Creationist Arguments Against ERV's

[Aman777]

What does this have to do with ERV's?

I was replying to another's post. Would you have me ignore him because he doesn't agree with your religious view? Or are you just searching for something to report to the Mods?

 

[Loudmouth]

I was replying to another's post. Would you have me ignore him because he doesn't agree with your religious view? Or are you just searching for something to report to the Mods?

You are just trying to drag this thread off-topic at every turn.

 

[Aman777]

You call it that. Not God. Stop pretending you are God.

What does the above have to do with ERVs?

 

[joshua 1 9]

Do you still claim, there is only one biology text book?

I have never seen a Biology 2 book, maybe these classes would be considered advanced but they are just more specialized.

• ecology and evolution
• molecular biology
• population biology
• field ecology
• advanced genetics
• biology of behavior
• comparative biomechanics
• microbiology
• animal physiology
• aquatic biology

 

[Aggie]

"After the Fall, retroviral elements have been degraded by mutations. Retroviral insertion into the host genome also became deregulated, causing insertional mutagenesis. Deregulation of exogenous retroviruses resulted in pathogenesis."

Retroviruses only became pathogenic after the fall, not before.

Yes, I understand that, but that isn't relevant to the point. This might be easier to explain with an image. This seems to be their position:

According to this position, after the Fall, viruses and ERVs both diverged from the endogenous element that was ancestral to them both. During the time since then, ERVs have been mutated beyond recognition. On the other hand, the "trunk" of the tree would have been more virus-like, because it was a direct ancestor to viruses.

This is the position that needs addressing. I wish you could try harder to understand it, because your rebuttals to other creationist arguments about ERVs have been very good, but in this one area I think you're attacking a strawman.

It's all he's got. I've told him his sample was too broad and I've also heard exactly what you are saying. I'm happy you are refuting his view. I don't think Loud will change his mind because that would mean that he is wrong and like The Donald, he just keeps spamming the same old thing. Amen?

You shouldn't regard me as an ally. I'm not trying to refute his view, and I'm not a creationist. What I'm trying to do is get him to recognize more exactly what the creationist perspective is in this area, so that he can refute it more directly.

 

[joshua 1 9]

Where you come up with this stuff, is beyond me.

Actually I learned it from people like you.

 

[Loudmouth]

According to this position, after the Fall, viruses and ERVs both diverged from the endogenous element that was ancestral to them both.

Whether AiG makes the claim or not, I have had creationists on these threads state quite clearly that adding mutations to ERV's causes them to become exogenous retroviruses. That is the argument I am talking about.

 

[Aggie]

Whether AiG makes the claim or not, I have had creationists on these threads state quite clearly that adding mutations to ERV's causes them to become exogenous retroviruses. That is the argument I am talking about.

Do you have a rebuttal to AiG's argument, apart from that a few thousand years isn't enough time for the number of mutations that have accumulated in ERVs? The shortcoming of that rebuttal is that it leaves open the possibility of an old-earth creationist position, or a model where mutation rates were sped up in the past, along the lines of what RATE has claimed about radioactive decay rates.

I think AiG's argument is more important to address than the arguments used at this forum. The creationists here at CF don't have much influence outside of this forum, but there are a lot of people who take AiG's scientific claims seriously.

 

[bhsmte]

Actually I learned it from people like you.

Does anything you write come from yourself?

 

[bhsmte]

I have never seen a Biology 2 book, maybe these classes would be considered advanced but they are just more specialized.

• ecology and evolution
• molecular biology
• population biology
• field ecology
• advanced genetics
• biology of behavior
• comparative biomechanics
• microbiology
• animal physiology
• aquatic biology

Was this a yes, or no as to your claim of there being only one biology text book.

Take your time before you answer, I know it is a difficult question.

 

[joshua 1 9]

Does anything you write come from yourself?

No one is interested in what I have to say. They just want me to do their research for them to find out what the experts have that can be verified with research.

 

[bhsmte]

No one is interested in what I have to say. They just want me to do their research for them to find out what the experts have that can be verified with research.

Nothing you write comes from you then, you pawn it all off on others?

 

[Loudmouth]

Do you have a rebuttal to AiG's argument,

If they are arguing that species started out with these ERV's . . .

Their model does not predict a nested hierarchy between primate species for LTR divergence, overall ERV divergence, or the pattern of orthology. In their model, why would they predict that an ERV found at the same position in many primates would have a higher LTR divergence than an ERV found in just chimps and humans?

Their argument really doesn't touch on orthology, sequence divergence, or the other features that make ERV's evidence for common ancestry.

 

[SteveB28]

It is only evidence-free for to those who have never experienced the supernatural or are simply ignorant of it.

No, you said it was evidence-free. You asked why we would expect to see evidence of a supernatural event. How can something be "experienced" if there is no evidence of its occurrence!? (This is the point where you have to change your story)

The existence of theists going back even before the beginning of recorded history is evidence for the supernatural. The reason why theism exists is because of our experience of the supernatural.

The existence of flat-earthers throughout history is evidence for a flat earth. The reason why 'flat-earthism' exists is because we know that the earth is flat!

It's not our fault if you have never experienced the supernatural or are simply ignorant of it. That's your fault.

Is it also my fault that I have never experienced leprechauns or unicorns?

By showing that fat old men cannot climb chimneys with a bag full of toys over their shoulder.

By showing that humans cannot come back to life after being dead for 3 days, have I just disproven your claims about Jesus? How do you know for certain that there isn't a 'supernatural Santa', in addition to all the copycats, who actually does make night-time deliveries of toys to children?

The claims are based on the eyewitness testimonies of those who observed the virgin birth and the resurrection, and by those of us who experience the supernatural effects of God in our daily lives.

You should know by now that personal testimonies are the worst form of evidence. Oh, and please name those "eyewitnesses" who saw and recorded their testimonies about virgin births and the like.

Ignorance is not an excuse:

You probably don't see the irony in that statement, correct?

Equating biblical history with The Iliad demonstrates your ignorance of biblical history.

I see.
Both were written by ancient scribes.
Both include locations which exist, but also characters for which there is no independent verification.
Both include magical claims.
Both centre around tales of heroes and villains.

 

[Aggie]

If they are arguing that species started out with these ERV's . . .

Their model does not predict a nested hierarchy between primate species for LTR divergence, overall ERV divergence, or the pattern of orthology. In their model, why would they predict that an ERV found at the same position in many primates would have a higher LTR divergence than an ERV found in just chimps and humans?

Their argument really doesn't touch on orthology, sequence divergence, or the other features that make ERV's evidence for common ancestry.

What do you think of WinAce's original rebuttal here?

Many ERVs are merely fragments of code, which nevertheless include readily vestiges of identifiable viral surface coat proteins, which are quite obvious and expected for an exogenous retrovirus that needs to float around independently, but utterly baffling for one that resides within a cell.

In other words, they lack key components that allow real viruses to reproduce (as a side note, this is often, in the first place, a relic of a botched infection, one of the things that lets the cell survive in the first place).

If a sentence out of Shakespeare is inserted into an essay, one can ascertain the direction of literary borrowing from comparison of the works alone, even without the knowledge that the former wrote earlier. This is the same with ERVs and other out-of-place genetic fragments. They simply look like fragments out of the whole work, so to speak, deposited there by free-living ancestors, not the opposite.

To expand even further and bring in the heavy artillery, many viruses have complex, multipart mechanisms for subverting host immune defenses and injecting their DNA thru the cell membrane that their fragmentary, cell-bound counterparts lack.

The bacteriophage T4 virus has a head, tail, baseplate and a dozen tail fibers. The baseplate serves as a "nerve center" of the virus. When the tail fibers attach to E. coli, the baseplate transmits a message to the tail, which contracts like a muscle, bringing the internal pinlike tube in contact with the outer membrane of the E. coli cell. As the tube punctures the outer and inner membranes, the virus' DNA is injected into the host cell. (Source)

Needless to say, asserting that such things could evolve from mere cellular genome fragments is a stretch, especially so if one simultaneously denies the ability of evolutionary mechanisms to generate such staggering complexity.

Even though it's over a decade old at this point, I think this might still be the best response to the argument that viruses are descended from ERVs.

 

[Aman777]

You shouldn't regard me as an ally. I'm not trying to refute his view, and I'm not a creationist. What I'm trying to do is get him to recognize more exactly what the creationist perspective is in this area, so that he can refute it more directly.

Thanks for presenting the Truth. I NEVER have any problem with the Truth, whether it is from Scripture Science or History. Thanks for your help and God Bless you.

 

[Aman777]

The existence of flat-earthers throughout history is evidence for a flat earth. The reason why 'flat-earthism' exists is because we know that the earth is flat!

Amen, but NOT our Earth, it was Adam's Earth which was Flat. It was completely covered by the waters of the flood when the water was just 22.5 feet deep. Gen 7:20 Adam's Earth only had 4 rivers which ALL flowed out of the Garden of Eden, Gen 2:10 while our Earth has thousands of rivers but NONE of them flows from the summit of Mt Everest. Adam's Earth was "clean dissolved" in the flood. Isa 24:19 Our Earth could NEVER dissolve in water since it's a rock with a molten core. Here is HOW God made Adam's flat Earth, which was totally destroyed in the Flood:

In Gen 1:6-8 God makes a solid boundary or firmament to protect the interior of the firmament from the water into which Adam's Earth would be made. Water totally surrounds Adam's world. In Gen 1:9 God places WATER into the bottom of the solid firmament and then ADDS dry ground on TOP of the water and calls it the Earth. Gen 1:10 And God called the dry land Earth;

You too can make a model of a Flat Earth. All you need is a firmament (container). Put water into the bottom of the firmament and then put dry ground on top of that and wallah, you have a model of Adam's Flat Earth. Amen?

 

[SteveB28]

Amen, but NOT our Earth, it was Adam's Earth which was Flat. It was completely covered by the waters of the flood when the water was just 22.5 feet deep. Gen 7:20 Adam's Earth only had 4 rivers which ALL flowed out of the Garden of Eden, Gen 2:10 while our Earth has thousands of rivers but NONE of them flows from the summit of Mt Everest. Adam's Earth was "clean dissolved" in the flood. Isa 24:19 Our Earth could NEVER dissolve in water since it's a rock with a molten core. Here is HOW God made Adam's flat Earth, which was totally destroyed in the Flood:

In Gen 1:6-8 God makes a solid boundary or firmament to protect the interior of the firmament from the water into which Adam's Earth would be made. Water totally surrounds Adam's world. In Gen 1:9 God places WATER into the bottom of the solid firmament and then ADDS dry ground on TOP of the water and calls it the Earth. Gen 1:10 And God called the dry land Earth;

You too can make a model of a Flat Earth. All you need is a firmament (container). Put water into the bottom of the firmament and then put dry ground on top of that and wallah, you have a model of Adam's Flat Earth. Amen?

Oh dear.

There really is no response to that, is there?

 

[Aman777]

Oh dear.

There really is no response to that, is there?

Sure there is. You could say that you believe God's Holy Word because the Spirit of Truth is the Author. Amen?

 

[SteveB28]

Sure there is. You could say that you believe God's Holy Word because the Spirit of Truth is the Author. Amen?

Or I could go somewhere and watch some paint drying.