Summations Only

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.

That's false. ENCODE included junk DNA in their definition of "functional". If a stretch of DNA was transcribed into RNA, even at very low levels, they counted it as functional. In the real world, leaky RNA transcriptase activity will transcribe junk DNA, and it is still junk DNA. Their findings did nothing to change the consensus that the vast majority of the human genome has no sequence specific function. Finding function in a tiny portion of what was once considered junk DNA does not mean that the rest of the genome has function. False. The ERV argument has nothing to do with function. Even if all of the ERVs had function they would still be evidence for common ancestry between humans and other primates.ERVs are evidence for common ancestry because they are found at the same position in the genomes of multiple species, not because they lack function. Retroviruses insert randomly into the host genome, so finding the same insertion at the same position in the genome of two species indicates that the insertion occurred once in a common ancestor. As it stands today, there are over 200,000 ERVs in the human genome, and more than 99% are found at the same position in the chimp genome. This is smoking gun evidence for common ancestry. Scientists have aligned ERVs and reconstituted a consensus sequence of those ERVs. That sequence produced a viable retrovirus."Here, we derived in silico the sequence of the putative ancestral progenitor element of one of the most recently amplified familythe HERV-K familyand constructed it. This element, Phoenix, produces viral particles that disclose all of the structural and functional properties of a bona-fide retrovirus, can infect mammalian, including human, cells, and integrate with the exact signature of the presently found endogenous HERV-K progeny. "
Identification of an infectious progenitor for the multiple-copy HERV-K human endogenous retroelements - PMCIntact ERVs have all of the features of a retroviral genome. We can directly observe retroviruses inserting into host genomes and producing new ERVs. Why shouldn't we conclude that ERVs are the result of past retroviral infections? We do see ERVs moving towards fixity now. There are several ERV insertional polymorphisms in the human population.Just a moment...You need to find a new source of information on ERVs since you appear to be wrong about almost everything about them.

This is that fallacy I was talking about earlier. Finding a function for tiny portions of junk DNA is not evidence that all junk DNA has function. For example, what portion of the genome do the repeats around centromeres comprise? Maybe 1% of the total genome, 0.1%? Finding activity in 1% of repeats does not mean that all repeats have function. This should be obvious, yet you keep making this mistake. What percentage have they found activity for? An additional 1% of DNA compared to 10 years ago? Enough with the lying creationist sites. Please use a proper scientific reference.

You think a lot of things. The trouble you have is providing evidence for what you think.The first problem you need to solve is why we see greater conservation of sequence between species for functional DNA as compared to junk DNA.

The only mendacious propaganda is the claim that if common ancestry is not used in a practical manner in the field of medicine that common ancestry can't be true. As you have already shown, creationism can't explain the nested hierarchy. Evolution can. Evolution is currently the only explanation we have for the observed pattern of shared derived characteristics, including DNA sequences. Even you couldn't explain how creationism could produce this pattern of similarity.Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

The paper you linked to shows just the opposite:"Point mutation rates in exons (synonymous sites) and noncoding (introns and intergenic) regions are generally assumed to be the same. However, comparative sequence analyses of synonymous substitutions in exons (81 genes) and that of long intergenic fragments (141.3 kbp) of human and chimpanzee genomes reveal a 30%—60% higher mutation rate in exons than in noncoding DNA."That paper is saying that the mutation rate in exons is higher than in introns. However, when we compare genomes between species we see more conservation of sequence in exons than in introns, the exact opposite of the observed mutation rate. The only explanation for this is natural selection against deleterious mutations in exons through evolution from a common ancestor.With ID/Creationism we always hear that a designer would simply copy sequence from one species to the next, so why not copy the introns straight over? Introns are clipped out of the initial RNA molecule to form mature mRNA that is then made into protein. In a few instances there are things like microRNAs within the introns, but for the most part they show no evidence of function. Their sequence makes no impact one way or another.So why not have nearly the same introns in the human and mouse genomes while changing exons to produce the observed difference in phenotype? Why would a designer spend the time to create more divergence in the introns than in the exons, and do it in a way that produces a nested hierarchy? It makes no sense. This pattern only makes sense if evolution is true.Edited by Taq, : No reason given.Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

Wrong question.If creationism is true, why would we expect to see a nested hierarchy? Out of all the trillions of possible combinations of features and DNA, why pick the one pattern that evolution would produce?

It has been observed many times, such as in the evolution of melanism in pocket mice:Just a moment...In this example, scientists were able to find the mutations that led to the new phenotype, and show how it was selected for in specific environments. This isn't a case of mice turning black because they sensed they were in an area with black rocks. This adaptation required a mutation. Do you know what the words "young" and "old" mean?If so, can you tell me the microsecond in a person's lifetime when they go from being objectively young to objectively old? No? Species are the same thing. Species are a spectrum.But more importantly, we look at the effect that reproductively isolation has on the genetics of a population. That is the true measure of ongoing speciation events, where different mutations or different alleles come to dominate each separate population due to the lack of free interbreeding. Even in cases with limited interbreeding you can still get population specific genetic changes to occur. These are yet more undefined terms. How do you determine if there is an "advancement in DNA"? If we were to compare the chimp and human genome, would you be able to point to the advancements? A chimp and a human look similar: Every single transitional is the transitional we would expect to see. All of them fit into the nested hierarchy.

The nested hierarchy is a fact. Evolution is the best explanation for that fact.If you think we are wrong, then show us how ID/creationism predicts a nested hierarchy, and only a nested hierarchy for complex eukaryotes. If you can't do that, then you have to admit that evolution is the best explanation because evolution does predict a nested hierarchy.

Creationists just can't seem to grasp the simple concept that they need positive evidence that God did create something. This isn't about us trying to disprove creationism. This is about creationists needing to put forth evidence for their position. This is called the "burden of proof". If ID/creationism can not explain the facts, then ID/creationism is not accepted. Since ID/creationism can not explain the twin nested hierarchies, then ID/creationism is not accepted. Evolution DOES explain the twin nested hierarchy which is why scientists accept evolution over ID/creationism.

This is what we call psychological projection. Notice how you have to attack the messenger instead of dealing with the message.

You have yet to show that evolution requires an increase in genetic information.For example, compare the human and chimp genomes. Can you show us how those genomes differ in information content? Probably not, right?

They have already done that. At the same time, they have also shown that information can evolve.

quote:

---

Evolution of biological information

​

Thomas D. Schneider

​

Nucleic Acids Res (2000) 28 (14): 2794-2799.

​

How do genetic systems gain information by evolutionary processes? Answering this question precisely requires a robust, quantitative measure of information. Fortunately, 50 years ago Claude Shannon defined information as a decrease in the uncertainty of a receiver. For molecular systems, uncertainty is closely related to entropy and hence has clear connections to the Second Law of Thermodynamics. These aspects of information theory have allowed the development of a straightforward and practical method of measuring information in genetic control systems. Here this method is used to observe information gain in the binding sites for an artificial ‘protein’ in a computer simulation of evolution. The simulation begins with zero information and, as in naturally occurring genetic systems, the information measured in the fully evolved binding sites is close to that needed to locate the sites in the genome. The transition is rapid, demonstrating that information gain can occur by punctuated equilibrium.
Evolution of biological information | Nucleic Acids Research | Oxford Academic

---

That sure sounds like an admission that you reject evolution because of your religious beliefs and not because of any scientific reasons.

How can you say they are wrong when you don't even understand the most basic science that undergirds the theory of evolution?