Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 63 (9094 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: d3r31nz1g3
Post Volume: Total: 901,859 Year: 12,971/6,534 Month: 254/2,210 Week: 195/390 Day: 1/50 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Creationist ERV Misinformation
Taq
Member
Posts: 9088
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.4


(4)
Message 16 of 17 (902435)
11-23-2022 12:17 PM


Bad Reasons to Believe
I went to the Reasons to Believe website and searched their articles with the keywords "endogenous retroviruses". From what I can see, they all discuss the same misinformation already covered earlier in this thread.
You searched for endogenous retroviruses - Reasons to Believe
1. Retroviral insertion is not random enough. That's false. Even in a best case scenario, insertional bias will only produce ~1% shared ERV's.
2. ERV's have function. Only a tiny fraction can be shown to have function, and even if they all had function they would still be smoking gun evidence for common ancestry.
3. PtERV1 is found in chimps and gorillas but not humans or orangutans. They forget to mention that they are not at orthologous positions in the chimp and gorilla genomes.
4. Departures from the expected phylogeny. There are known mechanisms that create these departures, such as ILS. It is expected that we will see a noisy phylogenetic signal if species evolved from a common ancestor. It is the ratio of noise to signal that matters, and they are reticent to even acknowledge the massive and overwhelming phylogenetic signal that sits out way above the noise.
5. Retroviruses can't produce ERVs in the first place. They acknowledge the case of ERVs being produced by an exogenous retrovirus in koalas, but they tell their audience to just ignore it for no apparent reason.
Nothing really original here. Just a rehash of what other creationist authors have written.

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9088
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.4


(4)
Message 17 of 17 (902908)
11-28-2022 3:23 PM


ICR = Information Corruption Regime
I ran across an article at ICR that made a claim about ERV's that I had not come across before:
quote:
First, genetic data indicate that these sequences are not millions of years old. Using the comparative tools of evolutionary genetics, secular scientists compared the gene sequences of viruses to their counterparts in animal genomes and found that, at most, the variation in these sequences indicates they can be no more than 50,000 years old.2 So, if these viral-like sequences are not millions of years old, then where did they come from?
[off topic note: the use of "secular scientist" still makes me giggle. What's next? Secular baseball players? Secular dentists?]
That's a bit convoluted, but their claim is pretty clear. They are claiming that ERVs are not older than 50,000 years. To support this claim, they cite:
Molecular Clocks and the Puzzle of RNA Virus Origins
So what does the paper actually say?
quote:
Although the ultimate origins of RNA viruses are uncertain, it seems reasonable to assume that these infectious agents have a long evolutionary history, appearing with, or perhaps before, the first cellular life-forms (38). While the RNA viruses we see today may not date back quite this far, the evidence that some DNA viruses have evolved with their vertebrate hosts over many millions of years (24) makes an equally ancient history for RNA viruses a natural expectation. Yet a very different picture of RNA virus origins is painted if their gene sequences are compared; by using the best estimates for rates of evolutionary change (nucleotide substitution) and assuming an approximate molecular clock (21, 33), it can be inferred that the families of RNA viruses circulating today could only have appeared very recently, probably not more than about 50,000 years ago. Hence, if evolutionary rates are accurate and relatively constant, present-day RNA viruses may have originated more recently than our own species.
Well, that's a very different picture than the one painted by ICR. The scientific paper is saying that currently circulating RNA viruses originated no more than 50,000 years ago. It says nothing about ERVs originating within the last 50,000 years. On top of that, the article clearly states that there are examples of DNA viruses that have evidence for host/virus co-evolution over the last several million years. Strange that they didn't mention that (sarcasm implied). The paper also goes on to explain why comparison of circulating RNA viruses leads to these conclusions.
The rest of the ICR article hits the usual misinformation bullet points, such as some ERVs having function and no examples of extant exogenous retroviruses producing heritable endogenous retroviruses (see Koala Retrovirus [KoRV]).

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2022 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022