Changes

==== Criticism ====

==== Criticism ====

Evolutionists gloss over two important facts when making this argument: First, many retroviruses can infect both humans and apes.  The most notable of these is [[HIV]], which is widely believed to have originated as [[SIV]] in chimpanzees, but can also infect humans, apes, and monkeys.<ref>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/5012268.stm</ref>  It is entirely possible, therefore, that humans and apes were ''independently infected'' with the same virus.  Second, some retroviruses have been shown to have highly targeted insertion points, meaning that the virus selects very specific segments of the genome for insertion.<ref>Citation: (2004) Retroviral Gene Vectors Show Clear Target Preferences. PLoS Biol 2(12): e443 doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.0020443 [http://biology.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1371/journal.pbio.0020443&ct=1]</ref>  Consequently, it is entirely possible that the same virus infected both humans and apes, and targeted the same location.  This seems especially plausible in light of the fact that humans and apes have ''tens of thousands'' of endogenous retroviruses in their respective genomes -- at least a ''few'' of the retroviruses are likely to infect both humans and apes at the same location.

Evolutionists [[gloss]] over two important facts when making this argument: First, many retroviruses can infect both humans and apes.  The most notable of these is [[HIV]], which is widely believed to have originated as [[SIV]] in chimpanzees, but can also infect humans, apes, and monkeys.<ref>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/5012268.stm</ref>  It is entirely possible, therefore, that humans and apes were ''independently infected'' with the same virus.  Second, some retroviruses have been shown to have highly targeted insertion points, meaning that the virus selects very specific segments of the genome for insertion.<ref>Citation: (2004) Retroviral Gene Vectors Show Clear Target Preferences. PLoS Biol 2(12): e443 doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.0020443 [http://biology.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1371/journal.pbio.0020443&ct=1]</ref>  Consequently, it is entirely possible that the same virus infected both humans and apes, and targeted the same location.  This seems especially plausible in light of the fact that humans and apes have ''tens of thousands'' of endogenous retroviruses in their respective genomes -- at least a ''few'' of the retroviruses are likely to infect both humans and apes at the same location.

Additionally, scientists have determined that some endogenous retroviruses are indispensable to a species' life or reproduction.<ref>"Researchers Discover that Sheep Need Retroviruses for Reproduction," Texas A&M AgNews, 11 Sep 06.[http://agnews.tamu.edu/dailynews/stories/ANSC/Sep1106b.htm]</ref>  If the retrovirus is advantageous in some way, that would explain how the retrovirus spread to the entire species.  It also presents the possibility that retroviruses were used as part of the creative process, as [[retrovirus]]es are often used in genetic engineering today, to introduce new genetic material to cells.

Additionally, scientists have determined that some endogenous retroviruses are indispensable to a species' life or reproduction.<ref>"Researchers Discover that Sheep Need Retroviruses for Reproduction," Texas A&M AgNews, 11 Sep 06.[http://agnews.tamu.edu/dailynews/stories/ANSC/Sep1106b.htm]</ref>  If the retrovirus is advantageous in some way, that would explain how the retrovirus spread to the entire species.  It also presents the possibility that retroviruses were used as part of the creative process, as [[retrovirus]]es are often used in genetic engineering today, to introduce new genetic material to cells.