ERV's are assumed, not observed. They do not produce viral particles, but are identified by the presence of sequences that code (or once coded) for viral proteins, including gag (structural proteins), pol (viral enzymes), and env (surface proteins), as well as telltale long terminal repeats.
The ERV 'dating' conclusion is dependent on single organism infections with random integration into the genome and subsequent move to fixation.
They present serious problems for evolution since there are thousands of these things in the human genome alone and the substitution cost to move them all to fixation is tremendous.
The 'best' evidence for evolution is always in the least-understood areas because they allow the greatest level of 'interpretative' overlay.
This gives the Creos even more targets, about which they understand less and less, and they too get to peddle new pamphlets and new books.
Wow, someone else that talks big words, but has no idea what they mean.
That was really neat how you did that, but your misunderstanding of the entire thing was a really big wow.
Thanks for sharing, but please, don't do it again.
Oh boy, an anti-evolution creationist spewing complete nonsense again! What a surprise! The only question now is whether they do so out of gross ignorance, cynical deceit, or a combination of both.
Dan, I regret to inform you, you just told a giant whopper. Yes, ERVs are indeed observed, they actually exist, they have been observed inserting themselves into the genome, recent ERV insertions have been traced within the past generations of families and the individual who had the original insertion has been identified, the genetic markers around ERVs clearly indicate that they originated as retrovial insertion events and they're not just coincidental matches with viral DNA sequences, etc. etc. etc.
Hey, I have a novel idea -- why don't you go off and learn something about a topic before you start babbling next time, instead of just posting whatever uninformed horse manure pops into your skull?
Look, kid, if you don't understand the first thing about a scientific topic, don't just post your wild-assed guesses about it, it only makes you look like a lying fool.
They do not produce viral particles,
Some do, and/or produce functional viral genes. You really like lying about science, don't you?
but are identified by the presence of sequences that code (or once coded) for viral proteins, including gag (structural proteins), pol (viral enzymes), and env (surface proteins), as well as telltale long terminal repeats.
...as well as by unmistakable tell-tale markers of viral insertion splicing. Sort of "forgot" to tell that when you were lying by omission, eh?
The ERV 'dating' conclusion is dependent on single organism infections with random integration into the genome and subsequent move to fixation.
...and beautifully matches multiple independent cross-confirming lines of evidence, thus proving their validity.
They present serious problems for evolution
ROFL!!! Dream on, son. Please stop posting complete nonsense, it only makes you and your anti-evolution cause look like, well, lying propagandists who are trying to mislead the public. How does it feel to be following in Michael Moore's footsteps?
since there are thousands of these things in the human genome alone and the substitution cost to move them all to fixation is tremendous.
Yo, Mr. Stupid: The "substitution cost" only applies to things which reach fixation by positive selection. ERVs achieve fixation via genetic drift, and "substitution cost" does not apply. Now, were you just knowingly telling another huge whopper in the hopes that no one would catch you at it, or were you just randomly stringing together terms you had seen but not understood when you were quote-mining sites that actually dealt with genetics?
Now, pull the other leg and tell us again how ERVs "present serious problems for evolution"? Show us your math, this should be freaking hilarious -- the hilarious part will be watching GourmetDan struggle to make excuses for his inability to provide a substutition cost analysis of any kind that actually a) makes any sense mathematically, b) matches any kind of valid evolutionary scenario, and c) incorporates anything resembling the modeling of actual ERV insertion rates, human population genetics, and lineage histories. Watching anti-evolutionists make excuses for not providing support for their claims is one of the best entertainment values around!
The 'best' evidence for evolution is always in the least-understood areas because they allow the greatest level of 'interpretative' overlay.
No, the best evidence for evolution is the vast mountains of overwhelming evidence along multiple indepedent cross-confirming lines.
Meanwhile, the best evidence for the fact that the anti-evolutionists don't have a leg to stand on is how every time they attempt to attack any corner of the mountain of evidence for evolution (when they even bother -- note how often they try to just baldfaced lie and say there isn't any, cf. SuzyQusy on this thread), they keep getting caught revealing that they either don't even *understand* the nature of the evidence in the first place, or keep falling on their faces when they attempt to talk about without screwing up. In short, if they had any kind of actual case, they wouldn't have to lie about it so much.
Follow the money, nobody squeals this loud and this long if is is not about MONEY. Welfare intellectuals.