Have any creationists...

Pete Harcoff · Feb 23, 2003

...actually tackled the issue of shared endogenous retroviruses between humans and chimps?

I went and did some searches at ICR and AIG and came up with nothing (other than a couple passing references).

I also did a Google search and came up with nada. I find it amazing that such an obvious piece of evidence for comment decent is being so blatantly ignored by creationists.

RufusAtticus · Feb 23, 2003

Wouldn't be the first time.

LewisWildermuth · Feb 23, 2003

Wow, imagine that, creationists ignoring evidence, who would have thought that they would have?

webboffin · Feb 23, 2003

good so we have proof

judge · Feb 24, 2003

Today at 12:07 AM Pete Harcoff said this in Post #1

...actually tackled the issue of shared endogenous retroviruses between humans and chimps?

I went and did some searches at ICR and AIG and came up with nothing (other than a couple passing references).

I also did a Google search and came up with nada. I find it amazing that such an obvious piece of evidence for comment decent is being so blatantly ignored by creationists.

 

I haven't read much stuff from AIG or ICR(on any topic), but I did see this topic looked at on the evcforum. I would say you are probably correct that this issue has not been tackled much by creationists though.

Anyway check out this discussion you may find it of interest.

http://www.evcforum.net/ubb/Forum5/HTML/000035-3.html

Basically Dr Borger argues that if we examine these common similarities (such as shared endogenous retroviruses) in detail we begin to see some rhyme and reason rather than pure randomness.

 

Let me know what you think
  

 

chickenman · Feb 24, 2003

borger is insane is what I think

he thinks directed mutations "give the illusion" of common descent

its just a shame he has no empirical evidence of directed mutations

judge · Feb 24, 2003

Today at 09:14 AM chickenman said this in Post #6

borger is insane is what I think

 

Insane?...yikes. Can't have that, I will alert the authorities immediately. Thanks for the tip

Jerry Smith · Feb 24, 2003

Today at 03:55 AM judge said this in Post #5 

I haven't read much stuff from AIG or ICR(on any topic), but I did see this topic looked at on the evcforum. I would say you are probably correct that this issue has not been tackled much by creationists though.

Anyway check out this discussion you may find it of interest.

http://www.evcforum.net/ubb/Forum5/HTML/000035-3.html

Basically Dr Borger argues that if we examine these common similarities (such as shared endogenous retroviruses) in detail we begin to see some rhyme and reason rather than pure randomness. 

 
Let me know what you think

What I think is that Borger is straining at gnats & swallowing camels. Note that he never gives a creationist explanation for shared ERV's. His posts decry the "unproven" status of the claim that ERV's do not have function. Well, it is conceivable that ERV's might gain function down the line, but it is inconceivable that God made almost-working humans de novo from clay and then waited for a virus to install the finishing touches.Gork!!

He asks for complete genome comparisons before "jumping to conclusions". At best, it seems a stall for time so he can think of some other explanation, at worst he is maybe hoping that this will only be accomplished after he is gone, and ERV's will be "someone else's problem" by then. Since ERV's are localized within the genome, the complaint that we lack some genomic data seems to be a red herring.

I won't critique his post on the GLO pseudogene since it isn't the subject of the thread, but: !!!!!!!!! It "violates population genetics." Gork! (Like he cares anyway).

He claims that something in Spetner's book takes on shared ERV's. I sure hope Spetner did a better job than Borger, because Borger didn't have enough obfuscation to even cover ERV's & had to cover with handwaving about the GLO pseudogene. I might just have to find a used copy of Spetner to see what he has to say about ERV's.

Pete Harcoff · Feb 24, 2003

I checked up on trueorigins.org critique of the 29+ evidences for macroevolution article from talk.origins.

On the subject of endogenous retroviruses, they had these little tidbits:

"Again, it is an unprovable theological assertion that God would not place the same nonfunctional sequences at the same locus in separate species. He may have a purpose for doing so that is beyond our present understanding."

Further down the line:

"Of course, if ERV sequences have a function, then God may have had a functional reason for initially placing them at the same chromosomal location in separately created species. He also may have had a functional reason for designing a system to favor the insertion of certain ERV sequences at certain loci. In other words, maybe retroviruses are a corruption of an original complex system that was designed to facilitate diversification within kinds."

Pure, utter speculation. Talk about grasping at straws...

lucaspa · Feb 24, 2003

Today at 01:42 PM Pete Harcoff said this in Post #9

I checked up on trueorigins.org critique of the 29+ evidences for macroevolution article from talk.origins.

On the subject of endogenous retroviruses, they had these little tidbits:

"Again, it is an unprovable theological assertion that God would not place the same nonfunctional sequences at the same locus in separate species. He may have a purpose for doing so that is beyond our present understanding."

Further down the line:

"Of course, if ERV sequences have a function, then God may have had a functional reason for initially placing them at the same chromosomal location in separately created species. He also may have had a functional reason for designing a system to favor the insertion of certain ERV sequences at certain loci. In other words, maybe retroviruses are a corruption of an original complex system that was designed to facilitate diversification within kinds."

Pure, utter speculation. Talk about grasping at straws...

1. This looks like a variant on the Appearance of Age argument.  And the same theological objections arise.  These ERVs just happen to look like common ancestry.  The quotes do not explain why crickets don't have the same ERV sequences as humans.  After all, if we are only dealing with separate creations, then there is no reason for chimps to have the same ERVs as humans but no other species.

2. The arguments violate the basic hypothesis that organisms are designed.  What we have is that the Designer supposedly put in non-functional parts to his watch.  This is why they beg for a supposed function.

ardipithecus · Feb 24, 2003

The Plagiarized Errors and Molecular Genetics FAQ at The Talk.Origins Archive links to a few creationist responses.

WinAce · Feb 24, 2003

This is probably the single most powerful argument for common descent I've ever seen in my life. Creationists unfamiliar with it run screaming in terror from the room when it's presented. For those that have a bit of an open mind, it's pretty much the 'snap out of it' evidence.

I wouldn't even say the problem is non-functionality, but that of viral insertions being a very well-documented process. In effect, arguing for their insertion by God is the equivalent of seeing a dead body with a gunshot wound and arguing that ghosts might have had a reason for making it look like a bullet wound - massively unparsimonious in the face of a natural process known to produce such effects.

judge · Feb 24, 2003

Today at 02:12 AM WinAce said this in Post #12

This is probably the single most powerful argument for common descent I've ever seen in my life. Creationists unfamiliar with it run screaming in terror from the room when it's presented. For those that have a bit of an open mind, it's pretty much the 'snap out of it' evidence.

I wouldn't even say the problem is non-functionality, but that of viral insertions being a very well-documented process. In effect, arguing for their insertion by God is the equivalent of seeing a dead body with a gunshot wound and arguing that ghosts might have had a reason for making it look like a bullet wound - massively unparsimonious in the face of a natural process known to produce such effects.

 

I haven't read the trueorigins article , but I did see the following quote lifted from it in a previous post in this thread.

<B>"He also may have had a functional reason</B> for designing a system to favor the insertion of certain ERV sequences at certain loci. In other words, <B>maybe</B> retroviruses are a corruption of an original complex system that was designed to facilitate diversification within kinds."

As you can probably see this is arguing that these sequences are the result of a "natural" process.

Arguing that God created things already in this condition is IMO silly. But arguing that they are the result of a natural process that favors their insertion at certain loci is not silly IMO

judge · Feb 24, 2003

Yesterday at 11:49 AM Jerry Smith said this in Post #8

What I think is that Borger is straining at gnats & swallowing camels. Note that he never gives a creationist explanation for shared ERV's. His posts decry the "unproven" status of the claim that ERV's do not have function. Well, it is conceivable that ERV's might gain function down the line, but it is inconceivable that God made almost-working humans de novo from clay and then waited for a virus to install the finishing touches.Gork!!

 

Hi Jerry,

Firstly I saw that ladyshea had posted something you had written here on another thread. 5 points I think(?) I thought it looked well written and I saved it and hope to come back when I have digested it with some comments or questions.

I don't think Dr Borger is arguing that a virus installed the finishing touches though. Perhaps there are creationists who argue this way. If there are I am not familiar with these arguments

But I do think this is a silly way for a creationist to argue . 

 
Anyway I hope to come back after I have digested the stuff ladyshea(?) posted (I hope I have this right). Was it from a thread still active? 

I have read a little of Peter Borgers posts on evcforum and whilst he only breifly touchs on retroviruses, I suspect his explanation would be that these sites are favoured in some way.

Pete Harcoff · Feb 24, 2003

Today at 10:22 PM judge said this in Post #13 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=674167#post674167)

As you can probably see this is arguing that these sequences are the result of a "natural" process.

Arguing that God created things already in this condition is IMO silly. But arguing that they are the result of a natural process that favors their insertion at certain loci is not silly IMO

Even if retroviral insertions are favored for specific insertion points, I'm still wondering what the odds of ending up with identical retroviral insertions in both chimp and human genome at the same loci, and more than once, if such things had to occur independently in both organisms.

judge · Feb 24, 2003

Today at 03:47 AM Pete Harcoff said this in Post #15

Even if retroviral insertions are favored for specific insertion points, I'm still wondering what the odds of ending up with identical retroviral insertions in both chimp and human genome at the same loci, and more than once, if such things had to occur independently in both organisms.

 

Yes, Peter I'm wondering the same thing. What do you think might be the best way to estimate the chances.

How do we put this improbability into hard figures?

Pete Harcoff · Feb 24, 2003

Today at 10:52 PM judge said this in Post #16 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=674231#post674231)

 

Yes, Peter I'm wondering the same thing. What do you think might be the best way to estimate the chances.

How do we put this improbability into hard figures?

That would be up to a molecular biologist. But, if this is a valid argument against using shared endogenous retroviruses as evidence of common descent, then I would think creationist organizations like AIG, ICR, etc, would have already lept all over it. Yet, they seem to have completely avoided the subject.

JohnR7 · Feb 24, 2003

Yesterday at 07:07 PM Pete Harcoff said this in Post #1  I find it amazing that such an obvious piece of evidence for comment decent is being so blatantly ignored by creationists.

Why do you find it "amazing"? Creationism is a theology issue. What your talking about here looks like something to do with Biology. Theology students do not usually study biology and biology students do not usually study theology.

xtiangal · Feb 24, 2003

First off, since all that is was made by God through and for Jesus "and
without Him was not made anything that was made," nothing can be
used as an argument against god's creation of it, merely that God uses
more options than our finite minds understand.

Secondly, never forget Genesis 3! The curse on various things incl. the
land itself and plants, modifying many into something undesirable. Viruses
etc. could be a case in point, a modification that came either from the
curse as part of its playing out, or was a means to make it work.

Thirdly, viral transferring of genes doesn't say anything about how
distinct the entities whose genes get swapped were or were not at
their origin (differeng kinds).

Fourthly, saying that God uses the viral transfer of genes to engineer
changes and stuff is NOT analogous to saying that ghosts made a body
with gunshot wounds appear to have been shot but he wasn't really -
this is not the old argument of apparent age, but rather something quite
else. An argument about means to results, not about the results
itself.

Pete Harcoff · Feb 24, 2003

Today at 11:28 PM JohnR7 said this in Post #18 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=674298#post674298)

Why do you find it "amazing"? Creationism is a theology issue. What your talking about here looks like something to do with Biology. Theology students do not usually study biology and biology students do not usually study theology.

Really? Well, could you please tell that to AIG, ICR, etc, since they often confuse the two on a regular basis.

Have any creationists...

PeteAce - In memory of WinAce

PopGen Grad Student

Senior Veteran

NOT APPLICABLE

Regular Member

evil unamerican

Regular Member

Fish out of water

PeteAce - In memory of WinAce

Legend

Active Member

Just an old legend...

Regular Member

Regular Member

PeteAce - In memory of WinAce

Regular Member

PeteAce - In memory of WinAce

Well-Known Member

Newbie

PeteAce - In memory of WinAce

Similar threads