ERV’s Don’t Prove Evolution

Presumably, the alleged prediction and fulfillment are:

  1. If universal common ancestry is true, then the same endogenous retrovirus (ERV) will exist in the same chromosomal location in two or more species.
  2. The same ERV exists in the same chromosomal location in two or more species.

This is what is assumed by evolutionist if you read Talkorgins as one of the 29th proofs for evolution.  This doesn’t prove evolution at all.  This would be yet another interpretation of what you see under a microscope when it comes to genetics.  You still need for example to actuallysee it take place as they claim.  What do we continue to see in captivity with all the animals we have in the world at zoos?  Dogs give birth to dogs, and not a freak show animal.  And evolutionist contend that they don’t claim animals give rise to a half dog half sheep (this is only an example b/c evolutionist tend to take what is said to an extreme).  Bottom line is if you ask them, the common ancestor between apes and humans what was the % of that animal?  Was it 50% human and 50% ape and gave birth to a human being that was 90% human and 10% ape?  Did it give birthtoo twins an ape and a human where the ape was 90% ape and 10% human and the human had 90% human and 10% ape?  Do you see where I”m going with this?  The question remains, how and what did the common ancestor look like?  What did it give birth to?  You can’t continue to say well it takes millions of years, well bottom line if there is a common ancestor btwapes and humans then that ape like creature or human like creature is giving birth and rise to a half ape/human like creature and no matter how much you talk about it, eventually you get us 100% human or are we according to evolutionist.


ERV’sprove nothing at all unless you can produce the common ancestor, how it gave rise or have the question answered that did it give birth to twin creatures a ape and a human like animal, or what.  You just can’t show us an evolutionary tree and show common ancestry unless you are willing to say that the common ancestor had to give birth to some pretty odd offspring that kept branching to you get humans, apes, whales, bats, whatever, there should be a fossil record full of strange transitional, but you see fossils that look like modern day creatures which is not consistent with what we see in evolutionary where there is suppose to be this common ancestry.  If  it takes millions of years of slow change then you should have that in the record but you have animals that look like what you can find on earth with argues against slow change.

Here is what is some of the scientific statements about ERV’s outside of my own thinking.


“Since this is the concept of “shared errors” applied to endogenous retroviruses (and since retroviruses are a type of transposon), much of the two preceding responses is applicable.  It is not a prediction of the hypothesis of universal common ancestry or the more specific hypothesis of Neo-Darwinism that the same ERVs will exist in the same chromosomal location in two or more species.  Evolution does not even predict the existence of ERVs, much less that they will be found at the same location in two or more species.  After all, evolutionary theory was considered robust prior to the discovery of ERVs.  This is but another example of taking an observation, claiming it as a prediction of evolution, and then using the fact the observation fits the prediction as evidence for the truth of evolution.”


“Moreover, ERVs are inadequate in principle to support Dr. Theobald’s claim of universal common ancestry, because they are not shared by all groups of organisms.  To quote Dr. Max once again, “Another limitation [of this argument] is that there are no examples of ‘shared errors’ that link mammals to other branches of the genealogic tree of life on earth. . . .  Therefore, the evolutionary relationships between distant branches on the evolutionary genealogic tree must rest on other evidence besides ‘shared errors.’”

You can find a scientific response to this ERV claim by Talkorgins here at:


9 Responses to “ERV’s Don’t Prove Evolution”

  1. egoeimi3 Says:

    OH, here we go again. You are back! First you want to fill my youtube space with what you think settles it. The you bring your arrogance here to say there you have it… egoeimi is proven wrong again…. LOL

    I disagree with you yet again. You want to show this relationship that ERV’s have with humans and apes and then that proves that all aniamls evolved or have a common ancestor. Did you read the article or read what I just wrote?

    And like I said, I have had evolutionist admit that there should be freakish creatures in the record, so I don’t care if you say they don’t know whtat they are talking about. Oh yeah, I forgot you are the noble prize winner of blogging that what you say is law. You simply again can’t handle that there is different interpetation of information found in the genetic code.

    That’s the purpose of the article. To show people there is more than one possibliity to something they see.

    And also, inheritenance doesn’t prove common ancestory, you seem to think that it does. You never once think that if carbon-monoxide can kill a human being, it can also kill many other animals that have a similiar mechinism for breathing, that doesn’t prove that they have common ancestory because of the effects of carbon monoxide. No different then ERV’s. I don’t care how many animals it effects for example, that doesn’t prove common ancestory, just that the ERV has the ability to affect the genetic code in the same positions, that’s what the ERV reconizes.. has nothing to do with interentance in my opinion.

    So get over it.. I don’t believe the interpetation of evolutionist about ERV’s proves common ancestory. I just afffects the Genetic code because that is what it recognizes.

    Read the article and send a reply to the scientist who wrote it.. I”m not interested in your interpeation as if I’m suppose to accept it. Yeah, like you are suppose to accept my interpetation!

    The big difference is I don’t care if you believe in what I say or not. It’s science and open to why questions all day long.

  2. wysiwyg666 Says:

    Ego said “I have had evolutionist admit that there should be freakish creatures in the record”

    Who said it.

    What are his credentials as an “evolutionist” (you have often before quoted cretinists and called them evolutionists).

    What EXACTLY did he say?

    Define exactly what a “freakish creature” is.

    • egoeimi3 Says:

      I guess you can’t read a reply. A freakish animal that you don’t find in the fossil record is a bacteria and it’s many transtions that should be there with parts that don’t jive? You do know what jive means don’t you? You won’t find a reptile with half scales and feathers coming out of it… period. Better yet, I wuold like to see how we inhereted are caninies from a non-mammal. Last documentary I seen said we go canines from a reptilian a cold blood animal. Oh, I guess that can be explained away with yet more excuses.

      • Wysiwyg666 Says:

        Ego just doesn’t get it.

        You will NEVER find a fossil that is 60% human and 40% ape. Evolution doesn’t work that way.

        I am 100% human.
        I am 100% ape. Human is a species of ape.
        I am 100% primate just like all apes.
        I am 100% mammal.
        I am 100% vertabrate.
        and so on.

        Evolution REFINES what came before. It doesn’t replace it.

        You are not identical to your parents or children. Those differences make YOU a transitional form. Multiply these small changes over thousands of generations. Add a bit of environmental pressure to make some of those minor changes more beneficial. The result will be a noticable change from you today or humans 1000 generations before you.

      • Wysiwyg666 Says:

        By the way a “jive” is a 50s dance. I think you mean “jibe” … LOL

  3. And this article, with all the ignorance it contains, is a perfect example of how creationists have no idea what they are discussing or arguing against. There are many sources on the internet where you could become more knowledgeable of evolution. You can always go to wikipedia and look up such things as ‘List of transitionary fossils’ and receive an enormous lists of transitionary fossils that are on the genealogical tree with some of them even between man and ape. You could also go to google and look up what some would consider transitionary creatures in the mudskipper, the lung fish or the snake fish. All these fish have gills yet can breath both in air and in water and they travel along the land using various forms of movement or appendages specifically for use in the ocean. There is also an enormous body of information on some of the DNA sequences that differ between humans and chimps and what those DNA sequences are used for. Look up the FOXP2 gene to get an example.

    • egoeimi3 Says:

      LOL I love you evolutionary faith believers when you say creationist don’t know what they are talking about. Yeah, ok, having equal PH’D’s I see where the problems lay with you people, it’s called faith and only your teachers (scientist) know what they are tallking about. Kinda the same thing Christians get when they put their faith in their theologians without question.

      Sounds like we have another winner in putting their faith in the evolutionary scientist as being the only one that are perfect in interpetation of the things around you and the creationist with the same phd’s are totally wrong.

      I suggest Jeff you go live the life of gulliblity without question and keep on believing that creationist with the same phd’s don’t know what they are talking about.. I beg to differ. And don’t suggest I go to a site that only supports evolution like wiki. I choose to check both and decide what interpetation is correct when it comes to this philosophy.

  4. egoeimi3 Says:

    And by the way… I’m not interested in what they call transitions when they compare like features, that is interpetation as you people need to learn. There are no half ape and half human creatures, that is interpetation based on structure, doesn’t mean it’s an in between and the fossil record doesn’t show that period. With all the animals we have it’s well known that even evolutionist agreed it shows statsis.. that’s why other theories come out to suggest that there was rapid jumps like the P. E. theory get it! Even Gould b/4 he died recognized that and said so himself, that it’s statis.. so he and another scientist come up with the P.E. theory to suggest there were changes that happend quickly.. bottom line it’s philosophy not science it’s not testible and can’t be falsified… LOL go waste some poor gullible person’s time who buys into the brainwashing that starts when your very young and you believe it. Like we get accused of when it comes to Christianity.

    • wysiwyg666 Says:

      Punctuated Equilibrium is NOT a competing theory. It is a refinement of the existing theory. Everything that Gould says about Punctuated Equilibrium is completely compatible with the original Theory of Evolution as proposed by Darwin. If you knew anything about evolution, you would realize that.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: