I have expressly invited Mustang, Nouveau, Brisingamen, and I have also invited any other evolution denier who cares to, to step into Ferengi's shoes and present an argument for ERVs being the product of design rather than them being the result of retroviruses infecting ancestral germline cells. I have not been given the courtesy of any response to my invitation, not even a response declining it.

Although the conclusion that ERVs are the result of retroviral infection firmly establishes that, among other things, chimpanzees and humans share common ancestors, our resident evolution deniers will neither attempt to argue against the conclusion nor acknowledge its soundness. I find this attitude to be utterly incomprehensible. It is like that of those who refused to look through Galileo's telescope to see directly that their notions about the celestial realm were mistaken.

Casting about the internet for anyone who was prepared to try and argue for the design hypothesis, I came across an article by a Dr. Yingguang Liu entitled "Were Retroviruses Created Good?" at a website called "Answers in Genesis". Although Dr. Liu does not argue against common ancestry between different kinds of creatures (ERVs could still have been designed into common ancestors), Liu does try his best to cast doubt over the viral hypothesis and to promote a "creator" hypothesis.

So with nobody else to debate, I have written a critique of Dr. Liu's article. It is presented as a single page at the wiki, Were Retroviruses Created Good? A Critique, and as a series of posts hanging off of this post. I recommend reading the wiki page rather than these posts, though, because the wiki page is rich in links to supplementary information, and there is a severe restriction at CARM, limiting the number of links that may be posted. The posts that follow are essentially there for those who loath to click.

The offer to discuss the topic remains open for anyone who is willing to take Ferengi's place.