ERV's: Evidence of Common Ancestory

Gee... words (aka bullets) are cris-crossing furiously
Dodge...bullet...duck...dodge...bullet...duck...duck...By any chance, does someone know if there is a creationist site where I can get a evolutionist-bullet-proof vest? Has it ever crossed your mind that when evolution cannot be observed let alone proven, the bar might have been lowered to get the evolution theory 'across the line'? Perhaps you can argue evolution includes "descent with modification" or better "descent with any modification" which implies I must have evolved from my parents because they don't wear glasses like I do... hence validating your version of evolution theory... albeit by definition only.I am not the one playing with words. My habit is to stick with a minimalist definition that is also accurate. To extend and apply adaptation is to risk, like you said -- playing with words.Are you suggesting as part of that definition, black mice and brown mice are evidence of evolution, that they are two different species? You can't be serious !!I put it to you that thousands of variants (or variations) within a species are just that -- members of one single species. That is NOT evidence of evolution.It's good that you confirm what I suspected: "ERV's don't "provide an evolutionary mechanism that enables species to EVOLVE into other species." They just give us one more smoking gun that lets us quantatively measure how evolution happened." So you confirm what I suspected as well. I agree that does not help. But what can I do? I turned to evolution theory but what do I see -- a theory of impossibility. I am now convinced evolution theory will never deliver the goods and evolution in fact never even happened !!BTW, I notice you're a catholic. Would you happen to be one of those confused creationists that Dr Adequate mentioned as having hit the books and ended up believing in evolution? ( Refer to Message 92 and then my response Message 94) Sure some languages do indicate common root. No problem there. However even though some languages are very different, that does not mean common root is invalid, for it is recorded in the Bible:

quote:

---

GENESIS 11:7 -- Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another's speech.

---

I understand humans developed new and different languages as a result. If evolution theory did not predict 'common ancestry', why the word 'predict' is used so many times in the name of evolution theory?
Strictly speaking, evolution theory is 'unqualified' to make a 'common ancestry' prediction because the theory cannot even salvage its credibility by predicting how species will evolve.
I think the 'theory of common ancestry', (if there is such a thing) can stand on its own without evolution theory.BTW, I am generally agreeable about natural selection. But natural selection is NOT evolution and it can never cause a species to evolve into another species. Natural selection is a very amicable argument that makes for a very acceptable facade for the frauded evolution theory. That's all. Believing mutation and selection have led to evolution of species is just that -- a belief
Your's is a 'science-based belief' but nonetheless just another 'belief'. Strangely, as someone who didn't want to add more to my plate, you're surely getting my undivided attention right now. Now you surprise me... not least is your propensity to put words in others mouth.
Actually I had already replied to your earlier post what evidence is required of evolution. It's not about lizard giving birth to non-lizard either. Actually I only told half the stories earlier. The other half is: "Evolutionists have told me evolution is happening everywhere right now". Now that's a lie too....If your objection is that the word "lie" is too heavy-sounding then I would agree. Afterall some evolutionists sincerely believe it's silly to expect to observe evolution whilst others sincerely believe evolution is happening everywhere. If people are sincere in their belief in untruth then they cannot be regarded as telling a lie, right? -- -- --
Errr.... You ask me for some evidence, but call me a liar even before I come back with evidence?
So you've never heard something like that coming from a Biologist? Do some Biologists tell you things, like calling you personally or send you emails? I guess not...perhaps no Biologist ever heard of your name.But where/when did I ever said that a Biologist had made that claim?
I only mentioned evolutionists, (but not Biologists).Did you think Evolutionists equate with Biologists?
Or worse..., you tried to concoct a lie and attribute that to me? Trying to tell lies again? Are there many talking snakes in the Bible, as well as multiple guys who are born of multiple virgins? Care to back your statement up with some evidence? Listen boy, if you think you're clever enough to call me a liar, I have an advice for you -- Go back to a primary school that may fix your behavioral issue (including pot-smoking). BTW, don't return to the same school as that one obviously didn't do much good to your demeanour.But unfortunately, no school will be able to help you improve your ability to reason.Another appropriate advice to you: Make sure to attend Bible scripture class while you're back at school. That may help. Your analogy is telling a different tale from mine. They are not the same. If you were trying to extend my metaphor then yours violates Occam's razor principle.
In my analogy, I said that [b][/i](1) suggests that there is no visible pathway to get from A to C.[/i][/b]
The same argument, when transposed to your analogy, is like saying: "There is no visible pathway to get from A to D".
So going from A to C will fail the same way as going from A to D. In which case, point E and F are redundant and irrelevant.
If we agree that in your analogy, evolution is represented by going from A to D, then I assert that the pathway actually does not exist. I don't believe junk DNA invalidate creation. Perhaps it is simply impossible not to have a bit of padding here, and wasted space there. I believe if one day scientists are capable of creating DNAs and cells from scratch, we will find that they cannot create a cell without something useless/redundant in the cell, no matter how hard they try to optimise the creation. I must say your metaphor confused me quite a bit.
So to help me understand your argument, I represented your metaphor as follow:

quote:

---

X (ancestor) --->Darwinian evolution--->Z (Present state)
Y (creation) ----->Extinction --------->Z (Present state)

---

Am I reading you correctly with above representation?However, your conclusion again confused me. You seem to be saying only going from point X to point Z would result in "footprints". This is obviously not true as going from point Y to point Z would definitely leave behind "footprints" of extinction. Bear in mind there has always been reduction of species through extinction. But I never hear increase in new species. How do you account for that using the Darwinian evolution model?But of course you have come back with a creationist link that claim new species are created and you claim the force of evolution can be observed around us. I will have to leave that later until I have time to go through the material. Hopefully after a few days. Cheers...

I think this shows that you are not being intellectually honest. Your argument does not address why there is more junk DNA in a less complex organism. Or do you just ignore points that are inconvenient to your POV? Not a vest per se, but the evolution fairytale forum is a thought/logic free safe zone for creos. But not believing in a young earth will put you in Satan's camp there I'm afraid - no invitations to barbecues.. Well, having accepted an old earth you are left with old fossils. So you believe God created life forms at various times in the past? One species went extinct, and God created another species to replace it. Then he put the ERVs in to the same locations so we'd be confused enough not to see what really took place? Did it occur to you that creating life forms that depend on each other to exist might be impossible except through the process of evolution, even for God?

Don't complain that people are putting words in your mouth, pcver.Of course a brown and a blck Mus musculus are the same species. Most all species have lots of variation within them - that's one of the drivers of evolution, y'know. But if you compare a gray Mus musculus to a gray Mus spretus, you'll find that their DNA differs more than chimpanzee does from human DNA. Science 12 April 2002: Vol. 296. no. 5566, pp. 340 - 343Why do you imagine that the genus Mus is divided up into a few dozen different species, pcver? Just to give systematists something to do? Are all those species "the same," even though they can't all interbreed? Or is each its own "created kind," not related in any way?

---

"The wretched world lies now under the tyranny of foolishness; things are believed by Christians of such absurdity as no one ever could aforetime induce the heathen to believe." - Agobard of Lyons, ca. 830 AD

Spoken like a true religious apologist.Does it ever give you pause that 99.9% of evolutionary scientists accept the evidence for evolution, and the few who don't are defending an a priori religious belief?The only way you can conclude that evolution is "a theory of impossibility" and "never even happened"--is to have an overriding fundamentalist belief that prohibits you from seeing and accepting the evidence.Otherwise, scientists all over the world, from all different backgrounds and cultures, come up with the same answers--evolution is an accurate description of the evidence. Only religious apologists come up with different answers.Hmmmmm. Quite a bit of correlation there, eh?(And note tagline.)

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

It is true that evolution cannot be scientifically proven. That's because nothing in science can ever be proven, not relativity, not quantum theory, not the Big Bang, not evolution, not anything. This is because of the scientific principle of tentativity. The nature of science isn't the topic of this thread, so I'll stop there.I think when you say that evolution cannot be observed that you must have intended to qualify that. I think you must mean that significant evolutionary change requires long time periods, and that such significant change hasn't been observed, and in this you would be correct. For example, we could never observe something along the lines of the evolution of the horse because it took millions of years. But though we haven't observed mountains being eroded away to form flat plains, either, we know that they do because of geological evidence, and we can observe modern mountains being eroded away at the rate of a few inches per year. Like the erosion of mountains, evolution typically proceeds at a snail's pace, and we can observe first hand small amounts of evolution. Are you descended from your parents? And are you identical to your parents, or are there differences? The obvious answers are that you *are* descended from you parents, and that you *are* different from them. So how about that, you're a perfect example of descent with modification! Of course, the other part of evolution is selection, particularly mate selection, and good luck with that! I prefer a minimalist approach myself, but it must be sufficient for the job. You can't pour a gallon of water into a juice glass, and you can't argue against a minimalist definition of evolution that is wrong. Simplification, keeping things straightforward, they're admirable goals, but not if they make you wrong. This is a great example of simplification leading you astray. You're operating under the assumption that creatures that look almost exactly alike except for color must be the same species, but that's a very superficial approach, and it's caused you to be wrong, as Coragyps explained when he replied to the same passage.Getting onto topic, I'm not sure why some are claiming that ERVs only provide evidence of evolution, but that they aren't themselves a cause of evolution. ERV's are involved in a whole range of possibilities, from no evolutionary impact whatsoever to a dramatic evolutionary impact. One example of such a dramatic impact comes from the Wikipedia article on ERVs, which mentions immune system suppression in the fetuses of many modern mammals. Well, now you're just being silly. You may just as well deny gravity happens. Even creationists require that evolution happens, very rapid evolution in fact. They invoke rapid evolution because it is necessary to produce all the millions of modern species from the small number of kinds represented on the ark. It's contradictory to insist on common ancestry while rejecting evolution. Almost no reproductive event is without error, so descent almost always occurs along with modification. Add selection to descent with modification and voil, evolution! Evolution of new species has been observed. The problem for you is figuring out what, given the imperfect reproduction that renders change over time inevitable, could ever stop evolution? Well, I'll say this for you, you certainly don't shy away from making mistakes. You jump right in!Almost every reproductive event results in mutations. It is very rare when this is not the case. Evolution is a process of change over time, and imperfect reproduction guarantees that there must be change over time. You can only avoid change by avoiding mutations, and that's impossible.If I could make a suggestion, not just to you but to everyone, calling people liars (or any other derogatory term) is actually a barrier to communication, plus it's against the Forum Guidelines, so let's not do it anymore. Okay? I'm sure everyone on both sides of the discussion sincerely believes what they are saying. And if they don't then let the moderators handle it.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Grammar.Edited by Percy, : Grammar.

I see I got some feathers ruffled. Good, I appreciate the honest emotion. Well kindness lets one in the door, then I show my true intent. And all of this is summed up with one point, you don't have the first clue what evolution is and are therefore are looking for an answer that does not exist.Evolvement is simply desent with modification. Mutation, natural selection and speciation add up to what is defined as "evolution".Mutations, are observed.
Natural selection, is observed.
Speciation, is observed.All 3 of the mechanisms that organisms use to evolve are visible, making "evolution" an observed phenomenon. That is what is meant by "evolution is observed".Now, that you want to see morphological evolvement in a single individual as "proof" of evolution is both wrong and a strawman. First understand what evolution is then debate it. No, I've never heard a biologist claim this that you stated: That above statement is made up bullshit. There are many biologist on this site. Many at my University. Many are actual friends of mine which I hang with, I even know 2 comics, which is my profession, who are biologist. I have never heard that "evolution is so slow that it can't be observed".Now either back up that statement or face the fact that biologist, or better yet, evolutinary biologist, have never meade this claim. Are you serious???? The proper term is Biological Evolution, look it up at any school website. Yes, there is a talking snake, aka. the devil in drag.You are right, there is only one fella who was born of a virgin, in the Christian bible. There used to be a poster here that would like to address people like that, me specifically, on a few occasions. Honestly, I'm 33 years old, but boy is cool. Unless you are being condescending, in which case you can go fuck yourself. My behavior? Pot? Please, you have no clue what you're talking about or who you're talking to. I have a very extensive education in a variety of fields. Try me pops.Edited by onifre, : Erased a few remarks in regards to Percy's post about the forum guildlines to not insult.

---

"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

You should ask yourself why you need to be protected from the facts. Why do you see an impossibility? Why isn't this evidence? The theory of evolutions proposes that variation is produced through mutation and selection. This is exactly what we observe, variation arising through mutation and selection. When a population is split into two this causes different variations to accumulate in each population over time leading to new species which has also been observed. Again, common ancestry is the conclusion. It could very well be that there are species who do not share common ancestry. There is nothing in the theory of evolution which states that species MUST share a common ancestor. Rather, the theory of evolution tells us what evidence to look for if two species share a common ancestor. This is the prediction, the if part.In fact, scientists looking at microorganisms found in deep sea vents may find a species that does not use the same codons as the rest of life on Earth. For example, this new species may use TGA to code for methionine instead of the ATG used by the rest of life on Earth. The scientists would correctly conclude that such a species does not share common ancestry with the rest of life on Earth. There is nothing in the theory of evolution that prohibits such a conclusion.Getting back to the topic, if it was found that very few if any ERV's fell into the predicted pattern then this would spell big trouble for the conclusion of common ancestry. You are confusing the past and the future. If evolution occurred in the past then we should see specific pattern of homology, and we do. As evolution continues we will continue to see this same branching pattern, but there is no way to predict what features will evolve in each branch.As an analogy, science has a very firm grasp on the scientific explanation for rain. However, due to the chaotic and random nature of interactions in the atmosphere it is nearly impossible to predict if it will be raining a month from now. Does that this scientific explanation for rain is disqualified? Natural selection is a mechanism which, in combination with other mechanisms, does result in evolution of species. However, it does take more than just natural selection. You also need the production of new variation (mutation), and genetic isolation of populations. When all three mechanisms are in place there is nothing that will stop the production of a new species. Take a look at donkeys and horses. The fact that they are able to produce viable hybrids evidences shows that they must have shared a common ancestor in the past. However, these hybrids (mules) are sterile. There is no genetic flow between the horse and donkey population, and over time the DNA of these two populations will continue to be more and more different just as French, Italian, and Spanish became different languages from a common root language. It's a conclusion based on facts. The pattern of similarities and dissimilarities within ERV's between different species evidences the actions of natural selection, mutation, and genetic isolation--the three mechanisms that I describe above. I would hardly call something that is backed by mountains of evidence a belief.

It can be and is. Perhaps you would like to turn your attention to the question of why people who, unlike you, know about biology, and who, unlike you, can read simple English sentences without getting hopelessly confused, disagree with you on this. What ... a ... strange ... question.Because the theory of evolution, together with the principle of common descent, allow us to predict lots of things. Onifre asked you a question. The question was: "You are told by which evolutionist that evolution cannot be observed? Where did you get that from?"Your dishonest ravings are not an answer to this question.Instead, you have just repeated your daft nonsense in other words, claiming: "some evolutionists sincerely believe it's silly to expect to observe evolution".Name one evolutionist who says that "it's silly to expect to observe evolution". Like everything else, then. No, I'm saying that only going from point X to point Z on foot would leave footprints between point X and point Z. I account for the fact that you never hear of speciation happening by the fact that you are a creationist.Actually, since I just told you that speciation has been observed, and gave you a link to creationists admitting that speciation has been observed, let me rephrase that. I account for the fact that you pretend that you never hear of speciation happening by the fact that you are a creationist.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Sure we can roughly estimate how long it took for a mountain to erode away. The crucial difference between horse evolution and a mountain erosion is that a constant and consistent process exists for erosion of a mountain. The process is observable, (due to rain, melting snow, wind). Not least because rocks always fall downwards, not up.
You can hardly draw a parallel in horse evolution. Mutations are random, not a constant and consistent process. Natural selection does not trigger a mutations or leads to new DNA being created. Speciation, (the process of biological species formation) more or less synonymous with evolution, has never happened. I think you're referring to ERVs that are functional. Some creationists would say that such ERV's are part of God's creation design. You can count me in also. At present I'm not interested in Noah's Ark. Though I do NOT disagree with Christians who believe in a global flood and I support their faith. Mutations have been mentioned by a few posters as if that will save the theory of evolution. I do not dispute that mutations cause changes to occur. You know mutations better than I do. So I will try a different tag to evaluate mutations.
Firstly, I assert that all behaviours of any living thing (except humans) can be modelled on super-computers, assuming all the knowledge about it's behaviours is known. I am certain modelling an animal is a theoretical possibility. (But I've excluded humans because it may never be possible to correctly model a human due to existence of intelligence).
What's the significance of this? First of all it's fun -- Imagine seeing a puppy dog on your computer screen that behaves exactly as a real puppy would. It chews a bone; does a wee and poo; it drinks water; barks when a stranger approaches but stops barking when the stranger is friendly; and what's more, you can train it to jump over a hoop and to respond according to your many gestures.This is precisely what God's creation gives us, the making of living things with 'embedded-codes' within all of them. The program codes within a creature totally control how the creature behaves. A creature cannot does more that it is pre-programmed to do. "Not until mutations start to cause cumulative changes."......I almost could hear such murmuring from somewhere. As I hinted in some of my earlier posts, even God does not violate the Laws of Physics, including the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. At a microscopic levels, there are randomness; unpredictability and 'uncontrollable behaviours' that are inherent within the smallest life objects such as retrovirus, DNA & genes. Those chaotic natures manifest as mutations that lead to defective ERV fragments and altered genes.The bottomline is this, although we do not know how DNA and genes map to biological 'embedded codes', there must be such a correlation -- The computer can show us this is the case, by allowing us to model a life-form, perhaps even right down to bits and bytes within the computer memory.Now, this allows me to play God, by creating an android, albeit a rudimentary one, inaptly named Goliath. My little Goliath android can perform many simple tasks necessary for survival, such as walking around to look for food and climbing a tree if necessary. Here I just want to concentrate on snippets of embedded codes that instruct how my little Goliath get to feed and therefore (hopefully) survive.My little Goliath's meal-time algorithm01.Start-Meal-Time
02....Randomly walk on land
03....Search for small round red; brown or green object
04....If object found
05.......Put object in mouth
06.......If object is hard
07..........Spit out object
08.......Else
09..........Swallow object
10....Continue search for 1 hour or until total of 100 objects are eaten
11....If less than 100 objects swallowed
12.......Locate a tree and then climb tree
13.......Look for small red or green object on branches
14. .....If object found
15..........Pick object from branch
16.............Swallow object
17.......Continue picking for 1 hour or until total of 100 objects are eaten
18.......Climb down tree
19....If less than 100 objects eaten
20.......Repeat 'Start-Meal-Time'
21.End-Meal-TimeMy creation is complete and little Goliath is doing everything it is pre-programmed to do, including executing the 'Start-Meal-Time' function when it is 'hungry'Next I need to cause 'mutations' to occur. Let's assume that I can trigger a 'mutation' by switching an electrical power tool on/off very close to little Goliath. Due to electro-magnetic interference, there are 'spikes' within the little Goliath's system that causes 'mutations' to randomly occur. In this case, mutations are simply unpredictable changes in bits and bytes of the Goliath's embedded codes. (Talk to someone who understands computer programming if you don't know what bits and bytes mean)Those who understand computer programming know that a program code nearly always consist of (1) Data; and (2) Functions.
Functions almost always contain an action -- Some examples are: 'Searching' (for an object); 'Putting' (an object); 'Swallowing' (a food); 'Climbing' (a tree).
Data can be regarded as values or an attribute -- An example is 'red', 'green', 'hard', '100'; '1 hour'; 'tree'.
Also, a program must have a logical structure, such as use of commands 'if less than'; 'until'; 'continue'.When a 'mutation' takes place, what do you think might happen to my little Goliath?(Case #1)...One fairly harmless mutation might be a data change -- the memory location that contains 'green' is changed into 'pale green'. In which case my little Goliath will identify 'pale green' objects as food. The problem of course, is that it will no longer put 'green' food in its mouth. Only red, brown and pale green food will be accepted.(Case #2)...Another fairly harmless mutation, another data change -- the memory location that contains '100' is altered into '123'. In which case my little Goliath will try to eat more food and grow fatter more quickly.(Case #3)...Now a harmful mutation, another data change -- the memory location that contains 'hard' is altered into 'soft'. In which case my little Goliath will try to swallow hard object (probably a green stone) and spit out fruit that is softer. Obviously my little Goliath will perish rather quickly.(Case #4)...Next, supposing a mutation had caused a change that turns a function call to be skipped. For example, ('16.....Swallow object') became ('16.....NULL, NULL, NULL'). What happens is feeding on a tree will fail because my little Goliath will not be able to swallow food while on a tree. It will repeat the feeding loop and eat on the ground until 100 pieces of food have been eaten. Now, I more or less have a new sub-species of Goliath that does not eat on a tree.Some who knows computer programming might know how to manually alter a byte inside a program. Most computer experts would tell you what may happen if a random change is made to a program. Here's some hypothetical possibilities:-
(1) 99% of the time the program will crash/hang after running for some time, because a function/logic is impacted.
(2) 0.999% of the time, no problem is observed, (because the change happened in an area containing useless or redundant data)
(3) 0.001% of the time, funny things happen (such as green display turns red; the speaker does not beep properly). Count yourself very lucky. You have just got yourself a working new 'sub-species' !!What I'm trying to say is, mutations can only ever cause variations within the same species, for the simple fact that whilst it is possible to cause a DATA change (which could result in new 'sub-species'), it is impossible for mutations to cause a FUNCTION change (which could result in a totally new 'species').I am definite that mutations can never add a new function to a pre-existing 'embedded codes'. Nope, nah, nay...absolutely NOT possible. However that's precisely what you'd need for mutations to create a new species. The best that a mutation can do, apart of causing a data-related change, is merely to silent a function, meaning -- the affected organism has gone backwards and lost capability. Biologists call the tune on animals division into different species. That does not mean they are always correct.
I have considered ring species. I'm firmly of the view that all animals in a ring species are simply variants of the same species, even if some sub-species completely do not interbreed. I suspect it is the same with genus Mus. When a difficulty to classify arises due to interbreeding-related consideration, classification should be based on anatomical criteria. Do you accept as correct that genus Mus is divided up into many species? Why? Intellectually dishonest? Of course not. I am not going to guess how/why God created onions that way, am I? Your argument is on the basis that God's creations must be 'perfect' to the extent that not a single junk DNA is found, or that onions should have less junk DNAs than a mouse. Logically there is no reason why onions cannot have more junk DNAs than a mouse because the facts speak for themselves -- Irregardless of junk DNAs, onions are onions and mice are mice. If leaving too many junk DNAs in onions cause onions to grow useless black mousy hairs than that'd be a good reason why God must not leave more junk DNAs in onions.But that is really only one aspect of discussions. Perhaps you can enlighten me with a perfect evolution answer on how junk DNAs in onions had came about? Probably so. I don't know how exactly God created the world, of course. So I am open-minded about old versus young Earth arguments. Errr... seriously think about what you just said. What you said is actually IMPOSSIBLE in evolution but quite possible as part of creation. Imagine all life forms that depend on each other to exist must evolve together... Errr...well if you believe that, you'd believe in a GOD !! I believe many (if not all) 'new species' should not have been classified as new species at all. They are actually variants of the same species, (even if they do not interbreed with the original species). You do believe natural selection is not the answer to evolution. I say neither is mutation an answer. So evolution is impossible. You are funny...
I know speciation means "The process of biological species formation". The next thing I know is speciation does not result in a new species. (BTW. I have read about ring spcies and two-spined sticklebacks)
When I have more time, I will follow that creationists link you provided to see if I agree with them. Do you know that there is no logical reason why 100% of the population cannot be all wrong at the same time?
And yes, it is definitely possible that all 99.9% of evolutionary scientists are wrong about many things.
I have much more faith in physicists, mathematicians than biologists.Edited by pcver, : No reason given.

I used the example of the erosion of mountains precisely because erosion rates and mutation rates are both, to use your words, "a constant and consistent process." It's as easy to look up the mutation rates of different species as it is the erosion rates of different mountain ranges. Mutation rates are sufficiently dependable that they can be used to form rough estimates of the amount of time that has passed since the divergence of two different species, a method known as the molecular clock. You mentioned God so often in your message that I had to check to make sure this thread is actually in one of the science forums. I think you need to make certain that you're doing science where what you accept as real corresponds to the evidence from reality, as opposed to religion where what you accept corresponds to your interpretation of revelation. Your message was pretty heavy on declarations of "I believe this" and "I believe that," but pretty short on any evidence-based rationale.I thought you did a really nice job with your Goliath example. You used it to conclude that mutations could not cause change beyond a species boundary, but you never defined what would constitute sufficient change to create a new species. Is Goliath a sexual species? If so, then since sexual species are usually distinguished from one another by reproductive boundaries, you need to define the reproductive algorithm rather than the meal-time algorithm.If Goliath is not a sexual species then that's a problem, because categorizing non-sexual life into species groups is fraught with difficulties. So I hope Goliath is a sexual species, and if you're interested you might try coming up with a reproductive algorithm that we could examine.--Percy

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".

You completely dodged my point. And by doing that you confirmed what I stated.You don't care that 99.9% of evolutionary scientists accept the evidence for evolution because you have decided, a priori, based on religious belief, that they are wrong. Evidence will not sway you in your beliefs.Fine. But don't try to wrap your religious beliefs in the trappings of science. Your religious beliefs are not scientific, and in fact are anti-science.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

I suspect that when two populations don't/won't interbreed, they fit the rather widespread definition, the one biologists use, of being two species. Yup. There are 38 species of Mus, according to the Animal Diversity Web, and I've already shown you that the DNA of three of those differs more than human and chimp DNA differ. I don't know the details of reproductive isolation among them all, and I'm not real sure where I would find that data.ADW: Mus: CLASSIFICATIONNow, move up a step to the subfamily Murinae, the Old World Rats and Mice:
ADW: Murinae: CLASSIFICATION
I count 37 of those 126 genera that go by the handle "mouse" or "mys." Are you willing to say those are all "the same," too? Would you say all of Murinae are "the same?" Where do you draw the line? And have you studied the anatomy, ecology, reproductive behavior, and genetics of those critters as closely as, say, Jansa, S., and M. Weksler in Phylogeny of muroid rodents: relationships within and among major lineages as determined by IRBP gene sequences. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution, 31: 256-276 (2004) ?

---

"The wretched world lies now under the tyranny of foolishness; things are believed by Christians of such absurdity as no one ever could aforetime induce the heathen to believe." - Agobard of Lyons, ca. 830 AD

This is nothing more than semantics. A variant of a species that has never been seen before is a new variant, and hence a new species. This variation is produced by mutation, and that variation is filtered through natural selection. Due to the fact that the populations do not interbreed this will lead to different mutations accumulating in each population which will increase divergence over time.Also, variants is exactly what we see. Humans and chimps are ape variants. Humans and bears are mammal variants. Humans and fish are vertebrate variants. So I guess you have no problem with humans and these other species sharing a common ancestor since they are all variants of the same thing? You should read my reread my response. Natural selection by itself can not produce the evolution we see. You also need the additional mechanisms of genetic isolation and mutation. All three mechanisms in combination produce evolutionary change.Can you please explain why these three observed mechanisms could not produce the pattern of similarity and dissimilarity of primate ERV's? Why is it impossible?

All you are doing the the above statement is creating a false dilemma.
Whether natural selection or mutations are or are not the answer does not make evolution impossible. There is no cut and dry explanation of evolution. Whether changes in the genetics of 2 different populations are symbolic of different species or simply variants of a single species it is still evolution that causes the changes whether as mutations or as natural selection or both.

---

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008