Endogenous Retrovirus - Responding to an Evolutionist

[Michael V. Frazier]

In April 2009, some discussions arose within an apostolic, ministerial discussion group dealing with the issue of Creationism and Evolutionism. I am re-posting some of my contributions of that discussion in this blog.

This reply is in response to a statement made by an individual from Australia who believed "endogenous retroviral fragments" are absolute proof that God used evolution to bring about humanity. I believe that this person has since (as of November 2010) renounced Christianity and is now a professing atheist.
----

For those who may not understand the terminology, perhaps an explanation is in order. A retrovirus is so called because it is a virus that reverse-transcribes its RNA back into DNA in order to integrate with the infected host's genetic information (genome). The whole process of reverse-transcribing is bizarre, to say the least, as general molecular biology has always understood that DNA is transcribed into RNA, not the other way around. (DNA is like the roadmap for cell reproduction, and RNA "reads" that roadmap in order to create proteins which carry out the functions of the cell). Some retroviruses can infect the cells that create eggs and sperm, thus allowing it to be transmitted to the host's offspring. Once transmitted, it is then called an endogenous retrovirus.

I think dj makes a point in bringing up endogenous retroviruses, but it only serves to illustrate the primary point of contention between evolutionists and creationists. Both the evolutionist and the creationist have the data—the empirical evidence. But our interpretation of those facts will always be measured by what presuppositions we bring to the table.

The evolutionist, regardless of theistic or atheistic tenets, will interpret the evidence based on the assumption that evolution is a fact, and therefore the evidence must verify that fact. Never does the evolutionist think to consider alternative options.

The general creationist, believing in some higher intelligence, will look at the data and see evidence of specialized design. The Biblical creationist will understand exactly who that Designer is.

Evolution is supported on the idea that it's a theory which can provide (or predict) expected results. Assuming evolution is fact, the individual can then "expect" certain outcomes to result. In the specific case of "endogenous retroviruses," also known as ERVs, evolutionists consider them as evidence of evolution. Specifically, ERVs are considered to be an example of molecular sequence evidence for universal common descent, i.e., that everything alive descended from a common source— an original lifeform that supposedly developed out of the primordial soup billions of years ago. Rearrangements within the genome over countless millenia allowed genetic variations to appear, thereby allowing evolution itself to work.

Here is an example of the argument from one of the original ERV researchers Catherine A. Dunn:

"Let's imagine how ERVs would behave within a model of evolution by common descent. An ancient creature, let's call it the common ancestor of all modern mammals, is infected by a retrovirus that becomes endogenous. All of the animal's descendants (i.e. all mammals) would be expected to carry the same ERV insertion (ERV1) in the same chromosomal location. Fast forward in evolutionary time. Different lineages have evolved and diverged from the original common ancestor and there are now many different types of mammal [sic] in existence, all carrying ERV1. A small rodent, let's call it the common ancestor of mice and rats, is again infected by a species-specific retrovirus that becomes endogenous. This is ERV2. In a parallel event in a different lineage, the common ancestor of all great apes acquires a third insertion, ERV3. Moving forward again, a fourth ERV appears in some of these new-fangled human thingies that are running around in Africa, but not in their hairier relatives who will eventually evolve into modern chimpanzees. The early humans spread out, and a fifth and (don't worry) final ERV arises in a population that is isolated in a discrete geographical location. The infection does not spread to other human populations. So what would we expect? Humans, chimps, mice and rats should all possess ERV1. The mouse and rat genomes will also contain ERV2, the virus that infected their common ancestor, but not the primate-specific ERV3, 4 or 5 insertions. All great apes will share an identical ERV3 insertion; all humans will also possess an ERV4 insertion that is not found in chimps or other apes. In addition, some, but not all, humans will carry an insertion of ERV5. The rodent-specific ERV2 insertion will not be found in any primate species. Now that several genomes have been sequenced, we have begun to test these predictions. The patterns of ERV insertions observed in modern species exactly match the predictions made by the model described above. Some insertions are shared between humans and mice and represent truly ancient viral infections. Others are found only in primates, and not in other species, obviously derived from an infection of the ancestral primate species after its divergence from other lineages. More modern insertions are found only in humans, while the youngest ERVs of all are found in some humans, but not in all. . . . Insertions are always shared by all species, and only by those species, that have a common ancestor. ERV insertions therefore provide excellent support for the theory of evolution by common descent." (Source)

First off, please note the beginning assumptions that are made. The evolutionist does not have the original specimen whose DNA may be examined. The evolutionist does not even have the supposed offspring of that first imaginary animal. But by believing evolution to be a working scientific theory, able to "predict" future events, evidence for that theory is surmised.

Now it should be also noted that originally, these endogenous retroviruses were considered to be "junk" DNA by the scientific community. In fact, because they believed non-coding DNA ("junk" DNA) to be worthless DNA, they did not spend time studying it. Many creationists, on the other hand, did not consider non-coding DNA to be worthless because of their presupposition that God intelligently designed all original DNA (unfortunately, a lot of it has been tainted by the curse of the Fall). In other words, God originally designed all DNA to have a purpose. And as more recent research has revealed, "junk" DNA is not useless after all, but does appear to serve essential functions in complex cells.

Indeed, Catherine Dunn writes in the same article:

". . . we're gradually finding more and more examples of viral sequences that appear to have some kind of function in human cells. For example, many ERV sequences play a role in human gene regulation. ERVs contain viral genes, and also sequences - known as promoters - that dictate when those genes should be switched on."

In 2006, scientists from Texas A&M University and The University of Glasgow Veterinary School discovered that sheep require endogenous retroviruses in order for pregnancy to occur (Source).


The creationist has no problem seeing the orderly concept of design in endogenous retroviruses, whether regulating a gene (a design of God) or in the cause of certain diseases (a result of the Fall). Why the same insertion point of humans and chimps? I say, for a similar reason that both chimps and humans have five fingers, two arms and two legs, etc.—they both have the same Designer.

So, random-chance evolution that doesn't require a god, or an orderly, original creation (albeit now marred because of sin) established by a loving God who desires that all men come to repentance? "Choose you this day whom ye will serve," the godless ideology of Evolution, or the God of Creation—"as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD."

Submitted in love and an earnest desire to defend God's integrity,
Michael V. Frazier, Th.D.

Sources quoted:
http://vwxynot.blogspot.com/2007/06/endogenous-retroviruses-and-evi...
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/09/060911233630.htm

Other sources for additional information:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2006/1219herv.asp
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endogenous_retrovirus