Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

At Sci News: Ancient Retroviruses Make Up 8% of Human Genome, Researchers Say

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Like modern HIV, ancient human endogenous retroviruses (HERVs) had to insert their genetic material into their host’s genome to replicate.

Viruses insert their genomes into their hosts in the form of a provirus.

There are around 30 different kinds of HERVs in people today, amounting to over 60,000 proviruses in the human genome.

They demonstrate the long history of the many pandemics humanity has been subjected to over the course of evolution.

Scientists think these viruses once widely infected the population, since they have become fixed in not only the human genome but also in chimpanzee, gorilla and other primate genomes.

Research has demonstrated that HERV genes are active in diseased tissue, such as tumors, as well as during human embryonic development. But how active HERV genes are in healthy tissue was still largely unknown.

Role of HERVs in Human Health and Disease

The fact that thousands of pieces of ancient viruses still exist in the human genome and can even create protein has drawn a considerable amount of attention from researchers, particularly since related viruses still active today can cause breast cancer and AIDS-like disease in animals.

Whether the genetic remnants of human endogenous retroviruses can cause disease in people is still under study.

The new study adds a new angle to these data by showing that HERV genes are present even in healthy tissue.

This means that the presence of HERV RNA may not be enough to connect the virus to a disease.

Importantly, it also means that HERV genes or proteins may no longer be good targets for drugs.

HERVs have been explored as a target for a number of potential drugs, including antiretroviral medication, antibodies for breast cancer and T-cell therapies for melanoma.

Treatments using HERV genes as a cancer biomarker will also need to take into account their activity in healthy tissue.

On the other hand, the study also suggests that HERVs could even be beneficial to people.

The most famous HERV embedded in human and animal genomes, syncytin, is a gene derived from an ancient retrovirus that plays an important role in the formation of the placenta.

Pregnancy in all mammals is dependent on the virus-derived protein coded in this gene.

Unknowns Remain

The new study reveals a level of HERV activity in the human body that was previously unknown, raising as many questions as it answered.

There is still much to learn about the ancient viruses that linger in the human genome, including whether their presence is beneficial and what mechanism drives their activity.

Seeing if any of these genes are actually made into proteins will also be important.

Answering these questions could reveal previously unknown functions for these ancient viral genes and better help researchers understand how the human body reacts to evolution alongside these vestiges of ancient pandemics.

Full article at Sci News.

The presence of HERV’s in the human genome doesn’t necessarily demonstrate an evolutionary history of humans, just a history of humans. The relevant question to consider is where did the virus acquire the information to produce proteins in the first place?

Comments
Silver Asiatic @37,
That video is like a test of a person’s honesty. A fair-minded person needs to say something.
So far, we hear only the sound of crickets . . . -QQuerius
November 21, 2022
November
11
Nov
21
21
2022
10:05 AM
10
10
05
AM
PST
Thanks to Martin_r for that video and also the puffer fish. The origami wings are amazing.
after seeing this video, any rational Darwinian scientist should make a statement – we got it all wrong … creationists were right. I know it will hurt a lot, and i doubt it will ever happen, but this has to be done one day …
That video is like a test of a person's honesty. A fair-minded person needs to say something.Silver Asiatic
November 20, 2022
November
11
Nov
20
20
2022
02:53 PM
2
02
53
PM
PST
Yes, I've seen this amazing behavior. Also the elaborate "courtship rituals" of some birds that musta/coulda/mighta evolved for some obscure reason in some animals but not in others . . . But the origami wings of earwigs is absolutely fascinating! -QQuerius
November 19, 2022
November
11
Nov
19
19
2022
05:27 PM
5
05
27
PM
PST
Querius, let me finish this part with the following: after seeing this video, any rational Darwinian scientist should make a statement - we got it all wrong ... creationists were right. I know it will hurt a lot, and i doubt it will ever happen, but this has to be done one day ... And don't forget, there is also the puffer fish ... this is my favorite one ... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B91tozyQs9M When divers discovered this '3D art' for the first time, they thought that humans did it :)))) but i doubt, that humans are capable to do something like that, underwater, with naked hands, using no tools ... with such a precision ... I really doubt it ...martin_r
November 19, 2022
November
11
Nov
19
19
2022
02:18 PM
2
02
18
PM
PST
Martin_r @33, Thanks--loved the earwig video! It absolutely blows apart magical step-wise evolution! -QQuerius
November 19, 2022
November
11
Nov
19
19
2022
10:02 AM
10
10
02
AM
PST
Querius i like Dr. Andelin. Yesterday, before i gone to sleep i listened to same of his videos. I very like how he is choosing words. Some of his thoughts it is like he is reading my mind. Unfortunately, this is not the case with some other creationists/ID proponents. Most of them repeating the same things over and over again, no new ideas /insights. This guy is pretty special, no wonder he has been a medical doctor for 40 years. Salem hypothesis confirmed again. PS: off topic. Recently i came across a very interesting article on earwigs' wing folding. This is something. Earwig wing expands 10x larger than when closed. I didn't know (like many other people don't), that earwigs have wings. But the way they fold/unfold their wings, this is really something ... how could a rational educated 21st century person with some technical background believe that no engineer was involved in designing this ... Make sure you don't miss this 1:37 mins video, our Creator is laughing in Darwinists' faces. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oNQ_nn3VLiY&t=2smartin_r
November 19, 2022
November
11
Nov
19
19
2022
09:54 AM
9
09
54
AM
PST
Martin_r @29, Haha! No, I missed the comment. Much of mathematical probability estimates must be taken in context of Baysian inference. However, back-of-the-envelope calculations can lead to some surprising confirmations. I'm thinking specifically of Michael Behe's book, The Edge of Evolution, where he was able to accurately predict the amount of time it took for the malaria pathogen to evade a novel human genetic defense by random mutation. -QQuerius
November 18, 2022
November
11
Nov
18
18
2022
03:36 PM
3
03
36
PM
PST
Seversky @30
The probability of him being right is fairly small, too, I’d guess
i doubt that he counted in all the examples of convergent evolution ... so he is right like 1000 more times :))) https://www.stuffhappens.infomartin_r
November 18, 2022
November
11
Nov
18
18
2022
01:14 PM
1
01
14
PM
PST
The probability of him being right is fairly small, too, I'd guess.Seversky
November 18, 2022
November
11
Nov
18
18
2022
09:18 AM
9
09
18
AM
PST
Querius, thanks for the link. I am aware of this channel/author, only few days ago i have watched a similar video from him. However, this particular video discusses author's paper on mathematical probability of evolution, published in a peer-reviewed journal ! ... not sure you have noticed, but there was a pretty funny comment below the video:
The probability of this actually getting published in a peer reviewed journal is lower than your calculation for macro evolution.
:)))))martin_r
November 18, 2022
November
11
Nov
18
18
2022
12:37 AM
12
12
37
AM
PST
Martin_r @27, Yes, all these virus capabilities, as Athena, "musta" sprung fully formed from the brow of Zeus. The problem of prohibitive probabilities (haha) has also never been explained. I just watched an interesting video on such macro-evolutionary probabilities: Mathematical challenges to macroevolution https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8Y8ZqzXeXU This also raises the question of whether extant viruses aren't degraded forms of either the equivalent of software patches (as you suggested) or originally had a significant role in adaptation and transfer of various features (echolocation of both bats and whales comes to mind). -QQuerius
November 17, 2022
November
11
Nov
17
17
2022
05:40 PM
5
05
40
PM
PST
Querius @25
Question: Assuming everything else in an ERV is intact, how long would it take to evolve reverse transcriptase? What part of an ERV was the last to evolve? How is the DNA segment of the ERV isolated from the rest of the DNA and how long did that take to evolve?
How long would it take to evolve reverse transcriptase.... This is an excellent question. But i see another problem ... how can a Reverse Transcriptase evolve when the virus can't reproduce without the Reverse Transcriptase ? Also, where exactly did the Reverse Transcriptase evolve? Inside the virus? Or inside the host ?martin_r
November 17, 2022
November
11
Nov
17
17
2022
01:03 PM
1
01
03
PM
PST
Querius @25 when i heard of viruses capable of inserting chunks of DNA into host genome, the first thing which came to my mind was, that this could be some sort of Creator's backdoor, and/or, a way how to REMOTELY update species "software". All what is needed, is to deliver the virus with "software update" close to the species. Basically, the same are trying to achieve (using retroviruses) medical doctors when treating cancer or other disorders like you mentioned in the post above. PS: like i mentioned above, it is fascinating, that you insert huge amount of new data into human genome and the human is still working ... this is not easy to believe ...martin_r
November 17, 2022
November
11
Nov
17
17
2022
12:51 PM
12
12
51
PM
PST
Martin_r @16, Thanks, I just watched the video segment on reverse transcriptase that you provided. I also watched this video introduction on ERVs which raised as many questions as it answered. It’s screams with design engineering. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EGfMRVBDxaY Question: Assuming everything else in an ERV is intact, how long would it take to evolve reverse transcriptase? What part of an ERV was the last to evolve? How is the DNA segment of the ERV isolated from the rest of the DNA and how long did that take to evolve? Assuming that ERV segments in our DNA are indeed remnants of viruses (apparently inactive due to transcription errors), I found the following fascinating papers on the subject. They were also helpful, since my understanding of ERVs is still very basic. Nomenclature for endogenous retrovirus (ERV) loci (2018) https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6114882/
Studies over recent years have revealed the profound impact that ERVs have exerted on vertebrate evolution. For example, more of the human genome (~?8%) is made up of the remnants of past retroviral infections than of sequences encoding the proteins necessary for life (~?1–2%). Moreover, ERVs are not—as was once believed—mere ‘junk DNA’—some encode intact proteins that have been co-opted or exapted to perform physiological functions in host species, and even ERVs that are relatively degraded in terms of their coding capacity can perform important functions as components of gene regulatory networks.
So, our DNA incorporates the ERV RNA and it’s not “junk DNA” after all . . . The idea that this is to preserve virus RNA assigns a Lamarckian “goal” to a virus. In addition to creating new copies of the retrovirus (an engineering miracle in itself), that DNA from ERV RNA is “exapted” (repurposed) by the host is the practical and useful outcome. I know that this is quite a stretch, but In this way, the virus acts as FOOD for our DNA (but only in certain locations in the DNA strand) analogously to cells absorbing, metabolizing, and repurposing glucose! But there’s more. Endogenous retroviruses in the origins and treatment of cancer (2021) https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33971937/
Endogenous retroviruses (ERVs) are emerging as promising therapeutic targets in cancer. As remnants of ancient retroviral infections, ERV-derived regulatory elements coordinate expression from gene networks, including those underpinning embryogenesis and immune cell function. ERV activation can promote an interferon response, a phenomenon termed viral mimicry.
Endogenous retrovirus expression in testis and epididymis (2007) https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17511667/
ERVs (endogenous retroviruses), which comprise 8-10% of mouse and human genomes, are present in thousands of copies, ranging in size from complete 9 kb virus to truncated partial sequences. Despite well-documented differential expression of ERVs in normal and diseased tissues, their biological significance remains controversial.
First of all, it's delightful and refreshing to read honest admissions of cluelessness rather than arrogant assurances of full understanding minus a few, miniscule details. Second, the naked facts are that the RNA of ERVs are absorbed into DNA where they are then somehow repurposed by the DNA. I find this amazing and profound! This process is analogous to taking a vacuous comment by a trollbot here and, by some automatic process, reusing the words to create a coherent and relevant thought! If I had enough blind faith to be a Darwinist, I’d examine the possibility that ERVs are a degraded and literally pathological mechanism of a primary cause of evolution. The obvious inspiration is that ERVs are a profoundly more prolific source of random transcription errors than random mutations in an organism. -QQuerius
November 17, 2022
November
11
Nov
17
17
2022
12:23 PM
12
12
23
PM
PST
ERVs are another nonsense fantasy of darwinists that is built on assumption that darwinian evolution is true(is not) and then is brought as evidence for darwinian evolution. Circular reasoning. This nonsense is expired even before junk DNA expired. Don't bother...whistler
November 17, 2022
November
11
Nov
17
17
2022
09:12 AM
9
09
12
AM
PST
Seversky at 14, Did you miss the numerous posts here about Design? Viruses are doing what they are designed to do. And one more thing. Something I'm sure you will ignore because it refers to a being you like to rant about. Before The Fall, a literal event, all viruses were beneficial, after, all of Creation was corrupted and changed.relatd
November 17, 2022
November
11
Nov
17
17
2022
08:35 AM
8
08
35
AM
PST
,,, to emphasize Martin_r's point at 19
Bothersome Bats and Other Pests Disturb the "Tree of Life" - Casey Luskin - December 5, 2012 Excerpt: But this is hardly the only known example of molecular convergent evolution. In his book The Cell's Design, chemist and Darwin-skeptic Fazale Rana reviewed the technical literature and documented over 100 reported cases of convergent genetic evolution. Each case shows an example where biological similarity -- even at the genetic level -- is not the result of inheritance from a common ancestor. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/12/bothersome_bats067121.html Darwinism Versus the Octopus: An Evolutionary Dilemma - Eric Metaxas - September 08, 2015 Excerpt: What’s the difference between evolutionary theory and an octopus? Well, one is a slippery, color-changing escape artist that can get out of any tough situation and the other is an aquatic invertebrate.,,, The key to this uncanny intelligence is the octopus’ so-called “alien” nervous system, brain, and eyes. But these features are not alien to the animal kingdom at all. In fact, they’re quite common in higher vertebrates. The octopus genome shares key similarities with ours, including the development of high-powered brains and “camera eyes” with a cornea, lens, and retina. Now here’s the problem for evolution: according to Neo-Darwinists, we’re not related to octopi—at least not within the last several hundred million years. That means all of these genes, complex structures, and incredible capabilities came about twice. The researchers who sequenced the octopus genome call this “a striking example of convergent evolution,” or the supposed tendency of unrelated creatures to develop the same traits in response to environmental pressures. Isn’t that just a fancy way of saying a miracle happened twice? But the octopus isn’t the only such miracle. “Convergent evolution” is all over nature, from powered flight evolving three times to each continent having its own version of the anteater. Think about that. As one delightfully un-self-conscious “Science Today” cover put it, convergent evolution is “nature discover[ing] the same design over and over.” Well, good for nature! But as Luskin argues, there’s a better explanation for a tentacled mollusk having a mammal’s brain and human eyes. And that explanation is common design by an intelligent Engineer. And like all good engineers, this this one reused some of His best designs. Now that explanation isn’t going to satisfy Darwinian naturalists. And they’ll probably keep on invoking “convergent evolution” when faced with impossible coincidences in nature. But hopefully knowing a more straightforward explanation leaves you forearmed—or should I said “eight-armed”? http://www.christianheadlines.com/columnists/breakpoint/darwinism-versus-the-octopus-an-evolutionary-dilemma.html The “Shared Error” Argument - Cornelius Hunter - April 17, 2017 Excerpt: the evolutionist’s contention that common descent is needed to explain those shared mutations in different species contradicts the most basic biology. Simply put, similarities across species which cannot be explained by common descent, are rampant in biology. The olfactory system is no exception. Its several fundamental components, if evolution is true, must have evolved several times independently. The level of independent origin which evolutionists must admit to (variously referred to as convergent evolution, parallel evolution, recurrent evolution, cascades of convergence, and so forth depending on the pattern) is staggering and dwarfs the levels of similarities in the olfactory receptor genes. To cast those relatively few similarities as mandates for common descent, while ignoring the volumes of similarities that violate common descent constitutes the mother of all confirmation biases. http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2017/04/new-book-olfactory-receptor-genes-prove.html Claims about convergent evolution are absurd _ Feb. 2017 1. C4 photosynthesis. According to 'science' it has evolved 60 times independently. Scientists have not succeeded in building an autonomous photosynthesis system. But evolution has done this for 60 times! Seems to be easy! 2. Eye 35 times. Think about the complex mechanism and signaling pathways that are connected with brain. And according to 'science' humans and squids evolved same eyes using same genes. What a coincidence! 3. Giving birth, 150 times. Piece of cake for evolution. Very convincing. 4. Carnivorous plants. Nitrogen-deficient plants have in at least 7 distinct times become carnivorous. 5. Hearing. 30 times. Bats and dolphins separately evolved same sonar gene. What a surprise! (Do they really think that one gene is sufficient for developing a sonar ability?) 6. Bioluminescence is quite a mystery for science. According to darwinists it has independently evolved even 27 times! 7. Magnetite for orientation, magnetically charged particles of magnetite for directional sensing have been found in unrelated species of salmon, rainbow trout, some butterflies and birds. 8. Electric organ in some fishes. 6 times. Independently from each other. Sure. 9. Parthenogenesis. Some lizards, insects, fishes and rodents are able to reproduce asexually, without males. Etc.. etc.. etc.. http://sciencerefutesevolution.blogspot.fi/2017/02/claims-about-convergent-evolution-are.html Extinct Four-Eyed Monitor Lizard Busts Myth of a Congruent Nested Hierarchy - Günter Bechly - April 23, 2018 Excerpt: One of the most essential doctrines of Darwinian evolution, apart from universal common descent with modification, is the notion that complex similarities indicate homology are ordered in a congruent nested pattern that facilitates the hierarchical classification of life. When this pattern is disrupted by incongruent evidence, such conflicting evidence is readily explained away as homoplasies with ad hoc explanations like underlying apomorphies (parallelisms), secondary reductions, evolutionary convergences, long branch attraction, and incomplete lineage sorting. When I studied in the 1980s at the University of Tübingen, where the founder of phylogenetic systematics, Professor Willi Hennig, was teaching a first generation of cladists, we still all thought that such homoplasies are the exceptions to the rule, usually restricted to simple or poorly known characters. Since then the situation has profoundly changed. Homoplasy is now recognized as a ubiquitous phenomenon (e.g., eyes evolved 45 times independently, and bioluminiscence 27 times; hundreds of more examples can be found at Cambridge University’s “Map of Life” website). https://evolutionnews.org/2018/04/extinct-four-eyed-monitor-lizard-busts-myth-of-a-congruent-nested-hierarchy/
bornagain77
November 17, 2022
November
11
Nov
17
17
2022
06:29 AM
6
06
29
AM
PST
Pater and my very first question about ERVs once again: How would you explain, that tons of random ERV insertions do not do harm when even a single mutation can cause a serious genetic disease (so far we know 6000 of such mutations). Any explanation or speculation ?martin_r
November 17, 2022
November
11
Nov
17
17
2022
06:24 AM
6
06
24
AM
PST
Pater another question: what if the possible /preferred site for a particular virus insertion were already taken by insertions of other viruses, and the virus had no other option than to insert into the preferred location which left ? And the one left was the same in human and chimp ... you said there are millions of locations available for the insertion, but you don't know how many ... NOBODY KNOWS ... you just throwing numbers ...martin_r
November 17, 2022
November
11
Nov
17
17
2022
06:22 AM
6
06
22
AM
PST
Pater
That means finding the same ERV at the same precise location in the genome can only be explained by common ancestry.
"can only be explained by common ancestry." Right! I like how you Darwinian guys suddenly don't believe in huge coincidences :))))))) I bet you heard of convergent evolution. So, for you guys, convergent evolution is not a problem for common descent ..., you guys BELIEVE in crazy absurd examples of convergent evolution even on molecular level, but suddenly, a ERV which obviously prefers some DNA locations to insert to, so suddenly, the only explanation is common descent :)))))))) We are talking about very similar species with a very similar DNA. Could have the virus CONVERGED to insert into the same location in human /chimp ?martin_r
November 17, 2022
November
11
Nov
17
17
2022
06:12 AM
6
06
12
AM
PST
As I read it, the paper notes that the choice of integration sites is non-random and proposes three possible molecular mechanisms by which this might happen. There is no mention of conscious purpose or intention.Seversky
November 17, 2022
November
11
Nov
17
17
2022
06:11 AM
6
06
11
AM
PST
Pater
Pater: You guys are not reading far enough into the link I sent. ERVs express some preference for certain kinds of sites, but there are still billions of those for them to choose from.
You are throwing numbers like a genuine Darwinist. You don't think, you just throwing numbers. But i have a question, perhaps you can help me: Was a particular retrovirus's insertion found in human DNA more than once ? I was unable to google this information ... If these retroviruses have billions of other places to insert to, as you claim, i would expect, to see the same virus DNA to be inserted many times across the human genome or any other genome ...martin_r
November 17, 2022
November
11
Nov
17
17
2022
05:58 AM
5
05
58
AM
PST
Querius ....
By affecting stochastic proviral expression as well as the mutagenic potential of the virus, integration site choice may be an inherent part of the evolutionary strategies used by different retroviruses to maximise reproductive success.
Right! Blind unguided process and non-living viruses have strategies :))))))))) These Darwinists ... these guys are completely confused ... as confused as it gets ... today i don't want to be rude, so i used the word "confused". PS: have you watched the REVERSE TRANSCRIPTASE videos i posted ? Have you noticed, that the Reverse Transcriptase first converts the RNA into 1-stranded DNA, and afterwards into double-stranded DNA ? (a 2-steps conversion) Moreover, using host's nucleotides ? :)))))))) How the non-living virus knows, that there will be some free nucleotides floating around which can be used for RNA->DNA conversion ? :))))))))) And as i asked before, how a non-living viruses know, that there will be the incompatibility problem, to bring with its own and suitable data-conversion tool (REVERSE TRANSCRIPTASE)?martin_r
November 17, 2022
November
11
Nov
17
17
2022
05:35 AM
5
05
35
AM
PST
Martin_r @8, Thanks for the great quotes and links. From the first one . . .
By affecting stochastic proviral expression as well as the mutagenic potential of the virus, integration site choice may be an inherent part of the evolutionary strategies used by different retroviruses to maximise reproductive success.
Emphasis added. Even mainstream papers make viruses seem sapient! LOL Regarding the claim @9 that that common ERV insertion points support a common ancestor, it seems that the following from the same paper might explain this adequately:
LEDGF/p75 and BET proteins, respectively, guide the lenti- and gammaretroviral PICs to distinct chromatin contexts (Fig. 3). Subsequently, IN selects the final site as the intasome recognises a target DNA (tDNA) strand and catalyses the cutting and joining reactions that fuse viral and host genomes.
-QQuerius
November 16, 2022
November
11
Nov
16
16
2022
10:02 PM
10
10
02
PM
PST
Are you saying viruses are conscious and have a purpose in mind when they do what they do?Seversky
November 16, 2022
November
11
Nov
16
16
2022
08:45 PM
8
08
45
PM
PST
Virus function is not accidental. It has intention. For infectious viruses, they have intention and carry it out once in an appropriate environment.relatd
November 16, 2022
November
11
Nov
16
16
2022
05:36 PM
5
05
36
PM
PST
In. trying to claim that it is all just random happenstance, it might also help PK's case immensely if viruses themselves did not give every indication of themselves being intelligently designed for essential purposes.
At Reasons,,: Benefits Of Viruses - August 9, 2022 Excerpt: Known Benefits of Viruses Essential for complex life. Life-forms on Earth larger and more complex than microbes would be impossible without abundant diverse viruses. If not for these viruses, bacteria would multiply and quickly occupy every niche and cranny on Earth’s surface. Earth would become a giant bacterial slime ball. Those sextillions of bacteria would consume all the resources essential for life. All life, including all the bacteria, would die. Bacterial population check. Viruses kill and break apart bacteria at just-right rates in just-right locations to maintain a population and diversity of bacteria that is optimal for both the bacteria and for all other life-forms. We wouldn’t be here without viruses! ,,, Viruses as Drivers of Biogeochemical Cycles Another benefit of viruses is the crucial role they play in Earth’s deep carbon, oxygen, and water cycles. https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/at-reasons-org-benefits-of-viruses/ What if all viruses disappeared? - June 17 2020 The vast majority of viruses are not pathogenic to humans, and many play integral roles in propping up ecosystems. Others maintain the health of individual organisms – everything from fungi and plants to insects and humans. “We live in a balance, in a perfect equilibrium”, and viruses are a part of that, says Susana Lopez Charretón, a virologist at the National Autonomous University of Mexico. “I think we’d be done without viruses.”,,, What scientists know for sure is that without viruses, life and the planet as we know it would cease to exist. And even if we wanted to, it would probably be impossible to annihilate every virus on Earth. But by imagining what the world would be like without viruses, we can better understand not only how integral they are to our survival, but also how much we still have to learn about them.,,, https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20200617-what-if-all-viruses-disappeared Trillions Upon Trillions of Viruses Fall From the Sky Each Day - Jim Robbins - April 13, 2018 Excerpt: Whatever the case, viruses are the most abundant entities on the planet by far. While Dr. Suttle’s team found hundreds of millions of viruses in a square meter, they counted tens of millions of bacteria in the same space. Mostly thought of as infectious agents, viruses are much more than that. It’s hard to overstate the central role that viruses play in the world: They’re essential to everything from our immune system to our gut microbiome, to the ecosystems on land and sea, to climate regulation,,,. Viruses contain a vast diverse array of unknown genes — and spread them to other species.,,, In laboratory experiments, he has filtered viruses out of seawater but left their prey, bacteria. When that happens, plankton in the water stop growing. That’s because when preying viruses infect and take out one species of microbe — they are very specific predators — they liberate nutrients in them, such as nitrogen, that feed other species of bacteria.,,, Viruses help keep ecosystems in balance by changing the composition of microbial communities. As toxic algae blooms spread in the ocean, for example, they are brought to heel by a virus that attacks the algae and causes it to explode and die, ending the outbreak in as little as a day.,,, The beneficial effects of viruses are much less known, especially among plants. “There are huge questions in wild systems about what viruses are doing there,” said Marilyn Roossinck, who studies viral ecology in plants at Pennsylvania State University. “We have never found deleterious effects from a virus in the wild.” A grass found in the high-temperature soils of Yellowstone’s geothermal areas, for example, needs a fungus to grow in the extreme environment. In turn, the fungus needs a virus.,,, Tiny spots of virus on the plant that yields quinoa is also important for the plant’s survival. “Little spots of virus confer drought tolerance but don’t cause disease,” she said. “It changes the whole plant physiology.” “Viruses aren’t our enemies,” Dr. Suttle said. “Certain nasty viruses can make you sick, but it’s important to recognize that viruses and other microbes out there are absolutely integral for the ecosystem.” https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/13/science/virosphere-evolution.html Viruses and the tree of life Excerpt: Viruses cannot be included in the tree of life because they do not share characteristics with cells, and no single gene is shared by all viruses or viral lineages.,,, No single gene has been identified that is shared by all viruses.,,, It cannot be proven that early viruses appeared along with the first cells.,,, Viral genomes encode many genes that have no homologues in cells.,,, https://www.virology.ws/2009/03/19/viruses-and-the-tree-of-life/
Of related note to viruses themselves giving every indication that they are Intelligently Designed for specific purposes, Bacteriophage viruses themselves "look like space ships from another world",
"(Bacteriophage viruses) look like space ships from another world" - T4 Phage attacking E.coli - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V73nEGXUeBY Michael Behe - 2020 - Bacteriophage T4 - 11:45 minute mark https://youtu.be/6Pi5UoZkn4g?t=700
Verse:
Romans 1:20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.
bornagain77
November 16, 2022
November
11
Nov
16
16
2022
05:01 PM
5
05
01
PM
PST
Ba77, It look like a well oiled machine. Not, this car engine just assembled itself.relatd
November 16, 2022
November
11
Nov
16
16
2022
04:12 PM
4
04
12
PM
PST
PK: "there are still billions of those for them to choose from." In trying to claim that it is all just random happenstance, It might help your case immensely if you did not assign agency, i.e. the ability to 'choose', to ERVs. :)
"Teleology is like a mistress to the biologist; he dare not be seen with her in public but cannot live without her" –J. B. S. Haldane The 'Mental Cell': Let’s Loosen Up Biological Thinking! - Stephen L. Talbott - September 9, 2014 Excerpt: Many biologists are content to dismiss the problem with hand-waving: “When we wield the language of agency, we are speaking metaphorically, and we could just as well, if less conveniently, abandon the metaphors”. Yet no scientist or philosopher has shown how this shift of language could be effected. And the fact of the matter is just obvious: the biologist who is not investigating how the organism achieves something in a well-directed way is not yet doing biology, as opposed to physics or chemistry. Is this in turn just hand-waving? Let the reader inclined to think so take up a challenge: pose a single topic for biological research, doing so in language that avoids all implication of agency, cognition, and purposiveness 1. One reason this cannot be done is clear enough: molecular biology — the discipline that was finally going to reduce life unreservedly to mindless mechanism — is now posing its own severe challenges. In this era of Big Data, the message from every side concerns previously unimagined complexity, incessant cross-talk and intertwining pathways, wildly unexpected genomic performances, dynamic conformational changes involving proteins and their cooperative or antagonistic binding partners, pervasive multifunctionality, intricately directed behavior somehow arising from the interaction of countless players in interpenetrating networks, and opposite effects by the same molecules in slightly different contexts. The picture at the molecular level begins to look as lively and organic — and thoughtful — as life itself. http://natureinstitute.org/txt/st/org/comm/ar/2014/mental_cell_23.htm
bornagain77
November 16, 2022
November
11
Nov
16
16
2022
03:59 PM
3
03
59
PM
PST
You guys are not reading far enough into the link I sent. ERVs express some preference for certain kinds of sites, but there are still billions of those for them to choose from. That means finding the same ERV at the same precise location in the genome can only be explained by common ancestry.Pater Kimbridge
November 16, 2022
November
11
Nov
16
16
2022
03:12 PM
3
03
12
PM
PST
1 2

Leave a Reply