Divinely Designed

So-called "Endogenous Retroviruses" (ERVs) are NOT evidence of common descent.

These functional DNA stretches are incredibly misunderstood. Recent research is challenging the idea that they are even ERVs in the first place!

Instead, they contain key, integral function.

THREAD

The argument goes like this:

ERVs invaded the DNA of our common ancestors long ago, inserted themselves into the genome, then got stuck there and were passed down to the descendants.

Since different organisms share many of these so-called “ERVs” in the same spots in the genome,

Most of what are classified as "ERVs" are actually functional stretches of DNA, many of which contain integral, necessary functions.

Over 90%+ of what have been deemed "ERV" sequences don’t even resemble true “endogenous retroviruses” because they lack standard ERV genes (gag,

On top of that, many other so-called “ERVs” [functional stretches of DNA] have been found to contain key functions in certain aspects of the immune system - especially related to fighting viruses, so it makes sense that they may mimic viral sequences.

They need to mimic viral

On top of all that, we also have research that suggests there are specific "hot spots" where “ERVs” tend to gather, meaning their placement is non-random.

This throws the entire "common descent" argument right out the window.

After all, if the argument is based on the

So, in summary, evolutionists jumped the gun (as usual), in claiming these functional and necessary segments of functional DNA were "ERVs."

Research is continuously showing more function for these segments, throwing into doubt their initial rushed classification as ERVs.

ERVs

Wow. HUGE blunder on that last sentence. 

Should say: ERVs should NOT be considered evidence of common descent.

Good point! Something else I didn't mention in this thread is some "ERVs" that have been found in humans but not in chimps or apes, and vice versa. Or some that are found in chimps and humans but not in apes, etc.

It totally throws a wrench into the whole common descent idea.

If you read the thread, you would understand why that's not actually an argument for common descent.

om the start, you’re arguing against a strawman. I have never claimed that “retrovirology is a conspiracy.”

Your problem, and the evolutionist’s problem in general, is your reliance on your assumptions when analyzing data. I am not saying that the research or the data being g

n for similar function.

It's purely assumption to say certain elements are similar due to ancestry.

Show how an ERV invades a cell, doesn't get immediately booted, mutates until it finds a key, necessary function for the organism, then reaches fixation in the entire popul

"Macro-evolution is just micro-evolution over long periods of time."

False.

Anyone repeating this phrase doesn't understand the mechanisms necessary to build the novel systems needed for large scale morphological change in an organism.

For instance: 

Our alleged first

We detect patterns of design abundantly in life.

You don't think God made life to be able to adapt to its environment?

What evidence is there that random genetic mutations can create novel, functional information necessary for new cells, organs, or body plans?

Dear Evolutionists:

The (fictional) story of whale evolution is built entirely on speculation and lies.

Could whales really have evolved from some form of land mammal, as the evolutionists claim?

Evolutionists claim that fossils have been found that might have been transitional between fully terrestrial mammals and fully aquatic cetaceans.

Three key fossils in the whale story are Pakicetus, Ambulocetus and Rodhocetus, which are claimed to link land animals with whales.

In the book, “Why Evolution Is True,” author &amp; evolutionary biologist Jerry Coyne wrote: “Whales happen to have an excellent fossil record, courtesy of their aquatic habits and robust, easily fossilized bones. This is one of our best examples of an evolutionary transition.”

But what are the problems with this supposed fossil record?

Well for one - they’re all out of order.

The alleged first ancestor of all the organisms that eventually led to whales - Indohyus - is actually dated YOUNGER than many of its supposed descendents.

How can Indohyus be considered the first in a line of transitional fossils if it didn’t exist until AFTER its supposed descendants?

And then there’s the ancient whale jawbone found in Antarctica in 2010, said to be ~49 million years old.

Which means it’s older than Indohyus, leaving less than 5 million years for evolution to take place.

Not happenin'!

The fossil record does not support whale evolution.

Problem 2:

Basilosaurus &amp; Durodon are not even considered to be transitional forms between land-dwelling mammals and modern whales.

Instead, they represent distinct evolutionary branches within the Archaeocete lineage.

Some evolutionists claim that they are not ancestrally intermediate, but are instead what they deem as “morphologically intermediate,” which means that the organism has features similar to both its alleged ancestor and descendants.

With this broad of a definition, literally any fossil could be deemed as “intermediate” or “transitional,” as long as it contains a few “ideal” characteristics.

I dunno about you, but that seems like circular reasoning to me!

In other words - the evolutionists presuppose evolution is true, so when they find similar characteristics in different organisms, they ASSUME some sort of “intermediate” or “transitional” relationship between them.

The ancestral relationship is PURE ASSUMPTION &amp; speculation.

Doesn’t sound very scientific to me.

Problem 3: The waiting time problem.

Supposedly, land-dwelling mammals evolved into fully aquatic whales in only about 8-10 million years (or less than 5 million if you take into account the jawbone mentioned previously!).

But according to the evolutionist’s own research in population genetics, it would take roughly 43 million years for these creatures to develop just TWO beneficial mutations.

So - how many beneficial mutations needed to change a Pakicetus into a whale?

Low-end estimates say ~5,000 total mutations are needed to turn land-dwelling Pakicetus into fully aquatic whales.

That means evolution would need around 215 BILLION years.

Seem plausible to you?

There simply isn’t enough time, as evidenced by the fossil record itself, for all this to have been accomplished by unguided, unintelligent, uncoordinated, accident-based natural processes.

Problem 4: Coordinated Mutations

Now let’s think about the types of changes that must take place to transform land dwelling mammals into fully aquatic whales, and why those changes are so implausible to happen by accident.

We can break it down into 3 necessary changes: breathing, swimming, and reproducing.

Land mammals and whales both breathe air, but their lungs operate completely differently.

A whale’s “nostrils” are its blowholes, which contain specialized muscular systems that keep it closed until the whale wants to open it - quite the opposite of land mammals.

These specialized nostrils also contain specialized connective tissues and nervous system pathways, allowing them to easily dispel water &amp; replace the air in their lungs - all of which must evolve simultaneously while staying functional.

Whales also have specialized lungs that can collapse upon deep dives under pressure, and inflate quickly as they come up closer to the surface - requiring more coordinated mutations.

And of course, whales have the ability to hold air in their lungs for vastly longer periods of time than land mammals. Their circulatory system must transport Oxygen &amp; Nitrogen throughout the body in a more efficient manner under high pressure.

All of these changes require multitudes of coordinated mutations, not just at the organ level, but at the molecular level - in their DNA, RNA, &amp; proteins - all while staying functional in transition…which is highly, highly, highly, highly, highly, HIGHLY unlikely to take place.

For swimming, whales possess an entirely novel muscular system compared to land mammals, allowing them to control their fins and swim efficiently in the water. A land mammal’s entire muscular system would have to be virtually replaced.

More impossible coordinated mutations.

And reproduction. The entire reproductive system of whales would have had to be “remade” through the evolutionary process - again while maintaining functionality all the way through each stage.

In most mammals (even sea lions) the testicles are outside the body, because sperm production normally requires a temperature several degrees below normal body temperature.

In cetaceans, testicles are cooled below body temperature by countercurrent heat exchangers. Veins carry cool blood from the dorsal fin and flukes to the testicles, where it flows through a network of veins that pass between arteries carrying warm blood in the opposite direction.

The arterial blood is thereby cooled before it reaches the testicles.

Internalization of the testicle could not have preceded the countercurrent heat exchange system, or the male cetacean would have been sterile.

Yet there is no adaptive advantage to having a countercurrent heat exchange system around the testicle unless it is inside the body.

Even MORE impossible coordinated mutations.

How could any of this happen by random, purposeless, blind natural processes?

The odds are too small to even fathom.

Whales could not, and did not, evolve from land mammals as the evolutionists believe.

The evidence is overwhelmingly clear that it could not have happened.

Here’s another one the evolutionists love to bring up:

What about the “vestigial” leg bones in the whale?

To make a complicated matter simple: these are not “vestigial” leg bones. These bones are necessary for the male whale’s reproductive system. Without these bones, he could not reproduce.

That can just as easily be described by design.

Evidence against Evolutionism:

The Waiting Time Problem

For the theory of evolution to even be possible, an organism needs coordinated mutations to stick in a population.

But mathematical models show that it takes WAY too long for these types of mutations to actually stick.

Thank you!! 

The probability of a single protein forming by chance is virtually impossible, but that's for another thread 😁

I should be posting there more often! I always forget about Groups, honestly.

100% - I mentioned this same issue in my thread on whale evolution as well.

Time is the enemy of evolutionary theory, once one understands the reality of the molecular mechanisms at play.

That's one of the major factors - virtually all mutations are either neutral or negative. It's very rare for a "positive" mutation to arise.

This is a great article.

This number completely blew my mind.

A. Single point mutations are a completely separate topic from coordinated mutations necessary for major evolutionary development. Your point is irrelevant.

B. How many of those rapid evolutionary adaptations are due to pre-programmed adaptive mechanisms in the genome?

More evidence against the theory of evolution:

Developmental Gene Regulatory Networks (dGRNs)

Evolutionism requires the rewiring of dGRNs to construct novel body plans.

But experiments show that tampering with dGRNs always results in “catastrophic loss of the body part or loss

Another study full of speculative stories.

Always the same with you.

Speculation is not evidence.

Show the evidence where mutating a dGRN shows the possibility of incremental change leading to novel body plans.

Semantics.

Doesn't address the underlying fundamental issue at hand.

ry requires novel body plans.

Novel body plans require novel changes in DGRNs.

Mutating DGRNs results in catastrophic consequences for the organism.

If you can't mutate DGRNs, you can't get new body plans. 

If you can't get new body plans, you can't get common ancestry.

Dear Evolutionists:

The E.Coli bacteria experiments did not provide any evidence of the theory of evolution.

Instead, it provided evidence of pre-programmed adaptation - which I would argue is evidence of design.

Let's talk about what actually happened 👇👇

Lenski's E.Coli "evolution" experiment results are so commonly misunderstood, it's really sad.

If you’re unfamiliar, Lenski is a researcher who put together a Long Term Evolution Experiment (LTEE) in order to study evolution.

For more than 25 years Lenski’s lab has continuously

These results are not an example of novel mutations. All of the complex pathways and proteins needed to transport and metabolize citrate were already there.

Not only that, but they already had sophisticated genes to regulate this ability, turning it on and off when needed.

In

The pro-evolution website Evo-Ed, at Lenski’s own university, explains: "Like many organisms, E. coli has a citric acid cycle, and so metabolizes citrate while growing on various substances. It can also grow anaerobically by fermenting citrate."

Dustin Van Hofwegen remarked in

Minnich and his co-authors’ research breaks down the three primary mutations required to produce the Cit+ phenotype:

1. A mutation allowed the E. coli to express an antiporter protein, CitT, under oxic conditions. CitT permits one molecule of citrate to be imported into the cell

Basically, Lenski’s bacteria exhibited what seems to be a pre-programmed adaptive response to a drastic change in environment.

However, this adaptive response ended up breaking genes, not creating anything new.

In summary: Lenski's LTEE is not evidence of evolutionary theory.

I guess you didn't read the whole thing, with all the quotes from the peer reviewed researchers?

More contradictory evidence of evolutionary theory: Hox Genes.

The mere existence of Hox genes is enough to throw evolutionary theory into question.

Hox genes are networks of genes that help guide an organism’s development - gene clusters which regulate the expression of

Every new body plan for every different organism requires its own individual network of Hox genes for development.

Evolutionists have hypothesized that mutating Hox genes can explain the many novel body plans we see arising throughout the fossil record.

However - research on

In summary, every unique body plan we see of different organisms contains its own unique set of Hox genes that regulate development, which couldn’t have arisen through evolutionary processes, since mutating these genes results in catastrophic consequences.

Hox genes are evidence

e other protein-coding genes.

The protein coding Genes wouldn't function properly without Hox Genes, and Hox Genes wouldn't need to exist unless there was a protein coding Gene to regulate.

Both parts need to exist at the same time. Either one, by itself, is useless.

More Evidence Against Evolution: Orphan Genes

A new paper on Orphan Genes "has revealed that all species possess a LARGE NUMBER of unique genes CRITICAL of trait variation, adaptation, and evolutionary innovation."

This finding absolutely contradicts the evolutionary model of common descent.

"After their discovery, it was immediately recognized that the number of orphan genes should decrease substantially with new genomes becoming available...HOWEVER...

"...dozens to hundreds of orphan genes are typically found in virtually any newly sequenced genome."

The existence of these Orphan Genes (ORFans), also known as "Taxonomically Restricted Genes (TRGs), pose a massive &amp; significant challenge to evolutionary theory.

Why?

Because their existence defies the expectation of gradual changes &amp; homologous relationships between genes across species; aka, common descent.

ORFans are absolutely unique to their species, showing no evolutionary history.

The opposite of what evolutionists predicted.

Evolutionists have attempted to explain this contradictory evidence through things like horizontal gene transfer, gene loss, and de novo genes - but all of these explanations fail.

Of course, there is one possible explanation that explains the data: Perhaps we see so many ORFans because they are uniquely designed for specific functions.

Link to the paper:

It's also extremely interesting to note that these unique Orphan Genes are responsible for unique adaptational changes among different species.

Almost like the ability to adapt to the environment is built right into the genetic code, and not a result of random mutations!