How do creationists scientifically refute endogenous retroviral insertions?

Question

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

You like to ask Science questions on here, I'll give you what you want.

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 and please remember, I said Scientifically.

I'm sure you understand high school Biology basics.

Dawn, this is not about Deoxyribonucleic acid.

It's about random mutations.

Answer 1

You are adressing Americans. If you want to ask them biology questions you have to mention birds and bees.

(or the back seat of a "Chevy")

Answer 2

Before you get yourself all wrapped around the axle about evolution and natural selection there is something you need to understand. I personally do not think there is no such thing as natural selection. That is silly. You need not concern yourself with endogenous retroviruses to see that. Just look at any breed of pedigree dog and you can see how natural selection works.

The issue for me is not that evolution explains a lot, it certainly does. What it does not explain, if one is honest about it is the sudden appearance of modern man. Nothing in natural selection can explain how the earliest examples of modern man have the same brain that we have today. The capabilities and capacity are far greater than any primitive man would ever need for simple survival.

Having the same brain means he was capable of knowing, understanding and remembering everything we do today. Why would natural selection give him such capabilities that made his ability to reproduce more difficult? Look how long human babies are completely dependent compared to the highest ape. They cannot even hold on to their mother.

This hardly seems like a good survival mechanism in a hostile world. While evolution is a scientific reality for most things it falls far short of explaining the origin of man or the fact that it never repeated such a phenomenon anywhere else in the animal kingdom.

Merry Christmas!

.

Answer 3

There is no need to refute their existence.
They are not part of an evolutionary process.
From what I have read, they are the result of diseases in the body and are detrimental to the host body.
Evolution's premise is that all genetic change is for the betterment of the host body. This is not true of these genome.
They have been linked to aids, multiple sclerosis, and other auto-immune diseases.

This has been the stand of creationist from the start. All mutations seen today are detrimental and disease in nature.
That does not fit the evolutionary theory. It DOES fit the fallen man statement. Man fell in the garden of eden and sin entered the world. Sin entered the world bringing disease into man.

Answer 4

You can't blame the poor creationists for holding onto their myth. Several quack scientists are propagating a deformed view of biology to keep it going.
I'm going to check back to read the responses, even if just to amuse myself.

Answer 5

I am not a creationist but what you said sounds fascinating. Do you know anything about the evolution of mitochondrial DNA?

Answer 6

Evolution is taught as fact when it is theory. Creationism I suppose is also theory but why is one condoned and the other denied the same privilege? I know, separation of church and state issue.
Indicates common ancestry, indicate, points to, lends credence too but leaves room for doubt.

Do we as humans really believe we have learned enough to make such concrete statements of fact concerning issues that have multitudes of variables? Any of which would cause our theorem to change and the resulting hypothesis change?
Until all variables are known, our solution is still flawed.

Answer 7

Your first mistake was confusing creation scientists with real scientists. Don't worry - it happens to the best of us.

Answer 8

Here's how:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v1/n2/were-retroviruses-created-good

Answer 9

Some viruses jump species a good example of that is pigs, chickens, and humans can share a similar virus, influenza, I am sure you have heard of it. So these three species that survive outbreaks would have your retroviral genome, created in present time. And last I checked my pig Oscar didn't evolve into a man-pig. The reason why you find commonality among species yet find no "missing links" is because God used similar building blocks in creation.

Answer 10

dna contains lots of information on the history of viral infections of our ancestors as does im sure the dna of all animals .. in my understanding it is not rare and i doubt your an expert ..