https://barryhisblog.blogspot.com/p/hasnt-evolutionists-story-about-ervs.html
Sadly, no.
Common themes of creationist attempts to firefight the clear evidence for common descent from endogenous retroviruses (ERVs) are -
- Fabricating and attacking a straw-man argument that the conclusions from ERVs depend on the notion that they are all nonfunctional 'junk'. The claim is, (there is no way of beating about the bush), a lie. Creating and attacking a straw-man argument is an exercise in deception in itself. It is real scientists, not like those who would sign up to the Answers in Genesis Statement of Faith (which explains why I put "scientists" in scare-quotes), who discovered that some elements of ERVs perform useful, sometimes even vital functions for their carriers. They made their discoveries public and were rewarded by being cherry-picked, quote mined and misrepresented by creationists. None thought that function in retrovirally-derived sequences called evolution into question, because exaptation is a simple explanation for them. And so much for the conspiracy theory that "evolutionists", worldwide, and over multiple generations, are involved in a plot to pull the wool over the eyes of upright "Bible-believing" creationist cult members.
- Ignoring all the evidence that ERVs are derived from retroviral integrations into ancestral germ-line cells. Far better not to talk about that and distract the "faithful" with inconvenient facts.
- Positing design "rationales" for ERVs. Again, the FAQ addresses this notion. It just doesn't hold water.
I have gone into the above in more detail at "The 'Not Junk' Defence".
See
Were Retroviruses Created Good? A Critique. (Dr. Yingguang Liu)
Evolutionary “Junk” or God’s Tools? (Dr. Georgia Purdom)
On the Natural History of Retroviruses (Liu and Soper debunked by fellow creationist, Todd Wood).
Questioning Evolutionary Presuppositions about Endogenous Retroviruses (Dr. Anjeanette Roberts)
Toppling Another Evolutionary Icon, ENCODE Data Suggests Endogenous Retroviruses Are Functional (Casey Luskin)
Do Endogenous Retroviruses (ERVs) Support Common Ancestry? Yes, they do. (Dr. Andrew Fabich)
Viral Genome Is Bunk - Or Is Tompkins' Article Bunk? (Jeffrey P. Tomkins, Ph.D.)
Gorilla Genome Is Bad News for Evolution (Jeffrey P. Tomkins, Ph.D. eviscerated by P.Z. Myers, Ph.D.)
"Viral Genome Junk Hits the Trash" - More Trash from our Jeff
From a piece by one Dr. Sean DeVere Pitman, M.D.
On Luskin's “Large Scale” Function for Endogenous Retroviruses
On Doyle's "Large scale function for ‘endogenous retroviruses’"
Corrections to "Do koalas prove that humans got part of their DNA from viruses? - creation.com"
On an "Evolution" (fake) "News" article from Casey Luskin - Junk No Longer: ERVs Are “Integral” and “Important Components” of Immune Responses
Place marker. ERVs and LINEs—along novel lines of thinking
Place marker. https://www.icr.org/article/viruses-architects-brain/
Other articles
On "Reasons to Believe's" "A Common Design View of ERVs Encourages Scientific
Investigation"
Perform “Critical Cellular Functions” On a blog page from the fraudulently named "Evolution News"
Re. Endogenous Retroviruses and Evolution (Modern Synthesis) by "Apologetics Central"
Do Shared ERVs Support Common Ancestry? "Evolutionary Model's" response to "Jonathan M" at Evolution "News".
Re. Endogenous Retroviruses and Evolution (Modern Synthesis) by "Apologetics Central"
Do Shared ERVs Support Common Ancestry? "Evolutionary Model's" response to "Jonathan M" at Evolution "News".
The search for Adam and Eve. Mclatchie backpedals on ERVs, only not quite far enouh.
“Evolution's Best Argument Has Become Its Worst Nightmare” by Brian Thomas of the “Institute for Creation Research” - a Critique
Do Endogenous Retroviral Sequences (ERVs) Prove Evolution? Yes, they do! (Critique of an article at "Evolution Dismantled")
Does Retroviral DNA Insert Randomly into Genomes? More creationist lies at reasons.org
Who is Your Creator? - Endogenous Retroviruses (ERVs).
"If I were wrong, then one [author] would have been enough!" - Albert Einstein.
See also, On the Answers in Genesis' Statement of Faith. This is why I put creationist "scientists" in scare-quotes.
I was discussing ERVs with Ann Gauger of the "Discovery Institute". This was via Facebook messaging. As I was explaining the evidence to her, she asked me for references to the relevant scientific literature. As soon as I did so, she promptly blocked me! Regrettably, I did not save a record of our exchange.
And just for fun, here is my refutation of "NephilimFree's" YouTube video, "Refuting the Endogenous Retrovirus Claim of Evolutionists".
“Evolution's Best Argument Has Become Its Worst Nightmare” by Brian Thomas of the “Institute for Creation Research” - a Critique
Do Endogenous Retroviral Sequences (ERVs) Prove Evolution? Yes, they do! (Critique of an article at "Evolution Dismantled")
Does Retroviral DNA Insert Randomly into Genomes? More creationist lies at reasons.org
Who is Your Creator? - Endogenous Retroviruses (ERVs).
See also, On the Answers in Genesis' Statement of Faith. This is why I put creationist "scientists" in scare-quotes.
I was discussing ERVs with Ann Gauger of the "Discovery Institute". This was via Facebook messaging. As I was explaining the evidence to her, she asked me for references to the relevant scientific literature. As soon as I did so, she promptly blocked me! Regrettably, I did not save a record of our exchange.
And just for fun, here is my refutation of "NephilimFree's" YouTube video, "Refuting the Endogenous Retrovirus Claim of Evolutionists".
The argument for the ape family tree from endogenous retroviruses is one of my favourites, and is used in "29+ Evidences for Macroevolution", with which I am sure you are familiar
ReplyDeleteYes indeed, although Theobald is rather out of date on the subject now.
DeleteHave you read the articls you cited? Not a single one of them explains why, outside a design model, or how any ERVs could be functional. A fact, even your argument does not address. Also, I would challenge the claim that similar ERVs in different creatures "prove" macro evolution. That claim is not based upon observation, but interpretation and assumption. That claim starts with the assumption, evolution and builds the evidence around it. The argument simply ignores any other plausible explanation, like intelligent design.
ReplyDeleteThe fact ERVs exist does not prove common ancestry evolution, any more than do any other similar segments of DNA found in creatures. One must assume, there is no intelligent design.
I give you credit for citing ID and creation articles. It is notable that there are few responses given to those articles, and the few there are, are scientifically weak.
You appear to have a fundamental misunderstanding of the creation science argument regarding ERVs being functional. They are not, as you assume, just crearing a red herring. Their point is that ERVs demonstrate strong evidence of intelligent design. If they are products of intelligent design, then the claim they are markers of ancestry falls like a house of cards. This is McLatchie's point, which is also missed, Without considering and comparing how the evidence is interpreted under a design, instead of common ancestry model, you have proven nothing more than a preferred bias.
Any stretch of genetic information can become functional, because any stretch of genetic information is subject to the same probability of mutation as any other stretch. One way it can become functional is to receive enough mutations to become an influencer on the expression of a nearby gene.
DeleteNovel genes are created out of non-coding regions more frequently than one might imagine.