Question from Phil Owens on ERVs

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Ralph Thurlow on February 4, 2012 at 6:58am

ERV's should really be called "tranlocatable elements" because of their ability to shift position in the DNA.

From the information I have read, and IMHO, they constitute an amazing design feature in living things which allows rapid variation within a kind. God obviously frontloaded the various 'kinds' with internal mechanisms to enable them to create their own diversity so that they could colonise various, and changing environments.

The evolutionist argument that they are evidence for evolution is because they have a sequence similarity with retroviruses. This portion of sequence allows the retroviral/transposable element DNA to insert itself into another position on the DNA strand.

However the 'logic' of the evolutionist is very poor, yet they use the same argument over and over from antiquity(apparently they never learn!). .  The general claim is that because some things look or behave similarly, then they must have evolved from each other. However experience shows that intelligent designers often use the same predesigned modules in a variety of machines. For example a piston and crankshaft could be used in: an air compressor, a water pump, and an internal combustion engine, etc. Although some of their parts are similar, that does not mean they 'evolved' from each other without intelligent input.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Ralph Thurlow on February 6, 2012 at 4:34am

Getting back to the subject of ERV's:

Transposable elememts (also incorrectly labelled ERV's) have a portion of sequence similar to a portion of sequence in retroviruses - thus evolutionists say they WERE once retroviruses that invaded the cell and stayed.

But this is circular reasoning by evolutionists.  They are sequences with a specific purpose - to enable them to insert into different places in the DNA.  This is a design feature that is used in both Transpoable elements and retroviruses.  It has nothing to do with one becoming the other  IMHO.

For me it is open and shut case because I believe in creation. 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jim Brenneman on February 6, 2012 at 3:11pm

Ralph, On "Transposable Elements," can you help me out as a non-scientist:

Transposable elememts (also incorrectly labelled ERV's) have a portion of sequence similar to a portion of sequence in retroviruses

Please elucidate a bit on what is meant by ERV's, what does the acrostic stand for?

If I understand correctly you are saying that this is used by "Microbes-to-Men Evolutionists" to say that because different animals, different species share a portion of DNA sequence that this "sharing" is proof of a single origin?

But those of us who are biblical creationists recognize that this is, in fact, a manifestation or example of the divinely created capacity for adaptation within biblical kinds.

Then too, it is also merely a shared mechanism. Like lubrication on a door hinge, or within an engine, on the exterior of a fish, or an axle - the lubrication is a common design element, but it is no prove that the various things, living or mechanical have evolved one from another. As you said,

But this is circular reasoning by evolutionists.  They are sequences with a specific purpose - to enable them to insert into different places in the DNA.  This is a design feature that is used in both Transpoable elements and retroviruses.  It has nothing to do with one becoming the other.

Being established first of all in the truth of Scripture about Creation then enables you to rightly interpret phenomena observe by "science" in the realm of the natural world, as you said:

For me it is open and shut case because I believe in creation. 

We start with a belief in creation and then understand science in that light. We never take an idea of science and then try to build our understanding of the meaning of Scripture around such "natural facts." As often as not, these "facts" end up being revised by scientists a couple of years later. Then what happens to our biblical understanding?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Lou Hamby on February 6, 2012 at 7:01pm

Done!!!! :0)

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Mariana on February 7, 2012 at 4:58pm

Jim Brenneman said:

Please elucidate a bit on what is meant by ERV's, what does the acrostic stand for?

If I understand correctly you are saying that this is used by "Microbes-to-Men Evolutionists" to say that because different animals, different species share a portion of DNA sequence that this "sharing" is proof of a single origin?

"ERV" is short for Endogenous Retrovirus. In a nutshell, retroviruses work by transcribing a strand of RNA into DNA (this is the "retro" part) and then inserting it into the DNA of an infected cell. If the cell is a germline cell (one that leads to a sperm or ovum), then a child can be born with the inserted virus DNA in the genome of every cell ("endogenous").

This is claimed as evidence for evolution because there are many viruses, insertion is random, and there are billions of equally likely positions where the DNA could be inserted, which combined make the odds vanishingly small that two unrelated individuals would have the same virus inserted at the same place in their genomes. Furthermore, some of these sequences are shared between humans, chimpanzees, gorillas and other primates. If the identified sequences are indeed viral insertions, then they're very strong evidence that humans and other primates share a common ancestor.

The main creationist objections are that the sequences aren't viral to begin with (Ralph's objection), the insertion sites aren't random (increasing the odds of a shared insertion site), or that the shared insertions don't match the expected phylogeny (humans and gorillas, for example, share some ERV sites that aren't shared by chimpanzees).

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Ralph Thurlow on February 8, 2012 at 3:27am

Thanks Marianna,

 

So it is clear that you can look at the evidence through evolutionary glasses and see them as evidence for evolution - and you would call them ERV's

Or, you can look at them through creationists glasses, in which case you see them as a design feature to allow an organusm to adapt to different environmental pressures. They didn't come from viruses at all despite some sequence sinilarity.  In that case, you call them - "Transpoable elements"

IMHO the latter is correct.

Mariana said:

Jim Brenneman said:

Please elucidate a bit on what is meant by ERV's, what does the acrostic stand for?

If I understand correctly you are saying that this is used by "Microbes-to-Men Evolutionists" to say that because different animals, different species share a portion of DNA sequence that this "sharing" is proof of a single origin?

"ERV" is short for Endogenous Retrovirus. In a nutshell, retroviruses work by transcribing a strand of RNA into DNA (this is the "retro" part) and then inserting it into the DNA of an infected cell. If the cell is a germline cell (one that leads to a sperm or ovum), then a child can be born with the inserted virus DNA in the genome of every cell ("endogenous").

This is claimed as evidence for evolution because there are many viruses, insertion is random, and there are billions of equally likely positions where the DNA could be inserted, which combined make the odds vanishingly small that two unrelated individuals would have the same virus inserted at the same place in their genomes. Furthermore, some of these sequences are shared between humans, chimpanzees, gorillas and other primates. If the identified sequences are indeed viral insertions, then they're very strong evidence that humans and other primates share a common ancestor.

The main creationist objections are that the sequences aren't viral to begin with (Ralph's objection), the insertion sites aren't random (increasing the odds of a shared insertion site), or that the shared insertions don't match the expected phylogeny (humans and gorillas, for example, share some ERV sites that aren't shared by chimpanzees).

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Phil Owens on February 9, 2012 at 10:09am

I have since done a lot of reading on ERVs and was able to get a lot of interesting information. I still don´t completely understand the argument as well as many of the points in the youtube video that I provided a link to. The argument for ERVs assumes a common ancestor which evolutionists have yet to clearly identify. I find it striking that although evolution advocates strongly believe in a common ancestor and consider those who don´t uneducated, they are unable to to correctly identify the common ancestor. What they will do is give a long list of alleged ancestors for man hoping to doge the question. 

So for now, I insist that they get over that hurdle before going on to ERVs. Meanwhile, I´m going to keep learning as much as I can about the topic and  see if I can digest the points made in the youtube video. I did find one video that argues against ERVs being used as evidence for evolution but what I would like to see is another one that addresses all of the counter arguments put forth by evolutionists.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Phil Owens on February 9, 2012 at 11:34am

Guys don´t forget to take a look at the video  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-uNCDm-4tiQ   so as to specifically address points found within. Thanks

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Ralph Thurlow on February 11, 2012 at 11:09pm

I notice that the first three points made in the video are "god of the gaps" type points (where the 'god' in this case is evolution). He states, "The only known function for this sequence is in retroviruses.......therefore........evolution", but that is no different to when Charles Darwin said, "The only known function for appendixes is it's function in cows....therefore....evolution".

Whereas our friend on the video boasts three 'vestigial' sequences, Charles Darwin and his collegues boasted well over 100 vestigial organs.  However, as the gaps in our knowledge have been filled, EVERY ONE of the vestigial organs boast has been shown to be wrong. I have no doubt that, given enough time and understanding, each of these three 'viral-vestigal' sequence boasts will also be proven wrong.

P.S. And just to rermind you to be on your guard about the credibility of evolutionist presented 'facts', many of you would remember  an often cited 'fact' - "human and chimp DNA have 98.5% similarity".

But their 'facts' were fllawed because they were selected portions of DNA that they were able to align - then just threw away the bits that wouldn't align!!!!! However recently creationary scientists have repeated the experiment on a GENOME WIDE basis (I.e. including those portions that don't seem to align) - the result 86 to 89% similarity.

With such an enormous differnece between hiuman and chimp DNA, evolutionists MUST explain why supposedly useless 'retroviral' sequences would not have been mutated to the extent of being unrecogniseable!!!!! 

 

• ▶ Reply

▶ Reply to Discussion