[QUOTE]Originally posted by John Paul:
[B]Larry:
The larger problem is you misrepresent the evidence for common descent of chimps and humans from a common ancestor. You simply cite the 99% common genetic code. This isn't really the best evidence of common ancestry. The best evidence is the shared pseudogenes and retroviral insertions. The common nature of such genetic material without any function shared within a nested hierarchy of species is quite compelling.
John Paul:
Common mechanism can also explain shared retro-viral insetrtions and pseudogenes.[/QUOTE]
I already responded to this, but here it is again:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section4.html
"Prediction 21: Nonfunctional molecular evidence - Endogenous retroviruses
Yet another nonfunctional example is given by endogenous retroviruses. Endogenous retroviruses are molecular remnants of a past parasitic viral infection. Occasionally, copies of a retrovirus genome are found in its host's genome, and these retroviral gene copies are called endogenous retroviral
sequences. Retroviruses (like the AIDS virus or HTLV1, which causes a form of leukemia) make a DNA copy of their own viral genome and insert it into their host's genome. If this happens to a germ line cell (i.e. the sperm or egg cells) the retroviral DNA will be inherited by descendants of the host.
Again, this process is rare and fairly random, so finding retrogenes in identical chromosomal positions of two different species indicates common ancestry.
Confirmation:
In humans, endogenous retroviruses occupy about 1% of the genome, in total constituting ~30,000 different retroviruses embedded in each person's genomic DNA (Sverdlov 2000). There are at least five different known instances of common retrogene insertions between chimps and humans, and this number is sure to grow as both these organism's genomes are sequenced (Bonner, O'Connell et al. 1982; Dangel, Baker et al. 1995; Svensson,
Setterblad et al. 1995; Kjellman, Sjogren et al. 1999; Sverdlov 2000).
The Felidae (i.e. cats) provide another example. The standard phylogenetic tree has small cats diverging later than large cats. The small cats (e.g. the jungle cat, European wildcat, African wildcat, blackfooted cat, and domestic cat) share a specific retroviral gene insertion. In contrast, all other
carnivores which have been tested lack this retrogene (Futuyma 1998, pp. 293-294).
Potential Falsification:
It would make no sense, macroevolutionarily, if certain other mammals (e.g. dogs, cow, etc.), had this same retrogene in the same location."
Now, respond to this.
The mechanism of retrovirus gene inserion is well-understood. There is no "magical mystery" mechanism waiting in the wings.
quote:
When talking about transitional fossils all you have are conceptual precursors but no physical precursors.
Please explain what you would accept as a transitional fossil?
quote:
Please, name a single, unambiguous example of the formation of a new species by the accumulation of mutations.
I've done this already, too, but here it is, again:
"Three species of wildflowers called goatsbeards were introduced to the United States from Europe shortly after the turn of the century. Within a few decades their populations expanded and began to encounter one another in the American West. Whenever mixed populations occurred, the specied interbred (hybridizing) producing sterile hybrid offspring. Suddenly, in the late forties two new species of goatsbeard appeared near Pullman, Washington. Although the new species were similar in appearance to the hybrids, they produced fertile offspring. The evolutionary process had created a separate species that could reproduce but not mate with the goatsbeard plants from which it had evolved."
quote:
us- Created Kinds (unknown but the research is ongoing)
Please define "kind".
quote:
us- limits exist, just like we observe in nature.
Science does not predict that there are no limits to evolution. Evolution is limited by the environment and physical law. Perpetual motion will never evolve, for example, nor will free energy.
Creationists, however, claim that there is a limit which somehow prevents speciation, yet they are never specific, as in providing positive evidence, testable predictions, nor potential falsifications, in support of this vague claim.
What is your evidence that this is the case?
™ Version 4.2