What do some the YE and Creationists have to say about the endegenous retrovirus that we share with apes and how they have this common gene in the exact location as they do?
Veteran
What do some the YE and Creationists have to say about the endegenous retrovirus that we share with apes and how they have this common gene in the exact location as they do?
Veteran
Have you asked any YECs? I'm referring to experts in their fields...
If not I can help you find lots of YECs who specialize in exactly the question you've asked. Isn't that amazingly fortunate? It's almost as fortunate as being in a foreign country where you don't speak the language and you're feeling very sick and you're panicking and if you don't get any help you'll surely die and you decide to ask for help and the first person you ask is someone who happens to speak your language and is able to point you to the exact house where a whole bunch of doctors are gathered. If you're really seeking answers then getting them is fortunate indeed, just like if you're geniunely sick, finding a doctor would be fortunate...
Just go to http://creation.com/answers, there's plenty of YECs there.
If you want to see what they have to say about your question, you can read these articles on the topic.
http://creation.com/article/6399
If you don't agree with their articles let them know, they claim to be more than happy to answer intelligent questions. Please post an update here of how it went. I'd love to know.
Regular Contributor
***
It may be as simple as a common Creator.
guest
Large scale function for ‘endogenous retroviruses’ by Shaun Doyle
Excerpt
Researchers have recently identified an important function for a large proportion of the human genome that has been labeled as ERVs….ERVs aid transcription in over one fifth of the human genome! ‘These data illustrate the potential of retroviral sequences to regulate human transcription on a large scale consistent with a substantial effect of ERVs on the function and evolution of the human genome.’ This again debunks the idea that 98% of the human genome is junk, and it makes the inserted evolutionary spin look like a tacked-on nod to the evolutionary establishment. These results support the conclusions of the ENCODE project, which found that at least 93% of DNA was transcribed into RNA.
Evolutionists have used shared mistakes in ‘junk DNA’ as ‘proof’ that humans and chimps have a common ancestor. However, if the similar sequences are functional, which they are progressively proving to be, their argument evaporates.
It seems that evolutionist Dr John Mattick, director of the Institute for Molecular Bioscience at the University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia, was spot on in his assessment of the gravity of the ‘junk DNA’ error:
‘The failure to recognize the full implications of this—particularly the possibility that the intervening noncoding sequences may be transmitting parallel information … may well go down as one of the biggest mistakes in the history of molecular biology.’Both biblical creationists and ID proponents predicted that transposable elements, such as ‘endogenous retroviruses’, would have a function. In 2000, creationist molecular biologist Linda Walkup proposed that God could have created transposable elements to facilitate variation (adaptation) within biblical kinds.
If the ‘junk DNA’ is not junk, then it puts a big spanner in the work of molecular taxonomists, who assumed that ‘junk DNA’ was free to mutate at random, unconstrained by the requirements of functionality. As Williams points out:‘The molecular taxonomists, who have been drawing up evolutionary histories (“phylogenies”) for nearly every kind of life, are going to have to undo all their years of “junk DNA”-based historical reconstructions and wait for the full implications to emerge before they try again.’
http://creation.com/large-scale-func...s-retroviruses
Veteran
How come only us and the apes have them?Originally Posted by losthorizon
Large scale function for ‘endogenous retroviruses’ by Shaun Doyle
Excerpt
Researchers have recently identified an important function for a large proportion of the human genome that has been labeled as ERVs….ERVs aid transcription in over one fifth of the human genome! ‘These data illustrate the potential of retroviral sequences to regulate human transcription on a large scale consistent with a substantial effect of ERVs on the function and evolution of the human genome.’ This again debunks the idea that 98% of the human genome is junk, and it makes the inserted evolutionary spin look like a tacked-on nod to the evolutionary establishment. These results support the conclusions of the ENCODE project, which found that at least 93% of DNA was transcribed into RNA.
Evolutionists have used shared mistakes in ‘junk DNA’ as ‘proof’ that humans and chimps have a common ancestor. However, if the similar sequences are functional, which they are progressively proving to be, their argument evaporates.
It seems that evolutionist Dr John Mattick, director of the Institute for Molecular Bioscience at the University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia, was spot on in his assessment of the gravity of the ‘junk DNA’ error:
‘The failure to recognize the full implications of this—particularly the possibility that the intervening noncoding sequences may be transmitting parallel information … may well go down as one of the biggest mistakes in the history of molecular biology.’Both biblical creationists and ID proponents predicted that transposable elements, such as ‘endogenous retroviruses’, would have a function. In 2000, creationist molecular biologist Linda Walkup proposed that God could have created transposable elements to facilitate variation (adaptation) within biblical kinds.
If the ‘junk DNA’ is not junk, then it puts a big spanner in the work of molecular taxonomists, who assumed that ‘junk DNA’ was free to mutate at random, unconstrained by the requirements of functionality. As Williams points out:
‘The molecular taxonomists, who have been drawing up evolutionary histories (“phylogenies”) for nearly every kind of life, are going to have to undo all their years of “junk DNA”-based historical reconstructions and wait for the full implications to emerge before they try again.’http://creation.com/large-scale-func...s-retroviruses
guest
Because of genetic similarities of course. ERVs are *evidence for design* and as such we would expect to see humans and apes - who are genetically similar – have viruses inserted in locations that are dictated by a shared genetic code – a sequencing code endowed upon both species by a Common Designer. Do you believe ‘endogenous retroviruses’ offer proof of common ancestry?
Friendly troublemaker
The problem with most of this is, we don't just share ERV's with apes; we share a dwindling number down the (presumable) evolutionary tree. For example, we share with apes a number of ERV's; a number of those, we share with mice and other mammals. Mice, rats and other (presumable) descendants of that line share ERV's that humans and apes do not have. Note that while this does not prove common descent, it is something that common descent predicts, and fits flawlessly into the model.
The idea of a "promoter" does not directly support the creationist model, either. What has been discovered is not that the ERV is functional; rather, the infected organism co-opts elements of the ERV into making new function from the inserted information. It seems not to make sense from a creationist point of view; that an ERV would exist from the beginning only to be there to build new functions that may or may not be beneficial. It fits very well with the "life will go on" model of evolution, though.
... The problem, Jeff, with trying to build a case for evolution is that while it is true that there is only about a three per cent difference between Human and Ape, that, seemingly, small difference is anything but small. I have been instructed by the educated that this difference amounts to about 3,000,000 distinct differences. Take this evidence into consideration with the fact that no man can illustrate a linage in the fossil record and it is just nonsense.
Regular Contributor
***
___ of the gaps.
guest
Actually Crawfish you are mistaken – ERVs support the creationist model - our ID friends ("creationists") predicted all along that an Intelligent Designer would design DNA to perform some kind of function. The Darwinists have always stated that *design is an illusion* and ERVs were "junk DNA". As it plays out it appears once again that the expectations of ID are turning out to be right - ERVs have been shown to contribute promoter sequences. This is just one more example where Intelligent Design predictions are fulfilled while one more Darwinist argument bites the dust. I hope this helps clarify your misunderstanding..."Large Scale" Function for Endogenous Retroviruses: Intelligent Design Prediction Fulfilled While Another Darwinist Argument Bites the Dust
In his "29+ Evidences for Macroevolution" on TalkOrigins, Douglas Theobald claims that "Endogenous retroviruses provide yet another example of molecular sequence evidence for universal common descent." The presumption behind his argument is that endogenous retroviruses (ERVs) are functionless stretches of "junk" DNA that persist because they are "selfish"—but they have no function for the organism. If we find the same ERVs in the same genetic loci in different species of primates, Theobald concludes they document common ancestry. But what if ERVs do perform important genetic functions? Even theistic evolutionist Francis Collins acknowledges that genetic similarity "alone does not, of course, prove a common ancestor" because a designer could have "used successful design principles over and over again." (The Language of God, pg. 134.) The force of Theobald’s argument thus depends upon the premise that ERVs are selfish genetic "junk" that do not necessarily perform any useful function for their host.
In contrast, ID proponents would predict function for ERVs. This isn’t because ID has an inherent quarrel with common descent—it doesn’t. Rather, ID predicts function because the basis for ID’s predictions is observations of how intelligent agents design things, and intelligent agents tend to design objects that perform some kind of function. As William Dembski wrote in 1998, "If, on the other hand, organisms are designed, we expect DNA, as much as possible, to exhibit function." It seems that the expectations of ID are turning out to be right.
A recent 2008 paper, "Retroviral promoters in the human genome," in the journal Bioinformatics (Vol. 24(14):1563–1567 (2008)) discusses the fact that "Endogenous retrovirus (ERV) elements have been shown to contribute promoter sequences that can initiate transcription of adjacent human genes. However, the extent to which retroviral sequences initiate transcription within the human genome is currently unknown." The article thus "analyzed genome sequence and high-throughput expression data to systematically evaluate the presence of retroviral promoters in the human genome."
The results were striking:
We report the existence of 51,197 ERV-derived promoter sequences that initiate transcription within the human genome, including 1743 cases where transcription is initiated from ERV sequences that are located in gene proximal promoter or 5' untranslated regions (UTRs).
[…]
Our analysis revealed that retroviral sequences in the human genome encode tens-of-thousands of active promoters; transcribed ERV sequences correspond to 1.16% of the human genome sequence and PET tags that capture transcripts initiated from ERVs cover 22.4% of the genome. These data suggest that ERVs may regulate human transcription on a large scale.
(Andrew B. Conley, Jittima Piriyapongsa and I. King Jordan, "Retroviral promoters in the human genome," Bioinformatics, Vol. 24(14):1563–1567 (2008).)
Darwinists who labeled ERVs as a form of "selfish" and "junk" DNA have been chasing explanations down a blind alley. It should be stated that the authors do not deviate from the neo-Darwinian paradigm, putting the obligatory evolutionary spin on the data. They claim that it’s a possibility that some of the transcribed ERVs are "not functionally significantl," exposing that even in the face of this compelling contrary data, it is difficult for many Darwinists to let go of their seductive but science-stopping "junk-DNA" paradigm.
It seems that Richard Sternberg was correct when he predicted 5 years ago that "the selfish DNA narrative and allied frameworks must join the other ‘icons’ of neo-Darwinian evolutionary theory that, despite their variance with empirical evidence, nevertheless persist in the literature." (Richard Sternberg, "On the Roles of Repetitive DNA Elements in the Context of a Unified Genomic–Epigenetic System," Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, Vol. 981: 154–88 (2002).)
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2008/08...us_retrov.html
Regular Contributor
***
This ID sounds like science - can you provide a few scientifically peer reviewed articles that detail the ID scientific theory? When you say expectations - is this a notion that is falsifiable/confirmable through the scientific method?
guest
I would suggest you do your own detailed study of "ID scientific theory" (whatever that means)? Have you actually done a detailed study of any scientific concept? Are you asking if “expectations” are falsifiable/confirmable through the scientific method?
Regular Contributor
***
I wouldn't even know where to begin to look for actual (not pseudo) scientific support for ID/YEC/etc. However, I consider you the resident expert on these subjects so I was hoping you could give me a little direction.
Why yes. It is certainly not difficult to study peer reviewed journals/articles/studies regarding evolution, I was wondering if any of these crucial elements of scientific inquiry existed for the YEC/ID/literal creationism. Also, evolution is based on predictability (i.e. if human remains were dated at the same time as dinosaurs, the entire theory would crumble).
So evolution kind of puts itself out there as scientific theory that can either be confirmed or denied based on the evidence we receive. Up to this point it is 100% confirmed.
With this in mind, i'm wondering if YEC/ID/literal creationism has any similar standards of scientific confirmability. Or is it simply a collection of ideas that don't really have a basis in science, are not held to any scientific standard, and don't really add anything to science in general?
guest
The truth is you appear to be going in the wrong direction. The subject is molecular taxonomy and I suspect you do not have a clue since you have made no comment on the subject. Suggestion: educate yourself.
LOL – just like your notion that dinos had two eyes and birds today have two – therefore it is “100% confirmed” that dinos morphed into birds. Yes you are quite the scientific wizard. Let me guess - of all the TE-guys on this board you represent the humorous side-kick trying hard to keep up. Very good.So evolution kind of puts itself out there as scientific theory that can either be confirmed or denied based on the evidence we receive. Up to this point it is 100% confirmed.
Regular Contributor
***
haha Translation: Nothing from a scientific standpoint supports YEC/Creationism/ID.
So because *you* don't agree with any of the evidence linking dinosaurs and birds, then YEC/Creationism is the truth? Is that the rationale YEC/Creationists subscribe to? A joke psuedoscience where the goal is to discredit actual science?
I'll ask you again since you didn't feel it was worth addressing the first time: Is ID/YEC/Creationism simply a collection of ideas that don't really have a basis in science, are not held to any scientific standard, and don't add anything to science in general?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks