Evolution and the Gospel: From Enemy to Harmony

Faith & Science Conversation
41

my dear friend keith. i just have the feeling that you cant realy falsified those arguments i have made. if you realy search for the truth (its seems you are), it isnt worth to check if my argument are valid or not? again- your best evidence for evolution its easily explain by the creation model without any need for evolution. you dont find it interesting?

its a very big issue. because if the origin of the retrovirus its from the human genome itself then its falsified the argument of ervs completely. the interesting part is that even if the ervs are a real result of viral infactions, i can still show you why they found in the same places in different genomes, without a commondescent.

so why you should not give any scientific paper to falsified any of my claims? and how the fossil record have a conection to ervs?( can you find ervs in fossils?)

“talkorigin” claiming a lots of false claims about evolution and id. you want me to show you some of them?

have a nice day.

42

I think Dr. Furman is stating that the fossil record provides strong support for common descent; therefore, if there are two explanations for a phenomenon like ERVs, then we should select the explanation that conforms to the fossil record.

1 Like
43

Roger, no, I had not heard of that book, but it looks like an intriguing read and I’ll be sure to put it on my short-list at our recommendation. The periodic table of elements is one of the most interesting stories in the history of science. I’ve also heard that physicists say, for reason not too hard to understand, that the very same elements of the periodic table would be inevitable if the universe starting over with the same initial finely-tuned conditions, constants, and laws as our universe did–the elements are largely incremental increases in the number of proton, neutrons and electrons. But, I’m only an armchair physicist.

44

if so- the fossil record actually doesnt support evoluion either.

45

@dcscccc
I’m going to have to start deleting your comments again if you insist on throwing out one-line sentences that make no sense and seem designed to antagonize people who have been very patiently researching and explaining things you don’t even bother to read or engage with. Either add something substantial to the discussion that shows you have actually reflected on what other people have said, or refrain from posting please.

4 Likes
46

That sounds like a good book, Roger. I first became aware of it at Jesus Creed, here is a link to a review and remarks there:

1 Like
47

@Keith_Furman

I do not think that one needs to be a great physicist to understand that the4 periodic table demonstrates the underlying structure or design of the universe. Understandably it is the discovery of quantum physics that cause physics to say that the universe is disorganized, but this does not affect chemistry and the periodic table. The quantum world does not directly effect the macro world.

Physics tends to see natural history from the top - down, or bottom - up, while chemistry is a “lateral” science. It is the horizontal movement of chemistry and history that most effects ecological evolutionary change. To reduce evolution to genetic changes distorts the whole of scientific thinking.

1 Like
48

what have i said christy? i always back up my claims with scientific papers.

49

Thank you for the information. Excellent website!

50

And when people interact with those papers, you don’t really respond to it, you just throw out a new thing that distracts from issues you yourself have brought up. There isn’t much evidence that you even read what people write, you just say, “Well, what about this other link” (Many of which people have already addressed with you over the past year.) The point of this forum is for people to learn about evolutionary creationism, not to provide a never-ending platform for propaganda from every other viewpoint. If your only purpose in being here is to convert people to ID thinking and you honestly have no interest in ever changing your perspective, than the repetition of your same worn out arguments becomes a drain.

5 Likes
51

The style actually has a name: Gish Gallop.

4 Likes
52

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.

5 Likes
53

great post. Thanks for taking the time to put it together.

1 Like
54

hi again keith. about 70% of your comment is about the bible. but i actually only talked about science so far. so lets stick with the scientific evidence.

lets see. i will give a sceintific paper to any of my claims. lets start with your first claim:

its interesting because we know about counter examples like those:

so we have evidence that shared locations can happan without a commondescent.

the second argument against this claim is the fact that ervs can be functional:

http://www.nature.com/ng/journal/v45/n3/full/ng.2553.html

and therefore can be the result of design and not a virus infactions. so the virus may be the one that
actually infacted by the primates genomes.

again- you assume that ervs are neutral.

and again: both line and sine are found to be functinal:

http://www.pnas.org/content/110/50/20140.full

secondly- i gave evidence that from morphological prespective the primate phylogeny is wrong. the closest ape to human is the orangutan and not the chimp.

so bottom line: why you decide to believe that ervs are the result of commondescent when we have scientific evidence that they are not?

55

DC, please give it a rest. We’ve all heard you say these things and post these papers dozens of times. And you have received answers to these same points just as often. I don’t think any of us want to repeat ourselves nearly as often as you seem to. I’ve known people who love to repeat the same funny stories over and over again and they somehow do it like its the first time every time, but for the people who have heard it 30 times over the years at every possible gathering (often their poor kids or wives) it must be painful. This, my friend, is painful. Just please stop.

3 Likes
56

As they say, “dnftt”

3 Likes
57

Dcscccc, wonderful! Glad you are going to stick with scientific evidence from now on! BTW, it was you, my friend, who who brought-up theology in using “the creation model” as the authority for your claims, where you said earlier:

“…your best evidence for evolution its easily explain by the creation model without any need for evolution”

It doesn’t get much more theological than that, albeit misguided theology, as we, including many noted Bible scholars, are now convinced. Since you first brought it up…also, BTW, is your creation model the minority YEC model or a predominant old-earth creation (OEC) model? I know it wasn’t a minority EC creation model. Or I’ll assume it is the “creation model” Ken Ham referred to in his debate with Bill Nye. Theology is the crux of the matter in our discussions.

I’m being facetious about your promise to stick to the scientific evidence, of course, because the only thing you’ve established is that you have no intention of fully engaging with the evidence, other than to take pot-shots at it. If you really were engaging with it you could easily find these answers yourself with little trouble.

Please don’t take that personally. I’m sure you’re a wonderful person just trying to be faithful to our Intelligent Designer.

I get it. Believe me, I got it for 35 years. The gospel of Jesus makes so much sense of life that, if you’re convinced that evolution = atheism, evolution becomes UNTHINKABLE. And, of course, having outspoken media atheists, like Dawkins, capitalize on the FALSE “creation or evolution” dichotomy only make you dig in your heels further. But, by buying-into that FALSE dichotomy of polar extremes, you make yourself the TOOL of the new atheists. They love to have Christians argue this way because it destroys the credibility of our witness for the gospel of Jesus. Even a 5th grader knows they are right about the evidence (just NOT their scientism and metaphysical conclusions about God).

I and other EC view folks are convinced that there are far better perspectives in the EC view if Christians would only engage with that instead making ad hoc anti-science barbs and lame arguments against modern science conclusions that have destroyed the credibility of our witness in the eyes of educated people. And the gospel of Jesus still makes the same sense of life.

If Biblical revelation was about revealing science in the Bible, rather than simply accommodating to an ancient understanding of such things, don’t you think God would have explained that the moon goes around the sun and reflects the sun’s light instead of calling the moon one of the “two great lights” in Genesis 1:16? Bill Nye was boo’d by Christians for saying that the moon reflects the sun’s light because God supposedly called the moon a “great light”, much to the delight of the atheists. Then again, why would God go into all that?

Or do you believe in the solid dome (firmament) that held back the Heavenly sea from the waters below? That’s what the Bible literally describes and what ancient Near East ANE evidence shows people back then believed, as well as Augustine, Luther, and Calvin. Whaaat? I know, crazy right? See what they really said about the firmament here in, Is Scientific Concordism Really a Feature of the Bible? taken from Lamoureux’s college course with permission.

For example, St. Augustine in the “Literal Meaning of Genesis”, 415 AD, said:

“They must certainly bear in mind that the term “firmament” does not compel us to imagine a stationary heaven: we may understand this name as give to indicate not that it is motionless but that it is solid and that it constitutes a impassible boundary between the waters above and the waters below.”

The emphasis was in the original, BTW.

The YEC response that I actually heard just the other day directly from someone who is a Tour Guide at Ham’s Creation and Earth History Museum is that solid dome really was created there but it went away when the windows of Heaven opened up during Noah’s flood. If it supposedly went away, then why is the same Hebrew word for firmament still used in the Psalms, Ezekiel and the book of Daniel?

Honestly, why would God do anything but accommodate to their ancient science. It would have distracted and confused them from the main message that the sun and moon are not god’s—that there is one God who created us, etc. HOW it happened is incidental to the WHY it happened and what it means to our relationship to God spiritual message. So, we separate and don’t conflate the INCIDENTAL ancient “science” from the revealed message, as Lamoureux teaches so well.

Lamoureux was a committed publishing YEC left his career as a doctor of dental surgery (DDS) to get a PhD in Biology on tooth evolution specifically to prove evolution wrong. It was proved right to him in the process. Then he went on to get an M.S. and PhD in theology.

Also note that your model does absolutely nothing to explain the HOW of God’s essential design was accomplished. Did that design happen in an instant, a minute, a 24h day or through an epoch of time? You can’t even begin to answer those questions without an alternative mechanism, which you have not proposed.

An evolutionary creation (EC) model, on the other hand, explains how God’s essential design could have been accomplished via evolutionary processes that were part of the nature God creation and that explains how “endless forms most beautiful” have come into being. While it wasn’t obvious to me as a typical creationist, one way that could have happened is in, “What if Evolution Mean High Intelligence and an Advance Civilization Were Inevitable?”.

Your creation model, on the other hand, argues against modern science conclusions and is, thus, an anti-science model.

Maybe you don’t know that churches “coming across as anti-science” is the #3 reason youth leave the church today? See the 2011 Barna Group study and my about section for more cited stats, such as 45% of 18-22 year-olds leave Protestant churches, never to return.

The old Functional ERV Argument

I’ve heard you’re “functional” argument for years and it is not the least bit persuasive. I am glad you raised the typical creationist argument that [some] ERVs are functional as evidence for design. I was going to bring that up in my last post, but it was getting long and, well, I knew that would be your next argument.

I’m sure by “functional” or not “neutral” you don’t mean a functional provirus but that the sequences from ERVs are involved in some functional role in the host genome, e.g., like synthesizing a sticky protein that mammals co-opted or exapted to evolve a placenta or being located in the genome in a position that affects gene regulation of some other gene product in a function-altering way.

Before I focus on the science, let me also point out that I agree with you that functionality (along with beauty and complexity) are ultimately pointers to a purposeful Designer of the universe. I take by faith that God created all of nature. I believe in an Intelligent Designer, just not ID theory. The nuances of that are described by Lamoureux here.

Your “Functional ERV” argument is not persuasive for at least the following reasons:

(1) No alternative mechanism has been proposed for how they were otherwise designed to be functional, i.e., other than through an evolutionary mechanism that can be explained.

Only an evolutionary model exists to explain the ERV data on the whole. To falsify, you’d need a substantiated working creationist model that is consistent with uncommon ancestry and incorporates the whole of ERV data. I’ll not respond to continued ad hoc arguments without such positive evidence.

(2) Functionality of some is exactly what we’d expect via an evolutionary mechanism out of hundreds of thousands of infections in our genome. Other HERV/ERV cause or predispose us to disease. Others are neutral.

In addition to deletions, point mutations, other insertions, and etc., HERV/ERV infections, as well as SINE and LINE transposable elements, are another source of genetic variation (the fuel of evolution, if you will) upon which natural selection (the driver) can act. This allows species to adapt over time to changing environments.

Evangelicals, and even YECs, DON’T have a problem with adaptation through mutation and natural selection. But, speciation, or what typical creationist call “macroevolution” (where they draw the line—or used to???) can then occur whenever enough mutations have accumulated within members of a species that have been geographically (or otherwise) separated for a long time, e.g., 150 thousand years, such that they can no longer mate and reproduce progeny that can, in turn, reproduce.

Even Ken Ham’s young-earth creationist’s (YEC) org, Answers-in-Genesis (AIG), doing a 180 on evolution, now saying millions of species “evolved” from just a few in 4,000 or so years since the Genesis flood. What’s up with that? That’s hyper-evolution or evolution-on-steroids. Ken Ham is more pro-evolution as God’s creative tool than ID-Theory people. Really!?! That was my, “Big Surprise in Ken Ham vs Bill Nye Debate".

There is strong selective pressure for those infections that do produce a functionally beneficial effect. Those infections that produce a useful function are the most likely to favor survival and successful reproduction. But, you’d expect other infections to produce deleterious effects (e.g., predisposition to disease), but yet remain if they did not threaten life or the ability to find a mate and reproduce. Over time, you’d expect those producing deleterious results to simply be inactivated by point mutations or other mutations, resulting in a healthier organism that would be selected for preferentially. Those would then be neutralized (i.e., neutral), as we have every reason to expect that the overwhelming majority of ERVs are. It’s not hard to understand.

And what we expect is what we find. Some have functional co-opted by the host, either affecting the regulation of existing gene products or existing genetic regulatory mechanisms or producing useful products that the host has adapted to use. But, these are the exception to the rule and not unexpected. The group of 4 reference you cited supports what I am saying.

You cited a reference that mentions ERVs involved in the placenta, just as Graeme Finlay covered in Part 2 of The Story in Our Genes. The ERV’s involvement in the development of the placenta in mammals is one of the most interesting stories of convergence in evolution–it has happened repeatedly, each with different ERV infections wherein the sticky attachment protein of the virus was co-opted, as noted here where it starts “The mammalian placenta is remarkably distinct between species”. That they are “remarkably distinct” is because the placenta evolved independently multiple times from the sticky protein of different ERV infections in one of the most remarkable examples of convergent evolution. See Retroviruses, the Placenta, and the Genomic Junk Drawer.

““Remarkably, exogenous retroviral envelope (env) genes therefore have been integrated independently and adapted for similar essential placental functions via a convergent evolution process. “

“Syncytins are envelope (env) genes captured from ancient retroviruses that “endogenized”—integrated into the germ-line chromosomes of an ancestral host—millions of years ago and since then have been transmitted in a Mendelian fashion from one generation to the next (1, 2). Six syncytin genes have been identified so far in primates, muroids, leporids, and carnivores (Fig. P1). These genes were captured independently from unrelated retroviruses that endogenized in distinct mammalian lineages and have been co-opted for a role in the formation of the placenta via a process of convergent evolution. We recently demonstrated through genetically modified mice that these genes are required for placenta formation and embryonic survival (3), and we further proposed that this stochastic acquisition of genes may have been pivotal in establishing the remarkable variability of placental structures among mammals.” PNAS Plus: Captured retroviral envelope syncytin gene associated with the unique placental structure of higher ruminants - PMC

This is part of abundant evidence for convergence in evolution where the same features of life evolve independently in diverse organisms. Think how many animals can fly for example. Bees fly, birds fly, mammals (bats) fly, etc., and none has a common flying ancestor. Bats are called “birds” (Deut 14:11-18) in the Bible, BTW. That’s just one of many examples that show the Bible wasn’t talking in scientific terms the way we do now, i.e., it isn’t a book of science.

See here and, for thousands of example of convergent evolution, see here.

Simon Conway Morris, who is NOT and ID theory advocate but is a Christian argues that the ubiquitous examples of convergence in evolution is evidence that there is far more predictability of coming-up with the features of life, including beings like us, than most scientists are willing to recognize. Oddly Richard Dawkins agrees. See “What if Evolution Mean High Intelligence and an Advance Civilization Were Inevitable?”, linked to above.

How ironic is it that the world’s most notorious atheist, Richard Dawkins, makes it possible for me to be an intellectually fulfilled Christian?

(3) Other good resources refuting this the “Functional” ERV argument are here, here and IDiots and ERVs and in Friendly Viruses: The Special Relationship between Endogenous Retroviruses and Their Host

In response to me saying, that molecular fossils can be used as molecular clocks to estimate to how long ago the infection occurred based on known average mutation rates, you say:

You argue “if neutral”. But, you apparently missed that they controlled for neutral ERVs—that was the a main point of the molecular clocks reference.

Further most are neutral. Most ERVs in humans lack functions, and hence have decayed since being inherited from a common ancestor with other primates. Those few that have not are believed to have a functional role. See Phylogenetic Analysis Reveals That ERVs “Die Young” but HERV-H Is Unusually Conserved.

That’s why they “Die Young”—they tolerate extensive mutations because they are neutral and have no function. Of course, it’s possible that some ERVs taking up space where they inserted in the genome still up or down regulates the expression of some host gene(s) in a beneficial way. But, that wouldn’t preclude the ERV sequence itself from mutating as it if was neutral.

See the amazing tree of ERV-Fc going back 50-60 million years in both primates and other mammals in this reference --A Family Tree of a Retrovirus Group: The genomes of nearly 30 mammals that exist today harbor traces of ERV-Fc, a group of viruses that existed between 15 and 30 million years ago.

The only way to reasonably explain the ERV data is with deep time and common descent through evolutionary processes, processes we, accordingly, expect were God’s chosen tool to bring about His purposes.

You assert that man is closer to orangutans than chimps. While there is a report of a recent study purporting to show closer similarity in one part of the genome between orangutans and humans and orangutans males are attracted to human women, it is misleading to something like that when other experts in the field still think it is “wacky idea”.

I’m not saying they aren’t, but even if the recent phylogenetic trees made from ERVs aren’t 100% accurate, especially among such closely related species, that doesn’t change the fact that the ERV data is overwhelmingly convincing evidence for common descent. Rats and mice, BTW, have more genetic diversity between them than do humans, chimps, bonobos, gorillas and orangutans between each other.

In addition to Graeme Finlay’s materials cited before, this 2004 reference, which may be a bit dated in minor aspects, is a good intro to ERVs as fossils in our DNA for those who are interested in reading further.

Numerous other related posts are easily searched on the instant www.BioLogos.org site. There is also a good honest article on uncommondescent.com here where they are policing their own about Dr. @Swamidass. See especially other posts at BioLogos by Dr. @Swamidass, Dr. @DennisVenema and others.

1 Like
58

Man, Keith.
I know you’ve discussed this a bit but someday you should should really describe what it felt like when the blinders came off and the cognitive dissonance resolved.

59

Thanks for asking, Argon. I mentioned something of the joy the day after when certain cognitive dissonance was gone forever. But, the initial moment of admitting to myself that I had been wrong about evolution for 35 years was an “agony of defeat” moment that I will never forget. I was reading Francis Collins book. All the evidence for evolution that I had put on the back shelf of my mind to deal with at a later time (which is OK unless that time never comes), suddenly came front and center as I looked at the new molecular evidence, e.g., at chromosome 2, especially, from Collin’s book (see the video at BioLogos post here). Humans have one less chromosome and chromosome 2 looks just like a fusion of chromosomes 12 and 13 of the great apes. Chromosome fusions are a well know type of mutation. Arguing that occurred by design makes no sense because there are telemeric sequences right there in the middle (fusion region) of chromosome 2 that are normally at the ends–a tell-tale sign of a fusion. And those telemeric sequences are degraded just as one would expect via common descent because they are no longer active.

Ultra Creepy Evolution Had Won

Chief among my conflicting emotions in that initial moment of decision to be persuaded by the evidence for evolution was a creepy vanquished sense of loss—like losing the biggest battle to the biggest loser. While I obviously don’t want to compare my pain to the physical pain of real soldiers in combat, what comes to mind when I think of that moment is the most disturbing movie scene I had ever seen. It was in the movie, Saving Private Ryan,–you know, the one where the WWII enemy soldier fought our hero in hand-to-hand combat in the stairway of a bombed-out building. As I remember it, just as it looked like our hero might win, he was overcome by the enemy and end-up on his back with a long knife to the chest and the enemy on top. Our hero was hopelessly pinned to the ground with no wiggle-room to escape. And, to add insult to both injury and impending death, the enemy very gradually, in the creepiest way you can imagine, pushed the long knife inch-by-inch slowly into the American’s chest—all while gesturing to the American to shush, “Shhhhh”, be quiet, still and accept his by-now inevitable horrific fate. There was NOTHING else our hero could do except accept his fate.

That’s what that moment felt like. My ultra-creepy enemy, evolution, had won after fighting that foe for 35 years. And there was NOTHING else I could do about it. As Randy Isaac, then President of The American Scientific Affiliation, so accurately and aptly said later in the June, 2011 issue of Christianity Today magazine, “There was a lot of wiggle room in the past. The human genome sequencing took that wiggle room away.” It was so ironic. All this time, I had been kicking against the goads of what is really true and, apparently, God’s chosen creative tool, and thinking it was the enemy.

“Endless Forms Most Beautiful”

But, joy came in the morning as I realized I finally had a science-faith synthesis from Collins. In many ways that was a beginning of a whole other journey that I could only begin to tell in my story here. I plan to do another more detailed version or a series of blog posts of my story and/or “our story” as an evangelical family of 7 coming to terms with evolution. I think some would find it helpful. I know it’s been immensely helpful for me hearing similar stories from others at BioLogos and the ASA who’ve also found resistance from some more-fundamentalist-leaning fellow church members that tend not to see it the same way. They also spoke of feeling very alone and isolated–which seems to be a common thread. And I had it relatively good, I think. My wife has been trusting and my pastors went out on a limb, at the time, to protect me and a few others in the church.

That church made the wise decision in 2011, I think, to “make the highway to the gospel as broad as possible” by accepting all theologically valid science/faith views. That included the EC view I held and they listed various theologians who supported forms of theistic evolution. I think that decision was a model for evangelical churches on this issue.

But, recently our church added a requirement for a “historical Adam” in its statement of faith that members are required to support. Really?!? I couldn’t support that, even if only out of principle. There are several evangelical theologically valid views that don’t require a historical Adam and Eve, e.g., the Adam as archetype view of John Walton and of OT scholar, Tremper Longman III, as well as the “no Adam” view, which I’m partial to, of Denis O. Lamoureux that’s published, along with John Walton’s view, in Four View on the Historical Adam by conservative publisher, Zondervan Publishing. Five of our pastors at the time also heard Denis present his view at the 65th Annual Evangelical Theological Society Meeting in Nov. of 2013.

Many Christians may not like it, but those are theologically valid evangelical views on a non-historical Adam that respect the authority of scripture. They just aren’t the popular scientific concordist way of interpreting the Bible.

I also don’t think the church knew at the time they made that requirement for a historical Adam that the author An Introduction to the Old Testament book that they have in their vetted church bookstore is Tremper Longman III who publicly questioned the need for a historical Adam in 2009 linked-to in the same CT magazine article that OT professor Bruce Waltke (a name our pastors used to throw around only in a positive way) used the “C” word when resigning to describe evangelicals if they don’t accept evolution as scientist do. Tremper Longman III described his view here in 2014.

The irony and humor of that situation gets me through. Yet, suddenly there is this requirement that would keep me from now being a member in the same church where my wife and I met and got married over 30 years ago, had, raised and homeshooled our 5 children, tithed and served in a variety of ways, including leading a small couples group for over 25 years, not to mention being youth ministry lay-leaders before that.

It’s things like that that make Christians in my situation feel isolated, not to mention the cognitive dissonance for those who can’t believe in a historical Adam in this day and age but don’t see that it makes any difference to the gospel–we all sin and need Christ’s atoning sacrifice, regardless. I think several evangelical theologians have really good perspectives on that. But, how many pastors will even study that? How many youth have to leave the church first?

But, I degress. It’s amazing what a difference in perspective makes. I went from ultra-creepy evolution for 35 years to being moved to joyful tears when I think about "endless forms most beautiful" (Darwin’s words) through God’s apparently chosen evolutionary process. Yet, so many Christians with backgrounds in science are unwilling to engage on it.

Pardon the technical enzyme kinetics analogy but, for me, the activation energy that got me over the hump of so many hurdles to finally FULLY engage with the evidence, other than to argue against it, was deep concern over the credibility of our witness for the gospel. …that and Francis Collin’s life and book and, I’m sure, the Holy Spirit’s power and work in my life in the grace of God.

But, typically, trying to get others who can’t see it to see it is like trying to nail Jell-O(R) to a tree, as anyone can see from Dcscccc interactions elsewhere in these comments.

That might be more than you were asking for, Argon, but it’s only a fraction of a deeper story that might be worth telling some sometime, for some, I think. This was more about the moment of decision and not so much about the end of cognitive dissonance that you asked about. That’s a more complicated story because, for me, after 35 years, the paradigm shift was pretty great and one problem solved led to another question to answer. I felt joy until I shared Collin’s perspective on Adam with the Dean of our church’s pastor’s college. Their reaction to that from our reformed tradition led to all kinds of questions. I found good perspectives all along though. But, it would probably take a lot blog posts to cover all the nuances of that ground given my church and family and extended family.

BTW, I did warn BioLogos of my malady–I get diarrhea-of-the-keyboard. It runs in the family.

4 Likes
60

Well, I think you have some competition with your digital diarrhea. Not from me…

2 Likes