Endogenous Retroviruses
endogenous retroviruses:
🧬 ERVs and Evolutionary Stories:
Evolutionists claim that the presence of remnants of viral insertions of ERVs in the same location between the genomes of humans, chimpanzees, and some other primates
is evidence of descent from a common ancestor that had an insertion,
and then the viral sequences were passed on to their descendants.
From this construction, we see that their claim derives its strength from the functional value of ERVs .
This means that demonstrating the falsity of the claim that ERVs have no function
is sufficient to completely dismiss it.
🪫 This is for the following reasons:
- The existence of a function for retroviruses directly supports the fact that these sequences are functional sequences.
Function is a sign of precision, not randomness,
and is not a sign of common origin.
Rather, it is more likely to indicate common creation than common origin.
This is based on the following construction:
They are present in the same regions and are functional → Evidence of design.
Present in the same regions and non-functional → Evidence of evolution.
But here’s the problem:
Preferring the evidence of evolution with the impossibility of knowing functional nothingness
is invalid — since not knowing is not knowledge of nothingness ,
and thus the impossibility of applying this characteristic.
🔍 °°°°° Irreducible functions of ERVs:
The roles played by ERVs are not few or vestigial,
but rather they are irreducible roles ,
which casts doubt on the evolutionary scenario from its roots
and strikes at the claim that they are false sequences.
Since from this perspective, it raises serious problems:
🪫 If the functions played by retroviruses are irreducible ,
then how could living organisms live without them
before viral introduction according to the evolutionary scenario?
📌 Here, what we established in the previous section is necessary, for example:
★ Placenta formation:
More recent studies, such as a study published in PLOS ONE , show that retrovirus sequences have important and essential functions in placenta formation.
They showed that primate endogenous retroviruses act as a placenta-specific enhancer of corticotropin-releasing hormone (CRH ), along with many other roles in regulating pregnancy genes and others.
The aforementioned study indicates that the importance of ERVs is that human pregnancy would be very different — and perhaps even nonexistent — without them.
🪫 Proteins derived from ERVs are exploited in three main roles:
Mediating cell fusion to form a multinuclear barrier
Suppressing maternal immunity
Protecting the fetus from foreign viruses
🧬 Retroviruses are known to contain so-called long terminal repeat (LTR) viral promoter sequences,
and a major study from PLOS ONE has identified several important functions for them.
These repeats were previously considered pseudogenes because they are non-coding and repetitive.
ERVs often include long terminal repeat (LTR ) viral promoter sequences,
which can act as cellular promoters or enhancers to modulate the expression of nearby host genes (1a ).
The actual contribution of these elements to host gene expression has remained largely obscure due to their repetitive, non-coding nature,
but technological advances such as chromatin immunoprecipitation followed by sequencing (ChIP-Seq ) have helped bring these elements back into the spotlight.
🔬 Large-scale analyses of regulatory elements have revealed that retroviruses constitute a surprisingly large portion of cell type-specific regulatory elements in mammalian cells, particularly embryonic stem cells and placental cells [20–22] .
For example, in mouse embryonic stem cells, more than 30% of predicted enhancer elements characterized by the occupation of core placental transcription factors are derived from copies of a single retroviral family [23].
🪫 ERVs often include long terminal repeat (LTR ) viral promoter sequences,
which can act as cellular promoters or enhancers to modulate the expression of nearby host genes (Fig. 1A ).
The actual contribution of these elements to host gene expression has remained mostly obscure due to their repetitive and noncoding nature,
but technological advances such as chromatin immunoprecipitation followed by sequencing (ChIP-Seq ) have helped to cast these elements back into the spotlight.
Large-scale analyses of regulatory elements have revealed that ERVs constitute a surprisingly substantial fraction of cell-type-specific regulatory elements in mammalian cells, particularly embryonic stem cells and placental cells [20–22] .
For example, in mouse trophoblast stem cells, over 30% of predicted enhancer elements marked by the occupancy of core placental transcription factors are derived from copies of a single ERV family [23].
Chuong EB. The placenta goes viral: Retroviruses control gene expression in pregnancy. PLoS Biol. 2018 Oct 9;16(10):e3000028.
doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.3000028
Dupressoir A, Lavialle C, Heidmann T. From ancestral infectious retroviruses to bona fide cellular genes: role of the captured syncytins in placentation. Placenta. 2012;33: 663–671. 10.1016/j.placenta.2012.05.005
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22695103/
Chuong EB. Retroviruses facilitate the rapid evolution of the mammalian placenta. Bioessays. 2013;35: 853–861. 10.1002/bies.201300059
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/bies.201300059?msockid=1e4ced434317610515eff94a42f76002
{Embed}
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22695103/
From ancestral infectious retroviruses to bona fide cellular genes:…
During their replication, infectious retroviruses insert a reverse-transcribed cDNA copy of their genome, a “provirus”, into the genome of their host. If the infected cell belongs to the germline, the integrated provirus can become “fixed” within the host genome as an endogenous retrovirus and be tr …
🪫 Commenting “logically” on the evidence of retroviruses —
the strongest evidence in the hands of evolutionists regarding what they believe:
Yes, as you read… and the picture in front of you, I will use to argue with them, God willing.
I will try to present a new argument, God willing,
to turn the tables on them regarding what they believe.
Frankly, I do not like to talk about retroviruses due to the difficulty of understanding for the reader.
The average reader does not know the meaning of gag , env , retrotransposons , or any of these things…
So I will try to present a simple logical argument , God willing,
that will turn the tables on their heads
and make it easy for the reader to understand.
🧠 ★ First: To present the argument, we must explain what convergent evolution means,
and what is the basis for the evidence from retroviruses.
- Convergent evolution is the convergent evolution of organisms from a non-common ancestor,
such as placentals and marsupials, which separated about 160 million years ago.
When they were stuck and could not explain that marsupials and placentals are morphologically similar
even though they do not have a common ancestor,
they said: “But… It is called convergent evolution.”
📌 For example, in the picture in front of you,
they found that the bat and the whale have the same GPS device,
even though they do not have a common ancestor.
They said: “But…”
So we will call it convergent evolution .
In short, it means:
the same “random” mutations occurred in a specific, even “organized” way (don’t ask how),
and then led to the formation of exactly the same devices, all by chance.
🧬 ★ Their basis for evidence from retroviruses:
They integrate their genetic material (of course, I don’t want to explain further),
and when they integrate their genetic material, they inherit it at the same location.
Indeed, they found the code for retroviruses in the same locations between humans and chimpanzees,
so they said: “That’s enough… This is blatant evidence of descent from a common ancestor.”
And they say, with all stupidity:
“Is this similarity a result of chance?”
🪫 Have you seen the contradiction?!
Evolution is entirely based on chance —
even the first cell was formed by chance from chemical reactions.
When you mention this to a chemistry or biochemistry specialist,
he might spit in your face, or even in your mouth,
because of the absurdity of your words;
🪫 But as long as this talk supports evolution, then they are more deserving of it (as they want to say).
🪫 Evolutionists in particular should not talk about chance —
evolution is entirely based on it —
and of course we responded to this myth before.
🪫 ★ Have you seen the schizophrenia of evolutionists?!
When they found a contradiction with evolution —
and found that the similarity of creatures that are not from a common ancestor,
and the similarity of the GPS itself is present in whales and bats, although they are not from a common ancestor —
they said this is the result of blind chance, and we call it convergent evolution .
When they found a similarity in viral sequences between two organisms,
they said: “So this is evidence of evolution…”
🪫 Well, are the bat and the whale similar in environment so that the same changes occur due to the environment, as you claim?!!
Or are the two organisms even similar?!!
🪫 You decide.
Well, I ask you, supporters of superstition, for an explanation:
❓ Why can’t you explain the similarity of viral sequences (even though they are functional; but let’s assume what they say)
between two organisms — for example — as convergent evolution
that led to the production of the exact same identical locations,
as you did with the location system in the bat and the whale?!
🪫 He answers you:
Because evolution happened, so we will choose what agrees with our words,
and what does not agree, we will call coincidence.
🪫 So, has the disdain for minds reached this level?!!
This is, of course, the fallacy of circular reasoning .
🪫 Do you know what is even more ridiculous?!!
In cichlids , they said that one fish evolved to form a group of fish,
and another similar fish evolved convergently to form another group almost identical to the first group.
Do you know what they said?!!
🪫 They said we’ll call it parallel evolution ,
and they said: “This account requires extraordinary coincidence to explain the multiple parallel forms that evolved independently in each lake.”
As stated in this funny patchwork in Nature magazine:
📎 https://www.nature.com/articles/514161a
🪫 Why can’t you say that it is convergent evolution
in the case of identical sites of retroviruses,
and it resulted by an unusual coincidence
as you said in the identical groups in crustaceans?!
🪫 Because it simply serves your belief.
The last people to talk about nonsense and coincidence are atheists —
as nonsense will remain nonsense.
Even if a famous scientist was asked:
“Did the identical sites result by coincidence?”
he would say: 😆 (laughter implied)
🪫 Now we come to the final question:
❓ What is your explanation for this contradiction and split personality?
{Embed}
https://www.nature.com/articles/514161a
Does evolutionary theory need a rethink?
Nature - Researchers are divided over what processes should be considered fundamental.
