'Junk DNA' Intelligent Design Viruses

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

Spread the love

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?

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

  1. 1
    martin_r says:

    When i first time heard about ERVs i was amazed …

    As an engineer, i was amazed ….

    At this moment, there are about 6000 known DNA mutations which cause serious genetic diseases.

    But, when retroviruses repeatedly inserted pretty significant amounts of DNA into human genome, that is alright, nothing bad happened …

    What amazes me even more, allegedly, these retroviruses take random places on human DNA to insert to …

    In other words,… i will randomly insert into you 8% of new data, you are still here and intact … but few mutations known as genetic disorders kill you or will cause serious conditions …

    Could some smart Darwinist explain to me, how is it possible that random ERV-insertions don’t do any harm ?

  2. 2
    bornagain77 says:

    As to: “(Darwinists) think these (retro)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.”

    But alas, “retroviruses do not align with the expected evolutionary pattern”, and Darwinists have had to postulate that the “human lineage must, somehow, (mysteriously),, have been purged of these endemic viruses.”

    The Naked Ape: An Open Letter to BioLogos on the Genetic Evidence, Cont. – Cornelius Hunter – May 28, 2016
    Excerpt: Another such unique feature )of Humans) is at the genome level: the lack of endemic infectious retroviruses in humans. The problem is that these viruses are present in the other primates, and so according to evolution these viruses must be present in their common ancestor which, again according to evolution, would be an ancestor of humans as well. Therefore this lack of endemic infectious retroviruses in humans is inconsistent with evolution:
    “Other than the recent introductions of HIV and human T leukaemia virus (HTLV) into humans from other animals, humans seem to be devoid of species-wide endemic infectious retroviruses. By contrast, like most other mammals studied, other hominids and non-human primates (NHPs) do have such viruses. Indeed, given the remarkable corroboration between the phylogenetic trees of primates and their lineage-specific simian foamy viruses (SFVs) our common ancestors with other hominids almost certainly had SFVs. The same is probably true of the lineage-specific simian infectious retroviruses (SIVs) found in most NHPs. Assuming that the common ancestors of hominids carried multiple endemic infectious retroviruses, how did the human lineage eliminate them? Given that humans remain susceptible to re-infection with both SFVs and SIVs from other hominids, this seems unlikely to be explained solely on the basis of more efficient host restriction systems. Rather, there seems to have been an episode in which the ancestral human lineage was somehow ‘purged’ of these endemic viruses.”
    In other words, the endemic infectious retroviruses do not align with the expected evolutionary pattern. The human lineage must, somehow, have been purged of these endemic viruses. Perhaps such a purging occurred, and future research may be able to strengthen that hypothesis. But as it stands, this evidence is not consistent with evolution.

    Again, retroviruses do not fall into a common decent pattern

    Retroviruses and Common Descent: And Why I Don’t Buy It – September 2011
    Excerpt: If it is the case, as has been suggested by some, that these HERVs are an integral part of the functional genome, then one might expect to discover species-specific commonality and discontinuity. And this is indeed the case.

    Are Endogenous Retroviruses Convincing Evidence for Primate Common Ancestry? Dr. Andrew Fabich – video (JonathanM 2017)

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

    But alas, Darwinists also did not predict that ERVs would be functional in embryonic development, and in healthy tissues.

    In fact, retroviruses were initially deemed, by Darwinists, to be non-functional ‘junk’ DNA. And thus finding important functions for ERVs ‘should’ count as, (yet another) empirical falsification of Darwinian ‘theory’,

    The definitive response on ERV’s and Creation, with Dr. Jean Lightner and Wazooloo (5:00 minute mark – the “problem” that functional ERVs present to Darwinists)

    Viral Genome Junk Hits the Trash – By Jeffrey P. Tomkins, Ph.D. – April 04, 2016
    Excerpt: When virus-like DNA were first discovered, it was thought the majority of them would prove to be junk—until now.
    DNA sequences called endogenous retroviruses (ERVs) are abundant in mammalian genomes. The ERV sequences initially got their name because they showed strong sequence similarity to known viruses. Then evolutionists proclaimed the animal genomes evolved to their present state, in part by repeated infection with viruses initially deemed part of an organism’s “junk” DNA.
    As research on ERVs progressed, it became apparent that many of these genomic features are not junk, but important for the mammal’s survival, such as placental development.1 Many other ERVs were found to be specifically regulated by cell type.2 These ERVs contain special sequences that act like genetic switches in the genome by binding regulatory proteins (transcription factors) that control genes.2
    Now a new study shows many other ERVs across the genome play key roles in controlling immune responses, another important process necessary for the survival of mammals.3 More specifically, this new research shows that ERVs regulate genes that produce pro-inflammatory signaling molecules released upon infection. This crucial system is called the innate immune response and genes regulated by ERVs associated with this biological network are called innate immunity factors. When ERV elements associated with these genes were inactivated in the laboratory, the production of innate immunity factors stopped—a simple but elegant experiment unequivocally demonstrating functionality. Obviously a mammal would get sick and have difficulty surviving without ERVs regulating their genome.
    In a recent article, I go into more detail about ERVs and why the evolutionary story is completely backwards when it comes to explaining their presence in the genome.4

    4 – Viral Genome Junk Is Bunk – by Jeffrey P. Tomkins, Ph.D. – March 31, 2015
    Excerpt: Second, the alleged process whereby these ERV sequences were supposedly stably integrated into the germlines of animals has never been documented. The process itself is an exercise in speculation. In studies where their random and uncontrolled integration has occurred in regular body cells (called somatic tissue), cancerous tumors are often the outcome.1 In reality, most modern ERV-like viruses do not readily integrate into a host’s genome; only a few, like the AIDS virus, have been found to do this. And the ones that do perform this integration type of behavior do not target germline cells that would then enable them to be passed on to the next generation.
    Third, important functions are now being attributed to ERV sequences in mammalian genomes. In fact, several studies in recent years have highlighted the importance of many ERV gene sequences in placenta development and maintenance—a process crucial to reproduction and life.3,4 Not only are important genes contained in these sequences, but also many different regulatory elements that function as key genetic switches.5

    As to: “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.”

    And yet syncytins do not support common descent.

    The Placenta Problem: How Common Descent Fails – Ann Gauger – June 17, 2016
    Excerpt: I’ll quote a review paper on syncytins. These are the people who discovered syncytins, and they have done great work. Yet they are forced into a corner by their own work and the idea of common descent.,,,
    “… syncytins are ‘new’ genes encoding proteins derived from the envelope protein of endogenous retroviral elements that have been captured and domesticated on multiple occasions and independently in diverse mammalian species, through a process of convergent evolution. Knockout of syncytin genes in mice provided evidence for their absolute requirement for placenta development and embryo survival, via formation by cell-cell fusion of syncytial cell layers at the fetal-maternal interface. These genes of exogenous origin, acquired ‘by chance’ and yet still ‘necessary’ to carry out a basic function in placental mammals, may have been pivotal in the emergence of mammalian ancestors with a placenta from egg-laying animals via the capture of a founding retroviral env gene, subsequently replaced in the diverse mammalian lineages by new env-derived syncytin genes, each providing its host with a positive selective advantage.”
    Rather than postulating six independent, random capture events in placental development, they are now postulating at least one more, a founding syncytin leading to a primitive placenta, then the other syncytins to replace that one in each lineage. Each replacement must have had a clear selective advantage as time went on to make the replacement possible, and each must be the outcome of a random series of events. To say it again, the common descent prediction is that there must have been a founding syncytin in the first mammal with a placenta, or something else that functioned in syncytin’s place, in order for the primitive placenta to arise and subsequently be passed to all mammalian clades. For which there is no evidence, and may never be.
    Can common descent explain the unexpected observation of six independent origins for the placenta? No. Could it predict it? No.
    Common design has an explanation, but not one that will be palatable to my interlocutors. The designer used the same idea six different times to produce the same outcome in six different “designs” (clades).

    And again, retroviruses were initially deemed, by Darwinists, to be non-functional ‘junk’ DNA. So that retroviruses would now be found to be functional, even essential to embryonic development, and “that HERV genes are present even in healthy tissue”, (and yet not fall into a common descent pattern), should, if Darwinism were a normal science instead of being, basically, an unfalsifiable religion for atheists, count as yet another empirical falsification of their, ahem, ‘theory’.

    1 Thessalonians 5:21
    Test all things; hold fast what is good

  3. 3
    martin_r says:

    and one more thing …

    from an engineering point of view, i was also amazed to learn, that these retroviruses don’t insert into human DNA directly (as you may think)

    They can’t. Because it is not physically possible …

    Because there is AN INCOMPABILITY PROBLEM ….

    and now comes some engineering in …

    Human genome is made of DNA molecule and retroviruses use RNA molecules. SO THE VIRUS JUST CAN’T INSERT RNA INTO DNA… THIS IS THE INCOMPATIBILITY PROBLEM …

    So, in order the insertion can be even done, retroviruses’ RNA molecule needs to be converted into a form of DNA … otherwise, the virus can’t insert its ‘data’ into ‘human storage’ … a clear incompatibility problem like we see everyday when using various computers /storage media or video codecs …

    For the purpose of converting retroviruses’ RNA into DNA, a molecular machine called REVERSE TRANSCRIPTASE is being used – comes together with retroviruses 😉

    Reverse transcriptase (RT), also known as RNA-dependent DNA polymerase, is a DNA polymerase enzyme that transcribes single-stranded RNA into DNA. This enzyme is able to synthesize a double helix DNA once the RNA has been reverse transcribed in a first step into a single-strand DNA.

    here is a short but very informative 2 mins video on this conversion procedure:


    PS: i, as an engineer, would love to understand, how a retrovirus knows, that in order to insert its ‘type of data’ into human ‘data storage’, its ‘data format’ has to be converted into a compatible one … and then some biologist comes in, claiming, that blind unguided process figured it out how to create a data format conversion tool … seriously, what is wrong with these people ???

  4. 4
    Pater Kimbridge says:

    A good explanation of why ERVs are strong evidence for evolution:


  5. 5
    bornagain77 says:

    Here is a good, easy to understand, explanation for why ERVs are NOT strong evidence for evolution.


  6. 6
    bornagain77 says:

    of related note,

    Jan. 2022 Fossil Record refutes human evolution
    Fossils and Human Evolution (full series) – Casey Luskin – Oct. 2022
    Sept: 2022 – Genetic Evidence falsifies the claim the humans evolved from apes-like creature. And falsifies it in a ‘hard’ manner.
    Darwinists simply have no evidence that morphology, and/or biological form, is reducible to mutations to DNA.
    Population Genetics falsifies, instead of confirms, Darwinian claims for human evolution
    Human exceptionalism falsifies Darwinian claims for human evolution
    Nov. 2022 – Darwinists, (in what makes the ‘problem’ of explaining the origin of the human species pale in comparison), have no clue whatsoever why “I” should even come into existence as a “person” with a unique individual subjective conscious experience, but are instead reduced to arguing that my sense of self, my “I”, is merely a ‘neuronal illusion’

  7. 7
    bornagain77 says:

    OT: recently uploaded Dr. Meyer video lecture on “Return of the God Hypothesis”

    Stephen C Meyer

  8. 8
    martin_r says:

    Pater @4

    let me quote from the link you posted

    So, lets examine why these are such powerful evidence of common descent. As I mentioned, when retrotransposons mobilize they deposit a copy at a random location in the genome. This means that when an Alu is looking for a place to put a new copy, it has ~3 billion places to choose from –

    … deposit a copy at a random location in the genome …

    … it has ~3 billion places to choose from ….

    Really ? What about this ?

    From a mainstream paper:

    Retroviral Integration Site Selection

    The stable insertion of a copy of their genome into the host cell genome is an essential step of the life cycle of retroviruses. The site of viral DNA integration, mediated by the viral-encoded integrase enzyme, has important consequences for both the virus and the host cell. The analysis of retroviral integration site distribution was facilitated by the availability of the human genome sequence, revealing the non-random feature of integration site selection and identifying different favored and disfavored genomic locations for individual retroviruses. This review will summarize the current knowledge about retroviral differences in their integration site preferences as well as the mechanisms involved in this process.


    or this one (another mainstream paper):

    Retroviral integration: Site matters

    Mechanisms and consequences of retroviral integration site selection


  9. 9
    Pater Kimbridge says:

    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.

  10. 10
    bornagain77 says:

    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.

  11. 11
    relatd says:


    It look like a well oiled machine. Not, this car engine just assembled itself.

  12. 12
    bornagain77 says:

    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.

    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.,,,

    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.”

    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.,,,

    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

    Michael Behe – 2020 – Bacteriophage T4 – 11:45 minute mark


    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.

  13. 13
    relatd says:

    Virus function is not accidental. It has intention. For infectious viruses, they have intention and carry it out once in an appropriate environment.

  14. 14
    Seversky says:

    Are you saying viruses are conscious and have a purpose in mind when they do what they do?

  15. 15
    Querius says:

    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.


  16. 16
    martin_r says:

    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.


    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)?

  17. 17
    martin_r says:


    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 …

  18. 18
    Seversky says:

    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.

  19. 19
    martin_r says:


    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.”


    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 ?

  20. 20
    martin_r says:


    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 …

  21. 21
    martin_r says:


    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 ?

  22. 22
    bornagain77 says:

    ,,, 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.

    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”?

    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.

    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..

    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).

  23. 23
    relatd says:

    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.

  24. 24
    whistler says:

    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…

  25. 25
    Querius says:

    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.

    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)

    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)

    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)

    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.


  26. 26
    martin_r says:

    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 …

  27. 27
    martin_r says:

    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 ?

  28. 28
    Querius says:

    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

    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).


  29. 29
    martin_r says:


    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.


  30. 30
    Seversky says:

    The probability of him being right is fairly small, too, I’d guess.

  31. 31
    martin_r says:

    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 :)))


  32. 32
    Querius says:

    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.


  33. 33
    martin_r says:


    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.


  34. 34
    Querius says:

    Martin_r @33,

    Thanks–loved the earwig video! It absolutely blows apart magical step-wise evolution!


  35. 35
    martin_r says:


    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 …


    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 …

  36. 36
    Querius says:

    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!


  37. 37
    Silver Asiatic says:

    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.

  38. 38
    Querius says:

    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 . . .


Leave a Reply