EVIDENCE FOR HUMAN-CHIMP COMMON ANCESTRY (By Request)

[TB2]

mutations can happen anywhere [No]..you said, nope, mutations are pinpointed indicating that they can't...

Correct (except for the "pinpoint" part, you added that). Mutations do *not* occur with equal frequency throughout the genome. Some part of the genome are more prone to acquire mutations than others. For example, non-coding regions in genomes have a higher frequencies of mutations than coding regions.

.I mentioned they were copy errors....which you just denied by telling me not all mutations were copying errors.

Some mutations are copy errors (errors in DNA replication). Some mutations are not the result of copy errors. What is unclear about that?

Endogenous Retroviruses (ERVs)--the topic of this thread---are 'mutations' (changes in DNA) that are *not* caused by errors in DNA replication. They are foreign viral genetic material that gets inserted (added into) the genome due to viral infection.

 

[CrowCross]

Correct (except for the "pinpoint" part, you added that). Mutations do *not* occur with equal frequency throughout the genome. Some part of the genome are more prone to acquire mutations than others. For example, non-coding regions in genomes have a higher frequencies of mutations than coding regions.

Are these "pin point" mutation actually a new mutation or one that has been in the gene pool for quite a while andn showed up again?

Some mutations are copy errors (errors in DNA replication). Some mutations are not the result of copy errors. What is unclear about that?

Endogenous Retroviruses (ERVs)--the topic of this thread---are 'mutations' (changes in DNA) that are *not* caused by errors in DNA replication. They are foreign viral genetic material that gets inserted (added into) the genome due to viral infection.

You're presenting speculation. Sometime after creation a human and a "chimp" may have been infected by a virus in the same way.
Considering they both were made by the same creator using very similiar DNA in some instances it would make sense that both could have the same ERV effecting the similiar DNA. It doesn't mean they have to have the same genetic ancestor.

 

[makesends]

makesends said:
This is not coincidence of random insertions, but that it is original to both species; or, that these insertions were inserted by God into both species at whatever point he did so.

However, I do grant this is only human reasoning —even speculation, in the end— but reasonable nonetheless.

The difficulty with that is that these are not original DNA but from viral infections that come after creation and many would say after the Fall

I understand that, but doesn't it assume that viral infections were not by God's decree, or direct action, and not simply natural? But even if 'natural', it is still by God's decree, since God also created what is 'natural' and thus caused every detail of what is natural. Either way, I don't see it being proof of common ancestry. The apparent outrageous odds against it being otherwise, to me, only suggest that both species were susceptible.

One's way of guessing what is "of God" or not is sometimes a bit stunted, it seems to me. In my way of seeing things, even sin comes by God's decree —that is, he caused that there be sin, as part of his redemption plan, which is how he makes humans even above Angels in the end: One with God in a way that not even Angels can be.

The studies are neutral observations simply reporting what we find in genomes. They are not anti God anymore than observations about the planets that challenged church understanding in the 1500s are anti God.

That, I agree with —well, not exactly neutral, but yeah, I get your point. They are not found by way of purposely opposing the existence nor the acts of God. But the conclusions drawn are, ('naturally', haha), excluding causation by God. And pursuing implications based on that conclusion is not of itself meant against the notion of the existence and causation by God.

It is only that those pursuing implications have nothing else, but naturalism to go by, nor even are those who believe in God able to insert God into their calculations. He doesn't fit in any form, but by posit: We know that if he is God, he can do as he wishes, and will do all that he ultimately intended from the beginning to do. But we have certain facts we can use: He is omnipotent, he is simple (not made of parts), he had a plan which, whether by immediate result or by long-run creation, or even by insertion, he can do 1 in 100,000 odds. I guess my point is that healthy speculation of the apparent conclusion is in order.



For what it may be worth to you, I wouldn't say it is beyond the realm of possibility that apes descended from protohumans and not the other way around, thus, common ancestry. I wouldn't be surprised if God's original human beings were intelligent, but more instinctive, than later examples. I don't doubt that they might have looked considerably different from us. But when I see some of the speculative pictures of what they may have looked like —I know Lucy, lived in the same town she did!

 

[TB2]

Are these "pin point" mutation actually a new mutation or one that has been in the gene pool for quite a while andn showed up again?

You really have difficulty listening don't you? I never said "pinpoint" mutation. Please stop adding to and changing my words.

You're presenting speculation. Sometime after creation a human and a "chimp" may have been infected by a virus in the same way.
Considering they both were made by the same creator using very similiar DNA in some instances it would make sense that both could have the same ERV effecting the similiar DNA. It doesn't mean they have to have the same genetic ancestor.

Incorrect. Each ERV has ~1 in 10,000 chance of inserting into the same genome location. There is ~1 in 10,000 chance that the same ERV will independently insert in the same location in both humans and chimpanzees. The chance of this happening 100,000 times is 10,000 raised to the 100,000th power. That is origin of life improbable. If you reject a naturalistic origin of life based on such improbabilities, but dismiss the probability argument here, then that is special pleading and not being academically honest.

 

[CrowCross]

You really have difficulty listening don't you? I never said "pinpoint" mutation. Please stop adding to and changing my words.

Incorrect. Each ERV has ~1 in 10,000 chance of inserting into the same genome location. There is ~1 in 10,000 chance that the same ERV will independently insert in the same location in both humans and chimpanzees. The chance of this happening 100,000 times is 10,000 raised to the 100,000th power. That is origin of life improbable. If you reject a naturalistic origin of life based on such improbabilities, but dismiss the probability argument here, then that is special pleading and not being academically honest.

Blah, blah, parrot blah.

I think you might want to go out and understand just what same location means.

 

[TB2]

makesends said:
This is not coincidence of random insertions, but that it is original to both species; or, that these insertions were inserted by God into both species at whatever point he did so.

However, I do grant this is only human reasoning —even speculation, in the end— but reasonable nonetheless.

I understand that, but doesn't it assume that viral infections were not by God's decree, or direct action, and not simply natural? But even if 'natural', it is still by God's decree, since God also created what is 'natural' and thus caused every detail of what is natural. Either way, I don't see it being proof of common ancestry. The apparent outrageous odds against it being otherwise, to me, only suggest that both species were susceptible.

One's way of guessing what is "of God" or not is sometimes a bit stunted, it seems to me. In my way of seeing things, even sin comes by God's decree —that is, he caused that there be sin, as part of his redemption plan, which is how he makes humans even above Angels in the end: One with God in a way that not even Angels can be.

That, I agree with —well, not exactly neutral, but yeah, I get your point. They are not found by way of purposely opposing the existence nor the acts of God. But the conclusions drawn are, ('naturally', haha), excluding causation by God. And pursuing implications based on that conclusion is not of itself meant against the notion of the existence and causation by God.

It is only that those pursuing implications have nothing else, but naturalism to go by, nor even are those who believe in God able to insert God into their calculations. He doesn't fit in any form, but by posit: We know that if he is God, he can do as he wishes, and will do all that he ultimately intended from the beginning to do. But we have certain facts we can use: He is omnipotent, he is simple (not made of parts), he had a plan which, whether by immediate result or by long-run creation, or even by insertion, he can do 1 in 100,000 odds. I guess my point is that healthy speculation of the apparent conclusion is in order.



For what it may be worth to you, I wouldn't say it is beyond the realm of possibility that apes descended from protohumans and not the other way around, thus, common ancestry. I wouldn't be surprised if God's original human beings were intelligent, but more instinctive, than later examples. I don't doubt that they might have looked considerably different from us. But when I see some of the speculative pictures of what they may have looked like —I know Lucy, lived in the same town she did!

The problem is that if this were anything else, if this was some neutral nothing that no one cared about, you, me, and everyone else would accept it as conclusive beyond a reasonable doubt. The logic and rationale and evidence is no different from DNA analysis in forensics. We just don't like the conclusions (myself included). But we can't let that keep us from fairly acknowledging that, "you know what, they (evolutionists) have a point. They have a strong argument here." Even if we ultimately choose to believe there *just has* to be another explanation, we should be able to fairly and honestly acknowledge that "while I may still disagree with evolution, I can understand how someone else can," and that evolution can't just be summarily dismissed as baseless.

The standard rally "there's no evidence for evolution, no evidence for human-primate common ancestry"---that's simply not true. There is. Strong evidence. Compelling evidence. Now if you still don't believe it's sufficient evidence, that’s fine, that's your choice. But we (all of us as believers) need to be fair and honest about things.

This was one of the biggest lessons I learned from my Christian profs (YEC geologists) while earning my paleontology degree. They were straight with us. "This is where the evidence supports our view, this is where it doesn't. This is where the evidence supports evolution, this is where it doesn't." I realized how much AiG and ICR books and articles distort the truth. At that point it's not about creation vs evolution. A lot of believers don't realize how damaging this is too our witness. We mean well, wanting to defend the Bible. But if the evidence isn't there it isn't there.

My profs recognized there is little evidence for a global flood. They have faith continued research will one day vindicate it, but recognize it would be dishonest to claim that it already has. Naturalism has its own problems. They need to be honest about the origin of life and the fact that our sum total science to date suggests it is impossible for life to naturally emerge from nonlife.

But they're not going to listen to us if we don't recognize the strengths in their theory and weakness in ours (yes, they need to do the same).

One hundred years ago no archeological evidence of Hittities. If a believer had said there was, that would be a lie. Now we have tons of archeological evidence for the Hittites. The Bible is confirmed. We just don't have all the evidence yet.

In my experience, non-believers have been far more open to hearing about the gospel when I acknowledge some of their legit criticisms (and yes, I gently needle them to own up to the problems on their side too).

Like one of my Christan (YEC geologist) profs liked to say: "there's good news and bad news for everyone (evolutionists & creationists) in the fossil record.

I feel like I'm rambling now, so I'm going to stop. Here's hoping what I said made some amount of sense.

Blessings

 

[TB2]

Blah, blah, parrot blah.

I think you might want to go out and understand just what same location means.

I'm about to report you CrowCross. In a decade of different forum discussions I don't think I've ever done that before. If you want to discuss let's discuss. Hand-waving away the evidence is not discussing, nor are your disparaging remarks productive to the conversation

 

[makesends]

The problem is that if this were anything else, if this was some neutral nothing that no one cared about, you, me, and everyone else would accept it as conclusive beyond a reasonable doubt. The logic and rationale and evidence is no different from DNA analysis in forensics. We just don't like the conclusions (myself included). But we can't let that keep us from fairly acknowledging that, "you know what, they (evolutionists) have a point. They have a strong argument here." Even if we ultimately choose to believe there *just has* to be another explanation, we should be able to fairly and honestly acknowledge that "while I may still disagree with evolution, I can understand how someone else can," and that evolution can't just be summarily dismissed as baseless.

The standard rally "there's no evidence for evolution, no evidence for human-primate common ancestry"---that's simply not true. There is. Strong evidence. Compelling evidence. Now if you still don't believe it's sufficient evidence, that’s fine, that's your choice. But we (all of us as believers) need to be fair and honest about things.

This was one of the biggest lessons I learned from my Christian profs (YEC geologists) while earning my paleontology degree. They were straight with us. "This is where the evidence supports our view, this is where it doesn't. This is where the evidence supports evolution, this is where it doesn't." I realized how much AiG and ICR books and articles distort the truth. At that point it's not about creation vs evolution. A lot of believers don't realize how damaging this is too our witness. We mean well, wanting to defend the Bible. But if the evidence isn't there it isn't there.

My profs recognized there is little evidence for a global flood. They have faith continued research will one day vindicate it, but recognize it would be dishonest to claim that it already has. Naturalism has its own problems. They need to be honest about the origin of life and the fact that our sum total science to date suggests it is impossible for life to naturally emerge from nonlife.

But they're not going to listen to us if we don't recognize the strengths in their theory and weakness in ours (yes, they need to do the same).

One hundred years ago no archeological evidence of Hittities. If a believer had said there was, that would be a lie. Now we have tons of archeological evidence for the Hittites. The Bible is confirmed. We just don't have all the evidence yet.

In my experience, non-believers have been far more open to hearing about the gospel when I acknowledge some of their legit criticisms (and yes, I gently needle them to own up to the problems on their side too).

Like one of my Christan (YEC geologist) profs liked to say: "there's good news and bad news for everyone (evolutionists & creationists) in the fossil record.

I feel like I'm rambling now, so I'm going to stop. Here's hoping what I said made some amount of sense.

Blessings

Yes it makes a lot of sense.

Occurs to me to mention, haha, that I have the luxury you don't have, to be skeptical of any claims, being an expert on none of it —not even knowledgeable. The structure built upon structure upon previous structure, to me is teetering, in very concept.

I remember in middle and high school science class, learning about the periodic table, which I saw as definition (not a descriptive model) for the atom. Then I heard that there was more space than substance between atoms, and even between the parts of the atom, and the whole thing went fool in my head. I realized, "There is more to mistake by trusting the arrangement. It is only useful for making predictive guesses for producing molecules and such. It is most likely missing some huge fact or facts."

A kind of analogy here: I see people who are into Bible Numerics. They find all sorts of things they can prove by looking at numbers —the seventh letter of the seventh word of the seventh chapter etc etc. To me that is obviously them looking for and finding something, but it means nothing to me. If they didn't find it in the seventh, they would look for some other coincidence. If they were Satanists maybe they could find the opposite if they spent enough time looking.

Are people not being taught that this layer is this old? Or are they being taught, we think this layer is this old, and here is why? Do the students accept it on faith? Do the paleontologists find a pattern and trust it before filling the gaps?

Maybe I'm wrong, but as I understand it, the fossil record is scant for 'middle forms', 'missing links'. There is a lot of supposing going on, from what I understand. Most people who are in the know on the question usually strongly object to my insinuation, but, is the structure they have come up with where all the facts and all the supposition work together the only structure to be pursued? I'm told by one group that the fossil record has millions of examples, but another group says that of intermediate forms, there are little to no complete remains, and most of what has been found that is supposedly intermediate skeletal remains would fit in a common footlocker. The first group seems to want to wow me by numbers, and the second group to wow me by prejudice. I trust neither one.

FWIW, I have the same skepticism toward modern cosmological models. I hear too much contradiction, too much poetry, too much waxing eloquent, and dark sayings nobody but the initiate are expected to understand.

 

[CrowCross]

I'm about to report you CrowCross. In a decade of different forum discussions I don't think I've ever done that before. If you want to discuss let's discuss. Hand-waving away the evidence is not discussing, nor are your disparaging remarks productive to the conversation

Then go ahead...report me. I know your type. You come on here and brag about your "education"...and act as if everyone who doesn't see it your way is sub-par to you.

You've presented anti-bible fake science and presented it as the truth....Sheeze, it's to the point that when I debunk something you have said using YEC peer reviewed material you attack the YEC material.

Keep in mind you never did figure out what "same location" means...instead you threaten me.

 

[TB2]

Then go ahead...report me. I know your type. You come on here and brag about your "education"...and act as if everyone who doesn't see it your way is sub-par to you.

You've presented anti-bible fake science and presented it as the truth....Sheeze, it's to the point that when I debunk something you have said using YEC peer reviewed material you attack the YEC material.

Keep in mind you never did figure out what "same location" means...instead you threaten me.

Still don't know how to just talk and have a conversation. Have to be antagonistic. And now you're just being delusional. I don't know on what planet you think incessant naysaying without evidence counts as debunking, but it doesn't. But I get it. Self-preservation via self-deception.

But please drop the act and drop the hypocrisy. It's really starting to annoy. Don't even speak to me about supposedly debunking with YEC material when you reject YEC material yourself!!!! That's just hypocrisy, and more of your selective pick-and-choose cherry-picking that I come to expect from you instead of honestly trying to account for all the evidence.

YEC material for you that you continue to reject:

Rethinking the Flood Boundary

Using Stromatolites to Rethink the Flood Boundary

Global Deposits of in situ Upper Cambrian microbialites: Implications for a Cohesive Model of Origins

 

[TB2]

Are people not being taught that this layer is this old? Or are they being taught, we think this layer is this old, and here is why? Do the students accept it on faith? Do the paleontologists find a pattern and trust it before filling the gaps?

Maybe I'm wrong, but as I understand it, the fossil record is scant for 'middle forms', 'missing links'. There is a lot of supposing going on, from what I understand. Most people who are in the know on the question usually strongly object to my insinuation, but, is the structure they have come up with where all the facts and all the supposition work together the only structure to be pursued? I'm told by one group that the fossil record has millions of examples, but another group says that of intermediate forms, there are little to no complete remains, and most of what has been found that is supposedly intermediate skeletal remains would fit in a common footlocker. The first group seems to want to wow me by numbers, and the second group to wow me by prejudice. I trust neither one.

Actually, there's a bit of truth in just about everything you say there. For a long time paleontology just assumed and taught the fossil record shows gradualism when it doesn't (or at least very rarely). And yes, biologists have been guilty of "just so" stories where natural selection was assumed (without direct evidence) to be true. And we've been right to criticize neo-darwinism. Natural selection and mutation are NOT sufficient to explain life's diversity.

But on the other hand, it's false to say there are no transitional forms at all, because there are. And we keep finding more (See, the new thread I started: "THERE ARE NO TRANSITIONAL FORMS!!!"???").

And we're finding more evidence for what was once thought impossible: saltation (evolution by "leaps"). More often than not evolution seems to go by fits and spurts not gradualism. Turns out large scale genetic changes are not needed. Small changes in regulatory genes and genetic tweaks and tinkering and even just altering the timing of developmental pathways can cause larger scale "leaps" in evolution.

And "just so" stories are a thing of the past. No longer is natural selection the default. Genetic drift is now the null hypothesis, and positive, directional natural selection claims require rigorous proof today.

But we're also finding that natural selection isn't the main driving force of evolution and that organisms have built in "evolvability" mechanisms, making evolution easier than ever but the origin of life more and more impossible looking. The origin of life---the biggest step of all---remains an unsolved problem for naturalism.

Evolution 'progress' even occurs by *gene loss*. And now a world has been discovered of jumping genes galore. And not just through inheritance. Bits of DNA get passes around all the time not just within species but between different species, between completely different kingdoms! Turns out there's a whole world of natural genetic engineering going on

Instead of gradualism, instead of punctuated equilibrium, the main pattern we see is entire paleocommunities 'abruptly' changing with stasis, and little change, then extinction; then replaced by a new paleocommunity that persists with little to no change then goes extinct, and is then replaced by another, and so on...

If it's not evolution (by natural or supernatural means), then that leaves progressive creation as the next closest alternative that is best at explaining the paleontological data: a series of separate independent creation events.

 

[makesends]

And we're finding more evidence for what was once thought impossible: saltation (evolution by "leaps"). More often than not evolution seems to go by fits and spurts not gradualism. Turns out large scale genetic changes are not needed. Small changes in regulatory genes and genetic tweaks and tinkering and even just altering the timing of developmental pathways can cause larger scale "leaps" in evolution.

Can you describe this evidence? To me, so far, this sounds like circular reasoning. A large shift is noticed, so "evolution sometimes has large leaps" is the reason. To me, "fits and spurts" makes Darwin look foolish.

 

[TB2]

Can you describe this evidence? To me, so far, this sounds like circular reasoning. A large shift is noticed, so "evolution sometimes has large leaps" is the reason. To me, "fits and spurts" makes Darwin look foolish.

It's unexpected, because it was long assumed that major changes in morphology require major scale genetic changes. Now we've found that's not true. The difference between regulatory genes of marine mammals like whales and terrestrial mammals is only a few regulatory genes. The "major" changes like fish-tetrapod transition are small potatoes compared to different branches of eukaryotic single celled organisms in pond scum. This is known from simple comparison of genomes. Genomic differences between main types of single cell eukaryotes is far greater than any genetic differences in the animal kingdom. Turns out all animals share the same developmental toolkit and homeotic regulatory genes for serial development. A single mutation can change the location of appendages on the body. This has been demonstrated experimentally. There is a great amount of evidence on this showing how small scale genetic tweaks and tinkering effectuates large scale morphological changes. Often you don't need any new genes but can effect change by regulating the expression of genes already present. As an illustration of the concept, think about the 200 plus different types of cells in the human body and how different a neuron is from a muscle cell is different from a skin cell is different from a bone cell is different from a connective tissue cell and so on, and yet *they all have the exact same DNA*. The difference is how those same genes are expressed and regulated.

I will look for articles on this. I can't think of anything off the top of my head are quite technical and advanced. But here's a technical article that summarizes a lot of the genomic evidence. I will look for more user friendly articles. Here's the abstract below and link to the article

Nothing in Evolution Makes Sense Except in the Light of Genomics: Read–Write Genome Evolution as an Active Biological Process​

Abstract​

The 21st century genomics-based analysis of evolutionary variation reveals a number of novel features impossible to predict when Dobzhansky and other evolutionary biologists formulated the neo-Darwinian Modern Synthesis in the middle of the last century. These include three distinct realms of cell evolution; symbiogenetic fusions forming eukaryotic cells with multiple genome compartments; horizontal organelle, virus and DNA transfers; functional organization of proteins as systems of interacting domains subject to rapid evolution by exon shuffling and exonization; distributed genome networks integrated by mobile repetitive regulatory signals; and regulation of multicellular development by non-coding lncRNAs containing repetitive sequence components. Rather than single gene traits, all phenotypes involve coordinated activity by multiple interacting cell molecules. Genomes contain abundant and functional repetitive components in addition to the unique coding sequences envisaged in the early days of molecular biology. Combinatorial coding, plus the biochemical abilities cells possess to rearrange DNA molecules, constitute a powerful toolbox for adaptive genome rewriting. That is, cells possess “Read–Write Genomes” they alter by numerous biochemical processes capable of rapidly restructuring cellular DNA molecules. Rather than viewing genome evolution as a series of accidental modifications, we can now study it as a complex biological process of active self-modification.

 

[makesends]

It's unexpected, because it was long assumed that major changes in morphology require major scale genetic changes. Now we've found that's not true. The difference between regulatory genes of marine mammals like whales and terrestrial mammals is only a few regulatory genes. The "major" changes like fish-tetrapod transition are small potatoes compared to different branches of eukaryotic single celled organisms in pond scum. This is known from simple comparison of genomes. Genomic differences between main types of single cell eukaryotes is far greater than any genetic differences in the animal kingdom. Turns out all animals share the same developmental toolkit and homeotic regulatory genes for serial development. A single mutation can change the location of appendages on the body. This has been demonstrated experimentally. There is a great amount of evidence on this showing how small scale genetic tweaks and tinkering effectuates large scale morphological changes. Often you don't need any new genes but can effect change by regulating the expression of genes already present. As an illustration of the concept, think about the 200 plus different types of cells in the human body and how different a neuron is from a muscle cell is different from a skin cell is different from a bone cell is different from a connective tissue cell and so on, and yet *they all have the exact same DNA*. The difference is how those same genes are expressed and regulated.

I will look for articles on this. I can't think of anything off the top of my head are quite technical and advanced. But here's a technical article that summarizes a lot of the genomic evidence. I will look for more user friendly articles. Here's the abstract below and link to the article

Nothing in Evolution Makes Sense Except in the Light of Genomics: Read–Write Genome Evolution as an Active Biological Process​

Abstract​

The 21st century genomics-based analysis of evolutionary variation reveals a number of novel features impossible to predict when Dobzhansky and other evolutionary biologists formulated the neo-Darwinian Modern Synthesis in the middle of the last century. These include three distinct realms of cell evolution; symbiogenetic fusions forming eukaryotic cells with multiple genome compartments; horizontal organelle, virus and DNA transfers; functional organization of proteins as systems of interacting domains subject to rapid evolution by exon shuffling and exonization; distributed genome networks integrated by mobile repetitive regulatory signals; and regulation of multicellular development by non-coding lncRNAs containing repetitive sequence components. Rather than single gene traits, all phenotypes involve coordinated activity by multiple interacting cell molecules. Genomes contain abundant and functional repetitive components in addition to the unique coding sequences envisaged in the early days of molecular biology. Combinatorial coding, plus the biochemical abilities cells possess to rearrange DNA molecules, constitute a powerful toolbox for adaptive genome rewriting. That is, cells possess “Read–Write Genomes” they alter by numerous biochemical processes capable of rapidly restructuring cellular DNA molecules. Rather than viewing genome evolution as a series of accidental modifications, we can now study it as a complex biological process of active self-modification.

Sounds to me like the old spotted lantern fly or whatever it was, that would over a few generations go blind if it lived in the dark, and return to seeing if living in the light. I wouldn't be too pleased to find out that this is claimed by evolutionists to be the working means behind evolution, when it was the creationists' argument all along, denied by evolutionists; and now evolutionists saying "we have just discovered".

 

[TB2]

Sounds to me like the old spotted lantern fly or whatever it was, that would over a few generations go blind if it lived in the dark, and return to seeing if living in the light. I wouldn't be too pleased to find out that this is claimed by evolutionists to be the working means behind evolution, when it was the creationists' argument all along, denied by evolutionists; and now evolutionists saying "we have just discovered".

No, nothing like that. Evolutionary biology has been revolutionized in just the past few decades. Instead of natural selection and random accident mutations a mass of evidence---direct observational, experimental evidence---has shown that instead of mutations being accidental most are under biological control and their frequency and timing can be regulated by organisms themselves. There is a whole world of natural genetic engineering happening all around us--not accidental mutations but genetic change through cellular and molecular DNA splicing and excision and insertion and transfer across and between taxa, and whole genome duplications, and endosymbiogenesis, and on and on. We observe instantaneous speciation in the lab. We observe changes to DNA happening in real-time. Heck, the average person is born with 50 or so *new* 'mutations' (genetic differences) that are not found in either the mother or father. The link I gave details a lot of this evidence, and that is but one article. The evidence for biological evolution (and its various mechanisms) has never been stronger

(Of course, like I've said, it makes explaining the origin of life all the more difficult)

 

[CrowCross]

Still don't know how to just talk and have a conversation. Have to be antagonistic. And now you're just being delusional. I don't know on what planet you think incessant naysaying without evidence counts as debunking, but it doesn't. But I get it. Self-preservation via self-deception.

But please drop the act and drop the hypocrisy. It's really starting to annoy. Don't even speak to me about supposedly debunking with YEC material when you reject YEC material yourself!!!! That's just hypocrisy, and more of your selective pick-and-choose cherry-picking that I come to expect from you instead of honestly trying to account for all the evidence.

YEC material for you that you continue to reject:

Rethinking the Flood Boundary

Using Stromatolites to Rethink the Flood Boundary

Global Deposits of in situ Upper Cambrian microbialites: Implications for a Cohesive Model of Origins

With all due respect...there are many articles written that explain ERV's. As it has been shown common descent is the only answer to this question. Your failure to recognize this shows how bigoted and closed minded you are to this subject. Though you are not allowed to agree, the very least you could do is admitt there are other theories.

 

[CrowCross]

Sounds to me like the old spotted lantern fly or whatever it was, that would over a few generations go blind if it lived in the dark, and return to seeing if living in the light. I wouldn't be too pleased to find out that this is claimed by evolutionists to be the working means behind evolution, when it was the creationists' argument all along, denied by evolutionists; and now evolutionists saying "we have just discovered".

I can somewhat agree...but with the Blind Cave Fish the ability to form eyes no longer exist as those genes no longer exist.

Evolution works in a downward or de-evolutionary means...that is genetic information is lost rather than increased.

 

[CrowCross]

has shown that instead of mutations being accidental most are under biological control and their frequency and timing can be regulated by organisms themselves.

How did they evolve the ability to regulate themselves? This appears to be fancy talk word smithing.

We observe instantaneous speciation in the lab.

The YEC have no problem with speciation...as that happened after the animals departed from the ark. Keep in mind for this speciation to occur no new DNA information was required.

For example a cat with no stripes didn't evolve stripes..but lost the abilty to code for stripes...that can be seen in animal husbandry today.

Heck, the average person is born with 50 or so *new* 'mutations' (genetic differences) that are not found in either the mother or father.

Of those "50"....how many would be considered to have the abilty to enhance the fitness of humans?

 

[TB2]

I can somewhat agree...but with the Blind Cave Fish the ability to form eyes no longer exist as those genes no longer exist.

Evolution works in a downward or de-evolutionary means...that is genetic information is lost rather than increased.

And yet missed the point once again. Obviously not reading the link above to the genetics article which is not about anything so simple as blind cave fish but observational and experimental evidence of natural genetic engineering done by organisms themselves

 

[TB2]

Of those "50"....how many would be considered to have the abilty to enhance the fitness of humans

With time it's been shown can co-opt new function. More important is 50 mutations without harming the individual contra YEC mantra "most mutations are harmful." Most mutations are actually neutral in terms of fitness

The YEC have no problem with speciation...as that happened after the animals departed from the ark. Keep in mind for this speciation to occur no new DNA information was required

I wish that were true. I hope it is. That would be progress.... until YECs find out that speciation is actually another name from macroevolution

How did they evolve the ability to regulate themselves?

YES!!! Now we're talking!!! The *origin* is very, very problematic. Once you have them it's great for evolution. But getting them in the first place, BIG problem. Yes, you hit the nail of the problem. This is what I meant when saying evidence for evolution stronger than ever but the origin of these natural genetic engineering mechanisms which go back to the origin of life is all the more difficult to explain! Yes, BIG problem for naturalism. We agreed on something!!! Yeah!!!