ERV's: Evidence of Common Ancestory

I've noticed that when I have brought up ERV evidence in other threads that it is ignored by creationists.
I think ICANT was the only one to respond with the brief comment that he had a different interpretation of that evidence.This thread is the place to show how that evidence does not prove evolution to be true. How do creationists dismiss ERV pattern evidence?
If creationists are a no show on this thread, I'll take that as an admission that they have no counter argument and that evolution is true.Thanks.

Here is another list of creationist claims concerning ERVs.Page not found | ScienceBlogsMaybe it would be useful for us biology laymen as well as the creationists to hear the rigorous refutations to these various claims, spread out over time so that this thread can remain in the creationist's consciousness as something they apparently have to dismiss w/o rebuttal.Creationists! Are there no Davids among you to slay this Philistine?

Hi pcver,If you are no David, then this Philistine will kill you.. Did you ever watch the original movie, planet of the apes? When Charlton Heston asks Dr. Zeus whether apes would make a human doll that talks and says mama, there was proof of evolution even though the details were not known of how it took place.Likewise ERVs arise randomly in the genome. How can a random pattern be the same for two distinct created types?

quote:

---

Endogenous retroviral insertions - These are inactivated viral genes that were inserted by ancient retroviruses. In order for a retrovirus to be inherited in all members of a species many highly improbable events must happen. The virus must insert into a gamete cell, it must mutate so it is inactive, that gamete cell must be used to make an embryo that lives to reproduce and whose genome fixates into the population. This is a very rare event, and ERVs are usually species specific and insert themselves nearly randomly into the genome of the host. The fact that we share ERVs with simians is proof we share a common genome. Even more than that, phylogenetic trees can be constructed based on the pattern of ERVS, humans share more ERVs with chimps than either share with gorillas. This is extremely strong evidence for common descent.

---

referenceWhat are the odds that these patterns could be the same in unrelated species completely by chance? Creationists like to use the odds argument where it does not apply. Here, though, it does correctly apply.

No. When the human chromosome was sequenced, and a chimpanzee chromosome was sequenced we got incredibly lucky and picked two individuals that were more related to each other than to the rest of their respective species..

quote:

---

once a retrovirus has inserted into the germ-line DNA of a given organism, it will be inherited by all descendents of that organism.

---

ref
It's the result of genetics. You get your DNA from mum and daddy. That's how it works. Storks don't really exist. Longer than 6,000 years can account for their inclusion into the genome..

quote:

---

In humans, endogenous retroviruses occupy about 1% of the genome, in total constituting ~30,000 different retroviruses embedded in each person's genomic DNA (Sverdlov 2000).

---

ref
So 30,000 divided by 6,000 years = 5 ERVs per year entering the human genome for creationists! Yeah, that's possible..Please come poke some more fun at age correlations of an old earth. We need the entertainment. Science sometimes can be dull.

Here are some video summeries of logical fallacies. I believe yours is found in the 2nd, if memory serves. Lack of absolute proof does not mean that something for which the evidence is say 99%, proves the opposite since it isn't 100%. That one is called false dichotomy. It's in the videos as well.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zW8uO2P-YNE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NWNILsqpNqk&feature=related
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=trZBXuP3kIs&feature=related

Also, showing that two sources of information disagree about the amount of data, because one source is more up to date than the other or one is in error, does not disprove the argument supported by that data.Now that the number of ERVs is greater than my source claimed, my argument is even stronger - that 6,000 years is insufficient for ERVs to be explained by YECs.
And if you are an OEC it does nothing to explain why or how the same ERVs got into the same locations in two distinct genomes.Edit:
So is it true? You can lead a creationist to data, but you can't make him think.Edited by shalamabobbi, : No reason given.

quoting the OP..

quote:

---

As to the falsification of evolution, if you were able to find a sequence shared by gorillas and humans that was not found in chimps then the theory of evolution would be in serious doubt. Additionally, find an ERV only shared by orangutans and humans and not chimps or gorillas, you would again cast serious doubt on the theory of evolution. However, these potential falsifications have never been observed.

​

If they are part of some design process then they are ineffective in causing design differences in most cases. Also, a designer would not be forced to make the pattern of similar ERV’s between species follow what is found in the fossil record. That is, a designer would not be forced to follow the rules set forth by common ancestry and the theory of evolution.

​

The insinuation by some in the creationist movement that ERV’s are the fingerprints of design is not supported, nor is it substantiated by any data. ERV’s are random mutations and viral in origin.

---

When dealing with Goliath you are better off avoiding him altogether or slaying him. Poking just gets him annoyed.This reminds me of a group of kids that had a 22cal rifle and thought it'd be fun to shoot a polar bear. The bear was annoyed and ate them.

I think I get the gist of it but I am only about 2/3 through the free online MIT biology course and non of this has been covered yet, so I'm interested in more details if you are willing. It probably wouldn't hurt the lurkers either.I think that creationists only look into data that supports their viewpoint and think something is either wrong or incomplete about data that doesn't support their viewpoint, that the actual data available is as sparse as their awareness of that data, and that it is tenuous enough to admit of more than one self consistent interpretation. Edited by shalamabobbi, : No reason given.

It is possible to know that the evidence shows that evolution happened even though every last detail of "how" is not known. Yes, the fact that they are in the same locations has no other explanation than common ancestry. If you feel that God created them with the same ERV patterns, there is no reason for that except to make it look as though evolution were the method by which life came about. Genetic mutation rates are known and measured in the present. You have some mutations that make you different from the DNA obtained from your parents. This is proof in the present that genetic drift occurs. It is populations becoming separated that account for diverging paths leading to diversity. The fact that dead ends outnumber positive adaptations is a mute point as the best adaptation only needs to satisfy two conditions, viability and being the best available competitor.I am not sure how to react to your posts. You admit the arguments against you make sense, yet you do not seem to understand them. You make some counter arguments that are no counter at all really, but rather an indication that you are missing the point. Your view that God made us with ERVs is a last Thursdayism argument and is not evidenced at all. It is merely a religious assertion, and not a very good one at that. This is a science forum and is for discussion/debate backed up with evidence on both sides. Claiming God made the ERVs in place is akin to claiming Adam was created with a few scabs from wrestling with a bear a few days before he was created.

It could have been loss of a whole chromosome, which would also fit a creation model, instead of fusion which does not. Are you arguing that telomeres in the center are what makes us distinct from apes?Does creationism have any predictions? Why not ERV patterns in humans in similar positions with kangaroos instead of apes. That would disprove evolution. Why not more ERVs shared with more distantly related species rather than what is found? That would disprove evolution.Why did God choose to create things to look like evolution occurred? And then to the degree we can manipulate organisms make the theory actually work as well?Is this all of your argument? Have fun with your friends at the beach..

Not that it will do any good against the present display of logic, but I'd like to learn some more and lurkers will benefit. Maybe even pcver will attend as he swears the picture in my last post is not of him with his buddies. But if he were willing to follow the evidence he'd have to admit the attire is aussie..

There is absolutely no reason for species separate from each other w/o common ancestry to have ERVs that coincide in location in the genome. ERVs do indeed contradict creationism as the source of ERVs is known and are due to viruses. They are damage to the genome. To suggest that ERVs are created in place is not even logic, circuler or otherwise. You adopt that view of necessity because otherwise there is no way to account for the huge amount of ERVs in the genome. What sort of logic is that? Apologetics.. You don't even recognize when your logic works against you. If ERVs are never functional then that refutes ERVs being created.
If they are functional sometimes that supports evolution and refutes creationism as not all are functional, but are part of 'junk' DNA. If ERVs were created they'd ALL need to be functional, especially the ones that exist in the same location in different species.If you will argue against junk DNA then consider this. Onions have 5 times more DNA than humans. Amphiuma has 25 times more and a unicellular amoeba dubia has 200 times more DNA than humans.A total of 2.3 million letters of DNA code of mouse junk DNA was removed with no noticeable effect on the organism.
reference Amphiuma, which has around 25 times more DNA than humans.

quote:

---

The onion test is a simple reality check for anyone who thinks they have come up with a universal function for non-coding DNA. Whatever your proposed function, ask yourself this question: Can I explain why an onion needs about five times more non-coding DNA for this function than a human?

---

reference

quote:

---

the genome of the unicellular Amoeba dubia has been reported to contain more than 200 times the amount of DNA in humans

---

reference Really? Would suggesting that ERVs which are damage to the genome due to viruses are really created in place be 'slight of mind'? Is your avatar a self portrait?Edited by shalamabobbi, : minor punctuationEdited by shalamabobbi, : No reason given.

No. You are not thinking about the random nature of ERVs and the fact that they show up in the same location in different species. Maybe God does not have to create 100% functional DNA but is it necessary to place the ERVs in the same locations that fit a pattern that agrees with common ancestry?? You are forgetting the mouse. It had some junk DNA removed with no ill effect, so the analogy fails.

I think this shows that you are not being intellectually honest. Your argument does not address why there is more junk DNA in a less complex organism. Or do you just ignore points that are inconvenient to your POV? Not a vest per se, but the evolution fairytale forum is a thought/logic free safe zone for creos. But not believing in a young earth will put you in Satan's camp there I'm afraid - no invitations to barbecues.. Well, having accepted an old earth you are left with old fossils. So you believe God created life forms at various times in the past? One species went extinct, and God created another species to replace it. Then he put the ERVs in to the same locations so we'd be confused enough not to see what really took place? Did it occur to you that creating life forms that depend on each other to exist might be impossible except through the process of evolution, even for God?

Well if I couldn't answer and that makes me naughty, I'll leave what that makes you for others to answer..Usually when one lacks sufficient knowledge in an area they defer to the experts. Perhaps a wise course of action in all areas with the exception of the monetary system..I have sufficient grey matter for my needs and can recognize the implications of ERV patterns without the need to resort to last Thurdayism however far back that Thursday is placed in time, or how many Thursdays are resorted to.I am in the middle of selling my house and have disconnected from my ISP so only get a chance to get online occasionally now at the library. After the sale goes through I'll be living in the Sierra Nevadas this summer backpacking.Have fun everybody, and if we find that an afterlife is indeed the case, we can look forward to God removing the rest of the creationist's grey matter as the talent from the unprofitable servant, and redistributing it to the rest of us..