Preferential Integration of Endogenous Retroviruses

[Adventfred]

good post uploader

[phicomingatya]

Help me understand here.

Where did you get the numbers 353 and 388 of ERVs being in orthologous loci?

[phicomingatya]

Nice video. Very helpful. Though I use it to disprove common ancestry. Not what you expected, is it?

[SecularAstronomer]

No, I expect those that find a video helpful to actually understand what they just saw and heard. But if you wish to use a video to support a claim that video doesn't support, that is your choice.

[phicomingatya]

Yea, I will. Because the facts are what they are and the same no matter what anybody claims.

But I can ser you have no faith in my claim. But perhaps you can help me doule check a few things. Like how many ERVs do we share exactly with chimps at the exact same integration site? (How many have we found so far?)

I hope you'd be kind enough to tell me what you know. Thanks.

[SecularAstronomer]

"...how many ERVs do we share exactly with chimps at the exact same integration site? (How many have we found so far?)"

That is a good question. It would be best to ask a researcher in this field of study, but as far as I know, 425 full-length chimpanzee endogenous retroviruses have been definitively identified (Polavarapu, Bowen, and McDonald, 2006, p. R51.2) - far more would consist of solo LTRs and fragments (R51.9).

[SecularAstronomer]

Of the 425 CERVs, 353 were found to be present in orthologous loci in humans (Ex. CERV 16/HERV17 at 7p14), with several instances displayed in figure 6 (R51.11).

[SecularAstronomer]

"Of the 41 instances where an endogenous retroviral sequence is present in chimpanzees but lacking in humans, 29 were due to novel insertions in chimpanzees while 12 were deletions in humans (Tables 3 and 4; Figure 6a). Of the 31 instances where an endogenous retrovirus is present in humans but absent in chimpanzees, we found that 8 were due to novel insertions in humans while 23 were deletions in chimpanzees (Table 4; Figure 6b) (R51.9)."

[SecularAstronomer]

That puts the total number of CERVs with HERVs in orthologous loci at 388.

Polavarapu, N; Bowen, NJ; McDonald, JF. Identification, characterization and comparative genomics of chimpanzee endogenous retroviruses. Genome Biol. 2006;7:R51.

tinyurl(DOT)com/qqdco3

[phicomingatya]

orthologous means in we got them in common with chimps. It does not necessarily mean we have them at the exact same spot.

[SecularAstronomer]

It doesn't sound like you read the paper. The ERVs are in orthologous loci. An orthologous locus is defined as the same genomic location in two or more species.

Read the "Endogenous retroviral positional variation between chimpanzees and humans" section on pages R51.9 to R51.11.

Look at Figure 6 on page R51.11.

Read the paper.

[benthemiester]

The latest studies by Dave Haussler and Ting Wang seem to imply a backing away from this common belief concerning the ape to human ancestoral aspect. It seems that junk DNA is being looked at much differently then we did in the past.

[smoothy321]

You have a frog in your throat buddy? Clear your pathway!

[Kilik11]

I don't think the creationists were disputing the use of all phylogenic markers, just that in this case they cannot be used to prove humans are a part of evolution in the same way animals are or that humans "evolved" out of animals.

[babylon2233]

You're right. It just human who are not evolve from anything. God is powerful enough to make everything seems natural and indeed natural despite it started by Him. The fact is our mind is limited.

[Seekmosttoprophesy]

Mutations are rare, random, seldom useful changes that are more often than not deleted within a few generations. Variation of species on the other hand are millions of changes with a purpose in one generation which are a part of the existing design. Mutations have little or no effect on the species. Even the conditions that make life possible are not by accident. Even the order is ordered by the Master/Maker/Designer/Creator/­God.

[Seekmosttoprophesy]

I forgot to say that "mutations" are SINGLE changes compared the the millions of changes that the variation of each species has as a part of its existing design. Mutations are insignificant as a result so the integrity of the design is maintained.

[magick205]

Mutations are hardly significant if they induce a frame shift. Even if they are so-called "silent-mutations", lack of the correct codon can create a misfolded protein. This may impact either active site placement or even if the protein is able to bind to say, a promoter. And any mutation can affect a metabolic pathway.

[magick205]

Sorry, that's supposed to be "insignificant". Been a long night.

[deathonallfronts]

Hey! It's mister give glory to god guy. I love this guy. Mostly because his arguments are bad, and can always be reduced to admitting that, "maybe god did it". I hope he never realizes that means he lost the argument.

[Seekmosttoprophesy]

Just understand that objects do not make information and you will go far.

[scienceminded]

No but objects (chemicals) can reproduce themselves without input of information, if it can produce changes to itself when replicating it can evolve. We don't know the details but I find it much more satisfying than 'god did it' as it leaves mystery that I CANT fantasize to fit my ideals, I can't make conjectures without evidence, whatever we will find will be much grander than the small God of unimaginative redundancy and necessity, that is knowledge.

[Seekmosttoprophesy]

The only thing that reproduces itself is preexisting designs that were programed to do what they do.

You do need come out of your fantasy world of imagination of magical powers that you ascribe to chemicals.

[Seekmosttoprophesy]

In that case, even the "mutation" that you describe (which I do not believe is a mutation) is part of the existing design. It is all apart of the existing design. The design itself deals with all the variations and mutations. That is all a part of the preexisting design.

You need to acknowledge the design on a nano scale. The Earth itself is a design. our solar system is a design. The Universe is a design. Everything is held together by design.

[SecularAstronomer]

"In that case, even the "mutation" that you describe (which I do not believe is a mutation) is part of the existing design. It is all apart of the existing design. The design itself deals with all the variations and mutations. That is all a part of the preexisting design."

How many times must I repeat myself? Are you even reading what I type? I will repeat myself again, for you:

[SecularAstronomer]

Mutations are continually occurring. In addition to the preexisting traits, mutations (on the chromosome or nucleotide level) within individuals cause new traits to form from old ones, which increase the genetic trait variation within a population's gene pool.

[SecularAstronomer]

Some happened to make the organism more likely to make sizable a contribution to its population's gene pool, thus they are considered beneficial. Others have the opposite effect, thus they are considered detrimental. Yet others have no appreciable effect, thus they are considered neutral. Because mutation is random, there is an increase of detrimental traits as well as beneficial traits as well as neutral traits.

[SecularAstronomer]

Due to the usual genetic shuffling via procreation, and to the advantage gained by having the genetic code with the beneficial mutated trait, it eventually causes the gene pool to be permeated with the adaptation. And that is how Natural selection, in conjunction with random mutation, causes a population to become better adapted to its environment over time.

[SecularAstronomer]

"You need to acknowledge the design on a nano scale. The Earth itself is a design. Our solar system is a design. The Universe is a design. Everything is held together by design."

If you mean that these things are ordered, of course they are; but that is due to the fact that it is the nature of this universe for them to fall into said order.

[SecularAstronomer]

For instance, planets are spheroids because that is the shape that large amounts of metals, silicates (terrestrial), and gasses (jovian) take on due to gravity, during their formation. Another example would be that the shape of a proton is dictated by the net angular momentum of its three quarks.

[Seekmosttoprophesy]

"Mutations are continually occurring."

There is nothing "new" under the sun. It has all been done before. Adaptation to environment is nothing new and since environments tend to alternate, the adaptations also tend to alternate. There are continuing trends (usually for the worse) where the species continues to adapt but it is sort of a route of no return. A living species today likely would not live very well before the time of the flood.

[playd76]

What flood? lol

[Seekmosttoprophesy]

You need to be giving credit to the design and glory to the Designer. Adaptation to environment is not an accident. It is part of the instructions that is already present in the DNA. Accidental mutation is not nearly fast enough to effect a good change in good time. The species needs immediate change as the need arises. The ability to "feel" the environment is critical.

[SecularAstronomer]

"You need to be giving credit to the design and glory to the Designer."

The designer is the natural process of evolution, i.e. mutation, natural selection, gene flow, and genetic drift. I have already explained to you in detail how that is, but you just refuse to pay attention.

[SecularAstronomer]

"Adaptation to environment is not an accident. It is part of the instructions that is already present in the DNA."

Of course it is not an accident; that is what I've been saying all along. Environmental pressures make a preexisting trait beneficial, thus it remains a fixture in the population's gene pool. And the new traits that arise add to the total genetic variation in the gene pool, and are selected from as well, so the same happened to them... I've already explained all that in detail.

[SecularAstronomer]

"Accidental mutation is not nearly fast enough to effect a good change in good time."

The human mutation rate has been directly observed to be 1.8 x 10(-8) per nucleotide per diploid per generation. For example, given the margin of error, that is sufficient to account for the divergence of psuedogenes of chimps and humans. If you want to actually back up your claim, you will need to produce a calculation of another genome section that the directly observed mutation rate cannot account for.

[SecularAstronomer]

"The species needs immediate change as the need arises. The ability to "feel" the environment is critical."

That is astonishingly ignorant. What you are saying here seems almost Lamarckian. Evolution is not the adaptation of individuals; it is the adaptation of populations of individuals, due to the fact that those less adapted are less likely to make sizable contribution to their population's gene pool.

[Seekmosttoprophesy]

The genes that supposedly tie us to the apes should have mutated as well. Why mutate just some parts, why not mutate everything, if it is so "good" to mutate?

The truth is that genes mutate back and forth maintaining the integrity. That is why you will see the same personality traits in different races.

For example, I have seen the ugliest person of color be the sweetest person I have ever met on the face of this whole earth and it had nothing to do with religion or political persuasion.

[SecularAstronomer]

"The genes that supposedly tie us to the apes should have mutated as well. Why mutate just some parts, why not mutate everything, if it is so "good" to mutate?"

You clearly have never completed a high school biology course... Insertions, deletions, and missense, nonsense, silence, spice site, point, frame shift, etc, mutations of nucleotides, as well as deletions, duplications, inversions, insertions, and translocations of chromosomes occur randomly.

[SecularAstronomer]

"The truth is that genes mutate back and forth maintaining the integrity.

As I said, mutation is random. They do not "mutate back." I'm astonished that you would think something like that.

[SecularAstronomer]

"That is why you will see the same personality traits in different races."

Personality traits... are you kidding? The gene-trait relationship is extremely complicated, since many genes are pleiotropic and many traits are polygenic. We can't say for sure weather a given aspect of personality is genetic or not.

[continued]

[SecularAstronomer]

[continued]

Also, the concept of "race" is not a genetic one. People of different "races" are often more genetically similar to a given individual of another race than a given individual of their own. Race is not a reliable indicator of general genetic similarity because the phenotypically expressed genetic marital that we use as criteria is minimal.

[SecularAstronomer]

Seekmosttoprophesy, why do you insist on continuing to speak about things you know nothing of?

[Seekmosttoprophesy]

If I am SO wrong, enlighten me.

[Seekmosttoprophesy]

"People of different "races" are often more genetically similar to a given individual of another race than a given individual of their own."

That's what I said.

[Seekmosttoprophesy]

They do vary back and forth or "mutate" as you would say. Black moths go from being black to white and black again.

[SecularAstronomer]

"They do vary back and forth or "mutate" as you would say. Black moths go from being black to white and black again."

Are you joking? That obviously isn't mutation... It is separate preexisting traits being expressed phenotypically due to basic Mendelian recessive and dominant alleles. If the moth is either genotypically homozygous with two dominant alleles, or genotypically heterozygous, the dominant allele will be phenotypically expressed.

[SecularAstronomer]

If, however, the genotypically homozygous with two recessive alleles, that will be phenotypically expressed.

[Seekmosttoprophesy]

You appear to be speaking out of two sides of your mouth. On the one hand, it is a result of evolution and on the other, it is a preexisting trait. I agree that it is a preexisting trait. I don't agree that the trait is a result of evolution.

[jtyranus]

it is still evolution because the allele frequency is changing based on the environments selective pressures.

[SecularAstronomer]

"You appear to be speaking out of two sides of your mouth. On the one hand, it is a result of evolution and on the other, it is a preexisting trait. I agree that it is a preexisting trait. I don't agree that the trait is a result of evolution."

Seekmosttoprophesy, you are failing to understand a simple concept. Natural selection is the process in which alleles in a population's gene pool are either beneficial, detrimental, or neutral.

[continued]

[SecularAstronomer]

[continued]

The beneficial ones make the organism more likely to significantly contribute to said gene pool. At the same time the current alleles are being selected, mutations are altering preexisting alleles, which forms new ones. Those new ones increase the total genetic variation in the gene pool from which the beneficial alleles are being selected from.

[Seekmosttoprophesy]

Variation is a natural thing. It is already built into the genes. Evolution is supposed to change the form of the species though accidental changes. The problem is that accidental changes do not produce form.

[SecularAstronomer]

"Variation is a natural thing. It is already built into the genes. Evolution is supposed to change the form of the species though accidental changes. The problem is that accidental changes do not produce form."

You are ignoring me, Seekmosttoprophesy. I just finished explaining this to you, but it has clearly soared over your head. I will repeat my self for you:

[SecularAstronomer]

Again, of course there is a preexisting variation of alleles; but mutations are continually altering preexisting alleles, to form new ones, which increases the total genetic variation in a given population's gene pool. Because mutation is random, there is an increase of detrimental traits as well as beneficial traits as well as neutral traits.

[SecularAstronomer]

The ones that happened to be beneficial make the organism more likely to make sizable a contribution to its population's gene pool, where as the detrimental ones have the opposite effect. Due to the usual genetic shuffling via procreation, and to the advantage gained by having the genetic code with the beneficial mutated trait, it eventually causes the gene pool to be permeated with the adaptation.

[SecularAstronomer]

That is how Natural selection, in conjunction with random mutation, causes a population to become better adapted to its environment over time.

[Seekmosttoprophesy]

Thank you for your apparent patience but I believe that what you are calling "mutation" is not mutation because a mutation is accidental, random and without meaning, purpose or direction. Besides that, a mutation is rare and does not have very much influence because it is not a part of any pattern. The variety is a way that the DNA has of "feeling" its environment. I can say this because I can see humans and other creatures adapting to their environment. This is NOT a result of random accidents.

[SecularAstronomer]

"Thank you for your apparent patience but I believe that what you are calling "mutation" is not mutation because a mutation is accidental, random and without meaning, purpose or direction."

That is what I keep telling you. Why do you keep responding with the same arguments I have just finished addressing? Are you even reading what I type?

[SecularAstronomer]

"Besides that, a mutation is rare and does not have very much influence because it is not a part of any pattern."

That is astonishingly ignorant. First of all, as I previously said, the human mutation rate has been directly observed to be 1.8 x 10(-8) per nucleotide per diploid per generation. Second of all, mutations can have anywhere from negligible effects to huge effects on an organism. Why do you keep making claims about things you clearly know nothing about?

[SecularAstronomer]

"The variety is a way that the DNA has of "feeling" its environment. I can say this because I can see humans and other creatures adapting to their environment. This is NOT a result of random accidents."

The variety is continually added to by mutations. Of course that which is being added is random -- but that which remains in the gene pool, and that which does not, as per environmental selective pressures, is not random... I keep telling you this over and over. When do you plan on listening?

[Seekmosttoprophesy]

If it is totally "random" as you say, then all genes should be affected the same way not just the ones that make us different from apes. You can't have it both ways. It is mutation of everything or no mutation.

[SecularAstronomer]

"If it is totally "random" as you say, then all genes should be affected the same way not just the ones that make us different from apes. You can't have it both ways. It is mutation of everything or no mutation."

Of course all genes are subject to mutation... Most mutations are either:

[SecularAstronomer]

1. Mistakes during DNA replication. There are mechanisms that correct them as they occur, but there are always some mistakes that are overlooked and make it through. It is random as to exactly witch nucleotides are affected.

2. Alterations of chromosomes while crossing over during meiosis.

[Seekmosttoprophesy]

...but a mutation is a single random unintended change of one genome (not a progressive orderly united change) the result of which is nothing.

You Darwinists don't seem to understand what it is that you are trying to say.

[SecularAstronomer]

"...but a mutation is a single random unintended change of one genome (not a progressive orderly united change) the result of which is nothing."

Of course mutations are single, random, unintended events -- ones that are continually occurring in rapid succession. Randomly mutated traits (on the chromosome or nucleotide level) increase the genetic trait variation within a population's gene pool -- they increase the detrimental traits as well as the beneficial traits as well as the neutral traits.

[SecularAstronomer]

The ones that happened to be beneficial make the organism more likely to make sizable a contribution to its population's gene pool. Due to the usual genetic shuffling via procreation, and to the advantage gained by having the genetic code with the mutated trait, it eventually causes the gene pool to be permeated with the adaptation.

[SecularAstronomer]

The ones that happened to be detrimental make the organism less likely to make sizable a contribution to its population's gene pool, so they are less likely to be propagated.

And that is how random mutation and non-random natural selection cause a population to *naturally* become better adapted to its environment over time.

[Seekmosttoprophesy]

Yeah, all the genes should have "mutated" along with the rest of the genes (if it is true that genes mutate).

The truth is that mutations are corrected within a few generations and the variety is already built into the existing design. The variety is known to change back and forth while maintaining the integrity of the species. This is a fact and it is a fact that mutations are corrected. The result is NO evolution! - Silly people!

[SecularAstronomer]

"Yeah, all the genes should have "mutated" along with the rest of the genes."

What are you talking about?

[SecularAstronomer]

"(if it is true that genes mutate)"

The fact that you don't even know if gene mutate (anywhere from an alteration of a single nucleotide, to) at all, shows that you know nothing of even basic, high school level genetics. But to correct your uncertainty, let me inform you that human mutations are directly observable. I fact, the human mutations rate has been directly observed to be 1.8 x 10(-8) per nucleotide per diploid per generation.

[SecularAstronomer]

"The truth is that mutations are corrected within a few generations... The result is NO evolution! - Silly people!"

You ignorance is astonishing. When a mutation makes it past the error correcting mechanisms in a germ line cell, and is passed on to the offspring that it forms from, there is no way that the mutation can be "corrected."

[continued]

[SecularAstronomer]

[continued]

Now, if the mutation is expressed phenotypically, then natural selection can act on it, but it would only be selected against (and thus likely be eliminated from the population's gene pool) if it is a detriment in making a sizable contribution to its population's gene pool.

[SecularAstronomer]

"The variety is already built into the existing design."

Of course there is a preexisting genetic variability within populations' gene pools. But the traits continuously are mutated. If the mutation gives the individual an advantage in making a sizeable contribution to its population's gene pool, then that trait is more likely to become a permanent fixture in said gene pool. The relationship between environmental pressures and preexisting genetic variability dictated which new traits are added.

[SecularAstronomer]

"The variety is known to change back and forth while maintaining the integrity of the species."

Of course it does. Such factors as genetic drift and environmental selective pressures phenotypically expressed genes cause this fluctuation in genetic variability within the gene pools of populations

[Seekmosttoprophesy]

I still don't believe it because it is the only "proof" that evolution supposedly has. Every other proof says that evolution is impossible. There has to be another explanation that I am confident will be found. When dealing with code, and a code virus, I am sure that it is a lot less random than people realize. The shear number of the possibilities with only 16 or so "hits" lessens the odd too. There are 40 million differences between apes and humans and only 16 "hits".

[SecularAstronomer]

"I still don't believe it because it is the only "proof" that evolution supposedly has."

No, ERV evidence is by far not the only powerful genetic evidence (let alone all the non-genetic evidence) in support of common ancestry (biological change over time) and that natural selection, mutation, gene flow, and genetic drift account for it. Look at human chromosome 2, for instance:

[SecularAstronomer]

1. When the non-human great ape chromosomes 2p and 2q are lined up end to end and compared to human chromosome 2, they display identical banding patterns.

2. The 2 non-fusion site discontinuities are inversion mutations; one of which, is shared by humans and chimpanzees. (the other is specific to the orangutan lineage)

3. The centromere of human chromosome 2 lines up with chimpanzee chromosome 2p, and a vestigial centromere remnant lines up with where 2q would be.

[SecularAstronomer]

4. Human chromosome 2 contains two telomeric and two pre-telomeric sequences in the center, which forms a pattern that is consistent with a past telomeric fusion.

5. Humans have 23 chromosome pairs; where as the non-human great apes have 24, which is consistent with a chromosomal fusion.

[Seekmosttoprophesy]

In 5000 - 6000 years, how many times do you suppose that apes and humans could have been exposed to the same retrovirus? All it would take is for the retrovirus to have a predisposed compatibility or perference for a particular genome.

[SecularAstronomer]

"In 5000 - 6000 years, how many times do you suppose that apes and humans could have been exposed to the same retrovirus? All it would take is for the retrovirus to have a predisposed compatibility or preference for a particular genome."

That is the exact argument addressed in this video.... why do people see a rebuttal, and then make the exact same argument that was just refuted? But fine; I'll go into further detail for you:

[SecularAstronomer]

The preference is only for certain conditions, (which differ from retrovirus to retrovirus) and there are about 500 - 2000 preferred integration sites that happened to meet those preferred criteria. Which target site chosen *within the subset of the preferred conditions* are completely random. But that's not even close to all.

[SecularAstronomer]

Each target site has anywhere from about 100,000 - 250,000 base pairs from which the retrovirus can insert between, and (once again) the specific integration location within the integration site is also completely random.

[SecularAstronomer]

So, although integration is not random in respect to the *entire genome,* we can calculate the total number of individual positions (between base pairs) that integration *is* random with respect to. We do this by taking the average number of target sites that meet the preferred conditions for a retrovirus (1250), and multiplying it by the average number of base pairs per target site (175,000).

[SecularAstronomer]

The result is 218,750,000. That means that the chance of 2 species sharing 1 retroviral insertion in an orthologous position is 1 in 218,750,000. Now consider humans and chimpanzees share numerous ERVs. And I haven't even touched on the nested hierarchy formed by analysis of HERV-K LTR insertions among humans and the great apes (Lebedev, 2000).

[SecularAstronomer]

As I hope you understand now, it is clear that these were the result of a common ancestral line undergoing a speciation event, rather than parallel insertion.

Reference:

Lebedev, Y. B., Belonovitch, O. S., Zybrova, N. V, Khil, P. P., Kurdyukov, S. G., Vinogradova, T. V., Hunsmann, G., and Sverdlov, E. D. (2000) "Differences in HERV-K LTR insertions in orthologous loci of humans and great apes." Gene 247: 265-277.

[2bsirius]

Nice work...I think we should be doing exactly what you are doing to counter creationists, and not letting them make every argument into a theological one because we don't demonstrate exactly what is really happens...On YT, you are water in a parched desert of misinformation which the creationists have created and which is NOT being countered with any rigorous counter arguments. Excellent!

[Kilik11]

they found ervs that were aquired by chimps and gorillas at an early time when they were the same species, but it's not in orangutangs or humans...uh oh spaghetti ohs!

[SecularAstronomer]

Kilik11, I have already addressed this same misconception that you posted on my other ERV video.

And it appears that you can't even get your order right. The branching order was orangutans, then gorillas, then chimps, then humans.

[SecularAstronomer]

This is the location of his original posting:

youtube. com/ comment_ servlet? all_ comments&v=CIsCTocAPO8

[SecularAstronomer]

Here it is again:

These maps show ERV insertion sites in human and ape evolution:

talkorigins. org/ faqs/ comdesc/ images/ retrovirus. gif

Source citation: Lebedev, Y. B., Belonovitch, O. S., Zybrova, N. V, Khil, P. P., Kurdyukov, S. G., Vinogradova, T. V., Hunsmann, G., and Sverdlov, E. D. (2000) "Differences in HERV-K LTR insertions in orthologous loci of humans and great apes." Gene 247: 265-277.

[SecularAstronomer]

~and~

vir. sgmjournals. org/ content/ vol80/ issue10/ images/ medium/ 0802613005. gif

Source citation: Isolation and phylogeny of endogenous retrovirus sequences belonging to the HERV-W family in primates. Kim HS, Takenaka O, Crow TJ. J Gen Virol. 1999 Oct;80 ( Pt 10):2613-9.

[Kilik11]

I know the order...thats what evolutionists think, so how do they explain both chimps and gorrillas having the same virus, but humans not having it? see? the order of branching off in the so called "phylogenic" tree is important to what I said.

[SecularAstronomer]

Kilik11, since this is the same conversation that we are having on my other video, let's just keep the conversation there:

youtube. com/ comment_ servlet? all_ comments&v=CIsCTocAPO8

[WasteofSpaceTime]

Typical creationist argument, they have a theory and look for proof rather than look empirically at the data and THEN theorize. Creationism is religion not science.

[cthojsanders]

Hey a horse and I got the same ancestor, evolution could have put eyes any were on the horse but we both have eyes on our head. This proof of common descent. Wow you opened my eyes hahahahaha NOT

[SecularAstronomer]

...cthojsanders, did you even watch the video? What you just typed has nothing to do with it. This videos is a refutation of the argument that preferential integration of endogenous retroviruses allow for parallel contraction and species permeation by removing enough of the proposed randomized elements that indicate common ancestry.

[cthojsanders]

Why do you atheists try so hard to snuff out God. Is it that hard to believe. I was reading your info on ERV. I find that there is a lot of Info you put forward as fact, and I see that you are not giving all the info that is at hand.

The truth is we are still learning more about ERVs.

You don't know what this ERV did or how long it has be there.

[scarshapedstar]

Why do you creationists try so hard to insult God by claiming that he wasn't smart enough to set evolution in motion and walk away?

I'd be really pissed off if I created a beautiful ecosystem like Earth's and some numbskull kept insisting that the only reason it worked was that I was secretly pulling all the strings behind the scenes.

[cthojsanders]

Some humans carry more copies of the HERV-K(HML2), family than others.

So how do you know we all got it? I never got tested, did you get tested I bet not.

Give all facts in your next video and lets see were that gets you.

You do good at guess work

[ooglebydoogleby]

good stuff but not god stuff could thier be some video on explaining terms that it is posible to get

[mohamadyomar]

good stuff man, Iam a Muslim and I believe in commen ancestory of all species (although human beings may well be an exception due to their unique conscience) I see nothing contradicting it from an Islamic perspective, nor does it in anyway contradict with creation, all it does is challenge people's classical secondary interpretations of Quranic creation which are based on mere speculation rather than firmly grounded science.

[ALogicalConstruct]

I would argue that you can see the "non-unique conscience" in all animals.

[RabidApe]

farking brilliant!

[QuarksAreStrange]

Good investigation, as always. Thanks

[QuarksAreStrange]

And, of course, thanks to Abigail.

[ThePhascolarctos]

Thank you. I didn't even know yet the creationists were using these papers for their claims. Need to find more on Abigail Smith.

[CousinoMacul]

A few months back I head Abigail Smith debate a "vaccine conspiracist" on The Debate Hour. She was pretty impressive.

[YoungAtheist]

wat is going on with erv's, everyone is doing a video on it...lol

good vid

[dmagick7]

Great work!!! Thank you!

[mormongod]

My brain hurts. what did you just say?

[Ryansarcade9]

Awesome!

[msginca]

This is hard ... you're forcing me to learn something new ... DAMN YOU SECULAR!!! What if I remember all this stuff and repeat it around my friends!!!??? Then What!?!?!?

[ReligionIsACrutch]

Evolution is fucking awesome.

[theBigTakeover]

Im too stupid to watch this video, I really shouldnt be commenting either.

[alienspy07]

I LOVE the ERV blog. Abigail Smith ftw indeed.

[thinkmorepink]

This...is genius. I'm impressed dear. VERY impressed.

[SecularAstronomer]

Abigail Smith ftw!  :D