quote:

Yes they can be beneficial. For instance, LTRs have regulatory sequences that can regulate nearby genes. (ie: salivary amylase, ZNF80, cytochrome c1, Kruppel-like H-plk and phospholipase A2-L (PLA2L))

Source: Larsson E & Andersson G. Beneficial Role of Human Endogenous Retroviruses: Facts and Hypotheses. Scandinavian Journal of Immunology. 48:329-338 (1998)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

quote:

Yes they can be beneficial. For instance, LTRs have regulatory sequences that can regulate nearby genes. (ie: salivary amylase, ZNF80, cytochrome c1, Kruppel-like H-plk and phospholipase A2-L (PLA2L))

Source: Larsson E & Andersson G. Beneficial Role of Human Endogenous Retroviruses: Facts and Hypotheses. Scandinavian Journal of Immunology. 48:329-338 (1998)

So, as much as they are beneficial, then they don't neccesarily render the human genome 'imperfect' - i.e., less functional?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

quote:

Yes they can be beneficial. For instance, LTRs have regulatory sequences that can regulate nearby genes. (ie: salivary amylase, ZNF80, cytochrome c1, Kruppel-like H-plk and phospholipase A2-L (PLA2L))

Source: Larsson E & Andersson G. Beneficial Role of Human Endogenous Retroviruses: Facts and Hypotheses. Scandinavian Journal of Immunology. 48:329-338 (1998)

So, as much as they are beneficial, then they don't neccesarily render the human genome 'imperfect' - i.e., less functional?

quote:

ERVs also cause genomic instability and can turn on proto-oncogenes.

ERVs are both beneficial and harmful - imperfect.

quote:

ORIGINAL: HHV5
I wasn't responding to a criticism. I was responding to a question that tries to simplify a complex subject.

quote:


Politics, like evolution, is not simple.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

quote:

ERVs also cause genomic instability and can turn on proto-oncogenes.

ERVs are both beneficial and harmful - imperfect.

Of course those which are harmful are imperfect, that is a given. A broken bone is harmful - but that doesn't mean the existence of bones are an indicator of imperfection does it?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

So, as much as they are beneficial, then they don't neccesarily render the human genome 'imperfect' - i.e., less functional?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize

quote:

ORIGINAL: HHV5
I wasn't responding to a criticism. I was responding to a question that tries to simplify a complex subject.

It was a simple yes or no question, but you had to unnecessarily complicate it like politicians unnecessarily do the same thing.

quote:


Politics, like evolution, is not simple.

At least you tacitly acknowledge that evolution is political (and not scientific) in nature.

quote:

That's assuming the function of ERV is to be beneficial.

As Method said before, ERVs are mutations - beneficial, detrimental, or neutral - any beneficial or detrimental function is vestigial.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

quote:

That's assuming the function of ERV is to be beneficial.

As Method said before, ERVs are mutations - beneficial, detrimental, or neutral - any beneficial or detrimental function is vestigial.

I really don't care how you or Method think it got there (and incidentaly it wasn't a 'mutation' in the ordinary sense of the word - it is an introduction of genetic material from an outside agent) I simply want to know why a beneficial ERV would make a human genome 'imperfect'?

quote:

Ah, so you are taking the position that there is more than one way to be genetically perfect?

I'm comfortable with that, but I don't know if the proponents of "original genetic perfection" would be.

There is still the question of the historical origin of ERVS that you have not responded to.

quote:

But not all ERVs are beneficial.

But it would be imperfect because any change from perfection is inherently imperfect.

And it is a mutation. Incorporation of an ERV into the chromosome is a change in nucleotide sequence.

quote:

Adam would have had genetic perfection. Any addition to his genome is by definition imperfect because any change to perfection cannot be perfect.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

quote:

Adam would have had genetic perfection. Any addition to his genome is by definition imperfect because any change to perfection cannot be perfect.

Saying that doesn't provide an objective measure of genetic perfection, nor is there any reason to believe Adam was genetically 'perfect' whatever the definition of that might be.

In short, you don't know perfection from Adam.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud
Secondly, as much as I have shown, and you have agreed, that ERVs can be good and useful, they certainly don't detract from whatever standard you suppose the human genome to have orginiated with.

quote:

That the human genome is no longer wholly functional and benficial is something I have never contested.

quote:

What if an ERV is detrimental? What then?

quote:

When has it ever been wholly functional and beneficial?

quote:

But Adam was created perfectly....

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

quote:

But Adam was created perfectly....

And where did you get that from?

quote:

Adam was created in God's image. God's creation was not imperfect. At the very least, Adam's original genome would not have contained ERVs because they are both beneficial and harmful, so by definition, ERVs are imperfect.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud
Then it would be detrimental!?

quote:

That is something I don't think we could know empirically, though I believe it to be so.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

quote:

Adam was created in God's image. God's creation was not imperfect. At the very least, Adam's original genome would not have contained ERVs because they are both beneficial and harmful, so by definition, ERVs are imperfect.

Well, you seem vaguely to be citing Genesis - where in Genesis does it specifically say that Adam was created perfect, genetically or otherwise?

quote:

Did God originally create a flawed human being?

quote:

Then ID/creationism is quite vague where it concerns ERV's. Some claim that ERV's have function and are therefore designed. Would this mean that non-functional or detrimental ERV's evidence non-design? It would appear not, so the argument that functional ERV's evidence ID really isn't much of an argument.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

quote:

Did God originally create a flawed human being?

There are only two choices - 'flawed' and 'perfect'?

But even if you assert that humans were created 'perfect' you must tell us what the Scriptural definition of genetic perfection is - do you have that available on your concordance there?