ERV's: Evidence of Common Ancestory

and a pretty strong one too!As others have noted you don't even understand what the topic is here. You don't have the faintest idea about evolutionary biology.I am suggesting that you slow down, assert less and ask more questions. When you have some idea of what is being discussed then you can ask more pointed questions if you still think something is being wrong.If you persist in this current disruptive and unproductive behavior I will start to give you a number of short suspentions.

I know exactly what evolutionary biology endorses because I heard it for over 30 years in school. I'm simply pointing out how impossible it is which one can know if he only understands the birds and the bees. So since I may be going too fast for evolutionists, I'll slow down and spell it out for them. Here's what evolutionists claim:1) That from an imaginary animal called a common ancestor (and it's imaginary because it still only exists in the imaginations of men)came all other life. This is not only impossible (which I will show) but it's fictitious because no one knows what this beast looks like, when it lived, or where it came from.2) The next claim is that this animal just...well...changed into other species through the process of mutation which are tiny changes in the genes over millions of years. That has not only never been observed to occur, but it doesnt' describe how and why these changes happened. Some evolutionists have claimed that the environment changed those genes, but as you can see, the environment has changed a lot in the short time we've been on earth and it hasn't inspired any animal to change or turn into another animal yet. Other evolutionists claim this happened by "natural selection" but negelect to understand that genes can't select anything! Genes don't make decisions. They simply travel along to the offspring through the sperm and/or egg of their parents.3) And again, since none of this has ever been observed to happen in reality, then it is a fairy tale as complex as "Lord of the Rings." In fact it's so complex that evolutionists themselves can't even agree on what the theory of evolution propones. So the theory of evolution is as unscientific as looking at a buttefly and claiming that it came from a cow because it...well...just changed into a butterfly over millions of years.4) But reality shows that each species only reproduces ITSELF (which is what the word reproduction means) unless cross-bred with an animal with whom it's capable of producing offpsring. Thus, chickens don't turn into pigs, giraffes don't turn into elephants and monkeys don't turn into skunks, zebras or humans in reality. All any evolutionist has to do is explain why those things don't happen and they will see why evolution is impossible. But evolutionists ALWAYS avoid explaining that to maintain this fairy tale of a fictitious beast called a "common ancestor". Edited by Refpunk, : No reason given.Edited by Refpunk, : No reason given.

I guess I don't get it. Can you explain again?I'm sorry - let me be more specific about what I'm asking. Can you explain why, since you obviously don't understand anything about evolution, you're trying to argue against it? If, after 30 years, you don't understand that "natural selection" isn't about genes making selections, something is very wrong with you.Personally, I think it's that you're determined to be dishonest. I would be very surprised if you've even been alive for 30 years.

It is immaterial how many years of school you have had (although I have to question 30 years).When you make comments like the following it is obvious that you do not understand evolution theory, natural selection - let alone Endogenous Retrovirus remnants. And... Natural Selection is *not* a process where genes do the selecting!!!Natural Selection is a process where heritable traits that contribute to the reproductive success of an organism become increasingly common within a population of organisms over time.Note: This is not a topic for you demonstrate your (lack of) understanding of evolutionary theory but a very interesting topic of Endogenous Retrovirus genetic vestiges within an organisms genome and its implications supporting common ancestry.Please make your next post directed towards the topic. Edited by iceage, : No reason given.

Having read the rest of your post, it is very clear that this is utterly untrue.Try to learn something about biology.Anything. It's all good stuff.

Hear hear!I second the motion!

If any one of those things happened, just once, it would disprove the Theory of Evolution, Refpunk.So, if you "know exactly what evolutionary biology endorses", as you put it, then could you explain to us all why I made the above comment.Sorry about being off topic, Molbiogirl, but I think that, considering how far he's got in 30 years of schooling, Refpunk is probably slightly more likely to give birth to a zebra than he is to ever understand what an ERV is.

Since your post is not terribly tied to the original suggestion to RefPunk could you consider helping everyone by choosing appropriate titles for your posts?Blank is better than littering the thread with not useful titles.Thanks.

Sorry but the "you don't understand evolution" argument which every single Christian hears from evolutionists won't work because they end up denying what they themseves say. Here is the definition of Natural selection in the "Dictionary of Scientific Literacy";"The tendency of those individuals better suited to their environment to survive and perpetuate their species, leading to changes in the genetic of the species, and eventually to the origin of a NEW SPECIES." Actually that really says nothing.First it presupposes that only the fit survive which is a blatant falsehood since the fit and unfit always co-exist in every single species.Secondly, those who survive in a species DO NOT CHANGE INTO A NEW SPECIES. They never have and never will. Evolutionists are actually claiming that genes are makineg decisions to change because one animal can outperform another, which is ludicrous. So what do evolutionists think humans will change into?So the probelem is, that since evolutionists deny every statement we make about evolution, they end up denying their own theory and have no theory left. And since the theory of evolution is imagainary, one will get as many different definitions of evolution as there are people who tell them. So the theory is a hoax and nothing more.Edited by Refpunk, : No reason given.

This is a silly lie which you have made up in your head. Many Christians understand evolution, and any evolutionist will be happy to say so. No it does not, which is why it doesn't say that. This is a silly lie which you've made up in your head. And yet the origin of new species has frequently been observed, so this looks like another silly made-up lie. No evolutionist has ever claimed that, which is why you cannot quote any evolutionist claiming that. That's just a silly lie which you've made up in your head. If by "we", you mean you, then I can see why. It's because every statement you make about evolution is a silly lie which you've made up in your head. And yet you cannot quote a single evolutionist "denying their own theory", because this is of course a silly lie which you've made up in your head. That goes beyond "silly lie" and into "hysterical denial". If there is no theory of evolution, why are you getting so worked up about it? Again, I recomend that before you go prating in public about how "the theory is a hoax", you find out what it is instead of just making up silly lies about it.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Refpunk This hardly correct and was written of by Charles Darwin a long time ago If you do not even begin to understand the basics how can you hope to
learn at all about what is and isn't correct in biology?

---

"The tragedy of life is not so much what men suffer, but rather what they miss."Thomas Carlyle

Since your post isn't so much of a suggestion to refpunk but more a rebuttal could you try to use topic titles which actually reflect your posts.I ask this of those who are certainly able to do the summarization of a post.

Again, since evolutionists deny everything we creationists say about evolution, then they deny their own theory and have no theory left. So far, evolutionists have denied:1) The claim that monkeys bred human descendants
2) The claim that monkeys turned into human descendants
3) The claim that the fit survive because they also have said that no one can define "fit".So again, evolutionists have no theory left because they're a house divded against themselves.

How do I use topic titles?

When you create a new post there is a Subtitle line just above the main entry area. My suggestion is:You either blank it, write your post then think about what the main point of your post is and fill that out.orThink about what you want to say -- what would help others to know if they want to read it when they see it on an All Topics list-- and fill that out then write the post to suit.This is good for two reasons:For you and for others; it helps you focus your post -- it makes it sort of a mini chapter in a story; and it helps others if they don't have time to read everything, or helps them not to miss something interesting or helps everyone find a post days or weeks later. (You can search only subtitles)Thanks for paying attention to this; way too few people do and a couple of us have a small obsession with this.