Answers in Genesis does address this, specifically, by a PhD microbiologist.
A brief response (an eon of time could be devoted to the attempt to convince laypeople that AiG is talking out of the wrong hole, and life is short):
Evolutionists will say that shared ERVs prove evolution to be true
No scientist should ever say that. Here, AiG is setting up the 'proof' narrative that leads to the attacking of strawman arguments. The page mentions the word 'proof' nine times. The word proof really has no place in a scientific discussion. It is about evidence, provisional conclusions and disproof. You can't prove anything. So the article isn't about science really. It's about posturing.
It is important to realize that evolution works based on a “use it or lose it” basis. The fact that any ERVs (which are “leftover, useless” pieces of DNA) exist among primates at all strongly argues against common ancestry by itself. But why should so-called junk DNA be conserved for millions (even billions) of years of evolution when it supposedly has no purpose? The argument of junk DNA simply perpetuates the problems with the vestigial organs argument, but at the molecular level. If the genome has no purpose for such elements by evolutionists’ reasoning, then it should have been eliminated millions of years ago. You can’t have your cake and eat it, too.
This is really dishonest. Mutation gives variation. The combinations of genes best suited to survival and reproduction become most frequent in the population. The adaptations that are tested by natural selection are made of proteins, or are the product of the action of proteins. Those proteins are coded in DNA. The proteins, or the effects they have, are exposed to selection pressure. The DNA is not directly exposed to selection pressure. The DNA is only subject to change through mutations, copying errors, insertions etc. Genes can be modified by other genes, but the ultimate test is whether the protein products of the genes work well enough to allow the genes to be passed on.
The author doesn't say what he is suggesting would be a way for DNA to be exposed to selection pressure in the same way that phenotypes are exposed. His main alternative appears to be the effects of something he calls sin. How that affects DNA he doesn't seem to be able to say. He really should say whether he thinks there is such a thing as junk DNA or not. He is having his cake and eating it there.
Further, scientists are finding actual functions for a number of ERVs, which declassifies them as junk
Indeed there is a researcher in California who is convinced that pretty much the entire human genome is now composed of endogenous retrovirus DNA, on which mutation goes to work to produce new possibilities.
However, once again our author is being dishonest by trying to call ERVs junk. Does he believe in junk DNA, or does he follow the AiG line that their god wouldn't make junk, and that it all does something useful but we don't know what yet? Whatever, they should be called ERVs because the junk DNA is only called that as a kind of placeholder name.
When sequences are identical, claiming common ancestry is a moot point because they could be part of what is considered essential for life as designed by God
Then it must be a spectacular coincidence then that this supposed god's creation has resulted in completely independent lines of evidence, the morphology of dated fossils, the molecular clock data with its base pair differences, the ERVs, and the observations of speciation by natural selection we have observed, all agreeing perfectly on common ancestry. It's in the 'testing your faith' category if you want to believe it's all set up by a creator.
This claim falls under the 'proof' narrative set up earlier. You are led to believe that because something cannot be proved then it is unreasonable. But actually the scientific narrative is that the best explanation for the patterns of ERV insertion is common ancestry, and that is only a provisional conclusion. It is provisional on the appearance of further evidence, especially evidence to the contrary.
Professional scientists have a kind of social contract with society to test their ideas as rigourously as they possibly can - to disprove their ideas by whatever means they can think of. That means shonky ideas are eliminated. This creationist isn't writing as a proper scientist if he isn't going to say exactly what evidence contradicts common ancestry and instead is consistent with 'designed by god', and especially isn't doing science if he can't tell you what he has done to try to disprove his god hypothesis.
Perhaps the complete lack of any unambiguous evidence for any creator gods ever could be something for him to consider. Or maybe the multitude of other inconsistencies in the AiG narratives. But that would require honesty and retrospection, which is not completely absent but very rare at AiG in my observation of it.
God only knows, and He hasn’t revealed these details to us in His Word.
Oh, I see. That's the problem. We need to wait around for the word. That's not science either.
One last problem associated with citing ERVs as proof of evolution is that no one can provide a naturalistic selective mechanism for how they “jump” in DNA from generation to generation.
Actually how much do they jump from generation to generation? Reading the paragraph that contains this sentence suggests to me that the author doesn't really understand the implications of jumping transposable elements. If he did, or if he was honest, he would have discussed the fact that ERVs are passed down the germ cell line. There are all sorts of mutations and translations going on in somatic cells (general body cells) but those mutations are not passed on to the next generation. There are also mechanisms for suppressing the jumping. He has also ignored the point of identifying ERVs by sequencing. Same, or same but mutated sequence then same ERV. It doesn't matter so much if it has jumped if it can still be identified as the same virus.
It is highly probable that ERVs “jumping” is a result of the Fall of Adam. Sin entered the world and what was once perfect, and properly functioning, changed into something that it was never meant to be. The picture painted by evolutionists is that they are the only ones who can provide a naturalistic mechanism for why certain ERVs are selected for and conserved in disparate genomes. Even more, they insist that they, therefore, should be the only trusted ones. People claiming to be the sole source of information for the general public ought to be heavily scrutinized, and the burden of proof remains with them if they cannot prove otherwise. Without having a clear selective advantage, they don’t have a leg to stand on.
Would that be AiG accusing real scientists of not being able to provide a mechanism, then not having any mechanism of their own? Charlatans isn't a sufficient term for them. They are demonstrated liars. Why does their god require them to lie, I wonder.
OK, it wasn't a brief response.
Stuart
