Jump to content


Photo

The Great Syncytin Challenge To Intelligent Design


  • Please log in to reply
172 replies to this topic

#21 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,006 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 19 September 2013 - 11:00 AM

I've studied this topic in considerable depth, and discussed it with many creationists. Some are familiar with it, some are not. Some have come up with ingenious objections, but none have stuck. Each time a new one is brought up, dealing with it has strengthened the case from ERVs for common descent. I'd be vary happy if anyone here could come up with anything, especially anything new.

 

Isn't this the fallacy of chronological snobbery? Whereby old or new things are deemed "bad" or "good" simply because they are old or new.

 

Additionally I wouldn't regard one person's opinion on the matter the be-all-end-all to determine the worth of an objection, so just because you think they do not stick doesn't mean they actually don't.

 

 

 

Not therefore evolution, but therefore retroviral. You don't know why something should be contrived in great detail to look exactly like a retroviral provirus if it isn't one? Me neither.

 

That doesn't mean one should assume evolution, much like evolutionists did with "junk" DNA, much to their folly. I'd adopt a "wait and see" approach rather than assuming an evolutionary victory.

 

 

 

Though what I do wonder about is if these ERVs contain required information, (which you have admitted it does in one of the other forums you ask this), then how could the species exist "before" receiving such information since it is required for an extremely important function, (in this case pregnancy). I believe I asked this before..

 

If the ERV is claimed to be added before it is required is mere assumption as well as defying the evolutionists own interpretation of natural selection since the code would not be required and thus not selected for, allowing it to become eliminated.

 

I suppose anything whatsoever could be claimed to be 'design', but that doesn't, indeed cannot explain why something is one way and not another. That is why, unless you can impose some constraints on what your hypothetical designer can and cannot or would and would not do, such as making something that makes a tiny bit of sense, the hypothesis is of little interest or value to science.

 

Assuming "evolution did it" has no value either since it stops scientific research into the mechanisms of such, exactly in the same way it hindered research into "junk" DNA. I am sure we would have researched "junk" DNA much more comprehensively by now if we didn't adhere to evolutionist dogma and regarded it as "junk".

 

But patience. I haven't finished posting the proof that ERVs are indeed of retroviral origin. The detailed genome and the traces of the action of integrase should be enough for anyone objective and free of presuppositions, but there is much more...

 

We wait with baited breath



#22 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,429 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Retired science teacher with 26 yrs of experience: Biology, physical sciences, & physics.
  • Age: 64
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Midwest, USA

Posted 19 September 2013 - 02:05 PM

Barry Desborough: "...your hypothetical designer."

You mean like that 'hypothetical designer' who invented your computer?

You mean like that 'hypothetical designer' who built the house/building you are now sitting in?

Did modern Fords evolve from the Model-T or was each and every change in the last 100 yrs designed by intelligent engineers?

Show us that nature can even develop life from non-living matter in the first place before you go 'proving' that ERV's in humans and chimps have the same common ancestor.

#23 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,006 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 19 September 2013 - 05:37 PM


Show us that nature can even develop life from non-living matter in the first place before you go 'proving' that ERV's in humans and chimps have the same common ancestor.

 

As much as I agree with you Calypsis I think we should stick to the original topic for this thread. It does no good to anyone by chasing rabbit-holes since Barry may possibly feel cheated since he came here wanting an answer to his specific question.


  • Barry Desborough likes this

#24 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 19 September 2013 - 06:32 PM

On Sep 19, 2013, at 7:13 PM, Fred Williams wrote:

 

Thank you for your reply. I really appreciate you looking into this. The board reported nothing, but I lost the option to post.  I have zero "warning points", and it now appears that I can post once more. Thanks again. 'Bots can be pretty dumb. Score one for biological intelligence. smile.png

My bad. I'm still getting used to the controls here. Especially the mobile version. I'm the culprit!

 

Fred, thanks for undoing my mistake!



#25 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 19 September 2013 - 06:36 PM

That doesn't mean one should assume evolution, much like evolutionists did with "junk" DNA, much to their folly. I'd adopt a "wait and see" approach rather than assuming an evolutionary victory.

 

 

It's the safe thing to do because all prior claims of evolution have fallen flat on their face ;)



#26 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,006 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 19 September 2013 - 06:52 PM

It's the safe thing to do because all prior claims of evolution have fallen flat on their face wink.png

 

Exactly, though I don't mind if they do make such claims. Since when they do fall on their face it gives you, me and others more ammo to demonstrate that assuming 'evolution did it' definitely is not an endeavor of scientific rationale.



#27 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 19 September 2013 - 07:19 PM

Exactly, though I don't mind if they do make such claims. Since when they do fall on their face it gives you, me and others more ammo to demonstrate that assuming 'evolution did it' definitely is not an endeavor of scientific rationale.

I guess I'm not real sure how to approach this thread. Barry obviously finds this particular argument very compelling. There's plenty of detail to wade through. I don't want to be outright dismissive but I'm hoping he engages us rather than insisting that this detail makes all the arguments against evolution moot.

I'm not sure about anyone else, but bits of seemingly malformed genetic instruction that are the same between chimps and humans is about as compelling for common ancestry as the fact that we both have opposable thumbs. Yeah, they're in the same place, look the same, work the same, contract arthritis the same way. Does that put all stops to design?

Some probably say yes.

Are we just talking about microscopic morphology here?

#28 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,006 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 19 September 2013 - 08:09 PM

I guess I'm not real sure how to approach this thread. Barry obviously finds this particular argument very compelling. There's plenty of detail to wade through. I don't want to be outright dismissive but I'm hoping he engages us rather than insisting that this detail makes all the arguments against evolution moot.

I'm not sure about anyone else, but bits of seemingly malformed genetic instruction that are the same between chimps and humans is about as compelling for common ancestry as the fact that we both have opposable thumbs. Yeah, they're in the same place, look the same, work the same, contract arthritis the same way. Does that put all stops to design?

Some probably say yes.

Are we just talking about microscopic morphology here?

 

Yes I agree and its because Barry thinks its a strong argument is why I didn't think much would be gained from deterring away from it.

 

 

I agree and what I'd like to see are some experiments done to verify the assumption 'evolution did it'\

 

Scientific method

 

Observation: Similar DNA in organisms

Hypothesis: 'Evolution did it'

Experiment: ??????

 

Without any form of experiment for verification evolutionists are merely assuming that their hypothesis is correct, there may well be any number of other reasons for this observation but since we do not know everything these reasons may be unknown, (similar to "junk" DNA not being "junk" since that was unknown for a time). Hence why I advocate a wait and see approach.



#29 Barry Desborough

Barry Desborough

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 115 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 64
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • France

Posted 19 September 2013 - 08:22 PM

Isn't this the fallacy of chronological snobbery? Whereby old or new things are deemed "bad" or "good" simply because they are old or new.

 

Additionally I wouldn't regard one person's opinion on the matter the be-all-end-all to determine the worth of an objection, so just because you think they do not stick doesn't mean they actually don't.

 

 

 

 

That doesn't mean one should assume evolution, much like evolutionists did with "junk" DNA, much to their folly. I'd adopt a "wait and see" approach rather than assuming an evolutionary victory.

 

 

 

Though what I do wonder about is if these ERVs contain required information, (which you have admitted it does in one of the other forums you ask this), then how could the species exist "before" receiving such information since it is required for an extremely important function, (in this case pregnancy). I believe I asked this before..

 

If the ERV is claimed to be added before it is required is mere assumption as well as defying the evolutionists own interpretation of natural selection since the code would not be required and thus not selected for, allowing it to become eliminated.

 

 

Assuming "evolution did it" has no value either since it stops scientific research into the mechanisms of such, exactly in the same way it hindered research into "junk" DNA. I am sure we would have researched "junk" DNA much more comprehensively by now if we didn't adhere to evolutionist dogma and regarded it as "junk".

 

 

We wait with baited breath

Old creationist arguments regarding ERVs are just a bit boring, that's all. Still, if you want to put them up, I'll knock them down again. ;)

 

It is evidence and reason that defeat incorrect points, not opinions.

 

I have not assumed evolution. The only thing I have assumed so far is that if something is identical in structure to a retroviral insertion, it is most likely the result of a retroviral insertion.

 

Regarding "required information", this is not something I have "admitted". Read the opening post. It is what I started with. Here is a variation of a type of protein, syncytin, which is embedded in a proviral structure. The question is, if it is a designed feature, why the proviral structure? BTW, species can, and do, get by without certain syncytins. There are examples of species with broken ones (evidence to come). They are not extinct. And think of something like a modern car. Take out the electronic fuel management system, and it won't go. How on earth did cars go without them? Retro-fit a mechanical carburetor, and - vroom! Lots of species get by without placentas. Think of marsupials and - egg layers!

 

Again, there is no "assumption" that evolution did it. Don't hold your breath for too long, because I'm off for a few days break soon, but I will post additional decisive confirmation that ERVs are of retroviral origin as soon as I can.



#30 Barry Desborough

Barry Desborough

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 115 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 64
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • France

Posted 19 September 2013 - 08:28 PM

As much as I agree with you Calypsis I think we should stick to the original topic for this thread. It does no good to anyone by chasing rabbit-holes since Barry may possibly feel cheated since he came here wanting an answer to his specific question.

Thank you, Gilbo. Even if life had been "originally breathed into a few forms or one", as Darwin once had it, we still need to account for the evidence from ERVs. The question is, what is the best way of accounting for it?



#31 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 19 September 2013 - 08:33 PM

Yes I agree and its because Barry thinks its a strong argument is why I didn't think much would be gained from deterring away from it.

Probably true. Maybe he'd be up for a philosophical review for why people can totally understand the evidence and still reasonably reject his conclusions in a new thread.

Barry? What do you say?
 

I agree and what I'd like to see are some experiments done to verify the assumption 'evolution did it'\
 
Scientific method
 
Observation: Similar DNA in organisms
Hypothesis: 'Evolution did it'
Experiment: ??????

I think it goes like this:

Observation: Similar DNA in organisms
Hypothesis: 'Evolution did it'
Experiment: Similar DNA in organisms
 

Without any form of experiment for verification evolutionists are merely assuming that their hypothesis is correct, there may well be any number of other reasons for this observation but since we do not know everything these reasons may be unknown, (similar to "junk" DNA not being "junk" since that was unknown for a time). Hence why I advocate a wait and see approach.

Sounds reasonable. If an evolutionist can stay entrenched in undirected evolution even while facing the highly intuitive computer code we call DNA, I'd like to think they could respect the fact that we don't let our worldview crumble based on some unusual bits of genes.

#32 Barry Desborough

Barry Desborough

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 115 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 64
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • France

Posted 19 September 2013 - 08:40 PM

Here's a summary of why it is concluded (concluded, not assumed) that ERVs are the inherited remains of retroviral integrations. (Taken from my wikispaces site).
I shall be presenting evidence for currently occurring endogenization in koalas, and for the "Phoenix virus" resurrection in subsequent posts.
 
Features of retroviruses.
  • Retroviruses reproduce by integrating themselves with the DNA of the cells of their hosts.
  • Within the cell, they reverse-transcribe their RNA genomes into DNA versions, and integrate the resulting DNA (the provirus) into the DNA of the host cell.
  • The provirus is then transcribed and translated like any other part of the DNA. This results in the production of new virions which exit the cell to infect new cells, either in the same host organism or another.
  • Retroviruses target particular types of cells.
  • All retroviruses share a distinctive structure, coding for all the requirements for invading a cell, reverse-transcribing the genome, integrating it into the host DNA and forming new virions.
  • All retroviruses exhibit the distinctive viral codon bias.
  • The site of integration is highly variable, and the resulting provirus is also variable, reverse transcription being an error-prone process.

We find, in the genomes of organisms, including ourselves, structures virtually identical to retroviral proviruses, but with certain features that differ from them. The differences and similarities are highly informative.

Features of ERVs
  • There is usually no sign of active retroviruses that can be associated with ERVs.
  • There are many thousands or ERVs in a typical genome.
  • Each ERV is to be found in every single cell of any given organism, in exactly the same location. The contents of any given ERV are uniform, going from cell to cell.
  • ERVs have the same structure as retroviral proviruses, but they are incapable of producing virions.
  • ERVs have the same distinctive codon bias as retroviral proviruses.
  • Most ERVs are to be found in every member of a given species, always in the same location.

The 'viral hypothesis' is that ERVs are inherited from ancestors who acquired them via retroviral integration into germ line cells.

Here are the advantages of the viral hypothesis
  • It explains their presence in the absence of active retroviruses.
  • It explains their high numbers. All ancestors are potential bequeathers of ERVs.
  • It explains why they are in every cell, in the same location, and why they are uniform. They got there by normal mitosis, which is a high fidelity duplication process.
  • It explains why they have the same structure as proviruses (they are copies of proviruses) and it explains why they are so inactive as proviruses - only inactive (failed) proviruses allow their hosts to bequeath their DNA to their descendants.
  • It explains the viral codon bias. Again, they are copies of proviruses.
  • It explains their universality in the population. Genetic drift will eventually ensure that any given ERV will either become fixed in the population, or will disappear.

Additional support for the viral hypothesis

  • The Phoenix virus was resurrected from the multiple instances of an ERV which is to be found in each human cell. Each instance is a 'failed' retrovirus, but when a 'majority vote' for each base was taken, the resulting DNA produced, "viral particles that disclose all of the structural and functional properties of a bona-fide retrovirus, can infect mammalian, including human, cells, and integrate with the exact signature of the presently found endogenous HERV-K progeny."
  • Some retroviruses perform functions within the body, but where they do, it is only part of the ERV that does anything. Other ERVs do nothing, and yet others are implicated in late-onset diseases such as cancers. A 'designer' hypothesis that 'explains' positive function and no function and detrimental function points to a very strange designer.
  • A retrovirus has been caught in the act of becoming endogenized: The koala retrovirus KoRV. Not a single designer in sight.
  • Retroviruses leave a telltale trace of integration in the form of a repeated host sequence either side of the integrated provirus. This is also evident in ERVs. From Virology Blog: Retroviral Integration and the XMRV Provirus, "The image below shows some of the characteristic features of retroviral integration. A the top is the unintegrated linear DNA of avian sarcoma/leukosis virus produced by reverse transcription. Upon completion of integration, two base pairs (AA•TT) are lost from both termini, and a 6-bp target site in host DNA (pink) is duplicated on either side of the proviral DNA. This target site varies in length from 4 to 6 bp among different retroviruses. The proviral DNA (middle) ends with the conserved 5′-T G…C A-3′ sequence. The provirus serves as a template for the production of the viral RNA genome (bottom)."
  • retroviral_int-1024x468.jpg


#33 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,006 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 19 September 2013 - 08:50 PM

Old creationist arguments regarding ERVs are just a bit boring, that's all. Still, if you want to put them up, I'll knock them down again. wink.png

 

Feel free to do so.. If you can ;)

 

It is evidence and reason that defeat incorrect points, not opinions.

 

I have not assumed evolution. The only thing I have assumed so far is that if something is identical in structure to a retroviral insertion, it is most likely the result of a retroviral insertion.

 

"Assumed so far" being the critical point, just have to wait for you to try and assert an evolutionary origin I guess ;)

 

Regarding "required information", this is not something I have "admitted".

 

I mentioned that you did so on other forums where you have asked this question... So it was a different Barry Desborough who made this statement in post #4 here?

 

"Syncytins have been shown to be vital. Knock the gene out, and embryos fail to develop. But why embed them in ERV structures, the rest of which does nothing?"

 

http://www.christian...s.com/t7756239/

 

Read the opening post. It is what I started with. Here is a variation of a type of protein, syncytin, which is embedded in a proviral structure. The question is, if it is a designed feature, why the proviral structure?

 

And I am asking what happens with the chicken and egg problem that follows if one assumes an evolutionary origin.

 

BTW, species can, and do, get by without certain syncytins. There are examples of species with broken ones (evidence to come).

 

Looking forward to that since it debunks your original claim I cite above

 

They are not extinct. And think of something like a modern car. Take out the electronic fuel management system, and it won't go. How on earth did cars go without them? Retro-fit a mechanical carburetor, and - vroom! Lots of species get by without placentas. Think of marsupials and - egg layers!

 

Evolutionists normally don't like analogies with cars and life

 

Again, there is no "assumption" that evolution did it. Don't hold your breath for too long, because I'm off for a few days break soon, but I will post additional decisive confirmation that ERVs are of retroviral origin as soon as I can.

 

No you haven't made that leap... yet.. But I am sure when stating an evolutionary origin there will be the assumption 'evolution did it', which is consistent with every single piece of "evidence" for evolution, (see similar fossils / DNA / etc).

 

 

 

 

 


I think it goes like this:

Observation: Similar DNA in organisms
Hypothesis: 'Evolution did it'
Experiment: Similar DNA in organisms
 

 

Lol I stand corrected :D



#34 Barry Desborough

Barry Desborough

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 115 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 64
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • France

Posted 19 September 2013 - 08:50 PM

Probably true. Maybe he'd be up for a philosophical review for why people can totally understand the evidence and still reasonably reject his conclusions in a new thread.

Barry? What do you say?
 

 

Probably true. Maybe he'd be up for a philosophical review for why people can totally understand the evidence and still reasonably reject his conclusions in a new thread.

Barry? What do you say?
 
I think it goes like this:

Observation: Similar DNA in organisms
Hypothesis: 'Evolution did it'
Experiment: Similar DNA in organisms
 
Sounds reasonable. If an evolutionist can stay entrenched in undirected evolution even while facing the highly intuitive computer code we call DNA, I'd like to think they could respect the fact that we don't let our worldview crumble based on some unusual bits of genes.

I don't think its reasonable to reject conclusions based on presuppositions and straw-man characterizations of theories you have a religious or emotional aversion to. I have been "debating" creationists ever since I discovered they still exist, which was about ten years ago. Despite repeatedly asking creationists why they believe what they believe, I still find their thinking incomprehensible. If you think you can help me comprehend it, then by all means, give it a go.



#35 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 19 September 2013 - 08:50 PM

The question is, what is the best way of accounting for it?

It has to be common ancestry ;)

If probability is meant to be the guide, I wonder what is more probable, two different unrelated kinds of organisms developing a similar mutation in the same section of their DNA or convergent evolution where it's postulated that binocular sight developed through over forty independent pathways through unintended mutations and natural selection?

#36 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,006 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 19 September 2013 - 08:57 PM

I don't think its reasonable to reject conclusions based on presuppositions and straw-man characterizations of theories you have a religious or emotional aversion to.

 

I used to be an evolutionist but I stopped when I started looking at the details rather than simply assuming evolution can do anything carte blanche.

 

I have been "debating" creationists ever since I discovered they still exist, which was about ten years ago. Despite repeatedly asking creationists why they believe what they believe, I still find their thinking incomprehensible. If you think you can help me comprehend it, then by all means, give it a go.

 

If you wish make a new thread for this new topic lest you want this thread to be derailed :)



#37 Barry Desborough

Barry Desborough

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 115 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 64
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • France

Posted 19 September 2013 - 08:59 PM

It has to be common ancestry wink.png

If probability is meant to be the guide, I wonder what is more probable, two different unrelated kinds of organisms developing a similar mutation in the same section of their DNA or convergent evolution where it's postulated that binocular sight developed through over forty independent pathways through unintended mutations and natural selection?

We are not talking about mutations, but inherited viral integrations. Retroviruses do not target specific sites, but there they are, proviruses in exactly the same locations in the DNA of every single one of your nuclear cells. Approximately 200,000 retroviral structures and fragments in every single one. You have to have inherited them.



#38 Barry Desborough

Barry Desborough

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 115 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 64
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • France

Posted 19 September 2013 - 09:05 PM

I used to be an evolutionist but I stopped when I started looking at the details rather than simply assuming evolution can do anything carte blanche.

 

 

If you wish make a new thread for this new topic lest you want this thread to be derailed smile.png

I will be quite busy over the next few weeks, but perhaps I shall, when I have more time. I appreciate your concern about keeping this thread on topic. It's not always easy. I used to do a bit of horse jumping. They would often refuse a jump by just stopping, or would gallop off in random directions! ;)



#39 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,006 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 19 September 2013 - 09:53 PM

1. Here's a summary of why it is concluded (concluded, not assumed) that ERVs are the inherited remains of retroviral integrations. (Taken from my wikispaces site).

2. We find, in the genomes of organisms, including ourselves, structures virtually identical to retroviral proviruses, but with certain features that differ from them. The differences and similarities are highly informative.


3. The Phoenix virus was resurrected from the multiple instances of an ERV which is to be found in each human cell. Each instance is a 'failed' retrovirus, but when a 'majority vote' for each base was taken, the resulting DNA produced, "viral particles that disclose all of the structural and functional properties of a bona-fide retrovirus, can infect mammalian, including human, cells, and integrate with the exact signature of the presently found endogenous HERV-K progeny."

 

4. Some retroviruses perform functions within the body, but where they do, it is only part of the ERV that does anything. Other ERVs do nothing, and yet others are implicated in late-onset diseases such as cancers. 

 

5. A 'designer' hypothesis that 'explains' positive function and no function and detrimental function points to a very strange designer.

 

6. A retrovirus has been caught in the act of becoming endogenized: The koala retrovirus KoRV. Not a single designer in sight.

 

  • retroviral_int-1024x468.jpg

 

For some reason I cannot break the quote up with spaces so will revert to my old style with numbers.

 

 

1. Claiming its concluded doesn't stop it being assumed. Unless you can experimentally demonstrate in real time what you claim then it is an assumption, plain and simple.

 

2. Virtually identical... Meaning there are differences? Hmmm.

I do wonder that if this is the case wouldn't such be evidence against mutation changes in the genome. The current method of DNA analysis includes adding insertions into the DNA being assessed due to the assumption that millions of years of mutations have occured and thus the DNA would be different. If this is the case then shouldn't the ERVs also be different also?

So on one hand evolutionists claim differences are caused by mutation and thus evidence of evolution, yet in this case evolutionists claim they are similar and therefore are evidence of evolution.

 

Additionally I wonder how can one determine what is an ERV in our DNA or not?



3. And how was this "majority vote" conducted, I hope you excuse me since too many times I have seen evolutionist scientists take "liberties" in their studies in order to attempt to prove their evolutionist dogma, (see piltdown man, nebraska man, java man, Lucy, Haekle, etc).

 

4. Which doesn't explain the chicken and the egg conundrum I mentioned twice before.

 

5. This is merely your opinion and is not a point for anything.

 

6. And? That doesn't support evolutionary origins only that viruses can become endogenous which is what you claimed before

 

So what DNA sequences have been looked at and which ERVs are similar with which other ones?



#40 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,006 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 19 September 2013 - 09:53 PM

I will be quite busy over the next few weeks, but perhaps I shall, when I have more time. I appreciate your concern about keeping this thread on topic. It's not always easy. I used to do a bit of horse jumping. They would often refuse a jump by just stopping, or would gallop off in random directions! wink.png

 

No worries :)






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users