Summations Only

Since 1981 you've been looking for evidence of creation and you've not yet found any? What would that evidence look like?

Ok, so I've looked into this and cannot find any reference that says it was used in making the vaccine.What I did find was that it was useful in understanding how these diseases originated and were spread -- because of the genetic similarity between humans and apes and pigs.This genetic similarity is due to descent from common ancestor, which is known from the genetic markers that are non-coding sections of DNA that are common in the same places and can only come from inheritance ... unless you like billion to 1 odds repeated hundreds of times or a jester god that make it look like common descent.Enjoy

Shouldn't YOU be the one looking for evidence of creation? What would YOU consider to be evidence of creation?Or are you just anti-evolution/anti-science?

I see anecdotal evidence of creation every day - a beautiful woman, for example! But scientifically speaking, there is irreducible complexity, for starters.

The product of millennia of generations of sexual selection, which also selects your reaction to her beauty ... Irreducible complexity has been scientifically falsified. See Irreducible Complexity, Information Loss and Barry Hall's experiments for a thread on this.EnjoyEdited by RAZD, : .

What about ugly women then? What about parasitic worms? Irreducible complexity is not scientific.

I'm not the slightest bit surprised. "because of the genetic similarity between humans and apes and pigs" - not because of any theory about common descent. In other words, common descent is irrelevant and is actually of no practical use to anyone. This is just Darwinist rhetoric. I could offer the explanation that the similarity is due to all life being created by the same Creator, who used the same "building blocks" in all life forms. But my Creationist model doesn't assist or advance applied science - and neither does your Darwinist model of common descent.

And yet the genetic similarity is due to common descent, which is shown by the genetic markers that serve to purpose but show up in the same locii in different species. Having one such common marker is highly unlikely -- different mutations randomly occurring in the same place, two become astromomically squared, three becomes insanely improbable. You could indeed, however that means you believe in a god that provides false evidence and tries to make fools of people. A jester god like Loki? Somehow I don't believe that is your goal.Enjoy

It would be a waste of time to find that information because as soon as we supplied it you would shift the goal posts to "bacteria and humans sharing a common ancestor". You have shown that you have no interest in knowledge, facts, or science.

The evidence for evolution is a nested hierarchy which creationism can't explain. It isn't simply shared characteristics. The useful part of evolution is that it predicts a phylogenetic signal.

Including the genetic evidence in the non-coding 'junk' sections where their existence and preservation can only be explained by (a) evolution or (b) a jester hoodwinking god.Enjoy

As you have noted, the species distribution and LTR divergence of endogenous retroviruses is a perfect explanation.In recent threads we have seen at least 3 common creationist misconceptions of evolution:1. Species should evolve out of their clade.
2. Observations of natural selection is used as evidence for common ancestry.
3. Similarities alone evidence evolution.

Except that since ENCODE it has been clear that there is little junk DNA. More functions are being discovered in what was formerly called junk, even in pseudogenes.
The argument from ERV's only applies if they are part of the junk and they were indeed caused by past viral infections. However some ERV's have been shown to be part of functional DNA, and the evidence that they came from past infections is only based on similarity. Since we don't see ERV's moving toward fixity now viruses must have stopped doing it a long time ago.

1. Species should evolve out of their clade.
No but species should evolve to produce new clades nested within clades and the ultimate clade is the one beginning with LUCA.2. Observations of natural selection is used as evidence for common ancestry.
Darwin proposed natural selection as the cause of common ancestry so in that sense it is evidence. Often observations of natural selection are touted as evolution in action; such as Darwin's Finches and Trinidad Guppies.3. Similarities alone evidence evolution.
Isn't that how cladistics works? By creating a tree based on similarities?
Cladistics (from Greek κλάδος, klados, i.e., "branch") is an approach to biological classification in which organisms are categorized based on shared derived characteristics.

Darwinists claim antibiotic resistance is an example of evolution.
Antibiotic resistance is nothing more than natural selection.
Common ancestry is evolution.... Therefore Darwinists use natural selection as evidence for common descent.