Most convincing evidence for evolutionary theory

quote:

---

doddy
But let me pretend that you did just tell me a cross-kind retrovirus. Now we can move on.

​

The other difference between your view and mine is that you require two viral infections, one in one species/kindone in another. On the other hand, I require only one that is passed on to the two descendant species.

---

I think you 'must' - but not for my arguement's sake. The rna distinction is contrived to suit a particular, narror research factor encountered - IOW, you are positing a specific instance, not a generic premise here. Virus' are engenius in manourvering their mode of survival (cancer, AIDS, Diabetes have resisted all cures), nor does an attacking virus have to be retro. Basically, if I'm correct, you are saying if a virus or other form of attacking entity, can attack both an animal and human - the theory of speciation suffers? My point here is that if a virus becomes embedded in the rna or dna, it is not a proof of speciation per se - because it negatively impacts on speciation being a viable guarantee. The other point is that speciation is indeed a perishment of one life form to usher in another. The issue of an ape evolving to a modern human cannot be proven by the factors tended.

quote:

---

Diabetes is not caused by a virus, and while some cancers are linked to viruses (ex. HPV and cervical cancer) not all of them are

---

No impact.

quote:

---

And that is a blatantly false statement. If it was correct we'd only have one species of bears, one species of whale, etc.

---

But the bear is said to have evolved from another bear - which does not survive when the new bear has evolved. We don't see Mamoths anymore - we see elephants. The grammatical rule is, one must take the logical path of what it means.

quote:

---

doddy

​

Also of note, and to bear in mind with the future discussion, is that viral elements are not thought to be involved in the divergence of apes and humans.

---

The point was that a retrovirus transmigration via dna/rna would negatively impact speciation. The obvious answer is YES. Whether this negates speciation per se was not the issue, but that the virus is not a deciding factor here.

quote:

---

except that we have multiple species of bears, if the "first" bear produced the next and then promptly died why do we have many different bear species currently living?

---

The many species does not impact, because the particular bear in that species is perished. That speciation is the deathknell of its precedence is not disputable. If a protoype is nominated for modern humans - it also says one is abolete and extinct. The categorising does not impact here.Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

quote:

---

Rubbish!
Consider an example. Say some toads (maybe just 102 individual toads, certainly not all of the toads in existence) of a certain toad species is transported from a pacific archipelago to a large continent, such as Australia. On that new continent, it faces large distances, drought, new predators and different food sources, and adapts accordingly (long legs, smaller body size and larger poison glands). So much adaptation may occur that it could become a different species to the original on the island (so if these mainland toads were brought back to their island, they wouldn't breed with the island toads). Will that cause the previous species, those still living on that island atoll, to die?

---

Yes - that's a deathknel at ground zero. The execptions of a toad adapting elsewhere does not alter the paradigm.Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

quote:

---

One again this is popycock. Before I move on to better things to do with my time, I must try to simply explain the significance of the retroviral elements in the great apes for evolution.
They prove that we share our inheritance for the simple reason that long ago, a one-off, random event occured in species A. That event replaced a section of the DNA strand in one animal. That section occurred in a distinct, unique location along the DNA strand. What the virus itself did was "harmless" but the unique section of DNA was forever after copied, generation after generation. Eventually, as different populations in differing environments became distinct enough from each other to no longer be able to breed, they became two separate species, B and C. But the section of their DNA strand replaced with the retrovirus remained intact in both species. Much later, one animal in species C is infected by another virus, in another unique location on the DNA strand. Countless generations of copying later, the population becomes species D and E.
Now, species D and E both have retrovirus 1 and 2. Species C and B share virus 1. The decendants of species B will have virus 1. The descendants of species D and E will have both virus 1 and 2. There is now clear evidence of where the species branched from each other. All due to the unique “mark” one random viral infection on one cell on one animal made. This is why this research is so significant and so compelling as evidence for evolution.
My explanation is relatively clumsy and non technical but it’s the way I would probably argue the point to a creationist

---

Its not clumsy in the sense any fine tuning will enhance it. So apes become human because of a viral indent in its dna - a unique event? And that imprint was embedded in all life forms, and Eureka! Why don't we worship this viruas then - at least it will be a religion with some reality cadence.Apes had no immune system - yet they can adapt and survive. Or if they did have one, they carefully took on only that part of the retrovirus which would allow them to survive - they prevailed over the virus's attack.Your problem is much further back: you have forgotten that a virus is also a life, and this one would have survived only because it prevailed over its precedent life forms' immunity defenses. There goes your Ape prevailing this virus premise! And also your 'unique' once only event - this one would be old as the hills!Reading this stuff and gulping it down without playing devil's advocate is very robotic.Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

quote:

---

para

​

IamJoseph writes:
So apes become human because of a viral indent in its dna - a unique event?

​

How you can read that into PeterMc's very clear description is beyond me. You have an uncanny ability to distort other people's words.

---

When the thread is followed, it says all life forms incurred the same imprint of a retro, then became a generic syndrome in all life forms, pursuent to speciation:

quote:

---

What the virus itself did was "harmless" but the unique section of
DNA was forever after copied, generation after generation. Eventually, as different populations in differing environments became distinct enough from each other to no longer be able to breed, they became two separate species, B and C. But the section of their DNA strand replaced with the retrovirus remained intact in both species. Much later, one animal in species C is infected by another virus, in another unique location on the DNA strand. Countless generations of copying later, the population becomes species D and E.

---

The population becomes D and E. So are you rejecting my interpretation, while accepting that apes and humans emrged by a unique event of a viral attack? And does this account for life - or speciation?

quote:

---

para
Apes had no immune system

​

If that is true then you don't have an immune system either, because you are an ape yourself. I don't mean this as an insult, it's simple taxonomy.

---

That apes would have no immune system is inferred not by me. The premise the ape was not able to dislodge or reject the virus, says that. It does not matter the virus was harmless - this is probably not the apes' doing in any case. It means that a harmful virus could also have been accepted by the ape - which makes the apes' survival very doubtful!

quote:

---

para
I am not accepting anything of the kind, because that is not what Peter says. Where in the above quote of Peter's message does he say that the speciation of humans and other apes from a common ancestor was caused by the viral intrusion? Nowhere. The viral intrusion and the speciation event - if you can call it an "event" - are completely unrelated. In the scenario described, the latter took place long after the former.

---

The time factor between the two events is irrelevent here. That they are critically aligned to the conclusion made is the operative factor. What is said, is that speciation is tracked to the unique once only retro event decribed, and this is here:

quote:

---

I must try to simply explain the significance of the retroviral elements in the great apes for evolution.
They prove that we share our inheritance for the simple reason that long ago, a one-off, random event occured in species A. That event replaced a section of the DNA strand in one animal. That section occurred in a distinct, unique location along the DNA strand.

---

and the conclusion:

quote:

---

There is now clear evidence of where the species branched from each other. All due to the unique “mark” one random viral infection on one cell on one animal made. This is why this research is so significant and so compelling as evidence

---

quote:

---

The fact that the ape was not able to get rid of the virus does not mean that it didn't have an immune system, it simply means that its immune system had no defense against that particular virus. Other viruses may have posed no problem.

---

Agreed.

quote:

---

You must realize that without an immune system as part of their basic biochemistry, the apes (including us) would not exist at all. An immune system is something that has evolved very, very long ago, long before mammals even existed, let alone apes.

---

Agreed.But the above is not the issue. What is being added here is, the ape was infected by a virus which embeds in its dna - which inheriting was outside of the ape's control, while the viral attack was successfully defended via its immunity defense mechanism; and further, that this was one unique event which set a chain reaction for all apes, then with other animals and then with humans. Now the extent of this chain is not the issue here, namely if it applies to a select few apes or animals; also whether this is an inference which signifies humans are ape derived pursuent to this event - is also not the basis of my arguement in this instant.With regard the virus, aside from its lodgement in dna, would not be alive for large epochs of time; with a lesser period its surviving would cause either death or degeneration of the host; culminating either way in a scenario which says either the ape has to defend itself or perish if the virus remains active. Here what is also said, is that the virus was rendered harmless - this is possible only via the ape's successfull immunity mechanism, or the virus perishing of itself. This results in two possible outcomes, respectively:If the virus perished of its own, not by the ape's immunity factor, the issue of a virus becomes muted; except that this is qualified there was a viral imprint embedded in the ape's acquired dna - which the virus performed to survive the ape's defenses, and here the virus was successful: or was it? The virus being harmless says its survival mechanism was ineffective - it perished; yet its dna lodgement was still effective. This is like hiv positive without acquiring aids, but in such a case the virus is still active, only potentially dangerous - which affirms it being alive; further, that virus can activate to 'harming' mode at anytime: the ape would ecome either weakened, or perish in time, pursuent to a virus which attack at any time. Here, the premise of the retro and the ape scenario conflicts with the known process.If the virus perished by the ape's defenses, rendering it harmless - this says also, that the virus' defense of embedding in the dna was a failed effort - because this was the only means it could survive - destroying the virus by making it harmless - destroys its action in the dna!Further, the virus being active itself is a result of its previous successful encounter with another life form - its predessessor. So this is not a unique event, but potentially one of many, and a clear example the precedent life form perishes with speciation. But the ape did not perish - it should have if a human evolved it - in emulation of this constant. That speciation occurs, and the precedent host does not perish - is not possible, and more a selective position taken to validate an end position. It does not pass the reality test.

quote:

---

doddy
Yes RAZD, it is fairly easy to convince a creationist that evolution is happening. They call that microevolution.
But, it is much harder (almost impossible) to convince them that evolution has happened and is the way in which life became what we see today. They would call that macroevolution, and dogmatically deny its occurrence.

---

Evolution, namely the chronological emergence of different life form species, was inroduced in Genesis; this agreement of species is not pursuent to Darwin. Mircoevolution is not the issue - the conclusion made of it, is the issue, and this debate is inclined with genesis being correct.

quote:

---

To many, it is just logical backwards extrapolation of what we see today. Others, however, may require something else to show them that this extrapolation is valid. Evidence for evolutionary theory.

---

An extension seen from skeletal and other biological features, common to all life, does not prove any culmination with humans - which are differently attributed than all other life forms by their un-commonalities - not addressed by Darwin, but well addressed by Genesis: Genesis identifies this difference with speech - a fulcrum, unique factor, and that all transmissions are seed generated - not even mentioned in Darwin's Theory, but which transcend the premise of Darwin, rendering them superfluous.Darwin would fail the test of ticking the difference manifest in life forms: humans are not distinquised by similarity of spinal cords, knee joints and dna.Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

quote:

---

kuresu

​

Evolution is the change in species over time. You have basically said that species changing over time is not equal to species over time.

---

Not so. Time has had no impact on speech being seen elsewhere, which is the highest attribute of adaptation. Nor does the past millions of years of evolution indicate this will occur in the distant future. Here, Genesis is fully vindicated.

quote:

---

I think it is clear to all that the concept of evolution was and is intended to explain the increase in order.

---

The species appear to be graduating within their species only, despite imprints of commonality of all life forms, including with vegetation. This means, animals will change/adapt as animals - unless it is assumed these changes will include speech. A contrived or real link between a pineapple and a zebra does not conclude these derived from those extensions, but that they pursue their own despite these imprints.

quote:

---

The theory of evolution is intended to explain how and why species change over time.

---

But there is a difference between environmental impacts and speciation. Skin color and features are environmental impacts, resultant from 1000s of years of changes. There has been sufficient time passed with no evidence of any life form, anywhere, has changed over time to indicate speciation to human mode. Why are the oldest known life forms not the predominant one, if an accumulated elevation is time based?

quote:

---

cora

​

Have you ever had a cold or a case of the flu, IaJ? Or a cold sore? If you have, I suppose you have no immune system and that your survival up to today has been "very doubtful."

​

You make no sense at all.

---

Having an immune system is not the issue - this is a positive attribute, and it operates involuntarilly. The issue is that a life form would accept destruction of itself, as a positive attribute, and equated with fighting a flu virus, makes far less sense. The imprints of life are not the same for the particular adaptation of species. Fighting flu is not the same as acceptance of my destruction for another species.

quote:

---

Why are you quoting something you said, and that Kuresu only quoted, as if Kuresu had said it himself, and then replying to it? You're talking to yourself.

​

--Percy

---

Context. The quote by itself does not define the point.

quote:

---

Irrelevant. When you feel that evolution was introduced is not the topic of discussion.

---

The originator of a precept is not irrelevent; its original depictions are more impacting than any other factor.

quote:

---

You have concluded that humans are a unique species/kind/thing/type/example/form simply because they have a feature that other species/kinds/things/types/examples/forms do not.

---

Correct. The differential is more distinuishing than the commonalities of all life forms. Its abscence in the equation makes it deficient in illustrating the difference and connectivity between species. genesis is correct here.

quote:

---

IamJ:
Darwin would fail the test of ticking the difference manifest in life forms: humans are not distinquised by similarity of spinal cords, knee joints and dna.

​

Vacate:

​

How exactly does "Darwin" fail in this regard? How does your definition of bird-kind in any way help me to differentiate a Robin from an Ostrich or a Hummingbird?

---

Simple: none of the birds have speech; birds are distinquished from animals and fish by their special air-borne attribute. Genesis' separation criteria is correct. Darwin's criteria is applicable to birds - but since he has categorised them incorrectly, disregading the pivotal differences separating these life forms, the fulcrum differences are not focused or addressed; instead, the factors common to all life are adressed. Thus we know that all life possesses commonalities, but we have no info why they remain different?

quote:

---

So far your method of organizing life forms is without any substantiation. Its meaningless to state that humans are different because of speech, that much is obvious.

---

It is a pivotal difference which is not acknowledged - this is the only obvious factor here. All other similarities are meaningless, because while they explain commonalities between all life, they do not explain the pivotal differences which separate them. Genesis does this - without infringing any legitimate, proven premise.

quote:

---

Show me that you can pass the test of ticking the difference.

---

I did. The only 'pass' answer is that speech differentiates humans - no other factor applies. Humans are thus a species on their own - regardless of commonalities with all life forms.