Summations Only

Me too.One of the really cool things about it is the nested hierarchy carries through to the newest comparisons of whole genomes and also with comparisons of individual genes across categories of life from phyla, classes, orders, etc.We have been able to reclassify organisms based on genetic evolutionary history and biology makes more and more sense in light of evolution.It is really a fun time to be involved in biological sciences.

Endogenous Retroviruses (ERVs) have left the record of infections in our DNA and the DNA of many other organisms.Comparing ERVs in related species shows that some are in the same exact positions in the genome. Some unique ERVs are found in each species that can be attributed to infections (insertions) since the species diverged from their common ancestor. Comparing the ERVs in identical spots in the genomes often show slight differences between species that can be attributed point mutations that have occurred since divergence.I think it would be hard to explain why a designer would have inserted this pattern of ERVs that also fit into a nested hierarchy.Interestingly, some ERVs appear to now have active regulatory roles in our genome.

quote:

---

Humans share about 99% of their genomic DNA with chimpanzees and bonobos; thus, the differences between these species are unlikely to be in gene content but could be caused by inherited changes in regulatory systems. Endogenous retroviruses (ERVs) comprise ∼ 5% of the human genome. The LTRs of ERVs contain many regulatory sequences, such as promoters, enhancers, polyadenylation signals and factor-binding sites. Thus, they can influence the expression of nearby human genes.

---

from part of the abstract of:
Endogenous Retroviruses and Human Evolution, Konstantin Khodosevich,corresponding author Yuri Lebedev, and Eugene Sverdlov.
Comp Funct Genomics. 2002 Dec; 3(6): 494—498.

I have to go with a.So far, I have not seen a part of biology that is not explained by evolution. If you have something, show us.All the examples I have seen provided by ID/Creationists turned out to be incorrect understandings of science, biology, or evolution, or all three.

I think that is a lie. Can you document this? So who besides you claims that Platypus is a transitional? Who claims it is extinct? 3.3429087 million years, really? You must have pulled this one right out of your ass.

Hmmmm, the Theory of Parallel Universes, I don't know that one. What is it?Those of us who use the science of evolutionary biology obviously find it useful.If you don't, fine, your loss, but I don't see why it pisses you off.When it comes to discussions of usefulness I would say, Christianity? Yeah, just like Scientology is useful.

In my career I spent a lot of time studying invasive species (exotics), primarily insects. We had active programs trapping insects around ports, airports and other places that were vectors for exotic species. Part of these programs was called Early Detection, Rapid Response or EDRR. It was an attempt to stop the exotics from spreading beyond the initial infestation.A second longer term strategy involved studying the target species to understand its biology and evolution and including native or exotic close relatives. If possible, we wanted to use parasites, predators, diseases, etc. as bio-controls of the target. Learning as much as possible of the phylogeny or evolutionary history of the target and the bio-controls allowed us to make decisions on how best to control the target without creating other unexpected problems, like inadvertently attacking native species or introducing a new pest.

I don't know what you mean by "since there is no further history involved."Micro-evolution is actually all there is. We can perform PCR DNA analysis (our lab has that capability) and can see the evolutionary relationships with other species that we have also analyzed. We can produce cladograms that show how groups of close species are related. So, we can see a whole lot of microevolutionary history mapped out.This evolutionary knowledge helps plan a strategy for a bio-control program. Without this knowledge these sorts of projects could not be successful. One of the interesting things that we see, that was predicted by evolutionary theory, is that the target species is usually not totally eradicated. Once the numbers drop to certain level the populations of target and bio-control enter a phase where they oscillate in a sort of equilibrium. The target population starts to increase and the range expands and then the bio-control population starts to grow. The time frame can be fairly long for the bio-control to ramp up. Ideally, we try to find several different bio-controls that attack different features of the target, for example, eggs, larvae and adults for insects or flowers, foliage, seeds, and roots for plants.

You nailed it!The oddest part, for me, is the insistence that the reality of the rocks fits her convoluted, self-contradictory hodgepodge reasoning rather than just saying it was magic and the reason reality doesn't fit her fantasy is god wants to mess with us.

Nice try, evolution IS microevolution. That's it. Except that there is no such thing as a creationist biologist. And there is no such thing as applied biology. Those are terms made up by religious nutjobs who want jobs as scientists but who don't want to learn any science. Actually, macroevolution is just more microevolution. It's too complicated for creationists to understand. You guys always get it wrong.That's why in my whole career in science, in biology, in entomology I have never met a creationist biologist. They are lost trying to find the employment ads for "applied science."Magic poofing is what we find in La La Land. Not much use is real world science.Edited by Tanypteryx, : No reason given.

Good to know....

Ok, so now we know exactly what you think as far as microevolution and macroevolution.

quote:

---

Microevolution + Time ≠ Macroevolution.

---

The way reality works though is those of us who work in science and evolutionary biology have observed and documented that Microevolution + Microevolution + Microevolution X n + time = Evolution, plus when we observe populations of organisms or fossils at intervals separated by time then we can see that evolution has happened and also that it has sometimes resulted in new species.Now we have decided that we would refer to the latter observation as Macroevolution. Since we are the people working in this field or studying the field we get to make the decision what we call this part of our discoveries.You creationists can go on deluding yourselves that Microevolution + Time ≠ Macroevolution, but we know that you are incorrect and we will continue to point out to you that your delusion is not an accurate description of Evolution.

Well, in your own mind you are quite good at creating illusions, but the rest of us see the evidence as it exists in reality. That you have the brass to make that claim to us, who have watched you flame out over and over, is proof that you are completely, totally, sadly deluded.

If you were right the evidence would be indisputable, but your argument doesn't even agree with the evidence that easy to observe and that anyone can see. And you completely skip over hundreds of fine details that we have pointed out to you over the years.You always sweep those details under the carpet and say you are only concentrating on the big picture. Like I said earlier, you flame out. Message 304

quote:

---

I flame out over stupidity and unfairness. The Flood has been proven over and over.

---

You are as deluded as Davidjay. We've been here all along and you have never proved anything. You always flame out because your arguments are full of holes.Edited by Tanypteryx, : spelling

I would like to see you describe how you would recognize statistically significant amounts of functional information.Did you make this up yourself or copy it from a creationist site? Not even lots and lots of microevolution? Like maybe, 3.8 billion years worth of microevolution?Can you show us some published research that concludes your two statements are true and not both just made up, creationist BS?

Well, you were the one who wrote it. Do you have a count? Any?Just to refresh our memories what you are talking about. Can you document any?