Creationist Arguments Against ERV's

[lasthero]

The silence is quite telling isn't it?

It really is.

 

[SteveB28]

It really is.

So let us proceed without them......

My understanding in this area is quite recent. I wonder if Mr Loudmouth, or one of the others versed in evolutionary biology, might explain whether ERV insertions provide evidence in species other than the primates. Do we see a similar pattern of orthologous placement between members of other genera?

 

[USincognito]

So let us proceed without them......

My understanding in this area is quite recent. I wonder if Mr Loudmouth, or one of the others versed in evolutionary biology, might explain whether ERV insertions provide evidence in species other than the primates. Do we see a similar pattern of orthologous placement between members of other genera?

(trying a tag) @SteveB28

A quick search came up with this paper which has these interesting paragraphs.
http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/368/1626/20120503

The presence of orthologous ERVs in two or more host species implies that the initial infection event predates the divergence of those species [12]. Furthermore, co-divergence or co-speciation studies of viruses and their hosts can also indicate ancient associations. This approach, based largely on the study of extant viruses, and not a panel of ancient ERVs, has been used to indicate that some foamy viruses originated more than 100 Ma [13].

While there have been few studies investigating the age of viral insertions using orthologous elements, one study involved dating orthologous retroviruses in the European hare. The retrovirus, termed rabbit endogenous lentivirus type K, was found inserted at the same genomic locus across the order Lagomorpha, giving the element a minimum age of 12 Myr [14]. While orthologies were not used for dating, cophylogenetic analysis of a retroviral element discovered in the genome of a coelacanth gave an estimated age of 407 Myr for foamy-like viruses [15].​

 

[SteveB28]

(trying a tag) @SteveB28

A quick search came up with this paper which has these interesting paragraphs.
http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/368/1626/20120503

The presence of orthologous ERVs in two or more host species implies that the initial infection event predates the divergence of those species [12]. Furthermore, co-divergence or co-speciation studies of viruses and their hosts can also indicate ancient associations. This approach, based largely on the study of extant viruses, and not a panel of ancient ERVs, has been used to indicate that some foamy viruses originated more than 100 Ma [13].

While there have been few studies investigating the age of viral insertions using orthologous elements, one study involved dating orthologous retroviruses in the European hare. The retrovirus, termed rabbit endogenous lentivirus type K, was found inserted at the same genomic locus across the order Lagomorpha, giving the element a minimum age of 12 Myr [14]. While orthologies were not used for dating, cophylogenetic analysis of a retroviral element discovered in the genome of a coelacanth gave an estimated age of 407 Myr for foamy-like viruses [15].​

Thank you for that. So, it would seem that, not only is there conclusive evidence found in the pattern of ERV insertions within the primates for common ancestry, this evidence is replicated across a wide variety of species and genera.

Little wonder, then, that we hear nary a peep from our confident creationists............








.

 

[Loudmouth]

So let us proceed without them......

My understanding in this area is quite recent. I wonder if Mr Loudmouth, or one of the others versed in evolutionary biology, might explain whether ERV insertions provide evidence in species other than the primates. Do we see a similar pattern of orthologous placement between members of other genera?

USincognito did a wonderful job of finding that reference. Just one small addition.

I don't know if I mentioned it in this thread (I have mentioned it in others), but koala's are one of the model organisms for looking at current and ongoing invasion of a population by a retrovirus that is producing ERV's in real time.

http://www.biomedcentral.com/content/pdf/gb-2006-7-11-241.pdf

Of course, I find the psychology of the creationist mind to be quite interesting. We have heard that no one has observed abiogenesis in the lab, that no one has observed a new species evolving in the lab, and so on. This is used as a reason to reject both evolution and abiogenesis. With ERV's, we have all the necessary observations. First, we have the observation that retroviruses insert randomly into the host genome. Second, we have observations that consensus sequences for human ERV's can produce viable retroviruses. Third, we have real time observations of a retrovirus producing vertically transmitted ERV's in a wild population. And yet . . . creationists won't accept it. I think it is worth reminding them of this fact when they make claims about abiogenesis and speciation.

 

[mindlight]

Of course, I find the psychology of the creationist mind to be quite interesting. We have heard that no one has observed abiogenesis in the lab, that no one has observed a new species evolving in the lab, and so on. This is used as a reason to reject both evolution and abiogenesis. With ERV's, we have all the necessary observations. First, we have the observation that retroviruses insert randomly into the host genome. Second, we have observations that consensus sequences for human ERV's can produce viable retroviruses. Third, we have real time observations of a retrovirus producing vertically transmitted ERV's in a wild population. And yet . . . creationists won't accept it. I think it is worth reminding them of this fact when they make claims about abiogenesis and speciation.

You have not observed abiogenesis in the lab nor the development of a new species.

Observations of Micro changes associated with ERVs relate to tiny amounts of code in a vast sea of billions of combinations and do not change the fundamental patterns but do demonstrate the flexibility in the Creators design. Some people dismiss them as generating junk DNA but I do not believe that as I think there is purpose in all the code we carry. Their purpose may seem mysterious but it is either for the good or the bad of the organism. In the case of possible links with cancer there is a clear bad for example. That these changes may be inherited across generations for good or bad or that descendants may be equally vulnerable to insertions by different kinds of retroviruses would not surprise me.

I do not really see how you could see this as a proof for the theory of macro evolution - maybe you would like to explain that.

The fundamental difference between creationists and evolutionists on this matter lies in the assumption of common ancestry versus the assumption of a common designer in a fallen world. As the bible says you may inherit the sins of your fathers to the third generation or the righteousness of your fathers to the thousandth generation but we may all claim to be made in Gods image tarnished though it is.

 

[Loudmouth]

You have not observed abiogenesis in the lab nor the development of a new species.

Which has nothing to do with ERV's. Events in the past leave evidence that we can observe in the present, and ERV's are just that evidence. Past speciation events have left the evidence of orthologous ERV's for us to observe in the present.

Observations of Micro changes associated with ERVs relate to tiny amounts of code in a vast sea of billions of combinations and do not change the fundamental patterns but do demonstrate the flexibility in the Creators design. Some people dismiss them as generating junk DNA but I do not believe that as I think there is purpose in all the code we carry. Their purpose may seem mysterious but it is either for the good or the bad of the organism. In the case of possible links with cancer there is a clear bad for example. That these changes may be inherited across generations for good or bad or that descendants may be equally vulnerable to insertions by different kinds of retroviruses would not surprise me.

I already covered that in the first post. We do know the function of DNA in ERV's. They function as part of a viral genome. They include proteins that coat the viral particle and are involved in the insertion of the viral genome into the host genome. There isn't any mystery about this.

I do not really see how you could see this as a proof for the theory of macro evolution - maybe you would like to explain that.

Explained in post #6. When a virus inserts into the genome it does so randomly among billions of bases. Therefore, separate insertions should happen at different bases. When you find the same viral insertion at the same base in two individuals, then this is evidence that it was a single insertion that happened in a common ancestor.

The fundamental difference between creationists and evolutionists on this matter lies in the assumption of common ancestry versus the assumption of a common designer in a fallen world. As the bible says you may inherit the sins of your fathers to the third generation or the righteousness of your fathers to the thousandth generation but we may all claim to be made in Gods image tarnished though it is.

You don't have to assume common ancestry in order to determine if two ERV's are at the same base in each genome. You don't have to assume common ancestry to observe retroviruses randomly inserting into host genomes. You can do that in the lab. You don't have to assume that common ancestry can produce orthologous ERV's because you can observe it happening in real populations right now. None of the evidence is assumed.

 

[Doveaman]

The basic argument for common ancestry is that retroviruses insert all over the genome, so the chances of two retroviral insertions happening at the same base within a 3 billion base primate genome is quite low.

It only needed to happen to one man. That's quite low.

Therefore, finding a high percentage of ERV's at the same location in two genomes means that those ERV's had to be inherited from a common ancestor since independent insertions would produce insertions at the same base only on very rare occasions.

It only needed to happen to one man. That's very rare.

Such is the explanatory power of "God did it".

If God did it (which he did), that would be the explanation.

He did it by creating the first modern human from the cells of an ape, just as He created Eve from the cells of Adam.

Re-creation with modification.

 

[Loudmouth]

It only happened to one man, Adam. That's quite low.

We share over 200,000 ERV's with chimps, and hundreds of thousands with other apes, and fewer with more distantly related primates. It isn't low at all.

It only happened to one man, Adam. That's very rare.

All ape species, and to a lesser extent with all primates. Not rare at all.

If God did it (which he did), that would be the explanation.

Why would it look just like evolution if God did it?

He did it by creating the first modern human from the cells of an ape, just as He created Eve from the cells of Adam.

Evidence?

 

[Doveaman]

This is the analogy I usually use.

Let's say there are two people in two separate rooms, and they each have a copy of the Oxford unabridged dictionary. We ask them to randomly flip through the dictionaries and put their finger down on a random word, and to do this for 100 words.

When we compare the randomly chosen words from each person, what do you think the chances are that 99 out of the 100 words would match? Those chances would be pretty astronomical, right?

The same applies to retroviruses. Your genome has more than 2 billion bases that retroviruses can insert into, comparable to the thousands of words contained in the dictionary. The chances that two separate insertions will happen at the same base is not that great. The chances that 99 out of every 100 will happen at the same base aren't even worth considering.

Therefore, when we see two genomes with the same ERV's at the same bases we know that those were not produced by separate events. Instead, there was a single event in a common ancestor and the two genomes are descendants of that common ancestor.

Your problem is that you are relying on natural observations to explain a super-natural event.

What are the chances of a man being born to a virgin and rising from the dead?

 

[joshua 1 9]

I have seen several creationist arguments against the ERV evidence for shared ancestry between humans and other primates.

For Theistic Evolution shared ancestry is not an issue. We know that humans can tamper with the DNA. So there is no reason that Satan can not tamper with DNA. Meaning that this is all evidence for Creationism that says we live in a fallen world that is in need of restoration. Also there are Creationists that believe ERV's are used by God to serve a purpose in His creation that has not yet been discovered.

"More significant to the case for intelligent design is that this is a mechanism a designer could use to modify genomes – introduce a virus into the population which inserts genes that cause the spawning of a new species. So if anyone asks about possible mechanisms a hypothetical designer could use to intervene and direct evolution that’s a good answer. Human designers are already doing it so it’s a proven mechanism." http://www.uncommondescent.com/evolution/endogenous-retroviruses-in-the-case-for-common-ancestry/

 

[Loudmouth]

Your problem is that you are relying on natural observations to explain a super-natural event.

Retroviruses inserting into a host genome is a very natural event. All of the mechanisms given are observed natural mechanisms.

What are the chances of a man being born to a virgin and rising from the dead?

Where is your evidence that those things ever happened?

 

[Loudmouth]

For Theistic Evolution shared ancestry is not an issue. We know that humans can tamper with the DNA. So there is no reason that Satan can not tamper with DNA. Meaning that this is all evidence for Creationism that says we live in a fallen world that is in need of restoration.

So you are saying that Satan changed our DNA to make it look like evolution happened?

"More significant to the case for intelligent design is that this is a mechanism a designer could use to modify genomes – introduce a virus into the population which inserts genes that cause the spawning of a new species. So if anyone asks about possible mechanisms a hypothetical designer could use to intervene and direct evolution that’s a good answer. Human designers are already doing it so it’s a proven mechanism." http://www.uncommondescent.com/evolution/endogenous-retroviruses-in-the-case-for-common-ancestry/

Introduction of a virus after common ancestry would produce non-orthologous ERV's, not orthologous ERV's. This is discussed at length throughout this thread.

 

[Doveaman]

We share over 200,000 ERV's with chimps, and hundreds of thousands with other apes, and fewer with more distantly related primates. It isn't low at all.

All ape species, and to a lesser extent with all primates. Not rare at all.

You are the one that said it was low and rare when you said, "independent insertions would produce insertions at the same base only on very rare occasions."

It happened to modern humans and apes independently. So you were right, it's very rare.

Why would it look just like evolution if God did it?

I already explained:

The first modern human was created from the cells of a prehistoric ape, just as Eve was created from the cells of Adam.

Scientists would not have concluded that Eve was created from Adam. They would have concluded common ancestry.

Re-creation with modification can be easily mistaken for descent with modification.

Evidence?

Biblical history is evidence. And the fact that modern humans and apes share similar DNA is evidence that the first modern human was re-created from an ape.

 

[joshua 1 9]

So you are saying that Satan changed our DNA to make it look like evolution happened?

That is a theory that some believe. I actually have no problem with evolution per say. Some religions believe the whole universe started out as a seed the size of a mustard seed. Yet Evolutionists do not want purpose or intent, they want blind random errors to be the author of life.

 

[Doveaman]

Retroviruses inserting into a host genome is a very natural event. All of the mechanisms given are observed natural mechanisms.

Yes, and you are relying on those natural observations to arrive at a natural explanation for an event that could have been super-natural.

 

[joshua 1 9]

Yes, and you are relying on those natural observations to arrive at a natural explanation for an event that could have been super-natural.

To say life springs out of errors, mistakes, mutations and viruses does not seem natural to me.

 

[sfs]

Yes, and you are relying on those natural observations to arrive at a natural explanation for an event that could have been super-natural.

Fine. If it was a supernatural event, tell us what it was. Where did the 200,000 ERV insertions come from that are shared between humans and chimpanzees? Who put them there? When? Why? What other observations can you predict based on that idea?

We have a perfectly good natural explanation for why the ERVs are there. That explanation lets us predict all sorts of things, things that we later observe. You are offering to replace this good, working explanation with a supernatural "explanation" that explains nothing at all.

 

[florida2]

To say life springs out of errors, mistakes, mutations and viruses does not seem natural to me.

You have errors, mistakes and mutations going on inside your body right now as your cells divide. Indeed, it is mistakes and mutations that make you who you are and part of the reason why siblings aren't all identical. If we were all identical we would be highly vulnerable to becoming extinct due to disease. Mutations and mistakes are natural and essential to the survival of any species.

 

[Aman777]

Where did the 200,000 ERV insertions come from that are shared between humans and chimpanzees? Who put them there? When? Why? What other observations can you predict based on that idea?

The DNA and ERVs of the common ancestor of Chimps and the sons of God (prehistoric people) were inserted in the only way they could be inserted in the genome and that is sexually. Gen 6:4 Noah's grandsons had NO other Humans to marry when the Ark arrived some 10k years ago. http://www.fsmitha.com/h1/map00-fc.html Like Cain, on Adam's Earth, Noah's descendants married and produced children with the prehistoric people who had already been on our Planet for Millions of years before the Ark arrived, which explains the skeletons of them we find all over the Earth.

The evidence is inside the genome of the Seven Billion Humans (descendants of Adam) who are alive on Planet Earth today. Amen?