The absurd need for logical proofs for God

[Paleophyte]

From the abstract of your linked article:

"We also report on studies that associate HERVs with human diseases of the brain and CNS. There is little doubt of an association between HERVs and a number of CNS diseases."

Thank you for proving my point. Worse than useless.

From the same article :

Another intriguing finding in human brain cells and mouse models was that endogenous retrovirus HERV-K appears to be protective against neurotoxins.

So HERV are 8% of your genome and you've managed to find a handful that actually do something while the overwhelming majority either have no function or are outright harmful. We'd expect evolution to co-opt a few of them but that's the sort of behaviour that makes your Designer look like an imbecile.

Horseshit. Any fool can show that a broken part is useless. The pseudogene that fails to produce vitamin C in primates for example. Useless. Worse than useless in fact, since it takes resources to reproduce.

No, liar. Parts of the gene are literally missing, not broken.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/14703305/

We read : Only five exons, as compared to 12 exons constituting the functional rat GULO gene, remain in the human genome. A comparison of these exons with those of their functional counterparts in rat showed that there are two single nucleotide deletions, one triple nucleotide deletion, and one single nucleotide insertion in the human sequence.

Sorry, you're confusing me by arguing my side again. First you call me a liar and then you go to great lengths to show that the gene in question is half missing and that the remainder has suffered so many frameshift mutations as to be utterly useless. If that isn't broken then I don't know what is. It sure as hell won't be making you any vitamin C any time soon.

Even more, the mutation that made the gene stop being able to synthetize vitamin C may have been of beneft to early primates.

Confused again, but it's nice to see that you've finally grasped the basics of common descent. I swear, if I locked you in a room with your clone you'd argue one another into atheism.

Point of order! Which side of this debate are you arguing? I ask because you're arguing that humans give things function, utility, and purpose, not god. I mean, thanks and all that, but I really wasn't expecting you to argue both sides of this debate. Why don't I just leave you to it.

You're not that stupid, pal.

Well, that makes one of us.

Read your posts again : you're arguing that some gene somewhere is "useless", and therefore not designed. My point is that this logical implication is invalid.

No, I'm arguing that the bulk of the genome is apparently useless rubbish and has no appearance of Design. At least not by any sane or competent Designer. It's easy to understand how this would come about through purely natural processes. 4 billion years of unguided evolution is going to be a smidge untidy. If you're claiming Design then the Burden of Proof is on you to show why this unholy mess of a genome should be regarded as Designed rather than the nasty looking accident that it pretty clearly is.

Because we have abundant counterexamples to your assertion.

Try not to use the plural when referring to a single example. Makes you look a bit odd.

And I gave the example of chemical elements out there in nature who stayed "useless" for centuries, then became useful when we figure out out more about chemistry.

Until we gave them purpose. Not gawd. Thanks for making my point again.

In short: the terms "useless" are "useful" are entirely related to our condition, our science, our culture, etc.

And entirely unrelated to any Designer. Congratulations, you have arrived.