Are ERVs evidence for common ancestry

[Mercer (John Mercer)]

@thoughtful

That’s not always a correct characterization

In this case, it is.

@thoughtful

• if they cite sources that indicate that there may be function in a larger set, it’s not a fallacy of composition. One example:

A nonexpert is citing an overinterpretation that has been walked back, not a source. You really should stop doing that and cite evidence instead labeling a hyping of a discredited interpretation as a source.

Do you realize that what you’ve described as filtering the evidence by worldview is, in your case, really ignoring the evidence in favor of hearsay?

@thoughtful

Or creationists should at least be clear it is only a hypothesis that most have function.

That article is very deceptive. The writer is not reliable. He has never done any biology. Why would you cite him instead of citing the evidence?

Why would you rely on someone with a BS in geology from UCSD as an authority?
Why would you NOT rely on someone with a PhD in virology from UCSD plus half of his postdoc in retrovirology at the National Cancer Institute as an authority?

Do you see how you are making my point for me?

@thoughtful

Should I read this sentence that way?

Taq:

It is true that only a relative handful of ERV’s have any apparent function,

It’s perfectly true and properly qualified.

After my PhD, I did a postdoc at the National Cancer Institute in which I studied a recently inserted ERV in detail. Do you and Casey Luskin understand the field better than I do?

And don’t forget that despite my expertise, I am counseling you to get into the actual evidence instead of hearsay. Why are you so reluctant to do so?

@thoughtful

But to answer your question - I think it’s because other scientists aren’t so certain, they are curious, and they would like to be the first to discover function where it was unknown.

I see plenty of uncertainty expressed in Taq’s statement. However, what we are certain about is that IDcreationists frequently use deliberately deceptive rhetoric.

@thoughtful

As far as I can tell, from thinking only protein-coding genes were important to continually finding more function throughout the genome when researching specific questions.

That couldn’t be more ridiculous.

You are invoking a fallacy of composition, the IDcreationist trick of conflating “noncoding” with “junk.” I’m pretty sure that the falsehood of that conflation has been explained to you in detail here. Why do you continue to employ it?

Answering these questions will reveal the fallaciousness of your conflation:

1. Are promoters and enhancers protein-coding?
2. Do promoters and enhancers have function?
3. In what year was the first promoter characterized?
4. Are ribosomal and transfer RNA genes protein-coding?
5. In which years were they first characterized?
6. Are miRNAs and lncRNAs protein-coding?
7. What does the “nc” in “lncRNA” stand for?

@thoughtful

My own experience here, then reading creationists who mention history of science, then reading popular articles that say the same thing no one here mentioned.

If you’re going to accuse us of being dishonest, you’ll need to dive into the evidence instead of hearsay. That, of course, involves risking learning that you’ve been fooled. Are you as curious as you claim to be in your handle?