Discussing ERVs

If you have come across this on Facebook, you will be far better served by looking at the version of this on my blog @ https://barryhisblog.blogspot.com/p/discussing-ervs.html because despite their resources, Facebook formatting facilities are barely beyond the teletype era. 

Here, I reply to a certain Facebooker responding to my posting of my FAQ on ERVs (Endogenous RetroViruses) @ https://barryhisblog.blogspot.com/p/endogenous-retroviruses-frequently.html, which proves common ancestry among different "kinds" of creatures. I offered to explain anything they did not understand.

In the formatted version, their response is indented and in black. My comments on their response are in red.

Their response begins, "ERV theory is not proven science."

Many, including myself, will agree that science is not in the business of axiomatic proofs as exemplified by mathematics. However, there are different meanings of the word "proven", one of which is "established as true beyond any reasonable doubt." See https://barryhisblog.blogspot.com/p/on-proof.html

My correspondent continues,

"ERV theory refers to the incorrect claim that the presence of endogenous retroviruses (ERVs) in genomes is definitive proof of common ancestry, or a strong argument for evolution. This claim is problematic because it relies on a misunderstanding of ERV function and the mechanisms of their integration into genomes."

"A more detailed explanation:"

"What are Endogenous Retroviruses (ERVs)?"

"ERVs are remnants of retroviruses (viruses that use RNA as their genetic material) that have been integrated into the DNA of a host organism. These ERVs are not actively causing disease like their exogenous (outside the organism) counterparts. They are often inherited in a Mendelian fashion, meaning they are passed down through generations like other genes."

"The Fallacy:

The idea that the presence of ERVs proves common ancestry stems from the observation that many species, including humans and other primates, share similar ERV sequences in similar genomic locations."

"Proponents of this view argue that this similarity indicates a shared evolutionary history where these retroviruses were integrated into the genomes of a common ancestor."

Here is the first error. What we refer to as "commonly located ERVs" are not in "similar genomic locations", and this is crucial. They are found in precise genomic locations, precise down to single base-pair resolution, and what is more, they are in precisely identical locations in a given species in every single nuclear cell (cells with a nucleus, which is most of them). The only viable explanation for this is that they are inherited.    

"However, this argument relies on the assumption that ERVs are entirely "junk DNA" with no function."

"Why it's a Fallacy:

ERVs are not just junk DNA:"

"Research has revealed that many ERVs have important functions, including roles in the immune system, development, and even gene regulation."

This is incorrect, and if knowingly spread, it amounts to a lie. There is no such assumption. In fact, it is "evolutionist" scientists, doing real science, and not creationist cargo cult "scientists", who have discovered function in components of ERVs - components, mind you, and never a complete endogenous provirus. They have published their findings in the peer-reviewed literature, only to be cherry-picked by creationist propagandists. Incidentally, this fact gives the lie to the crazy theory that there is a vast, international, multi-generational conspiracy to fool us all about evolution. See https://barryhisblog.blogspot.com/p/the-not-junk-efence.html

"ERVs can integrate in specific "hotspots":

There is evidence that ERVs may have a tendency to integrate into specific regions of the genome, which could explain why similar ERVs are found in similar locations across different species, even if they didn't share a common ancestor."

Yet again, discovered by real scientists doing real science and telling us about it. Hotspots exist, but they do not explain the precise correspondence of commonly located ERVs. See https://barryhisblog.blogspot.com/p/relationship-between-integration-sites.html. Only inheritance can do that.

"ERVs can be functional:

The discovery of proteins like syncytin, which are derived from ERVs and play a crucial role in placental development, challenges the "junk DNA" assumption and suggests that ERVs can be functional."

https://barryhisblog.blogspot.com/p/ervs-are-essential-in-reproduction.html 

"Evolutionary mechanisms can explain ERV distribution:

The endogenization-amplification theory (EAT) proposes that exogenous retroviruses can be incorporated into genomes and then amplified by reintegration of copies, potentially leading to the distribution of ERVs seen in different species, as noted by the National Institutes of Health."

"Alternative explanations are not considered:

The argument from ignorance fallacy is evident in this case, as proponents of the ERV as evidence for evolution don't acknowledge or explore alternative explanations for ERV distribution and functionality."

"In conclusion, the presence of ERVs, while interesting from a biological perspective, does not provide definitive proof of common ancestry. The assumption that ERVs are simply "junk DNA" is not supported by current research, and alternative explanations for ERV distribution and function should be considered before drawing conclusions about evolution." 

There are no viable "alternative explanations". Firefigting attempts have been acknowledged and explored, and found to be nonviable. See https://barryhisblog.blogspot.com/p/hasnt-evolutionists-story-about-ervs.html

I repeat my offer of explaining anything anyone does not understand. This should not be a competition, but a discussion aimed at arriving at the truth. Upon arriving at the truth, everyone is a winner.