Dcscccc, please don’t forget that I am also a creationist, and evolutionary creationist (EC) who believes in the authority of scripture for all that God intended to reveal in it.
You’ve got nothing, scientifically-speaking, that requires a falsification. And it is pointless to argue the evidence with you because no amount or veracity of evidence will convince you. That’s obvious from our previous discussions. And that is consistent with typical creationist thinking which can’t engage with the evidence, i.e., other than to argue against it, because they think it means calling God a liar. This line from an Answers in Genesis (AIG) site about ERVs shows why they cannot possibly allow themselves to be persuaded where it says,
“Since we know the Word of God is true, we know that ERVs cannot be proof of evolution.”
Of course their interpretation of scripture couldn’t possibly be wrong could it? Hmmm? Our disagreement on the data is theological. I’m not a theologian, but I rely on qualified evangelical theologians.
And, let me ask you, would God want you to be caught on the horns of a moral dilemma—inexorably torn between 1) calling God a liar and 2.) lying with the data by not accepting it when it is otherwise convincing, i.e., intellectual integrity (9th Commandment not to bear false witness)? No, that would be inconsistent with God’s character to force us into that kind of impossible choice. But, seeing no other choice, many flee (to atheism) because typical creationists force that choice upon them with their dogmatic interpretation. But, because we can all agree that our interpretation of scripture is not inerrant, there is another choice when faced with this moral dilemma. And that is to see if there is a better hermeneutic for your interpretation of scripture.
In arguing for a creation model (typical creationist model) and that ERV viruses came from man (i.e., and hence a de novo-type creation of man) and no evidence for evolution from the fossil record, you are taking a young earth creationist (YEC) position.
While we both hold the Bible to true for what it was meant to teach, you apparently read it literally in a straight-forward manner, like it is a book of science. That’s arguably the WORST way to interpret scripture if it is not that genre of writing, especially the initial chapters of Genesis that deal with pre- and proto-history when the author was not present and the author’s audience knew that author wasn’t present. Typical creationists think that if it “requires interpretation” that’s a bad thing On the contrary, if we don’t interpret scripture, we are bound to misinterpret it. But, someone holding to AIG’s statement above interpreted the Bible to say that 2+2=5 then nothing would ever convince that that 2+2=4 because we, obviously, cannot call God a liar. But, if our interpretation is NOT inerrant then your only authority is your potentially errant interpretation, and NOT the Word of God, per se.
But, if think your literal interpretation of Genesis is infallible then:
Any weak or incorrect argument + God’s Word = an irrefutable argument
Thus, it is pointless to talk about evidence with you. While I respect your zeal to honor God, doing it that way is not honoring to God.
If the Bible doesn’t accurately convey that there is a solid dome (firmament) that separates the heavenly see above from the waters below, for example, does that mean God lied in the Bible? NO! God merely accommodated to the ancient understanding of an ancient original audience on matter touching on modern science and used that as an INCIDENTAL vessel to best communicate to that audience who he is and spiritual messages of redemption. We can know that is the way to interpret scripture because God also speaks in the book of God’s works that can, at times, properly inform our interpretation of God’s words in a two book model of revelation from God. That’s my understanding from evangelical theologians and historians like John Walton, Kyle Greenwood, Denis O. Lamoureux, etc.
As noted in my story, I realized that I had been putting great hope in weak arguments. But, it’s only because the ERV, fossil and other evidence for evolution is so convincing, you and organizations like Answers in Genesis (AIG) to try to give unsuspecting YEC believers something to hope in by obfuscating the issues and make it look confusing—anything to throw a wrench into the works, take pot-shots, and create out of nothing (in many cases) some doubt about the overwhelmingly convincing evidence. This only makes scientists explain the evidence more thoroughly. But, unsuspecting Christians who don’t know the science (and even some who do) put great hope in these typical creationist arguments. That’s because it’s easy to put hope when they use words like, “obviously” and “clearly”, when they talk about their weak arguments. Beware, that usually means “anything but obvious” and “anything but clear”, respectively. Just as you did, they also make dogmatic conclusions that they have refuted the evidence when they haven’t. And they do many things like that that people put their hope in, as well.
A watching world (if anyone is still watching) looks on and sees that as intellectually bankrupt, i.e., when someone says they have the authority of God’s word when all they have is an interpretation of God’s word and argues as I just described.
This has all led to mass disillusionment and the stories are all over the Internet of those who become atheists when they finally realized how they’ve been duped by this typical creationist approach and/or could longer no bear the cognitive dissonance it causes. It is heart-breaking to me. While I never had that approach on the internet or publications, I’ve shed many a tear of remorse for my role in it at times in those 35 years.
I’d guess you fancy yourself a defender of the faith, as I did when I thought that way. But doing so in that way we only make a mockery of our common faith and the precious gospel of Jesus Christ.
Typical creationists should, rather, allow the book of God’s works to inform their interpretation of the Bible in the generally accepted two books model of revelation from God.
Granted, historically, the church has generally given far more weight to a more literal interpretation of the book of God’s words when it formulated its doctrines and creeds. But, that’s because what the book of God’s works had to say was murky back then. That was long before microscopes and telescopes and the scientific method. That was long before scientists split the atom and discovered and harnessed the electromagnetic spectrum to provide electric lights, cell phones, microwaves, CAT scans, NMR imaging and all kinds of medical breakthroughs.
For theological perspectives that respect God’s revelation of redemption in scripture AND square with scientifically determine realities, see for example, the web lectures of theologian and scientist Denis O. Lamoureux that made sense of it all for me.
The HERV/ERV Data:
That being said, I’m glad to present more data one more time for our readers. But, you haven’t established anything to falsify.
A) The burden is on you to falsify established studies and all you have is an idea – an idea that flies is the face of everything we know from modern science on so many levels. You’re arguing that God directly created/designed the HERV sequences in humans in a de novo creation event.
In the graphic above (used by permission from Greame Finlay), the viruses listed in blue are common to all the primates shown (inherited from a common ancestor), including Humans, in orthologous positions (precise corresponding locations in the genome) in the genomes of each inserted as Graeme Finlay described. Their commonality is shown in the blue dots on the right. How did they get inserted in the exact same location in other species if created in humans first and became viruses? They could be in any number of at least hundreds of thousands (because each hundreds of thousands of other ERV infections) of locations several billion base pairs of the genome.
The ones grouped by other colors show where ERV infections began in more recent common ancestors because those infections in orthologous positions are only common to those more closely related primates. They form an inheritance trail of molecular fossils in DNA that can only reasonably be explained by inheritance and common descent from common ancestors. Mapping these is a also powerful evidence for phylogenetic relatedness and determining such where there have been ambiguities (not shown but discussed by Finlay in the sources below).
Most ERV infections tolerated by the host, i.e., where the host survived to reproduce, the viral sequences are free to mutate because they typically serve no useful purpose. These molecular fossils can be used as molecular clocks to estimate to how long ago the infection occurred based on known average mutation rates. ERV Infections in the other colors common to a nearer common ancestors typically fewer mutations, unless it’s function has been co-opted by the host, just as scientists would expect from common descent where the viral sequence that is now part of their and our genomes is faithfully reproduced through inheritance.
B) Thus, your idea also flies in the face of several other reasons why the ERV/HERV data is so persuasive for common descent:
(1) The phylogenetic trees determined from the ERV data agrees with a high degree of accuracy with similar but independent genetic analysis from other DNA insertion elements and other genetic information, e.g., LINE and SINE elements.
(2) With 8% of our genome composed of hundreds of thousands of these HERV insertions and the with the insert and target duplication sites being specific sequences, i.e. that can’t just insert anywhere, the fact that multiple species of primate share some of the same infections by specific virus sequences at the same orthologous locations in their corresponding would have been incredibly improbable by chance. For that and other reasons it can only be explained by inheritance as the genome is copied and passed down from generation to generation.
(3) If these sequences were transmitted from humans to other primates in relatively recent history, e.g., given a literal YEC interpretation of Genesis, you would NOT expect the share infections by the same virus in orthologous positions in various species to differ in their sequence due to random mutations because there wouldn’t be time for such change at normal mutation rates. But, the sequences are different and the difference is greater in the more distantly related species, just as you’d expect through common descent.
(4) The nuances and other similar obfuscating argument by typical creationists that have been made are thoroughly dealt with by the scientists in these articles. Further addresses these here is beyond the scope of this post.
http://www.evolutionarymodel.com/ervs.htm
http://www.evolutionarymodel.com/evolutionnews.htm
(5) Again, this convincing ERV evidence is only as small part of a larger mountain of corroborating evidence, and only a small part of that is contained in the following partial list of resources:
• Part 1 and Part 2 of Graeme Finlay’s The Story in Our Genes talk
• Human Genetics and the Image of God, by Finlay actually explains the HERV/ERV evidence better except for how the viruses become inserted and doesn’t have the helpful infographic of slide 9 in Part 2 above. It also discussing corroboration LINE element and other transposable element data.
• Human Evolution: Genes, Genealogies and Phylogenies, also by Finlay, is his recent book that brings much more of this definitive evidence together.
“There used to be some wiggle-room. The new molecular evidence has taken away that wiggle room….”, as Randy Isaac, former Executive Director of the American Scientific Affiliation (ASA), now emeritus, has so aptly put it.