Endogenous Retroviruses and Common Descent

[thoughtful (Valerie (non-scientist))]

@Rumraket

Yeah what many of those links can be summarized with is this: Because someone has found a piece of an ERV insertion with a function (such as a transcription factor binding somewhere within an ERV insertion), then all ERV’s (and the rest of the ERV where a transcription factor binds) are functional.

But of course, that doesn’t follow and no good evidence supports it.

Argument from ignorance is a logical fallacy. Plus many creationists are predicting that the entire genome will prove to be functional

@Rumraket

One does have to wonder, though, just why it is so many putative important organismal functions have to be implemented by mutationally decaying remnants of the well-known viral genes GAG, POL, and ENV.

God: “Hmm so I need to express this gene over here in this particular tissue, how to make this work? Ahh of course, let’s use another copy of a viral reverse transcriptase gene for that, for the thirtyseventhousandth time , looking exactly like it’s been accumulating mutations under prototypical transition bias.”

Go figure.

Well, I did read through all the papers and several times they were theorizing that harmful viruses were originally part of the genome and created good. So your argument is backwards like they are saying.

One of the articles linked to an article about Ebola. This was interesting.

Much to the amazement of many researchers, the whole Ebola genome (DNA) has been found within the genomes of several animals (including guinea pigs, opossums, wallabies, and insect-eating bats).11 Understanding the origin of this particularly deadly virus helps explain parts of why it is so difficult to treat. If Darwinian evolution were true, then these elements should be considered junk DNA and eliminated from the gene pool by natural selection. However, the presence of these whole genomes in the genomes of other organisms suggests they do something under normal conditions that we have yet to observe. Does that mean that this particular outbreak of Ebola can be traced back to one of these animals? I don’t know. No one knows. It is particularly difficult to determine the exact origin of this outbreak because no one was there to observe it.

Where Did Ebola Come From?

@ColtCorrea

Thank you for your comments. We have been studying the evidence for more than a year now with some PhD’s in the science who have been working in this area for many years.

We are interested in creating an informative video and simply breaking down the widely accepted evidence into something that a non-expert can understand.

Thank you for being kind. I found the evidence for common design to be persuasive though as I read through their articles. Curious if you will try to explain why not.

Also persuasive (from the footnotes of the Beneficial Functions of Endogenous Retrovirus)

The irony to the percentages is that no one uses the ERV percentages to argue in favor of evolution. According to the neo-Darwinian tale, everything progressed from single-celled organisms into more complex multicellular organisms. If that is true, then there should be an accrual of ERV percentages over time because there has been more time for ERVs to insert. But the actual percentages tell a different tale: budding yeast (3%), mustard weed (5%), roundworm (0%), fruit fly (2.7%), mouse (10%), and human (8.5%). Instead of steadily increasing, the percentages demonstrate no cohesive pattern. Haig H. Kazazian Jr., “Mobile Elements: Drivers of Genome Evolution,” Science 303 (March 2004): 1626–1632.

One article linked to a koala paper - it was an observable case of these insertions. So an argument for common descent. But it seemed it happens frequently…and it’s the only organism it’s been observed in, unless the mainstream article was incorrect or outdated.

So…why don’t we see it happening in humans and other mammals today? It seems like the sheer % of our genome made up of ERVs requires observation.

I’m way too tired to find the koala article back right now (let me know if you want the link) and answer other replies. I’ll try to look at them sometime this week.

This has been fascinating. Again I’m overwhelmed by the number of terms to learn to fully understand these papers. Scientists are weird - how much memorization you have to suffer through. Any tips on learning terms besides just google for definitions?

Genetics is weird and cool, that’s for sure.