quote:

Perfection is the absence of flaw.

Scripture is silent on genetics (and on numerous other subjects), but if you read Genesis literally, Adam was in the image of God, perfect. Therefore, his genomic makeup was also perfect. That precludes design with ERV already incorporated into the genome.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud
ID doesn't claim that everything that occurs in the natural world is the product of design - if it did, then we wouldn't need ID.

quote:

hen it follows that some ERV's were put there by the intelligent designer and some are not. The way to tell is that the functional ERV's were put there by a designer and the non-functional ones were not. Function is the only way to discriminate between them.

This has ID begging the question.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

quote:

Perfection is the absence of flaw.

Scripture is silent on genetics (and on numerous other subjects), but if you read Genesis literally, Adam was in the image of God, perfect. Therefore, his genomic makeup was also perfect. That precludes design with ERV already incorporated into the genome.

Well, again, the word ‘perfect’ isn’t in the description of Genesis. And something is only ever ‘flawed’ with respect to the something the designed object was intended to do.

For example, if Adam had been intended to fly, and for whatever reason became incapable of flying, then he would be flawed – but if he was never intended to fly, then his lack of a flying ability wouldn’t be a flaw.

In the same way, if he was (and I agree with you he was) was created in the image of God, and somehow failed to live up to that image in some way, then he would certainly be flawed.

However, the term, ‘created in the image of God’ is really what is at issue – do you think that describes Adam’s genetics? Do you think God has a genome? And if so, in what way does Adam’s genome reflect God’s?

And if God does not have a genome, then in what way would Adam be created in His image?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

quote:

hen it follows that some ERV's were put there by the intelligent designer and some are not. The way to tell is that the functional ERV's were put there by a designer and the non-functional ones were not. Function is the only way to discriminate between them.

This has ID begging the question.

I am not sure how that has ID begging the question. If there are a bunch of rocks on a beach, and some are arranged in words that spell out "I WAS HERE" and some are simply laying about in random patterns, it wouldn't be begging the question to say those spelling words were arranged by a designer, and those laying about weren't necessarily so.

But I would go farther; I will say that increasingly we will find ERVs to have some sort of function, not apparent now, much like 'junk DNA' a decade ago.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud
I am not sure how that has ID begging the question.

quote:

If there are a bunch of rocks on a beach, and some are arranged in words that spell out "I WAS HERE" and some are simply laying about in random patterns, it wouldn't be begging the question to say those spelling words were arranged by a designer, and those laying about weren't necessarily so.

quote:

But I would go farther; I will say that increasingly we will find ERVs to have some sort of function, not apparent now, much like 'junk DNA' a decade ago.

quote:

Let's replace the word "perfect" with "good", then.

Something that changes God's original design (ie: ERVs) would render the original design less good.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

quote:

Let's replace the word "perfect" with "good", then.

Something that changes God's original design (ie: ERVs) would render the original design less good.

Well, again it depends on what th original design was designed for.

For example, if I designed a computer that was operationally sound, and did nothing with it, would it be good?

If I programmed it to do the tasks I wanted it to do (thus changing it) would that be good or bad? If I designed it to be expandable over time, would that be good? And if I did so, would expanding it as it was designed for be 'bad'?

And what if I put an adaptable computer into a changing environment - in that case would it be bad or good if it didn't change? And when it changed in response to the environment, would that be 'bad' because it was 'change' as you claimed above?

I think it's clear that change is not the opposite of good.

quote:

A computer's function is more than being operationally sound. So no, it wouldn't be good.

quote:

You're assuming the original function of ERV is "good". Your computer program's original function is "good" - the original function of ERV is not "good". ERVs are beneficial in some cases, and detrimental in other cases. They have nothing to do with the original function of ERVs - they are secondary functions.

quote:

"And what if I put an adaptable computer into a changing environment - in that case would it be bad or good if it didn't change? And when it changed in response to the environment, would that be 'bad' because it was 'change' as you claimed above?"

quote:

- This point is moot because you don't believe Adam was perfect. If Adam were perfect, then any change would render him less than perfect.

quote:

So in your view, how did ERVs get incorporated into our genomes?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

quote:

A computer's function is more than being operationally sound. So no, it wouldn't be good.

So, when you get a new computer out of a package, it’s ‘bad’? Doesn’t make a lot sense.

quote:

You're assuming the original function of ERV is "good". Your computer program's original function is "good" - the original function of ERV is not "good". ERVs are beneficial in some cases, and detrimental in other cases. They have nothing to do with the original function of ERVs - they are secondary functions.

Well, first off if we agree the original function was ‘good’, and that changing the function is not in and of itself ‘bad’, then whether an ERV can be seen as good or bad depends on its effect on the computers function. And as you have just said, sometimes that effect is good, and sometimes that effect is bad. ERVs are simply like a progam one might load on a computer – only good or bad in respect to their effect on the functioning of the computer.

quote:

"And what if I put an adaptable computer into a changing environment - in that case would it be bad or good if it didn't change? And when it changed in response to the environment, would that be 'bad' because it was 'change' as you claimed above?"

quote:

- This point is moot because you don't believe Adam was perfect. If Adam were perfect, then any change would render him less than perfect.

It's not moot to me, because I think Adam was good - that is at his inception he was operating according to designed specifications.

quote:

So in your view, how did ERVs get incorporated into our genomes?

Well, they appear to have come from viruses, thus the ‘virus’ part of retro virus.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud
Well, they appear to have come from viruses, thus the ‘virus’ part of retro virus.

quote:

I thought by operationally sound, you meant it turns on and off and does nothing else.

ERVs are not like programs. They weren't made to have a specific beneficial purpose for us.

And when ERVs were introduced, he was not operating according to designed specifications.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

quote:

I thought by operationally sound, you meant it turns on and off and does nothing else.

ERVs are not like programs. They weren't made to have a specific beneficial purpose for us.

And when ERVs were introduced, he was not operating according to designed specifications.

Well, first off, ERVs are exactly like programs - so much like them they we named our own malicious programs after them, aka 'viruses'.

And quite obviously those programs can have an extremely detrimental effect on the systems they infect.

But whether they always did (apparently sometimes not) or were orignially intended to is another question - a question quite apart from the question of whether the human genome was at it's inception, 'good'.

quote:

By program, I mean something useful like PhotoShop or Word - something with a beneficial purpose that was designed to serve us specifically.

Computer viruses are programs that have a designed beneficial purpose...to the malicious person who created them.

ERVs do not have a designed beneficial purpose.

Something that causes harm to something that's "good" is by definition bad.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

quote:

By program, I mean something useful like PhotoShop or Word - something with a beneficial purpose that was designed to serve us specifically.

Computer viruses are programs that have a designed beneficial purpose...to the malicious person who created them.

ERVs do not have a designed beneficial purpose.

Something that causes harm to something that's "good" is by definition bad.

First off, as you have rightly noted, the 'usefulness' of a program is in the eye of the beholder. So the fact that viruses can be malicious doesn't negate their programmed nature. Viruses have codes, machineries, and functions, however much we disdain their function.

Also, a program can be corrupted from its original intent, and thus be effectively 'malware'.

quote:

The programmed nature of a virus is to infect a cell and replicate. They are parasitic. Their intent is always malicious. Any beneficial effect is separate from their nature to act as parasites.

quote:

Why would the maliciousness of a virus negate its programmed nature? Maliciousness IS its programmed nature.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

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.

First off, I want to make it exceedingly clear that as a critical thinker, I am not beholden to 'proponents' of anything. I don't worry like many evolutionists do around here about towing the party line, I think critically, and am a skeptic in the truest sense of the word, so 'warning' me about what others think is a useless rhetorical device.

Secondly, you were the one who introduced the notion of perfection as a standard of measurement into this conversation, without of course defining it - I think I have shown that as much as we can call anything in a temporal, changing world 'perfect' (and I personally don't know where the notion came from to begin with) an ERV can either lend itself to that end, or detract from it.

quote:

And here is how I introduced it:

"But it would be a logical consequence of such statements as that Adam was created genetically perfect or that Adam was a de novo creation who had no biological ancestors."

Note that I am simply naming a couple of statements. These are not statements which I personally hold to be true, and I have no investment in defending them. And no, I have not tried to define "genetically perfect". For that definition, please go to those who actually make and defend these statements. (Good luck, I have never seen them define it either.)

You might, for example, ask falcnjet who is posting in the "emotional argument" and "genetic information" threads.

As I said, I am quite comfortable with the notion that there is no one way to be "perfect".

However, I am interested in seeing how you handle the historical aspect of the origin of an ERV. Could a being without a previous biological history be created with an ERV already in the genome? What would the theological implications be? What are the scientific possibilities of such an event?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud
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:

Actually, delivering new genetic code is their designed nature. Whether it is malicious depends on the nature of the code. In fact, ERVs in our genome are apparently rarely malicious – if they were all that detrimental, why would they not be selected against?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

quote:

The programmed nature of a virus is to infect a cell and replicate. They are parasitic. Their intent is always malicious. Any beneficial effect is separate from their nature to act as parasites.

The programmed nature of a virus is to insert novel genetic information into an existing genome. They are not in and of themselves ‘malicious’ (they have no intent) and the result is only malicious if it is detrimental to the host organism. Everyone has microbes of all sorts in their bodies – the fact that they are there doesn’t make them bad, and as you yourself have noted, the result can be beneficial.

quote:

Why would the maliciousness of a virus negate its programmed nature? Maliciousness IS its programmed nature.

Actually, delivering new genetic code is their designed nature. Whether it is malicious depends on the nature of the code. In fact, ERVs in our genome are apparently rarely malicious – if they were all that detrimental, why would they not be selected against?

But as I said, there are two possible choices for those viruses which are malicious – intentionally bad programming, and incidentally corrupted programming. Neither of course is outside of orthodox Christian thought.

quote:

Why would you say that the rewrite of a DNA sequence by a retrovirus is not a mutation? It is no different from a mutation being introduced by exposure to radiation. A mutation is a change in the sequence of base nucleotides, irrespective of the agent (internal or external) which introduced the change.

quote:

I think we are seeing a bit of confusion between the purpose of the infecting retrovirus and the purpose of the resulting ERV. Delivering new genetic code is indeed the purpose of the retrovirus. But creating an ERV is not. Had the program of the infecting retrovirus been carried through, the result would have been the replication of viruses and the destruction of the infected cell. So, from the perspective of the cell, the purpose of the delivery of new genetic code is indeed malicious for the purpose is to divert the cell machinery from its ordinary work to the replication of viruses.

quote:

An ERV only occurs when the retrovirus is NOT successful in carrying out its purpose of stimulating the replication of viruses. So the creation of an ERV is by its very nature, never designed. It is a testimony to thwarted design---whatever the nature of its subsequent impact on the species in which it occurs.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud
Again, I am neither obligated to defend other people's notions of genetic perfection

quote:

I think that the human genome obviously incorporates for the most part a mammalian genome including whatever genetic material is typical of such genomes - including those thought to be the product of the work of ERVs. It is also capable, as are all genomes, of accumulating additional ERVs.

quote:

To be picky ERVs are a product of the work of viruses. They are genetic material--not producers of genetic material.

I am not certain what you mean by the human genome "incorporating" genetic material, whether mammalian or viral. If you are simply saying it is composed of such elements, no problem.

But how do you envision the production of the first human genome from these materials? Do you include inheritance from pre-human primate ancestors as a means of incorporating this genetic material?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

Well, that is one of my problems with the vague notion of ‘mutation’ – it can mean a number of radically different things. An ERV doesn’t ‘re-write’ a genome, it introduces a bit of code in the genome to be replicated.