Don’t Just Assume It’s Junk
and without it the stem cells lose their key functionalities.
Human endogenous retrovirus subfamily H (HERVH) is a class of transposable elements expressed preferentially in human embryonic stem cells (hESCs). Here, we report that the long terminal repeats of HERVH function as enhancers and that HERVH is a nuclear long noncoding RNA required to maintain hESC identity. Furthermore, HERVH is associated with OCT4, coactivators and Mediator subunits. Together, these results uncover a new role of species-specific transposable elements in hESCs.
As with previous human retrovirus examples, this finding forced evolutionists to hypothesize that the retrovirus, unbelievably, played a crucial role human evolution. As one report explained:
According to the study's lead author, Xinyi Lu, a postdoctoral researcher in Ng's laboratory, the emergence of the regulatory activities executed by HERV-H could represent an important step in the evolution of our early ancestors. "HERV-H first integrated into the primate genome around 45 million years ago and is only found in the primate genome," says Lu, "and so it may contribute to some of the differences between primates and other mammals."
How curious this is. A retrovirus is supposed to have evolved, and then it just happened to play an important role in the construction of humans. This is yet another example of the incredible serendipity that evolutionists envision at work in their theory. Do they ever wonder at the likelihood of a retrovirus just luckily fitting in to the evolutionary process, and serving in an important role in the production of increasingly complex organisms?
With evolution, science becomes not a search for how nature works, or what likely occurred in the past, but rather bizarre, unlikely tales that cannot be proven wrong.
Religion drives science, and it matters.
"...the emergence of the regulatory activities executed by HERV-H could represent an important step in the evolution of our early ancestors."
ReplyDeleteI love how plastic evolutionary biology is. Yesterday's useless junk is today's important contributor to the magical process. It truly is a non-falsifiable theory.
Regarding your insight:
ReplyDelete"Do they ever wonder at the likelihood of a retrovirus just luckily fitting in to the evolutionary process, and serving in an important role in the production of increasingly complex organisms?"
That sums it all up. Especially given the complexity of the process of incorporating new useful genetic material and inserting it in just the right place. Great insight.
It might happen once, maybe twice, but how many times is too many for an evolutionist?
ReplyDeleteThe Onion Test Is a Red Herring (and T. Ryan Gregory who originally proposed the Onion Test refutes himself) - Jonathan Wells - March 11, 2015
ReplyDeleteExcerpt: Biologists have long known that the DNA content (the "C-value") of eukaryotic cells varies by a factor of several thousand, with no apparent correlation to organismal complexity or to the number of protein-coding genes. There is a strong positive correlation, however, between the amount of DNA and the volume of a cell and its nucleus -- which affects the rate of cell growth and division. [3132] Furthermore, in mammals there is a negative correlation between genome size and the rate of metabolism. [33] Bats have very high metabolic rates and relatively small genomes. [3435] In birds, there is a negative correlation between C-value and resting metabolic rate. [3637] In salamanders, there is also a negative correlation between genome size and the rate of limb regeneration. [38],,,
"Under the traditional junk DNA and selfish DNA theories," Gregory wrote in 2005, "the relationship between genome size and cell size is considered purely coincidental." Since this approach is incapable of explaining the correlation between C-value and cell size, "the strictly coincidental interpretation has been rejected." [50]
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2015/03/the_onion_test094301.html
A finnish writer, Tieteen rakkikoira (mongrel of science), formed the principle of evolutionary imprecision: "It is surprising, that XXXX excisted fully developed/ready so early in the history of NNNN".
ReplyDeleteTherefore, no discovery can discredit evolution, because it explains both pros and cons.