ERV's: Evidence of Common Ancestory

THere is one fundamental problem with your "little Goliath" argument. You don't even try to show that it closely models the relevant biology. But unless it does you have no way of knowing that biological speciation would require a "new function" or that a mutation that produced one would be as likely to be harmful as it is in your "model".

quote:

---

I guess you need to model closely if that is the only way to obtain accurate results. However if logical deduction, estimation, approximation and extrapolation can be applied to a much more relaxed model, then why waste time building a detailed model?

---

In fact I am only asking you to model closely enough to get accurate results. And to show that you have done so. So far as I can tell you have made no effort to do so.How do you know that biological speciation requires the equivalent of what you call a "new function" ?How do you know that the biological equivlaent of a "new function" would be so likely to be detrimental that the possibility can be written off ?All you are doing is arguing from the features of your "model". But unless you can show that those features are also true of real biology there is no reason to assume that your conclusions are at all accurate.To deal with another point:

quote:

---

A general sense of the term 'speciation' is used in there. It says "Speciation works only within a kind".

---

i.e. it admits that speciation does occur but asserts (for no good reason) that it does not cross the (assumed) "barriers" between the borader taxonomic grouping that they call a "kind".

quote:

---

What happens is, I have been very strictly adhering to the definition of 'speciation'. Therefore if a new species is never created, then 'speciation process' is really not a speciation process, as that would be a contradiction. So I can safely claim 'speciation' never happened, or observed.

---

That is just confused nonsense. Speciation within a creationist "kind" is still speciation. Thus there is no contradiction. Therefore your assertion is certainly not "safe".

quote:

---

If speciation does not create a "new function", then speciation will never advance evolution. Data change will not be sufficient. Functional change will also be required. The computers tell me that.

---

Your answer amounts to simply repeating the assertion you were supposed to be explaining. You offer no reason at all to think that your model has any relevance to real biology.Or in short, the honest answer would be that you don't know - and you don't care.

quote:

---

That was not what I said. I said it's impossible for speciation to create a "new function", not that a "new function" would be detrimental.

---

Then why can't "new functions" be formed ? It is certainly possible in your model - or would be if your model was even accurate with regard to a typical computer. At the level of bits and bytes there is no hard distinction between data and instructions.

quote:

---

That's just playing with words. Speciation within a "kind" is simply not what the word is intended.

---

No, it's not playing with words. Speciation refers to the formation of new species and that is EXACTLY what is meant in the quote. The fact that creationists assert that there is some ill-defined boundary that limits the degree of evolutionary change that is possible doesn't affect that at all.

quote:

---

I'd disagree with anyone, (including a Creationist) who would tell me 'speciation' has been observed.

---

Have you gone through the examples ?

quote:

---

If no new species is created by speciation, then speciation is just not speciation.

---

New species ARE formed by speciation - and that is exactly what the creationist site meant. In fact many YECs want an episode of incredibly rapid speciation after the Flood, because it means that they can greatly reduce the number of animals that Noah's Ark has to take on board. (e.g. taking one lot of elephants instead of taking African elephants, Indian elephants, mammoths, mastodons etc.).