viruses that supposedly created ERVs haven’t been observed.]
The Koala Retrovirus (KoRV) is currently causing disease among koalas and also endogenising. For other examples, see https://docs.google.com/document/d/1kW4MG4srsbFoQDp3mWJ842FFOSI2Y_D-k3lUVZKeVZo/edit?usp=sharing (AI response).
[Evolutionists assume that God wouldn't repeat a pattern or structure in many cases, right? Why is that? Let's hear a detailed explanation. Why are evolutionists as scientists talking about God at all?]
They are not. But if you wish to argue that ERVs were designed, there are a number of questions for you to answer @ barryhisblog.blogspot.fr/p/in-science-we-apply-principle-of.html
[Many times evolutionists end up "explaining" something after the fact, because historical sciences can't "test" and reproduce one-time historical events in the unobserved, prehistoric past...]
See https://barryhisblog.blogspot.com/p/whats-all-this-about-phoenix-virus.html
[ historical sciences can't "test" and reproduce one-time historical events in the unobserved, prehistoric past]
That's rich, coming from a creationist! Do you have anything comparable to the reconstruction of retroviruses from ERVs? How do you explain why the experiments succeeded?
No comments:
Post a Comment