CREATIONISTS -- Will you please explain to me why the genetic evidence for evolution isn't persuasive to you?

Question

Evidence like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qKb1LXxKNHY

Though I doubt you'd spend 15 minutes listening to a science geek explaining how genetic markers indicating an absorbed retrovirus are passed down from species to species to species through the evolutionary process.

Basically, finding endogenous retroviral sequences in identical chromosomal positions of two different species indicates common ancestry. And we DO find retrogenes in the "same chromosomal place" when we look at great apes (chimps, gorillas, orangutans, gibbons) and humans. That means apes and humans have a common ancestor.

What about this evidence do you not find persuasive?

Ooookay... these people don't even know what I'm talking about. Nevermind.

User "serafim", that's the beauty of scientific theories... they are falsifiable. Like you said, it would make no sense if certain other mammals (e.g. dogs, cows, platypi, etc.), had these same retrogenes in the exact same chromosomal locations. For instance, it would be incredibly unlikely for dogs to also carry the three HERV-K insertions that are unique to humans since none of the other primates have these retroviral sequences.

And you're of course free to SPECULATE about falsification but so far, the evidence demonstrates perfectly that endogenous retroviruses are passed down from early ancestors every time a new species branches off, and their presence in new species in the EXACT locations of their predecessors indicates common ancestry.

And by the way, all the arguments about it's function are pretty useless. It essentially doesn't matter what they do, just where they are and what those exact positions indicate.

By the way, posting something on YouTube doesn't immediately indicate that it's false, just that it's not as automatically trustworthy as, say, the content in a peer reviewed scientific journal. You can't throw something out just because of who said it or where it's said. Attacking the speaker (or the medium of presentation, as it were) is an ad hom. I thought you'd pay closer mind to your use of logical fallacies as you seem quite keen on tallying each instance in which they're used.

Ahhh, I see. The ad hom was justifiable because, well, for you it is, aye? Roger that. Because YouTube content really IS just so lame and the video was put together cheaply; gosh, that means we're going to have to dismiss it entirely.

P.S. That kid is an AUTHORITY? No, but I thought perhaps you'd take what he'd said & check for yourself. Linking to that video seemed like a simple means of presenting the information. I don't expect you to treat this kid as "the last word".

"Maybe it was there all along". Maybe if you can demonstrate some kind of justification for speculating as such, I'd give it a bit more consideration. However, as you admitted, you're simply thinking out loud.

I realize that certain "junk" DNA has been found to be functional. I don't know why that would discount the fact that retrovirus remnants are indeed caused by retroviruses. Additions to the former organism (like ERVs) can and sometimes will weild power; that's evolution for you.

Answer 1

Why it is not credible?

1. It's on Youtube
2. The kid in the video made about 60 fallacious arguments before I stopped counting.
3. I can post links all day long that present opposing theories.
4. You always have to examine both sides of the evidence.

But as far as absorbed retrovirus and retrogenes being persuasive evidence of evolution, yes it is. But you still have to examine all of the persuasive counter arguments carefully.

I am no expert, but even I can come up with several points that are persuasive counter arguments. Here are just a few:

1. They are not junk DNA, but have a purpose. They have been known to be beneficial in promoting resistance to viral infections.
2. Some control the regulation of genes. The regulatory role of HERVs has been demonstrated in the liver, placenta, colon, and other locations.
3. Some HERVS appear to have a role in maintaining pregnancy.
4. Some HERVS appear to have a role in microevolution.
5. Their presence could arguably be due to multiple infections, as some will only attach to certain "hotspots" in the DNA. This is a statistical long shot, but the numbers are better than randomly producing DNA out of shear accident as is argued by non-creationists.
6. All the data is not in yet, and if any similar ERVS are found in the DNA of other genus or families, it would go against the common ancestor theories.
7. There are many valid arguments that HERVS are not junk DNA, but are functional. We are no where near fully understanding the full functions of all DNA and RNA. The jury is not in yet, all of this stuff is new and we are still just learning about it. We have a ways to go, but we are getting there.

These are just a few, and there are more. I am skeptical of anyone who claims to have all of the answers, especially kids on Youtube that appear to have never taken "Critical Thinking 101".

HERV research is very important, and I believe we will all learn alot more about our universe the more we look into it. It has already greatly changed the way we we look at Neo-Darwinian evolution.

***Edit***

My main point of "It's on Youtube" was that as an "appeal to authority" argument, Youtube is in no way a "credible resource" of unbiased evidence, especially when the source of evidence is some kid with a basic "do it yourself home video kit" just offering an opinion. Ad Hom attack? Yes it was, but a justifiable one in this case.

As far as the usfulness of HERVS goes, that is very important. If they have a purpose, it can be argued that they were there all along, and that they are just a part of normal DNA common with all of the other shared DNA between various species. What makes them useful as markers is the fact that it is theorized that this DNA is foreign "junk" added by viruses after the fact. But if it is not "foreign junk" you can easily get into a chicken and the egg argument, i.e. some HERVS appear to have an effect on various infections and diseases. So it could be argued that some of these genes are the cause of their related viruses, and not the effect. But I am speculating, I do not know, and no one is quite sure yet. It is all very fascinating though, and I look forward to learning more about it as scientists further map various genomes and learn more about irreducible complexity of DNA .

Answer 2

Well it's called Evolution - no we didn't come from a certain species of monkey we come from the ancestral path there was a branch off some 40 million years ago. The human eye does not "see" it is a receptor no different to many eyes, what has developed is the human brain, our more advanced brain interprets the signals that our receptors receive, we can "see" almost 1 million colours. Our brain is a very amazing piece of equipment - pity that most of us will rarely get to use it.

Answer 3

You can show them the evidence until you pass out from exhaustion...heck, if we invented a time machine and we could take them back in time and SHOW them evolution in action they'd still refuse to believe it. It's called willful ignorance, and they cling desperately to it. It took Christians over 300 years to stop denying that the sun revolved around the Earth after scientists knew it, (not to mention jailing scientists who dared speak of it), so what makes us think this is going to be any different? I figure they have at least another 200 years before they are left with no choice but to accept the theory of evolution, and then they'll try to claim that they "knew it all along" and that the Bible even talks about it. (Pointing to some obscure phrase in the Bible that they've managed to reinterpret.) Then they'll actually have the nerve to say things like "How do you explain that the Bible knew about evolution 2000 years before scientists knew about it, huh?"
It's been the same nonsense throughout history.

Answer 4

Are you ready for this?
Darwin conceded that the lack of fossil evidence for the transitions between various species of animal "is perhaps the most and serious objection" to his theory. "we are now about 120 years after Darwin and the knowledge of fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species, but the situation hasn't changed much...We have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin's time."-David M. Raup 1979
What the fossil record does show is that rocks dated back some five thousand and seventy million years, there is a sudden appearance of nearly all animal phyla, and fully formed, without a trace of evolutionary ancestors that Darwinists require. "if the rate of the universe's expansion one second after the big bang had been smaller by even one part in a hundred thousand millionn millio, the universe would have collapsed into a fire ball."-Stephen Hawking. Nobel prize winner Sir Francis Crick said " The origins of life appears to be almost a miracle, so many the conditions which would have had to be satisfied to get it going." Even so, scientists have tried to come up with creative theories to try to explain how bio polymers(such as proteins)became assembled with only the right building blocks(amino acid) and only the correct isomers(left-handed amino acids)joined with only the correct peptide bonds in only the correct sequence There are only two answers for this to take place. One-The universe would have to be infinitely old, two- there would have to be a Creator. In 1965, the big bang theory came to play. The bad news is that for evolution was that this meant the earth was probably less than five billion years old. Fredrick Hoyle said that the probability of linking together just one hundred amino acid to create one protein molecule by chance is about as likely as a tornado whirling through a junkyard and accidentally assembling a fully functional Boeing 747."In other words the odds are for all practical purposes are zero That's why even though some people who are not educated in this field still believe that life emerged by chance, scientists simply don't believe it anymore." the odds of life being a "mistake" are to great.

Answer 5

Yeah, you are so far over these people's heads there might not be enough oxygen to breath. they don't know things like "genetic indicators" or "endogenous retroviral sequences". What they hear you saying is "humans kind of look like apes, right?" And they argue against that.

Answer 6

1. Commonality in design of various species is not proof of common ancestry, but tends to indicate a common designer. The fact that automobiles have their transmission in the same place does not prove they evolved, it just means that's a good design for what the designer wanted to accomplish.

2. 99.7% of genetic mutations are fatal to the organism. On top of that, mutations are statistically rare. When you do have a mutation occur which is not fatal, it always represents a loss or duplication of information, never a gain of information.
In addition, the billions of mutations that would have to occur in a specific order for a species to develop a new "feature" would leave that "feature" unuseable until its finished, making the creature weaker and less fit for survival.
Also, even with trillions of organisms available over billions of years, you mathematically don't even come close to the amount of time needed for such a "feature" (i.e. wing, eye, leg, or even a simple protein) to develop.

3. Irreducible Complexity

Read "Darwin's Black Box" by Michael Behe

This book absolutely disproves macroevolution, no way to argue around his conclusions.

4. The fossil record puts the final nail in the coffin. It shows billions of species coming into existence during the Cambrian explosion with nothing in the fossil record before them...anywhere! In other words, the fossil record shows all the species of the world coming into existence suddenly with no history, and then not changing over the history of the earth.

Pretty strong evidence.

You could also read "Tornado in a Junkyard" or "More Than Meets the Eye"
"Creator and Cosmos" by Hugh Ross is also excellent.
"Creation's Tiny Mystery" by Robert Gentry is a slam dunk (hard to find, out of print).
Also, "Bones of Contention", "Darwin on Trial" by Philip Johnson, and "The Case for a Creator" by Lee Stroebel.

God bless you!

Answer 7

All the big fancy words in the dictionary will NEVER change a *faith* filled God believer.... sorry...... and all this can also point to a creator...... have you EVER thought of it this way ?? That being we are all created from the SAME God/Creator that we would all have common ground, such as same Chromosomal Place stuff you mention..... some common DNA, etc., and even actions ?? Humans can be traced back to a common ancestor, there for bringing to light the creation story...... this argument will continue for generations to come, and has gone on for generations past...... Science points more to the creation story than it does to evolution, when it comes to the START of life..... I admit there has been evolution, what I call adaptive evolution, things do change....... However, the story of life beginning anywhere or way other than God, makes NO sense to me..... go in peace..... God bless

Answer 8

I haven't yet read what the creationists said about it, but I wanted to tell you I found that video to be excellent! Thank you for posting the link.

Answer 9

sheesh. Don't let them get your goat. It was probably a 14 year old posting that annoying question before. They probably don't even know what 1/2 the words mean in your detail. However, I do appreciate your expansive knowledge.

Answer 10

genetic evolution does exist (micro evolution) ...horse and dog breeders depend on it for their livelihood....but there has never been a new species developed through micro evolution.
some evolutionists claim that humans are 98 % monkey ...but that 2% represents 600,000 genetic markers...big 2%.
plus the fact that ...using that logic ... humans are 90% mouse and 35% dafodill... most evolutionists try to use micro evolution to support macro evolution ...with absolutely no physical evidence no experimental data and no new species that include the transitional evidence.
evolutionists will freely admit that they have no physical proof of a new species being discovered or created using any method.