Argument #2: Evolution Of Species

[Mister Agenda]

The game is actually over if you insist on asserting that the game is not over when someone makes a telling point instead of even trying to refute it. Identical retroviral insertions in related species is something that only makes sense in the context of evolution. If you don't address that, you lose.

This critiques your stance on this, I believe game is still in progress.

http://www.trueorigin.org/theobald1e.asp

Thanks for FINALLY addressing this. Although it is clearly still a challenge for you to argue in your own words, at least you offered more than a flip quip.

The 'critique' can be summarized as 'God can do anything so God could have put retroviral insertions into species that appear related for mysterious reasons'. Howeve, MY stance on this was that retroviral insertions only make sense in the context of evolution, which remains true: Once it was discovered that retroviruses could make heritable genetic alterations in germ line cells, in the context of evolution it followed that if the insertion took place BEFORE the organism diverged from its last common ancestor, the same insertion might be found in other species descended from that common ancestor. When we knew what to look for, we searched for such insertions, and found them right where common descent indicated they would be. In the case of humans, we found seven instances of shared ERVs with chimps. When we compare different humans, shared ERVs are considered absolute proof of common ancestry, the more ERVs in common, the more closely two humans are related, it is even possible to identify a specific individual ancestor for two people based on shared ERVs (turn out you and Hilda both had Linda Monague for a great, great grandmother), which can be confimed independently by family trees.

Creationism and ID could make no such predictions when this property of retroviral insertions was discovered. The discovery makes no sense in the context of those world views, it can only be 'another mystery'.

---

All human beings start out as microorganisms, but we evolved from hominids. You'd have to go back over 3 billion years to find a single-celled ancestor to humans.

Perhaps you should have titled this thread differently then, since abiogenesis is not a part of evolution. It wouldn't matter if God poofed the first microbe into existence, evolution applies thereafter.

And a more honest claim would be that there is no substantial scientific evidence that non-living chemicals can produce a living cell that you personally will ever find convincing because your mind is completely closed on the topic.

"All human beings start out as microorganisms, but we evolved from hominids. You'd have to go back over 3 billion years to find a single-celled ancestor to humans." Mister Agenda 2013 - AtheistForums.org

Ok, so you guys want a reputable recent quote,,,here you go.

Thanks! It doesn't suppport your position though, so I'm at a bit of a loss as to why you chose it. Were you under the impression that any of us think that a single-celled common ancestor to humans was more recent?

---

I would like to refer to the Bible but you guys don't want me to go there.

Only because it doesn't help your case to quote a text that none of the people you're arguing against thinks carries any authority on scientific matters.