Most convincing evidence for evolutionary theory

I too was a creationist although in a token way because I always smelled a rat.
Now, I think the inheritance of retroviruses and pseudo genes in the upper primates (including man) is the most graphic and compelling evidence for evolution and it takes away the need to cover vast time scales and abstract concepts such as natural selection and brings it down to a very real, very recent discovery. All evos should look at it and learn to explain it well to creos because there is no good argument for creationism in the science.Edited by PeterMc, : spelling

Thanks iceage thats a terrific explanation of what I had introduced as a "most convincing argument". The explanatory power of the inheritance of the retroviruses and the odds against there being shared locations in separate species are irrefutable. I saw somewhere the odds against shared locations on the DNA and they were astronomical. If anyone has that info to hand it would be welcome.
So, if it's all about "interpretation", what better explanation would a creationist offer?

quote
"Obviously, contesting darwin's cross-specie theory is not an easy task".IaJ, If you want to respond to retroviruses as evidence, first know what they are. Second provide a better explanation for them than speciation. It will not help trying to find some other angle to debate.

IaJ, it is hard to understand why your increasingly mangled verbiage and gobbledygook is being entertained by patient relies in this forum. But it’s up to the moderators to keep folks in line, not me. But as for the response to the idea of inheritance of retroviruses and transposons etc. being a good evidence for evolution, it is clear that you do not have any grasp of the basic concept but are very happy to offer a weird ad hoc rebuttal that has no grounding in any common sense let alone science. And now you are talking of life elsewhere in the universe - why? I have no idea of the point being made here.

Will do!

I am really sure what light you are trying to shed here. Is there more you would like to know about the inheritance of endogenous retroviruses?

doddy
A great overview, thanks.

Mmmm, what did I start here?
The whole topic of retroviral insertions and heredity deserves (and no doubt has) topic threads of its own. I am only begining to understand it myself but it is entertaining to observe the twisted knots IaJ has made of it.
I introduced it as one of the "most convincing evidence for evolution theory" which I think most would agree, it is near the top of the list.
Any others.....?
I would add though, that as an example of evidence that would possibly convince a creationist, this is very usefull. The research is up to date, it avoids most of the fall-back "rote" answers, and it gets people thinking. As we have seen it is very hard to refute.Edited by PeterMc, : No reason given.

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

Well I give up. I will follow the theme on the other specific threads. IaJ, meet Karl Pilkington.

It's not surprising tho when an interesting topic arises that it sparks off an animated to and fro.As for the socratic method I have tried after a fashion on another creationist forum. What I did was try to get other members to build a "model" of what the creationist story was for a particular set of conditions. In this case it was involving the noachian flood, continental drift and the unique flora and fauna found on New Zealand. Now, lets not get into that as a topic!
I made it plain that I was not out to refute anything but to just build a picture, to see if they had a consistent story of why things are the way they are etc.
It soon became obvious no one was comfortable with this approach. It was very hard for them to break out of the mould of wanting to have a "tit for tat" on standard points. Perhaps they found it frustrating that they couldn't link up the various threads of creationism for themselves. In the end they were making comments like "I don't care about New Zealand" and "Get over yourself" so it all fell apart.
But I still think its good to expect a creationist to explain his story because in most cases they will never have gone through the exercise.