Blog

by Steve Risner

We’ve been exploring the “mountain of evidence” evolutionists very often cite when they are having a hard time dealing with creationists and the logical arguments often presented against evolutionism. We looked at common traits and how that is not only NOT evidence for common ancestry but that it is good evidence for creation. Genetics and embryology as well as other fields support this. Today, I’d like to look briefly at endogenous retroviruses. Don’t be scared! With a little explanation, it’ll be easy to follow.

We all have heard of a virus. It’s a little critter that uses our cell’s machinery to reproduce itself. They frequently make us sick. It’s arguable that it’s a living thing—it meets much but not necessarily all of the criteria man has established for such a classification. Being a “retro” virus doesn’t mean they used to be cool in the 70’s. It means they work in reverse of the norm when it comes to genetics. DNA converts to RNA to make proteins. However, using a specific enzyme, retroviruses actually turn RNA into DNA. This DNA can then be inserted into a host’s DNA, altering it. These viruses can probably aid in species variation. The claim by Darwinists is that this is very strong evidence for common ancestry. But as with most such evidence, the more we learn about it, the less likely the evolutionist’s tale seems to be supported by it.

The biggest issue with this line of reasoning is the biggest problem with most of their lines of thinking: they believe in evolution and/or deep time and then interpret the evidence to support it. It’s fairly easy to do. But, again, the more we learn about a given subject, the less it confirms Darwinism and, in many cases, the more it contradicts Darwinism. But have no fear! Rescuing devices for the Darwinian origins myth abound.

There are multiple reasons why these types of viruses do not support universal common descent. In fact, the line of reasoning as discussed above is circular, as no outside information can support the idea of them supporting evolution. As Dr. Andrew Fabich stated, “When you assume the outcomes of your experiments before conducting them and fit the data to your own interpretation, you leave the realm of science and enter the realm of self-fulfilling prophecy.” One problem is that of “junk” DNA. Now, a few years ago, evolutionists had to walk back one of the long standing (and naive) claims that our genetic code was littered with useless bits of DNA—which they claimed was evidence for their theory. Over the course of billions of years, DNA acquired numerous mutations that often times were silent—they were not brought out in how the organism developed. These accumulated over the eons and eventually could account for massive diversity and specialization in the biosphere (the wide array of organisms in our world). They called this “junk” DNA because they didn't think it served a purpose—like junk, it was useless and of no value.

However, this exemplifies the arrogance of man. We didn't understand or know what its functions were, so we “knew” it had none. This has been shown to be far from the truth. There is no such thing as “junk” DNA, which some evolutionists insist was their argument all along. The idea is that all these little viruses that inserted their genetic material into our genetic code would have left useless “junk” segments of DNA that had no purpose. If they left lots of baggage in our DNA, evolution would basically be free to use that as a means to produce new structures and functions. But this isn't the case at all. Again, the more we learn, the less we know. There is no evidence of this at all.

The genes associated with retroviruses are very often extremely important. Viral DNA sequences from some ancient “bug” should yield useless junk, not important information-carrying material. In some cases, they are absolutely detrimental to the development of an organism. Doesn't that seem like stronger evidence for their original inclusion in the genetic code, since they can often be essential for life? But if there are bits of “junk” DNA in the genome, this would stand in the face of the Darwinist's myth anyway. Why? Evolution essentially exists on a use it or lose it principle. If something has no function, it will, over the course of millions of years, be eliminated, right? Surely the process that can create sonar and the human brain by accident would very efficiently remove a useless organ, tissue, structure or genetic segment. Basically, the evolutionist's idea here is that, “Evolution will remove what it removes and keep what it will keep and that's what we predict.” In essence, evolution predicts whatever we see in the world around us and nothing we don't see. That's called science by some.

There are some segments of DNA that seem to be similar across different types of living things. This is used as evidence that they were inserted long ago when all of these organisms hadn't branched off their ancestral lineage. However, there are also many alleged segments that are not that similar. These are still used as evidence. Then there are a large number that are not alike at all. How are these explained by the advocate for universal common descent? Again, being “similar” to the extent of being identical is not as common as we're led to believe.

In the Journal of Virology, Dr. Edward Holmes indicated that the genetic “clocks” of these viral segments appear to indicate they cannot be older than about 50,000 years. If that's even remotely true, then these cannot be ancestral to anything.

It's also interesting that I could not find anyone who could actually document how a virus inserted its DNA into the germ cell (the cells by which eggs and sperm come from) so it was passed on to the next generation. Again, this falls back to the idea that this is simply an interpretation of the data, and an elaborate story is told which includes bits and pieces of known facts. If this is what some call scientific fact, then Star Trek is also scientific fact. It's a cool story written with small amounts of scientific truth (that is expanded upon much like evolution). In fact, very few of these sorts of viruses insert and maintain their genetic material inside a host cell. Those that do generally result in some sort of cancer or other disease and none are known to infect germ cells (the cells the lead to reproduction) so they can never be passed on after being incorporated into the genome. Sorry, evolutionist. Your story telling has no merit.

According to Brian Thomas, “Copies of a computer virus on a hard drive do not improve software or performance, but rather harm it. Useful software comes only by planning and effort. Science has shown that transposons [alleged retrovirus DNA segments] are useful biological software. But this means that they did not come from viruses, despite contradictory popular press. Instead, they appear to have come from a pre-designed system of integrated genetic elements that mobilize under strict regulation, and which in turn regulate other systems.” This makes sense to everyone but evolutionists. Randomly throwing letters on paper doesn't make a novel. Creating errors in computer code doesn't make a better program. Throwing paint on a canvas won't magically create the Mona Lisa.

The fact is that no one has any idea if retroviruses actually insert their DNA into a host so that it is maintained and passed on to subsequent generations. Another fact is they have no idea where viruses came from. Some evidence seems to indicate that viruses originated from host DNA, not the other way around. That's remarkable! But the bottom line is we simply don't know enough to suggest anything either way. And, like so much else, they say this is STRONG support for evolution from a common ancestor. Ugh. The strongest evidence is, again, not evidence at all (unless we're going to say that Star Trek is evidence for intergalactic space travel, aliens, and warp speed).

It could very well be that there are similar genetic sequences in similar looking organisms because those organisms require similar things. I've covered this sort of thing in my post from last week and the post before that. Similarities could suggest a common ancestral lineage, but they can also indicate common design and would do so for a variety of reasons. This also makes much more sense when we look at the data in detail.

This forum is meant to foster discussion and allow for differing viewpoints to be explored with equal and respectful consideration.  All comments are moderated and any foul language or threatening/abusive comments will not be approved.  Users who engage in threatening or abusive comments which are physically harmful in nature will be reported to the authorities.