How do creationists scientifically refute endogenous retroviral insertions?

Question

I admire that you want creationism to be taught as Science.

Welcome to Science's playground. Now, biblical verses won't count.

I assume you know the basics of high school Biology.

You need logical arguments to debate/discuss. To start with very simple question, can you please refute endogenous retrogene insertions, Scientifically?

Endogenous retrogene insertions are molecular remnants of a past parasitic viral infection. Occasionally, copies of a retrovirus genome are found in its host's genome, and these retroviral gene copies are called endogenous retroviral sequences. Retroviruses, like HIV, make a DNA copy of their own viral genome and insert it into their host's genome. If this happens to a germ line cell (i.e. the sperm or egg cells) the retroviral DNA will be inherited by descendants of the host.

This process is rare and fairly random, so finding retrogenes in identical chromosomal positions of two different species indicates common ancestry.

Be kind, kids.

Answer 1

http://www.trueorigin.org/theobald1e.asp

Scroll down to PREDICTION 21: NONFUNCTIONAL MOLECULAR EVIDENCE—ENDOGENOUS RETROVIRUSES

Also, read: http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v14/i3/pseudogenes_genomes.asp

Answer 2

How do you explain the God Yahweh's knowledge of the germ theory 3500 years before the microscope was invented? Doesn't that kind of knowledge evolve from microbiology? Doesn't that mean Yahweh would have known how to refute endogenous retrogene insertions? If I remember correctly Charles Darwin still believed in the spontainious generation theory when he wrote "Origin of the Species". Doesn't that also mean that Yahweh would have had a better working knowledge of evolution than Charles Darwin did? Doesn't everything we've both said above belong being taught in a science class in public schools? I believe the God Yahweh is winning this debate so far. Next question.

Answer 3

The nature of creationism is completely contrary to even the notion of science, there is no way to rebuke such a condition or explain it using creationism.

In saying that, you assume that creationists have an understanding of high school biology, you assume too much. How could one have even the most rudimentary understanding of biology, accept creationism.

Answer 4

Creationists cannot scientifically refute anything because creationism and so-called intelligent design are not science. They are faith-based ideologies.

Answer 5

How have creationists refuted anything related to evolution? Oh, I remember now. Lying.

Answer 6

"The Lord works in mysterious ways."
"It was intelligently designed that way."
"It's complex, so we won't try to understand it, and just say God did it"
etc