Rebuttal To Creationists - "Since We Can't Directly Observe Evolution..."

What the hell are you talking about? Populations exist. Alleles increase in frequency. Are you really saying none of these things exist in nature?I just showed you that your addition rule allows two variants at different loci to increase in frequency together. This is all you have in return? I am talking about competition within a species. For sexually reproducing species, variants at different loci do not compete with one another. And yet you still can't figure out how alleles at different loci can increase in lockstep with one another, and why there is no clonal interference in sexually reproducing populations.

Why should I give you an explanation when all you have is mockery in return?

I accept the findings in the human genome paper. Why don't you? What is wrong with their methods for counting ERV's?

Since you have been incapable of refuting any of my math, I see no reason to discuss it any further. Any claims by you in the future will be rerouted to the post containing the python script. Competition also exists between alleles within a population. The Desai experiment.

There are real world examples of existing retroviruses creating new ERV's in modern populations. The Koala genome is currently undergoing an invasion of retroviral sequence into their genome.

quote:

---

Endogenous retroviruses are a common ancestral feature of mammalian genomes with most having been inactivated over time through mutation and deletion. A group of more intact endogenous retroviruses are considered to have entered the genomes of some species more recently, through infection by exogenous viruses, but this event has never been directly proved. We have previously reported koala retrovirus (KoRV) to be a functional virus that is associated with neoplasia. Here we show that KoRV also shows features of a recently inserted endogenous retrovirus that is vertically transmitted. The finding that some isolated koala populations have not yet incorporated KoRV into their genomes, combined with its high level of activity and variability in individual koalas, suggests that KoRV is a virus in transition between an exogenous and endogenous element. This ongoing dynamic interaction with a wild species provides an exciting opportunity to study the process and consequences of retroviral endogenization in action, and is an attractive model for studying the evolutionary event in which a retrovirus invades a mammalian genome.
Retroviral invasion of the koala genome - PubMed

---

I gave you a review article with numerous real world examples of bacteriophage moving antibiotic resistance genes between species of bacteria.

Mutations can occur in the virus just before or during insertion that results in a non-replicating virus. You are assuming that all viral insertions are capable of replication and producing viable virus, which just isn't true. I will take the well informed opinion of the world's virologists and geneticists over your uneducated opinions.

Imagine one cell with an insertion incapable of producing virus.We have examples of an existing virus that is circulating in koalas. We also have examples of ERV's from that virus in the genomes of koalas. What more do you need?

No need to imagine them. We can observe them in the human genome and the genomes of many other mammals.

They wouldn't have all entered the genome at the same time.

The usual red herring.No one is saying that ERV's are evidence for common ancestry because they are junk DNA.No one is saying that ERV's are evidence for common ancestry because they lack function.If a viral insertion evolves function after insertion that neither falsifies evolution nor common ancestry. Finding function in ERV's does not put their viral origin in doubt. ERV's are evidence for common ancestry because they occur at the same base in two genomes.I will repeat. ERV's are evidence for common ancestry because they occur at the same base in two genomes.If your argument does not tackle this one aspect of the argument, then it is a red herring.

They have viral genes. We can observe retroviruses creating new ERV's right in front of us. The viral origin of ERV's is not in doubt. We can watch retroviruses produce ERV's right in front of us. You are denying observations.

We can observe ERV's in the koala genome that is inherited as an ERV, and it is the same sequence as that found in the circulating retrovirus that is currently infecting koalas. We can see it in action. If what you say is true, then these observations would not be possible, and yet there they are.

It doesn't address the evidence. No one is saying that ERV's are evidence for common ancestry because they are junk DNA. So why would pointing to functional ERV's refute the argument for common ancestry?If you want to refute an argument you have to address the actual argument. Setting up strawmen does nothing to refute that actual argument.

Does every single child in this situation die? No.You have never offered a scintilla of evidence demonstrating that the insertion of viral sequence into a germline cell results in the loss of the fetus in every single case.