Creationists

[FurthurBB]

Ring Species you impenetrable dumbass!
RING-FUCKING-SPECIES

What is your point ? you are using micro-adaptations or micro-evolution as your evidence for macro-evolution ? typical of an evolutionist since that is the only evidence they have.

Ring Species is unambiguous PROOF of macro-evolution; it is an observable example of the very definition of macro-evolution.

"Contrary to this belief among the anti-evolution movement proponents, evolution of life forms beyond the species level ("macroevolution", i.e. speciation in a specific case) has indeed been observed multiple times under both controlled laboratory conditions and in nature. The claim that macroevolution does not occur, or is impossible, is thus demonstrably false and without support in the scientific community."
LINK

"Macroevolution generally refers to evolution above the species level. So instead of focusing on an individual beetle species, a macroevolutionary lens might require that we zoom out on the tree of life, to assess the diversity of the entire beetle clade and its position on the tree."
LINK

"macroevolution The production during the course of evolution of new forms of life treated as distinct species."
LINK

"Macroevolution, ... is used to refer to changes in organisms which are significant enough that, over time, the newer organisms would be considered an entirely new species. In other words, the new organisms would be unable to mate with their ancestors, assuming we were able to bring them together."
LINK

"Macroevolution involves major evolutionary changes at or above the level of species. It is contrasted with microevolution, which is mainly concerned with the small-scale patterns of evolution within a species or population."

[Macroevolution] is used in contrast to minor (microevolution) changes, and is most commonly defined as "evolution above the species level".

"mac·ro·ev·o·lu·tion
noun Biology.
major evolutionary transition from one type of organism to another occurring at the level of the species and higher taxa."​

Your denial of this manifestly verifiable fact of reality is yet another example of your intellectual dishonesty.

Really, do you believe that any amount of information will make that poster less blind, ignorant, or dishonest? I do not. A person who wants to give words their own definition because obviously the actual definition proves their point moot is just dishonest. A person who continually posts crap that has been completely proven false and swears that no one can prove it false, is just dishonest. A person who lies about their qualifications to try and make their crap look more reasoned when they obviously do not even understand elementary school science, is a fraud and a liar.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Ring Species you impenetrable dumbass!
RING-FUCKING-SPECIES

What is your point ? you are using micro-adaptations or micro-evolution as your evidence for macro-evolution ? typical of an evolutionist since that is the only evidence they have.

Ring Species is unambiguous PROOF of macro-evolution; it is an observable example of the very definition of macro-evolution.

"Contrary to this belief among the anti-evolution movement proponents, evolution of life forms beyond the species level ("macroevolution", i.e. speciation in a specific case) has indeed been observed multiple times under both controlled laboratory conditions and in nature. The claim that macroevolution does not occur, or is impossible, is thus demonstrably false and without support in the scientific community."
LINK

"Macroevolution generally refers to evolution above the species level. So instead of focusing on an individual beetle species, a macroevolutionary lens might require that we zoom out on the tree of life, to assess the diversity of the entire beetle clade and its position on the tree."
LINK

"macroevolution The production during the course of evolution of new forms of life treated as distinct species."
LINK

"Macroevolution, ... is used to refer to changes in organisms which are significant enough that, over time, the newer organisms would be considered an entirely new species. In other words, the new organisms would be unable to mate with their ancestors, assuming we were able to bring them together."
LINK

"Macroevolution involves major evolutionary changes at or above the level of species. It is contrasted with microevolution, which is mainly concerned with the small-scale patterns of evolution within a species or population."

[Macroevolution] is used in contrast to minor (microevolution) changes, and is most commonly defined as "evolution above the species level".

"mac·ro·ev·o·lu·tion
noun Biology.
major evolutionary transition from one type of organism to another occurring at the level of the species and higher taxa."​

Your denial of this manifestly verifiable fact of reality is yet another example of your intellectual dishonesty.

Do you understand the difference between macro-evolution and micro-adaptations ?

One more thing these ring species are a product of sexual reproduction not mutations as your theory calls for.

Yet another example of your ignorance.

 

[Youwerecreated]

What is your point ? you are using micro-adaptations or micro-evolution as your evidence for macro-evolution ? typical of an evolutionist since that is the only evidence they have.

Ring Species is unambiguous PROOF of macro-evolution; it is an observable example of the very definition of macro-evolution.

"Contrary to this belief among the anti-evolution movement proponents, evolution of life forms beyond the species level ("macroevolution", i.e. speciation in a specific case) has indeed been observed multiple times under both controlled laboratory conditions and in nature. The claim that macroevolution does not occur, or is impossible, is thus demonstrably false and without support in the scientific community."
LINK

"Macroevolution generally refers to evolution above the species level. So instead of focusing on an individual beetle species, a macroevolutionary lens might require that we zoom out on the tree of life, to assess the diversity of the entire beetle clade and its position on the tree."
LINK

"macroevolution The production during the course of evolution of new forms of life treated as distinct species."
LINK

"Macroevolution, ... is used to refer to changes in organisms which are significant enough that, over time, the newer organisms would be considered an entirely new species. In other words, the new organisms would be unable to mate with their ancestors, assuming we were able to bring them together."
LINK

"Macroevolution involves major evolutionary changes at or above the level of species. It is contrasted with microevolution, which is mainly concerned with the small-scale patterns of evolution within a species or population."

[Macroevolution] is used in contrast to minor (microevolution) changes, and is most commonly defined as "evolution above the species level".

"mac·ro·ev·o·lu·tion
noun Biology.
major evolutionary transition from one type of organism to another occurring at the level of the species and higher taxa."​

Your denial of this manifestly verifiable fact of reality is yet another example of your intellectual dishonesty.

Really, do you believe that any amount of information will make that poster less blind, ignorant, or dishonest? I do not. A person who wants to give words their own definition because obviously the actual definition proves their point moot is just dishonest. A person who continually posts crap that has been completely proven false and swears that no one can prove it false, is just dishonest. A person who lies about their qualifications to try and make their crap look more reasoned when they obviously do not even understand elementary school science, is a fraud and a liar.

Wrong these ring species are a product of sexual reproduction and just variations within a family.

 

[Youwerecreated]

You can quote any definition of macro-evolution you like but macro evolution was origionally major change like a dog producing a non-dog over large spans of time.

Your side had to extrapolate from micro-adaptations as your evidence which happens in short periods of time.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Ring Species you impenetrable dumbass!
RING-FUCKING-SPECIES

What is your point ? you are using micro-adaptations or micro-evolution as your evidence for macro-evolution ? typical of an evolutionist since that is the only evidence they have.

Ring Species is unambiguous PROOF of macro-evolution; it is an observable example of the very definition of macro-evolution.

"Contrary to this belief among the anti-evolution movement proponents, evolution of life forms beyond the species level ("macroevolution", i.e. speciation in a specific case) has indeed been observed multiple times under both controlled laboratory conditions and in nature. The claim that macroevolution does not occur, or is impossible, is thus demonstrably false and without support in the scientific community."
LINK

"Macroevolution generally refers to evolution above the species level. So instead of focusing on an individual beetle species, a macroevolutionary lens might require that we zoom out on the tree of life, to assess the diversity of the entire beetle clade and its position on the tree."
LINK

"macroevolution The production during the course of evolution of new forms of life treated as distinct species."
LINK

"Macroevolution, ... is used to refer to changes in organisms which are significant enough that, over time, the newer organisms would be considered an entirely new species. In other words, the new organisms would be unable to mate with their ancestors, assuming we were able to bring them together."
LINK

"Macroevolution involves major evolutionary changes at or above the level of species. It is contrasted with microevolution, which is mainly concerned with the small-scale patterns of evolution within a species or population."

[Macroevolution] is used in contrast to minor (microevolution) changes, and is most commonly defined as "evolution above the species level".

"mac·ro·ev·o·lu·tion
noun Biology.
major evolutionary transition from one type of organism to another occurring at the level of the species and higher taxa."​

Your denial of this manifestly verifiable fact of reality is yet another example of your intellectual dishonesty.

Natural adaptation is the function of micro-evolution. There are three plainly observable principles to micro-evolution. 1. A trait will alter because of a stimulus. 2. The trait will return to the norm if left to nature or returned to its original conditions. 3. No new information is added to the DNA.

The argument for evolution is that species will change slightly over time and eventually change into something completely different and will over eons of time eventually become a new species. This theory was thought up as a hypothesis and as science advances, the facts have not been found to support it, but much has been provided to dispute it. There are no examples in nature that even remotely indicates a change of species through evolution. The fossil records have zero transitional forms. Even fossilized insects such as spiders and ants that have been dated to pre-historic times are identical to modern day spiders and ants. There are three critical flaws in the theory of evolution through gradual change: Dysfunctional change, the DNA code barrier, and natural selection removes DNA information but does not add new information.


What is Micro and Macro-Evolution?

What is the number 1 reason evolutionist give as to why we can't see macro-evolution ? here let me help you because it takes too long for it to happen. Are you guys forgetting gradualism ?

grad·u·al·ism/ˈgrajo͞oəˌlizəm/
Noun:
1.A policy of gradual reform rather than sudden change or revolution.
2.The hypothesis that evolution proceeds chiefly by the accumulation of gradual changes (in contrast to the punctuationist model).


So what do you believe in gradualism or punctuated equilibirium ? you are on record defending both

 

[Youwerecreated]

Ring Species you impenetrable dumbass!
RING-FUCKING-SPECIES

What is your point ? you are using micro-adaptations or micro-evolution as your evidence for macro-evolution ? typical of an evolutionist since that is the only evidence they have.

Ring Species is unambiguous PROOF of macro-evolution; it is an observable example of the very definition of macro-evolution.

"Contrary to this belief among the anti-evolution movement proponents, evolution of life forms beyond the species level ("macroevolution", i.e. speciation in a specific case) has indeed been observed multiple times under both controlled laboratory conditions and in nature. The claim that macroevolution does not occur, or is impossible, is thus demonstrably false and without support in the scientific community."
LINK

"Macroevolution generally refers to evolution above the species level. So instead of focusing on an individual beetle species, a macroevolutionary lens might require that we zoom out on the tree of life, to assess the diversity of the entire beetle clade and its position on the tree."
LINK

"macroevolution The production during the course of evolution of new forms of life treated as distinct species."
LINK

"Macroevolution, ... is used to refer to changes in organisms which are significant enough that, over time, the newer organisms would be considered an entirely new species. In other words, the new organisms would be unable to mate with their ancestors, assuming we were able to bring them together."
LINK

"Macroevolution involves major evolutionary changes at or above the level of species. It is contrasted with microevolution, which is mainly concerned with the small-scale patterns of evolution within a species or population."

[Macroevolution] is used in contrast to minor (microevolution) changes, and is most commonly defined as "evolution above the species level".

"mac·ro·ev·o·lu·tion
noun Biology.
major evolutionary transition from one type of organism to another occurring at the level of the species and higher taxa."​

Your denial of this manifestly verifiable fact of reality is yet another example of your intellectual dishonesty.

Just for you.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L6zrpBINJR0]5 questions evolutionists can't answer - YouTube[/ame]

 

[LOki]

What is your point ? you are using micro-adaptations or micro-evolution as your evidence for macro-evolution ? typical of an evolutionist since that is the only evidence they have.

Ring Species is unambiguous PROOF of macro-evolution; it is an observable example of the very definition of macro-evolution.

"Contrary to this belief among the anti-evolution movement proponents, evolution of life forms beyond the species level ("macroevolution", i.e. speciation in a specific case) has indeed been observed multiple times under both controlled laboratory conditions and in nature. The claim that macroevolution does not occur, or is impossible, is thus demonstrably false and without support in the scientific community."
LINK

"Macroevolution generally refers to evolution above the species level. So instead of focusing on an individual beetle species, a macroevolutionary lens might require that we zoom out on the tree of life, to assess the diversity of the entire beetle clade and its position on the tree."
LINK

"macroevolution The production during the course of evolution of new forms of life treated as distinct species."
LINK

"Macroevolution, ... is used to refer to changes in organisms which are significant enough that, over time, the newer organisms would be considered an entirely new species. In other words, the new organisms would be unable to mate with their ancestors, assuming we were able to bring them together."
LINK

"Macroevolution involves major evolutionary changes at or above the level of species. It is contrasted with microevolution, which is mainly concerned with the small-scale patterns of evolution within a species or population."

[Macroevolution] is used in contrast to minor (microevolution) changes, and is most commonly defined as "evolution above the species level".

"mac·ro·ev·o·lu·tion
noun Biology.
major evolutionary transition from one type of organism to another occurring at the level of the species and higher taxa."​

Your denial of this manifestly verifiable fact of reality is yet another example of your intellectual dishonesty.

Do you understand the difference between macro-evolution and micro-adaptations ?

Hi. You said the small changes in microevolution couldn't lead to speciation (macroevolution). It can. It does. YOU'RE WRONG AGAIN!

One more thing these ring species are a product of sexual reproduction not mutations as your theory calls for.

Evolution recognizes the role mutation plays in genetic diversity, but IT DOES NOT REQUIRE MUTATION TO ASSERT THE VALIDITY OF AN OBSERVATION OF EVOLUTION.

YOU'RE WRONG AGAIN!

Yet another example of your ignorance.

Not at all. It is clear that you have NO IDEA WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT ... AGAIN!

 

[cbirch2]

Yes the loss of genetic data causes aging and death,just an opinion can't prove it but that is what i think.

God struck people with plagues.

Gen 12:17 And Jehovah plagued Pharaoh and his house with great plagues because of Sarai, Abram's wife.

Exo 9:14 For I am going to send at this time all My plagues upon your heart, and upon your servants, and upon your people, so that you may know that there is none like Me in all the earth.
Exo 9:15 For now I will stretch out My hand, that I may strike you and your people with plagues, and you shall be cut off from the earth.


Lev 26:21 And if you walk contrary to Me, and will not listen to Me, I will bring seven times more plagues on you according to your sins.

Deu 28:59 then Jehovah will make your plagues remarkable, and the plagues of your seed great and persistent plagues; with evil and long-lasting sicknesses.

Deu 29:22 so that the generation to come of your sons that shall rise up after you, and the stranger that shall come from a far land, shall say (when they see the plagues of that land, and the sicknesses which Jehovah has laid on it)

Jer 49:17 Also Edom shall be a ruin. Everyone who goes by it shall be amazed and shall hiss at all its plagues.

Jer 50:13 Because of the wrath of Jehovah it shall not be inhabited, but it shall be wholly a waste. Everyone who goes by Babylon shall be amazed and hiss at all her plagues.

Rev 15:1 And I saw another sign in Heaven, great and marvelous: seven angels with the seven last plagues; for in them is filled up the wrath of God.

Rev 15:8 And the temple was filled with smoke from the glory of God, and from His authority. And no one was able to enter into the temple until the seven plagues of the seven angels were completed.

Rev 22:18 For I testify together to everyone who hears the Words of the prophecy of this Book: If anyone adds to these things, God will add on him the plagues that have been written in this Book.


How do you think these come upon us ? Mutations and bacteria.

All plagues are bacteria or virus, maybe even a fungus or protist. But a plague caused by a mutation? That is something that doesnt happen.

And again, dont quote the bible and then tell me to explain it. I dont quote harry potter and tell you to disprove magic.

And your dancing around the question. How do you explain the insertions of viral genomes on that chart, and their hierarchy? God purposely inserted a viral genomes in humans that are a subset of ones for more primitive primates, and did so for every fossil in between ape and man in a perfect hierarchy?

Wow.

Mutations can cause disease and genetic disorders.

Pseudogenes most likely are the result of degradation. They have lost their original created function.



Are Pseudogenes ‘Shared Mistakes’ Between Primate Genomes?


by John Woodmorappe on

December 1, 2000


Technical



author-john-woodmorappe
dna
human-genome
journal-of-creation
junk-dna
pseudogenes




Featured In

Summary



‘Given a sufficient lack of comprehension, anything (and that includes a quartet of Mozart) can be declared to be junk. The junk DNA concept has exercised such a hold over a large part of the community of molecular biologists …(emphasis in original).’ – Zuckerkandl and Henning1

‘DNA not known to be coding for proteins or functional RNAs, especially pseudogenes, are now at times referred to in publications simply as nonfunctional DNA, as though their nonfunctionality were an established fact.’ – Zuckerkandl, Latter and Jurka2

Rest of article.

Are Pseudogenes

No mutation will ever cause a plague. Thats what i was pointing out you retard. Im very aware that mutations can cause harm and disease. But disease does not equal plague. And technically, plague only refers to infection by the bacteria Yersinia pestis. Please tell me you dont think god infects people with Y. pestis....You might think he created the bacteria in the first place, but god is not giving it to sinful people. They contract it just like any other bacteria. Lets go back to the 1800's, do you even accept germ theory?! OMG.

 

[cbirch2]

What is your point ? you are using micro-adaptations or micro-evolution as your evidence for macro-evolution ? typical of an evolutionist since that is the only evidence they have.

Ring Species is unambiguous PROOF of macro-evolution; it is an observable example of the very definition of macro-evolution.

"Contrary to this belief among the anti-evolution movement proponents, evolution of life forms beyond the species level ("macroevolution", i.e. speciation in a specific case) has indeed been observed multiple times under both controlled laboratory conditions and in nature. The claim that macroevolution does not occur, or is impossible, is thus demonstrably false and without support in the scientific community."
LINK

"Macroevolution generally refers to evolution above the species level. So instead of focusing on an individual beetle species, a macroevolutionary lens might require that we zoom out on the tree of life, to assess the diversity of the entire beetle clade and its position on the tree."
LINK

"macroevolution The production during the course of evolution of new forms of life treated as distinct species."
LINK

"Macroevolution, ... is used to refer to changes in organisms which are significant enough that, over time, the newer organisms would be considered an entirely new species. In other words, the new organisms would be unable to mate with their ancestors, assuming we were able to bring them together."
LINK

"Macroevolution involves major evolutionary changes at or above the level of species. It is contrasted with microevolution, which is mainly concerned with the small-scale patterns of evolution within a species or population."

[Macroevolution] is used in contrast to minor (microevolution) changes, and is most commonly defined as "evolution above the species level".

"mac·ro·ev·o·lu·tion
noun Biology.
major evolutionary transition from one type of organism to another occurring at the level of the species and higher taxa."​

Your denial of this manifestly verifiable fact of reality is yet another example of your intellectual dishonesty.

Really, do you believe that any amount of information will make that poster less blind, ignorant, or dishonest? I do not. A person who wants to give words their own definition because obviously the actual definition proves their point moot is just dishonest. A person who continually posts crap that has been completely proven false and swears that no one can prove it false, is just dishonest. A person who lies about their qualifications to try and make their crap look more reasoned when they obviously do not even understand elementary school science, is a fraud and a liar.

Your only defense in the face of undeniable evidence is to call the source a liar. Why dont you look up the species yourself, and find the evidence at an unbiased source. No i bet you wont do that because you'd prefer to wallow in your own ignorance.

 

[cbirch2]

What is your point ? you are using micro-adaptations or micro-evolution as your evidence for macro-evolution ? typical of an evolutionist since that is the only evidence they have.

Ring Species is unambiguous PROOF of macro-evolution; it is an observable example of the very definition of macro-evolution.

"Contrary to this belief among the anti-evolution movement proponents, evolution of life forms beyond the species level ("macroevolution", i.e. speciation in a specific case) has indeed been observed multiple times under both controlled laboratory conditions and in nature. The claim that macroevolution does not occur, or is impossible, is thus demonstrably false and without support in the scientific community."
LINK

"Macroevolution generally refers to evolution above the species level. So instead of focusing on an individual beetle species, a macroevolutionary lens might require that we zoom out on the tree of life, to assess the diversity of the entire beetle clade and its position on the tree."
LINK

"macroevolution The production during the course of evolution of new forms of life treated as distinct species."
LINK

"Macroevolution, ... is used to refer to changes in organisms which are significant enough that, over time, the newer organisms would be considered an entirely new species. In other words, the new organisms would be unable to mate with their ancestors, assuming we were able to bring them together."
LINK

"Macroevolution involves major evolutionary changes at or above the level of species. It is contrasted with microevolution, which is mainly concerned with the small-scale patterns of evolution within a species or population."

[Macroevolution] is used in contrast to minor (microevolution) changes, and is most commonly defined as "evolution above the species level".

"mac·ro·ev·o·lu·tion
noun Biology.
major evolutionary transition from one type of organism to another occurring at the level of the species and higher taxa."​

Your denial of this manifestly verifiable fact of reality is yet another example of your intellectual dishonesty.

Do you understand the difference between macro-evolution and micro-adaptations ?

One more thing these ring species are a product of sexual reproduction not mutations as your theory calls for.

Yet another example of your ignorance.

What?!

Your whole theory is that new information cannot be added, and kinds are always the same!

Now your just all over the place you idiot.

OK if sexual reproduction just results in the same information, just recombined, how could they diverge to the point that they cannot reproduce. Thats the point that you dont get. Thats the point your not explaining.

What kind are the two resulting species? The same as the original? Why cant they breed?

 

[LOki]

What is your point ? you are using micro-adaptations or micro-evolution as your evidence for macro-evolution ? typical of an evolutionist since that is the only evidence they have.

Ring Species is unambiguous PROOF of macro-evolution; it is an observable example of the very definition of macro-evolution.

"Contrary to this belief among the anti-evolution movement proponents, evolution of life forms beyond the species level ("macroevolution", i.e. speciation in a specific case) has indeed been observed multiple times under both controlled laboratory conditions and in nature. The claim that macroevolution does not occur, or is impossible, is thus demonstrably false and without support in the scientific community."
LINK

"Macroevolution generally refers to evolution above the species level. So instead of focusing on an individual beetle species, a macroevolutionary lens might require that we zoom out on the tree of life, to assess the diversity of the entire beetle clade and its position on the tree."
LINK

"macroevolution The production during the course of evolution of new forms of life treated as distinct species."
LINK

"Macroevolution, ... is used to refer to changes in organisms which are significant enough that, over time, the newer organisms would be considered an entirely new species. In other words, the new organisms would be unable to mate with their ancestors, assuming we were able to bring them together."
LINK

"Macroevolution involves major evolutionary changes at or above the level of species. It is contrasted with microevolution, which is mainly concerned with the small-scale patterns of evolution within a species or population."

[Macroevolution] is used in contrast to minor (microevolution) changes, and is most commonly defined as "evolution above the species level".

"mac·ro·ev·o·lu·tion
noun Biology.
major evolutionary transition from one type of organism to another occurring at the level of the species and higher taxa."​

Your denial of this manifestly verifiable fact of reality is yet another example of your intellectual dishonesty.

Just for you.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L6zrpBINJR0]5 questions evolutionists can't answer - YouTube[/ame]

These questions all have answers, and have SPECIFICALLY BEEN ANSWERED FOR YOU, and are not the least bit of a conundrum except for those instances where they are challenges to assertions that Evolutionists CLEARLY DO NOT MAKE.

OTOH, there is the one question that you, or any Creationist, simply cannot answer. Rational people like me are not even asking for "proof" from intellectually incompetent and dishonest asshats like you, as they ask of us. It is the foundation of your "theory" yet you are just baffled by the request for an explanation for it--you have NO EXPLANATION! IT'S INEXPLICABLE!

What verifiable evidence and/or valid logic do you have for asserting the objective reality of this "Creator" or "Designer" or "God" of yours?​

The verifiable evidence of your paucity of intellectual integrity very strongly suggests that you are simply incapable of doing so; I'll take it as certain that you just won't.

And when you fail again to produce, I will again claim to have delivered yet another headshot to your superstitious creation myth.

For a change of pace, why don't you prove me wrong?

 

[cbirch2]

Stop dancing around my question about endogenous retroviruses.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qh7OclPDN_s"]Evolution: Genetic Evidence - Endogenous RetroVirus - YouTube[/ame]

You'd have a pretty hard time explaining the hierarchy of ERV's that matches our evolutionary timeline.

You'd have an even harder time explaining why those ERV's are located in the exact same location on the chromosome throughout the hierarchy, considering viruses insert their DNA randomly.

But then again, i suspect your response will be to label genetics pointless and scream "PICS OR IT DIDNT HAPPEN!!!!!"

 

[Youwerecreated]

Stop dancing around my question about endogenous retroviruses.

Evolution: Genetic Evidence - Endogenous RetroVirus - YouTube

You'd have a pretty hard time explaining the hierarchy of ERV's that matches our evolutionary timeline.

You'd have an even harder time explaining why those ERV's are located in the exact same location on the chromosome throughout the hierarchy, considering viruses insert their DNA randomly.

But then again, i suspect your response will be to label genetics pointless and scream "PICS OR IT DIDNT HAPPEN!!!!!"

From Dr. Brown he is a very reasonable creationist more then myself.

Dear Mike,

This came on the asa net. Do you have an explanation ?

Hi list,

Dick Fischer's ORIGIN'S SOLUTION mentions the dreaded endogenous retroviral sequence common to both chimp and human DNA as a strong lobbyist for common descent. Anybody have any other reasonable explanation?

(Name withheld)

Hi ,

This is an extremely important question that Creationists have to face. It is exactly the same question that I sought to answer with my research on Pseudogenes. In my talk at Andrews University, I introduced the idea of "Common Mechanism" as an alternative to "Common Descent". I also discussed evidence that shows "Common Mechanism" is being a possible answer to the origin of the many common sequences found in different species.

The common sequences that have given us problems in the past are sequences that don't seem to have a function for the organism. Common sequences that are easily identified as being functional, can easily be explained as existing because God designed them in the same way. I don't like the term "Common Designer, " because it has connotations of a deficient God who designs different animals in the same way because he is running out of ideas, or because it is too much effort to redesign the different animals.

A rocket designer designs a rocket. It works. Now he is asked to design a larger rocket. What he does is to use what he has already learned from his previous experience to save on effort and time. His larger rocket is going to look much like the smaller one. That is what Common Designer means. It takes too much effort not to use what has already be done before.

The question is, do we want to say the same thing about God? Is God designing the various animals in such a similar fashion because it would be too much effort to completely design a completely different design? Like the rocket designer?

I don't think so. I think this is our chance to start looking for alternative ideas. Instead of thinking of God as a designer, maybe we should think of Him as an artist (well, maybe both). If we go into a new house, maybe Mexican style, we might expect the whole house to have common features throughout. We would expect to see various artistic themes throughout the whole house. Also we would expect to see various differences in the house that is due to artistic variations of the Mexican themes found in the house.

I might expect God to have created the Earth in the same way. The animals (and plants) have many common features which I attribute as being artistic themes. Also, all one has to do is to look at a comparative anatomy text book to see the artistic variations of themes God has placed in this world.

I might expect the same artistic theme aspect of God's creation to be as deep as the very molecules we are made of. This could also include proteins and DNA.

I introduced this whole issue in my talk at Andrews.

back to the other issue. . .

The b-hemoglobin Pseudogene is a excellent example of a functionless portion of the genome. Yet the same Pseudogene is found in different species (only 6 differences between human and chimp in the whole sequence!).

Why are they there? Maybe there is some sort of function. The problem is that function has been sought by many for a number of years. Nothing yet has surfaced. Of course this is an open ended search. Jim Gibson by the way, wrote an article supporting the idea that there must be some purpose that is yet undiscovered. His article is on the internet in the Geoscience web pages.

The other possibility is that there is no function. That the sequence is what it looks like, defective. Many say that the presence of the b-hemoglobin Pseudogene is very strong evidence for a common ancestor. Human, Chimp, Gorilla, Monkeys (both new and old world), Baboon, etc., all have virtually the same Pseudogene. (However as more species are compared, the differences also increase as well)

In my yet unpublished work, (don't spread my research around yet) I see evidence for the existence of either viral or enzymatic activity that creates mutations.

So I think there is a mechanistic process that has produced many of the Pseudogenes that we have, rather than a random process. If the Pseudogene is truly defective and if the mutations are truly found in patterns (not random), then the idea that it's a common mechanism is possible. Viruses have enzymes that, under the same conditions, do repeatable reactions.

If the DNA in Humans, Chimps, Monkeys, etc., are very similar, then if they are all infected by the same virus, would we expect the virus to do the same thing in the different species? I think so.

The "dreaded endogenous retroviral sequence common to both chimp and human DNA" is probably the major example of Common Mechanism. Viral enzymes (proteins) react with specific DNA sequences. If both chimp and human DNA have the same active sites, I would expect the viral proteins to react in the same exact way to both human and chimp.

Common descent or common Ancestor is not the only answer.


Pseudogenes: a description of the problem: Molecular History Research Center

 

[Youwerecreated]

Ring Species is unambiguous PROOF of macro-evolution; it is an observable example of the very definition of macro-evolution.

"Contrary to this belief among the anti-evolution movement proponents, evolution of life forms beyond the species level ("macroevolution", i.e. speciation in a specific case) has indeed been observed multiple times under both controlled laboratory conditions and in nature. The claim that macroevolution does not occur, or is impossible, is thus demonstrably false and without support in the scientific community."
LINK

"Macroevolution generally refers to evolution above the species level. So instead of focusing on an individual beetle species, a macroevolutionary lens might require that we zoom out on the tree of life, to assess the diversity of the entire beetle clade and its position on the tree."
LINK

"macroevolution The production during the course of evolution of new forms of life treated as distinct species."
LINK

"Macroevolution, ... is used to refer to changes in organisms which are significant enough that, over time, the newer organisms would be considered an entirely new species. In other words, the new organisms would be unable to mate with their ancestors, assuming we were able to bring them together."
LINK

"Macroevolution involves major evolutionary changes at or above the level of species. It is contrasted with microevolution, which is mainly concerned with the small-scale patterns of evolution within a species or population."

[Macroevolution] is used in contrast to minor (microevolution) changes, and is most commonly defined as "evolution above the species level".

"mac·ro·ev·o·lu·tion
noun Biology.
major evolutionary transition from one type of organism to another occurring at the level of the species and higher taxa."​

Your denial of this manifestly verifiable fact of reality is yet another example of your intellectual dishonesty.

Just for you.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L6zrpBINJR0]5 questions evolutionists can't answer - YouTube[/ame]

These questions all have answers, and have SPECIFICALLY BEEN ANSWERED FOR YOU, and are not the least bit of a conundrum except for those instances where they are challenges to assertions that Evolutionists CLEARLY DO NOT MAKE.

OTOH, there is the one question that you, or any Creationist, simply cannot answer. Rational people like me are not even asking for "proof" from intellectually incompetent and dishonest asshats like you, as they ask of us. It is the foundation of your "theory" yet you are just baffled by the request for an explanation for it--you have NO EXPLANATION! IT'S INEXPLICABLE!

What verifiable evidence and/or valid logic do you have for asserting the objective reality of this "Creator" or "Designer" or "God" of yours?​

The verifiable evidence of your paucity of intellectual integrity very strongly suggests that you are simply incapable of doing so; I'll take it as certain that you just won't.

And when you fail again to produce, I will again claim to have delivered yet another headshot to your superstitious creation myth.

For a change of pace, why don't you prove me wrong?

Still heavy on the rhetoric and the evidence is lacking.

Name calling is not a very strong way to hide your ignorance.

 

[cbirch2]

Stop dancing around my question about endogenous retroviruses.

Evolution: Genetic Evidence - Endogenous RetroVirus - YouTube

You'd have a pretty hard time explaining the hierarchy of ERV's that matches our evolutionary timeline.

You'd have an even harder time explaining why those ERV's are located in the exact same location on the chromosome throughout the hierarchy, considering viruses insert their DNA randomly.

But then again, i suspect your response will be to label genetics pointless and scream "PICS OR IT DIDNT HAPPEN!!!!!"

From Dr. Brown he is a very reasonable creationist more then myself.

Dear Mike,

This came on the asa net. Do you have an explanation ?

Hi list,

Dick Fischer's ORIGIN'S SOLUTION mentions the dreaded endogenous retroviral sequence common to both chimp and human DNA as a strong lobbyist for common descent. Anybody have any other reasonable explanation?

(Name withheld)

Hi ,

This is an extremely important question that Creationists have to face. It is exactly the same question that I sought to answer with my research on Pseudogenes. In my talk at Andrews University, I introduced the idea of "Common Mechanism" as an alternative to "Common Descent". I also discussed evidence that shows "Common Mechanism" is being a possible answer to the origin of the many common sequences found in different species.

The common sequences that have given us problems in the past are sequences that don't seem to have a function for the organism. Common sequences that are easily identified as being functional, can easily be explained as existing because God designed them in the same way. I don't like the term "Common Designer, " because it has connotations of a deficient God who designs different animals in the same way because he is running out of ideas, or because it is too much effort to redesign the different animals.

A rocket designer designs a rocket. It works. Now he is asked to design a larger rocket. What he does is to use what he has already learned from his previous experience to save on effort and time. His larger rocket is going to look much like the smaller one. That is what Common Designer means. It takes too much effort not to use what has already be done before.

The question is, do we want to say the same thing about God? Is God designing the various animals in such a similar fashion because it would be too much effort to completely design a completely different design? Like the rocket designer?

I don't think so. I think this is our chance to start looking for alternative ideas. Instead of thinking of God as a designer, maybe we should think of Him as an artist (well, maybe both). If we go into a new house, maybe Mexican style, we might expect the whole house to have common features throughout. We would expect to see various artistic themes throughout the whole house. Also we would expect to see various differences in the house that is due to artistic variations of the Mexican themes found in the house.

I might expect God to have created the Earth in the same way. The animals (and plants) have many common features which I attribute as being artistic themes. Also, all one has to do is to look at a comparative anatomy text book to see the artistic variations of themes God has placed in this world.

I might expect the same artistic theme aspect of God's creation to be as deep as the very molecules we are made of. This could also include proteins and DNA.

I introduced this whole issue in my talk at Andrews.

back to the other issue. . .

The b-hemoglobin Pseudogene is a excellent example of a functionless portion of the genome. Yet the same Pseudogene is found in different species (only 6 differences between human and chimp in the whole sequence!).

Why are they there? Maybe there is some sort of function. The problem is that function has been sought by many for a number of years. Nothing yet has surfaced. Of course this is an open ended search. Jim Gibson by the way, wrote an article supporting the idea that there must be some purpose that is yet undiscovered. His article is on the internet in the Geoscience web pages.

The other possibility is that there is no function. That the sequence is what it looks like, defective. Many say that the presence of the b-hemoglobin Pseudogene is very strong evidence for a common ancestor. Human, Chimp, Gorilla, Monkeys (both new and old world), Baboon, etc., all have virtually the same Pseudogene. (However as more species are compared, the differences also increase as well)

In my yet unpublished work, (don't spread my research around yet) I see evidence for the existence of either viral or enzymatic activity that creates mutations.

So I think there is a mechanistic process that has produced many of the Pseudogenes that we have, rather than a random process. If the Pseudogene is truly defective and if the mutations are truly found in patterns (not random), then the idea that it's a common mechanism is possible. Viruses have enzymes that, under the same conditions, do repeatable reactions.

If the DNA in Humans, Chimps, Monkeys, etc., are very similar, then if they are all infected by the same virus, would we expect the virus to do the same thing in the different species? I think so.

The "dreaded endogenous retroviral sequence common to both chimp and human DNA" is probably the major example of Common Mechanism. Viral enzymes (proteins) react with specific DNA sequences. If both chimp and human DNA have the same active sites, I would expect the viral proteins to react in the same exact way to both human and chimp.

Common descent or common Ancestor is not the only answer.


Pseudogenes: a description of the problem: Molecular History Research Center

Im not talking about Pseudogenes. Im talking about insertions of viral DNA that occur during an infection.

So your basically just denying the entire concept of viruses?

 

[Montrovant]

Ring Species is unambiguous PROOF of macro-evolution; it is an observable example of the very definition of macro-evolution.

"Contrary to this belief among the anti-evolution movement proponents, evolution of life forms beyond the species level ("macroevolution", i.e. speciation in a specific case) has indeed been observed multiple times under both controlled laboratory conditions and in nature. The claim that macroevolution does not occur, or is impossible, is thus demonstrably false and without support in the scientific community."
LINK

"Macroevolution generally refers to evolution above the species level. So instead of focusing on an individual beetle species, a macroevolutionary lens might require that we zoom out on the tree of life, to assess the diversity of the entire beetle clade and its position on the tree."
LINK

"macroevolution The production during the course of evolution of new forms of life treated as distinct species."
LINK

"Macroevolution, ... is used to refer to changes in organisms which are significant enough that, over time, the newer organisms would be considered an entirely new species. In other words, the new organisms would be unable to mate with their ancestors, assuming we were able to bring them together."
LINK

"Macroevolution involves major evolutionary changes at or above the level of species. It is contrasted with microevolution, which is mainly concerned with the small-scale patterns of evolution within a species or population."

[Macroevolution] is used in contrast to minor (microevolution) changes, and is most commonly defined as "evolution above the species level".

"mac·ro·ev·o·lu·tion
noun Biology.
major evolutionary transition from one type of organism to another occurring at the level of the species and higher taxa."​

Your denial of this manifestly verifiable fact of reality is yet another example of your intellectual dishonesty.

Really, do you believe that any amount of information will make that poster less blind, ignorant, or dishonest? I do not. A person who wants to give words their own definition because obviously the actual definition proves their point moot is just dishonest. A person who continually posts crap that has been completely proven false and swears that no one can prove it false, is just dishonest. A person who lies about their qualifications to try and make their crap look more reasoned when they obviously do not even understand elementary school science, is a fraud and a liar.

Your only defense in the face of undeniable evidence is to call the source a liar. Why dont you look up the species yourself, and find the evidence at an unbiased source. No i bet you wont do that because you'd prefer to wallow in your own ignorance.

I think you are quoting the wrong person here!

 

[Youwerecreated]

Stop dancing around my question about endogenous retroviruses.

Evolution: Genetic Evidence - Endogenous RetroVirus - YouTube

You'd have a pretty hard time explaining the hierarchy of ERV's that matches our evolutionary timeline.

You'd have an even harder time explaining why those ERV's are located in the exact same location on the chromosome throughout the hierarchy, considering viruses insert their DNA randomly.

But then again, i suspect your response will be to label genetics pointless and scream "PICS OR IT DIDNT HAPPEN!!!!!"

From Dr. Brown he is a very reasonable creationist more then myself.

Dear Mike,

This came on the asa net. Do you have an explanation ?

Hi list,

Dick Fischer's ORIGIN'S SOLUTION mentions the dreaded endogenous retroviral sequence common to both chimp and human DNA as a strong lobbyist for common descent. Anybody have any other reasonable explanation?

(Name withheld)

Hi ,

This is an extremely important question that Creationists have to face. It is exactly the same question that I sought to answer with my research on Pseudogenes. In my talk at Andrews University, I introduced the idea of "Common Mechanism" as an alternative to "Common Descent". I also discussed evidence that shows "Common Mechanism" is being a possible answer to the origin of the many common sequences found in different species.

The common sequences that have given us problems in the past are sequences that don't seem to have a function for the organism. Common sequences that are easily identified as being functional, can easily be explained as existing because God designed them in the same way. I don't like the term "Common Designer, " because it has connotations of a deficient God who designs different animals in the same way because he is running out of ideas, or because it is too much effort to redesign the different animals.

A rocket designer designs a rocket. It works. Now he is asked to design a larger rocket. What he does is to use what he has already learned from his previous experience to save on effort and time. His larger rocket is going to look much like the smaller one. That is what Common Designer means. It takes too much effort not to use what has already be done before.

The question is, do we want to say the same thing about God? Is God designing the various animals in such a similar fashion because it would be too much effort to completely design a completely different design? Like the rocket designer?

I don't think so. I think this is our chance to start looking for alternative ideas. Instead of thinking of God as a designer, maybe we should think of Him as an artist (well, maybe both). If we go into a new house, maybe Mexican style, we might expect the whole house to have common features throughout. We would expect to see various artistic themes throughout the whole house. Also we would expect to see various differences in the house that is due to artistic variations of the Mexican themes found in the house.

I might expect God to have created the Earth in the same way. The animals (and plants) have many common features which I attribute as being artistic themes. Also, all one has to do is to look at a comparative anatomy text book to see the artistic variations of themes God has placed in this world.

I might expect the same artistic theme aspect of God's creation to be as deep as the very molecules we are made of. This could also include proteins and DNA.

I introduced this whole issue in my talk at Andrews.

back to the other issue. . .

The b-hemoglobin Pseudogene is a excellent example of a functionless portion of the genome. Yet the same Pseudogene is found in different species (only 6 differences between human and chimp in the whole sequence!).

Why are they there? Maybe there is some sort of function. The problem is that function has been sought by many for a number of years. Nothing yet has surfaced. Of course this is an open ended search. Jim Gibson by the way, wrote an article supporting the idea that there must be some purpose that is yet undiscovered. His article is on the internet in the Geoscience web pages.

The other possibility is that there is no function. That the sequence is what it looks like, defective. Many say that the presence of the b-hemoglobin Pseudogene is very strong evidence for a common ancestor. Human, Chimp, Gorilla, Monkeys (both new and old world), Baboon, etc., all have virtually the same Pseudogene. (However as more species are compared, the differences also increase as well)

In my yet unpublished work, (don't spread my research around yet) I see evidence for the existence of either viral or enzymatic activity that creates mutations.

So I think there is a mechanistic process that has produced many of the Pseudogenes that we have, rather than a random process. If the Pseudogene is truly defective and if the mutations are truly found in patterns (not random), then the idea that it's a common mechanism is possible. Viruses have enzymes that, under the same conditions, do repeatable reactions.

If the DNA in Humans, Chimps, Monkeys, etc., are very similar, then if they are all infected by the same virus, would we expect the virus to do the same thing in the different species? I think so.

The "dreaded endogenous retroviral sequence common to both chimp and human DNA" is probably the major example of Common Mechanism. Viral enzymes (proteins) react with specific DNA sequences. If both chimp and human DNA have the same active sites, I would expect the viral proteins to react in the same exact way to both human and chimp.

Common descent or common Ancestor is not the only answer.


Pseudogenes: a description of the problem: Molecular History Research Center

Im not talking about Pseudogenes. Im talking about insertions of viral DNA that occur during an infection.

So your basically just denying the entire concept of viruses?

What you are talking about proves nothing,yes.

 

[cbirch2]

1. Again, this beneficial information being inserted argument is getting really old. Apparently its impossible for a nucleotide to be inserted into a geneome. Apparently horizontal gene transfer is impossible. Apparently viral infections cant added DNA to a genome.

And apparently mutations cant be beneficial. Only someone that doesnt understand biology would claim that.

2. Transitional fossils, really? This is your argument? The maker of this video considers transitional fossils ones that show a definitive change from one species to another. How could that possibly happen? A dog will not give birth to a cat today, and the same applies to past animals. The problem is that we arent going to find a thousand generations of animal fossils lined up head to vagina.

We still do pretty good though.

List of transitional fossils - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

3. Atoms and quantum mechanics? Not that i expect the author to know anything about this, because i think weve made it clear that you know nothing about my previous major, and shouldnt want to start an argument about this.

But this argument is just insane. Stop blurring the line between evolution and the big bang, there is a very defined line. Evolution came about almost a century before the big bang. It doesnt make sense to claim that evolution claims everything came from nothing, because it doesnt. Maybe you should just change from arguing against evolution to arguing against science in general, thats pretty much what ur doing.

I cant even keep going. "Evolution happened from an explosion of rocks."

Are you and video author really this fucking dumb?

Do you think that the big bang says a chunk of rock exploded and created life? Do you think evolution deals with the origin of the universe?

Stupidity all around.

That video demands proof of a version of evolutionary theory that does not exist.

How exactly does one fossil capture the transition between two species? Wouldnt you need a big group of fossils for that? And then wouldnt you have to somehow admit that those fossils are related. Again, we wont find a thousand generations of animals fossilized head to vagina. Thats a pretty unreasonable amount of proof to request.

 

[LOki]

Just for you.

5 questions evolutionists can't answer - YouTube

These questions all have answers, and have SPECIFICALLY BEEN ANSWERED FOR YOU, and are not the least bit of a conundrum except for those instances where they are challenges to assertions that Evolutionists CLEARLY DO NOT MAKE.

OTOH, there is the one question that you, or any Creationist, simply cannot answer. Rational people like me are not even asking for "proof" from intellectually incompetent and dishonest asshats like you, as they ask of us. It is the foundation of your "theory" yet you are just baffled by the request for an explanation for it--you have NO EXPLANATION! IT'S INEXPLICABLE!

What verifiable evidence and/or valid logic do you have for asserting the objective reality of this "Creator" or "Designer" or "God" of yours?​

The verifiable evidence of your paucity of intellectual integrity very strongly suggests that you are simply incapable of doing so; I'll take it as certain that you just won't.

And when you fail again to produce, I will again claim to have delivered yet another headshot to your superstitious creation myth.

For a change of pace, why don't you prove me wrong?

Still heavy on the rhetoric and the evidence is lacking.

Name calling is not a very strong way to hide your ignorance.

Confirmation of another

delivered to Youwerecreated and his superstitious "theory."

 

[cbirch2]

From Dr. Brown he is a very reasonable creationist more then myself.

Dear Mike,

This came on the asa net. Do you have an explanation ?

Hi list,

Dick Fischer's ORIGIN'S SOLUTION mentions the dreaded endogenous retroviral sequence common to both chimp and human DNA as a strong lobbyist for common descent. Anybody have any other reasonable explanation?

(Name withheld)

Hi ,

This is an extremely important question that Creationists have to face. It is exactly the same question that I sought to answer with my research on Pseudogenes. In my talk at Andrews University, I introduced the idea of "Common Mechanism" as an alternative to "Common Descent". I also discussed evidence that shows "Common Mechanism" is being a possible answer to the origin of the many common sequences found in different species.

The common sequences that have given us problems in the past are sequences that don't seem to have a function for the organism. Common sequences that are easily identified as being functional, can easily be explained as existing because God designed them in the same way. I don't like the term "Common Designer, " because it has connotations of a deficient God who designs different animals in the same way because he is running out of ideas, or because it is too much effort to redesign the different animals.

A rocket designer designs a rocket. It works. Now he is asked to design a larger rocket. What he does is to use what he has already learned from his previous experience to save on effort and time. His larger rocket is going to look much like the smaller one. That is what Common Designer means. It takes too much effort not to use what has already be done before.

The question is, do we want to say the same thing about God? Is God designing the various animals in such a similar fashion because it would be too much effort to completely design a completely different design? Like the rocket designer?

I don't think so. I think this is our chance to start looking for alternative ideas. Instead of thinking of God as a designer, maybe we should think of Him as an artist (well, maybe both). If we go into a new house, maybe Mexican style, we might expect the whole house to have common features throughout. We would expect to see various artistic themes throughout the whole house. Also we would expect to see various differences in the house that is due to artistic variations of the Mexican themes found in the house.

I might expect God to have created the Earth in the same way. The animals (and plants) have many common features which I attribute as being artistic themes. Also, all one has to do is to look at a comparative anatomy text book to see the artistic variations of themes God has placed in this world.

I might expect the same artistic theme aspect of God's creation to be as deep as the very molecules we are made of. This could also include proteins and DNA.

I introduced this whole issue in my talk at Andrews.

back to the other issue. . .

The b-hemoglobin Pseudogene is a excellent example of a functionless portion of the genome. Yet the same Pseudogene is found in different species (only 6 differences between human and chimp in the whole sequence!).

Why are they there? Maybe there is some sort of function. The problem is that function has been sought by many for a number of years. Nothing yet has surfaced. Of course this is an open ended search. Jim Gibson by the way, wrote an article supporting the idea that there must be some purpose that is yet undiscovered. His article is on the internet in the Geoscience web pages.

The other possibility is that there is no function. That the sequence is what it looks like, defective. Many say that the presence of the b-hemoglobin Pseudogene is very strong evidence for a common ancestor. Human, Chimp, Gorilla, Monkeys (both new and old world), Baboon, etc., all have virtually the same Pseudogene. (However as more species are compared, the differences also increase as well)

In my yet unpublished work, (don't spread my research around yet) I see evidence for the existence of either viral or enzymatic activity that creates mutations.

So I think there is a mechanistic process that has produced many of the Pseudogenes that we have, rather than a random process. If the Pseudogene is truly defective and if the mutations are truly found in patterns (not random), then the idea that it's a common mechanism is possible. Viruses have enzymes that, under the same conditions, do repeatable reactions.

If the DNA in Humans, Chimps, Monkeys, etc., are very similar, then if they are all infected by the same virus, would we expect the virus to do the same thing in the different species? I think so.

The "dreaded endogenous retroviral sequence common to both chimp and human DNA" is probably the major example of Common Mechanism. Viral enzymes (proteins) react with specific DNA sequences. If both chimp and human DNA have the same active sites, I would expect the viral proteins to react in the same exact way to both human and chimp.

Common descent or common Ancestor is not the only answer.


Pseudogenes: a description of the problem: Molecular History Research Center

Im not talking about Pseudogenes. Im talking about insertions of viral DNA that occur during an infection.

So your basically just denying the entire concept of viruses?

What you are talking about proves nothing,yes.

KK so ERV's dont happen because of viruses? Is it all a coincidence?

You dont have many options here.

Either god put the ERV's there to mislead us, which is no better than saying satan planted dinosaur bones. Its a fools argument.

Or its a result of a viral infection. And if its a result for viral infection, then its a pretty good indicator of relation. Either that, or the infections are all coincidence. And if its all coincidence, you should probably explain why the ERV's are all in the same location since viruses insert their genome randomly.

You dont get to dismiss evidence just because you wont expend the mental energy to comprehend the argument.