Monday, July 02, 2007

Creationists Predicted ERV Functionality.

Index to Common Creationist Claims about ERVs

There will be several more posts on ERV 'junk'/'function'/etc, however a main Common Creationist Claim about ERVs is that they predicted ERV functionality before Evilutionists. Evilutionists refused to study ERVs because they are 'junk.'

Parts of ERVs are functional. For instance, the env gene of specific endogenous retroviruses has been co-opted by mammals to form placentas (I elaborate here). Also, endogenous viruses carry genes with them called LTRs. This is how an exogenous virus like HIV uses an LTR-- but when the virus becomes endogenous, the LTR can act as a promoter for endogenous genes, either up or downstream. This paper has a humorous, but accurate name for this: "domesticated long terminal repeats".

Evilutionists did this research, not Creationists. Evilutionists predicted functionality in non-coding regions, not Creationists (see MarkHs post at Denialismblog). ERVs and host co-opting and pirating ERV parts is a prediction made by evilution, not Creationism.


VWXYNot? said...

I'm glad you liked the Domesticated phrase - that was my former grad student's paper! I'm oh so proud. I'm pretty sure he didn't invent the phrase though.

I also liked my other former colleague's description of TE insertions near gene promoter regions. They're either completely excluded, or else become part of the gene's regulatory machinery. You don't find many that insert near a gene promoter but don't get involved in gene regulation. My colleague Louie called them "refused unless used".

ERV said...

HAHAHA! I didnt even notice that was one of your papers! I was just excited about a good PLOS article to reference! heeeeehehehehe!