Replies

What a laugh, the first time I crossed paths with your Darwin-adled arguments, you brought up ERVs as the supposed best evidence of common descent. I demonstrated that ERVs are better explained by common DESIGN back then, and I have continued to update my argument ever since.

You, on the other hand, continue to cling to the same outdated Temple of Darwin ERV arguments, even though the most recent studies demonstrate that almost the entire genome is functional (not to mention the specific and increasingly largescale functions of ERVs that continue to be identified), thus rendering your dumb-dumb fossil/”junk” ERV arguments moot.

And lets not forget the Temple of Darwin argument that ERVs are ancient remnants of previous exogenous retrovirus infections. Your Evo co-religionists cannot support this, they simply assume it without evidence. The creation argument of course makes much better sense. Namely, that ERVs are conserved because they were likely designed into our genomes at the time of creation to pick up the genetic elements to escape the genome, to become retroviruses that non-randomly insert themselves into genomes to facilitate genetic diversity both within and between species, and perhaps even to provide specific genetic information for organisms to better adapt to particular environments.

OK Dreamer, now it’s your turn. Why don’t you start by describing in YOUR OWN WORDS why ERVs are one of the “strongest arguments” for common descent.

“that ERVs are conserved because they were likely designed into our genomes at the time of creation to pick up the genetic elements to escape the genome, to become retroviruses that non-randomly insert themselves into genomes to facilitate genetic diversity both within and between species, and perhaps even to provide specific genetic information for organisms to better adapt to particular environments.”

Ok. Now you have something. Pure garbage, but hundreds of posts later you finally came up with something.

What purpose is genetic diversity if evolution is impossible?

You previously claimed that only DE-evolution is possible.

Are you saying that retrovirus are agents of DE-Evolution?

Your so called explanation also does NOTHING to explain the pattern of similarity and divergence such that an ERV found only in some humans will look “younger” than an ERV found in all humans; and why an ERV found in all humans will look “younger” than an ERV found in both chimps and humans; which will look “younger” than an ERV found in all primates.

How do you attempt to explain this pattern?

You also left off any explanation for why biologists assume that ERV’s are evidence for common descent and where you think they went wrong.

Explaining why God might have wanted ERV’s in our genome, and how they could have “escaped” to become RNA virus does nothing to explain why Biologists say they are evidence for common descent.