Macroevolution examples

[Delta9 UK]

I know what you were doing. You conclusion is based upon the already made assumption that " Endogenous retroviruses are molecular remnants of a past parasitic viral infection. ". You state this like a fact when it's not a fact at all.

Show me a scientific journal that says otherwise.

I studied these, retroviruses in particular - especially HIV and HERV-K. HERV-K has been active very recently (past 100,000 years or so) in our genome.

Other virus remnants are MILLIONS of years old - but that doesn't fit your ideas either now, does it?

What orginally was hastilly and foolishly called junk dna by evolutionists, after research there has been more and more functions found for these so called useless remnants. It's alot like the old vestigial organs myth. Over 100 organs were pronounced useless leftovers of evolution. This was once a popular idea for evolution, but as it turns out, the list of vestigial organs has shrunk to almost nothing.

Well that's utter rubbish - there are loads of examples in the animal and plant kingdoms.

For those who don't know Vestigal Organs are left-over remnants from previous stages in evolution. There are many examples from Humans with tails (from our primate days) to leg bones of whales (as they evolved from land mammals) and all manner of much harder to spot remnants.

Creationists have a hard time with this as you can well imagine.

Here's a list of "Almost Nothing"

Ostrich Wings

Atavisms like Whales with Hind Legs
or Humans with tails!

wings in earwigs

I could go on but its just getting boring. There are molecular examples too. You know it and I know it.

Well, I know it

You're blinded by your pressupposition. It looks like humans and some primates have the same "junk" dna but you fail to consider that they're not junk at all, and they serve a common purpose created by a common design.

Keywords: Kettle, Black, Calling, Pot

I didn't say it was junk - I said it was retroviral DNA. HIV does the same thing - I didn't study 2 years of Virology for nothing.

My pressupposition doesn't exist - it's in your head.

That DNA did serve a purpose, for a Virus.

So it's similar with the cat arguement. It could be argued that they both had the dna but when the larger cats became more specialized they lost that information. Or maybe there's another reason why.

Well, they were just a couple of examples - I'm sure you could come up with "maybe's" for all of them.

We're dealing with a topic that is one of the most incredibly complicated of all sciences. I don't even come close to understand all of the technical data and terms and no doubt neither do you.

Well, sorry to burst your bubble but I DO, remember I have a degree in this stuff - you have a creationist website. To be honest - it isn't THAT complicated - only if you don't like the results and have to make up something to fit.

There are four major kinds of junk DNA:.....

I know all this and you can copy and paste as much as you like from answersingenesis but it WILL NOT convince anyone that YOU know it, or that any of it is based on non-biased evidence.

Besides you don't know what you are talking about as Introns are not junk DNA, a non-coding sequence isn't junk.

More creationist twaddle and pseudo-science.

Here are some ideas of what the dna might be also. They don't rule out the possibility that there is some truly junk dna, but not like evolutionists think of it, but rather as previously useful dna that has been affected by mutations. But there is still much work to be done in weeding out the working dna that currently serves a purpose with the other stuff.

So let's just pretend that its not retroviral DNA then and say God put it there and then evolution went and ruined it with mutation. Makes perfect sense..... :wtf:

So no, it's not established as a fact that " Endogenous retroviruses are molecular remnants of a past parasitic viral infection. " And it shows how far you're willing to go to believe in evolution. The evidence is showing more and more that the genome is more complex than we ever expected.

LOL, this really is silly now. Endo-genous retro-virus - That sort of literally tells you what it means...

They ARE viruses IT IS A FACT and there is a shitload of science to back it up. A couple of French chaps even made one in the Lab last year - be sure :thumbsup:

I don't need to "believe in evolution" - this doesn't require faith.

You on the other hand offer NO EVIDENCE of your claim.