Evidence for God from Science

IgoFan wrote:False.

An ERV RANDOMLY inserts its DNA at any of MILLIONS of possible places along the host DNA. But a specific shared ERV is always on the SAME chromosome and at the SAME location in humans and chimps. The chance of that happening independently in humans and chimps is essentially zero.

The only reasonable conclusion is simple: the ERV inserted its DNA before humans and chimps split into two separate species.

Gman wrote:

IgoFan wrote:False.

An ERV RANDOMLY inserts its DNA at any of MILLIONS of possible places along the host DNA. But a specific shared ERV is always on the SAME chromosome and at the SAME location in humans and chimps. The chance of that happening independently in humans and chimps is essentially zero.

The only reasonable conclusion is simple: the ERV inserted its DNA before humans and chimps split into two separate species.

Again, you would need a time machine to prove that assertion. What you have here is circumstantial evidence. Because ERV randomly inserts always on the SAME chromosome and at the SAME location in humans and chimps does not mean that it couldn't have happened independently. Again the HIV virus inserts itself into chimps and humans as well.. Independently...

ageofknowledge wrote:Actually in most prison systems they do have caged modern humans who like to throw poo around from time to time. But that's beside the point. What I'm seeing is that evolutionary biologists maintain that the pseudogenes, SINES, LINEs, and endogenous retroviruses shared among humans and the great apes provide persuasive evidence that these primates arose from a common lineage. The crux of this argument rests on the supposition that these classes of noncoding DNA lack function and arose through random biochemical events. For evolutionary biologists, it makes little sense to attribute "junk" DNA to the Creator.

BUT recent studies on noncoding DNA, however, provide a challenge that evolutionists find surprising and yet hard to deny. Noncoding DNA regions (including pseudogenes, LINEs, SINES, and endogenous retroviruses) aren't really junk after all. These elements possess function. An alternative explanation, besides evolution, may reasonably account for the presence of noncoding DNA classes in the genomes of humans and great apes.

The scientific community is also well on its way to uncovering functional roles for endogenous retroviruses and their compositional elements. Recent advances indicate that, in addition to regulating gene expression, this class of noncoding DNA helps the cell ward off retroviral infections. Retroviruses comprise a class of viruses that exploit RNA as their genetic material. Once the retrovirus infects the cell, its RNA genome is converted to DNA by the reverse transcriptase enzyme. The retroviral DNA can then become incorporated into the host's genome.

It appears that endogenous retroviruses play a wide range of roles in the cell. One of their chief functions is protection against retrovirus infections. These DNA elements appear to be an elegantly functioning component of the human genome.

Frequently the identical junk DNA segments reside in corresponding locations in these genomes. Accordingly, the junk DNA segment arose prior to the time that the organisms diverged from their shared evolutionary ancestor. For evolutionists, this clearly indicates that these organisms shared a common ancestor. However, recent studies on junk DNA provide a response that evolutionists find surprising, yet hard to deny: Junk DNA possesses function.

Evolutionary biologists maintain that through a process called neofunctionalization, junk DNA sequences can acquire function. However, events like these are rare since random insertion of DNA sequences into genes will be deleterious more often than not. The fact that the sequence of events appears to have happened multiple times, independently, for the LTRs of the NAIP gene of humans and rodents raises questions about the validity of neofunctionalization. If the genomes of organisms are the product of evolutionary processes, then identical features like promoters derived from LTR sequences should not independently recur.

As RTB stated in their paper 'Is Junk DNA Evidence for Biological Evolution?':

"This evolutionary scenario, at least on the surface, seems reasonable. But the fact that the sequence of events appears to have happened multiple times, independently, for the LTRs of the NAIP gene of humans and rodents raises questions about the validity of this explanation. If the genomes of organisms are the product of evolutionary processes, then identical features like promoters derived from LTR sequences should not independently recur.

Chance governs biological and biochemical evolution at its most fundamental level. This is clearly the case for the neofunctionalization of LTRs. Evolutionary pathways consist of a historical sequence of chance genetic changes operated on by natural selection, which also consists of chance components. The consequences are profound. If evolutionary events could be repeated, the outcome would be dramatically different every time. The inability of evolutionary processes to retrace the same path makes it highly unlikely that the same biological and biochemical designs should repeatedly appear throughout nature.

The concept of historical contingency embodies this idea and is the theme of the late Stephen Jay Gould's book Wonderful Life. According to Gould,

“No finale can be specified at the start, none would ever occur a second time in the same way, because any pathway proceeds through thousands of improbable stages. Alter any early event, ever so slightly, and without apparent importance at the time, and evolution cascades into a radically different channel.”

To help clarify the concept of historical contingency, Gould used the metaphor of “replaying life's tape.” If one were to push the rewind button, erase life's history, and let the tape run again the results would be completely different each time. The very essence of the evolutionary process renders evolutionary outcomes nonrepeatable.

And yet, it appears as if evolution would have had to repeat itself in humans, mice, and rats to explain the promoter structures of the NAIP gene. This recognition runs counter to predictions that logically emanate from the concept of historical contingency and raises questions about the validity of the evolutionary explanation for life's history. In the abstract of their paper, the scientists who made this discovery remark at how unexpected this result is: “The independently acquired LTRs have assumed regulatory roles for orthologous genes, a remarkable evolutionary scenario [my emphasis].”

Unwittingly, the work conducted by the team from UBC—scientists committed to biological evolution—not only erodes one of the best arguments for evolution, but at the same time raises questions about the evolutionary paradigm. Is junk DNA the best evidence for evolution? It sure doesn't seem to be."

If humans are higher than chimps...who claims that they are?

How Did ERV Related Elements Insert Themselves into Germ Cells Thousands of Times Without Fatalistic Damage to the Host?

How is it that ERVS are Considered Copies of Disease Producing Exogenous Retroviruses but None Have Been Proven to Directly Cause Disease?

What Made ERV Elements Change From Viral Activities to Cellular Activities and Create New Essential Genes?

How Could ERVS Create a Specie-Specific Regulatory Network that Controls the Expression of Cells in a Collective Manner?

What Made Unrelated ERVS in Unrelated Species Create Almost the Same Gene (Convergent Evolution)?

What Made Two Unrelated ERV LTRS Evolve Independently in Creating the Same Regulatory Roles for the Same Gene (Convergent Evolution)?

What Made ERV LTRS Immediately Turn into Essential Gene Regulators Upon Insertion?

What Made LTRS Acquire Transcription Abilities for Essential Genes?

Where is the Proof that ERV LTRS can “Self-Replicate” and Why Don't We See them Doing it Now?

What made the same erv transcribe differently between supposedly closely related species?

What made the same erv transcribe differently among different cell types within the same organism?

Byblos wrote:Great stuff, do you have a source?

touchingcloth wrote:To answer your second point first, HIV infects somatic cells so the damage it does isn't conserved in the genome.

touchingcloth wrote:And to answer your first point, you're absolutely correct. The evidence is circumstantial but compelling. The ERV could have infected each species independently, but the chance of the genome damage being the same, and our closest living relatives (chimps) having more matching ERV damage than more distant relatives (e.g. Gorillas) make it increasingly likely that the common ancestor hypothesis is correct.

Byblos wrote:To expand a little on AoK's post, here's a list of questions (from this link) scientists need to answer before ERV's can be accepted as such:

DannyM wrote: Gman,

Can you point me in the direction of any robust retorts to Darwinism, anything of worth? I'm pretty fed up with the media presenting, not just evolution, but Darwinism, if you please, as if it were solid fact. Over here we recently had Dawkins presenting a three-part series on Darwinian evolution. I simply watched with mouth wide open at the one-sided promotion of Darwinism as fact and the silmultaneous ridiculing of religion. Dawkins even went back to Africa, his place of birth, found a suitable preacher to use for the straw man stunt I'm going to tell you about, start a dialogue with the preacher, saying, "how do you do, my name's Richard, and I'm an ape". The conversation quickly degenerated to the point where the prescher came out with the age-old and long-ridiculed question - clincher, if you will! - of, "if we are descended from apes, why are there still existent apes". Well, in superbly rehearsed timing, Dawkins broke in to a patronising smile, and duely pointed out the preacher's mistake.

DannyM wrote:Thus we have the preacher's view portrayed as typical of Christianity, Christianity itself portrayed as backward thinking and ignorant in the face of progress, and Dawkins the "intelligent scientist" in his "struggle" for truth as the knight put on this earth to put right such wrongs. This diceitful man portrays a certain, localised view as though it were characteristic of Christianity as a whole. The media are complicit in this, and I find it disturbing, even Stalinist in its approach.

DannyM wrote:Evolution, Darwinian or other, is an interesting hypothesis - it has not even reached theory stage - and I see some merit in it as a postulation. But our children are having this one-sided pantomime of "nasty, ignorant religion" being countered by "enlightened science", and I find this deeply disturbing. I know you know your stuff, so a point in the right direction would be appreciated. I am looking for something I can absorb and in future perhaps articulate when encountering some of the dribble I sometimes encounter. Thanks in advance

Dan

Gman wrote:Dawkins is what I call a sad excuse for the for the perpetual resolve of the Darwinist idea..

Too true.. Furthermore, as for the religious claims, his beliefs appear to be religious just like any other religion giving "time" and some "energy" the ultimate source of life..

True, a hypothesis? Yes. Factual? No..

It seems that knowledge itself has been split in half. One half is that Darwinism is to be taken to be factually true whereas religion and moral values are reduced to the status of wishful thinking. By the time students go off to college they have learned this lesson well. Students are perfectly willing to believe in objective truth in science but certainly not in ethics or morality. Values meaning individual religious preferences and facts binding on everyone.

Of course many secularists don't debunk religion or deny it a false directly. So what do they do? They simply assign it to the value realm which takes it out of the realm of true and false altogether. Of course secularists say they respect our religion, and at the same time they deny it has any relevance to the public realm.

In the words of Phillip Johnson, “It allows the metaphysical naturalists to mollify the potentially troublesome religious people by assuring them that science does not rule out “religious belief” (so long as it does not pretend to be knowledge).

When matters of public policy are debated, no religions should have the seat at the table. Why not? Because religion is no longer considered an objective knowledge. So it does not belong in a public debate. Basically Darwin fulfilled the gap in the naturalistic picture of the universe. If evolutionary forces produced the mind then things like religion and morality and no longer transcendent truths, but are things simply produced by humans imagination, they are products subjectivity.

Religion sounds nice but we know it is wrong based on materialistic philosophy. It's almost like the heart vs. the brain conflict. The heart is what we use for religion and the brain is what we use for science. Religion essentially is what you believe because of faith. With science, you need evidence and need to back it up. Science deals with the material world of genes and cells, religion with the spiritual world of value and meaning. Science is about facts, religion is about personal values. This isn't even accurate, because Christianity does make claims about the material world, about the cosmos, about human nature, events in history, etc..

If you want more goodies, I would highly recommend the book Darwin's Leap of Faith: Exposing the False Religion of Evolution by John Ankerberg.

ageofknowledge wrote: What I'm seeing is that evolutionary biologists maintain that the pseudogenes, SINES, LINEs, and endogenous retroviruses shared among humans and the great apes provide persuasive evidence that these primates arose from a common lineage. The crux of this argument rests on the supposition that these classes of noncoding DNA lack function and arose through random biochemical events.

Gman wrote: The point I'm making with the HIV virus is that it can infect both species separately. It's not an impossibility for viruses. It is also possible a few of the retroviruses are likely to infect both humans and apes at the same location.

IgoFan wrote:False. You're just making stuff up.

The chance of "a few of the retroviruses" infecting humans and chimps at the same chromosome and location is essentially zero. A specific retrovirus can and does insert itself at many different chromosome positions, even within the same organism. In gene therapy, retroviruses can be problematic for this very reason; the retroviruses may randomly splice into something critical in the host DNA.

And if just "a few" retroviruses insert at the same place, as you say, then why don't we see in apes (or any other related group of animals for that matter) the same ERV at a different chromosome or position?!

As I said before, the only reasonable conclusion is that the ERVs inserted their DNA before the human and chimp split.