I could swear that the central theme of the thread is abiogenesis and not ongoing evolution.
But at any rate, given the molecular evidence of ERVs and such, if it is demonstrated that speciation is possible, than the other lines of evidence for common descent become overwhelming.
So it is important to discuss what is possible and to discover through research what is possible.
Consider, for example, a forensic investigation. If I find your fingerprints at a crime scene, and I have a witness saying you were there, and I find proceeds from the crime in your possession, you are all but convicted. Unless you have equally convincing evidence that you were somewhere else at the time.
When forming a theory or conjecture about what happened in the past, it is necessary that the individual pieces of the story each be possible or plausible. When you combine possibility with other lines of evidence, you have a more convincing case. Eventually, in criminal cases, you can have a case that is convincing enough to send a person to prison or even to justify execution.
As you know, I freely disclose that the most certain knowledge I possess does not come from sensory perception or reasoning but from the revelations of God in (a) the Person of Jesus Christ, (b) the Person of the Holy Spirit, (c) Scripture and (d) Creation both physical and spiritual.
[[But at any rate, given the molecular evidence of ERVs and such, if it is demonstrated that speciation is possible, than the other lines of evidence for common descent become overwhelming.]]
Niether speciation nor ERV’s are evidence for common descent- Speciation is nothign more than a species reamining the same species- Despite hte fact that htey can not breed with other guls, ring species such as these are still gulls- lizards that are seperated and microevolve the innability to breed with other lizards on different islands does not mean they are no logner lizards themselves. To state speciation is evidence for macroevolution is akin to stating that because I saw someone leap a log, that this means they must have been able to fly in the past. There is nothign in common design that prevents speciation- there remains the fact that those speciated examples remain within their own kind.
Macroevolution, a much much different process than adaptive microevolution requires a far different process than simple loss of informaiton that speciated examples genetic structures underwent.
Decreases in informaiton, rearrangements of informaiton, etc all fall aquarely into Microevolutionary changes. Loss of informaiton is NOT evidence for Macroevolution. No matter how many losses of informasiton you throw at a species, it will never result in net-gain of non species specific informaiton NEEDED for macroevolution
Pointing to loss of informaiton as some supposedc evidence that macoreovlution happened ignores the fact that loss does not lead to gain, and ignores the fact that in order for macroevolution to happen- leterally trillions of very significant gains in informaiton needed to occure for macroevolution to happen. When I examine Macroevolution looking for evidence of these trillions of gains of non species specific informaiton, I come up empty- All I get are single scant few examples of microevolutionary evidence that is assumed to be the basics of macroevolution, but when examined, are nothign but genetic variation within kinds.
Macroevolution requires- absolutely requires a gain of very signficant non species pecific information in order to bring abotu al lthe changes between species that we’re told occured, and yet there are no valid examples of any of hte trillions of changes that are claimed to have occured? All we can point to are species havign hteir existing genetic info turned on to ingest nylonase under stressful conditions the way bacteria are supposed to, designed to react? All we can point to is genetic loss in ring species? All we can point to are scant few examples of genetic rearrangements that fall squarely within species specific parameters? All we can point to are ERV’s which prefer certain insertion points in similar species?
The ‘evidence is overwhelming for common descent’? Looks pretty thin and based on faith, assumptions, and an a priori dedication to naturalism despite compelling evidnece to the contrary if you ask me
As mentioned before, ERV’s do indeed show insertion bias/preferrences, and as such it is NOT surprising, nor does it undercut common design, that similar speices share similar insertion points ESPECIALLY in light of hte fact that there are millions of viruses assaulting similar genetic makeups constantly and in large groups over many many generations.
your link to common descent has htis to say:
“Our findings are consistent with a model of recombination-driven biased gene conversion. This leads to the provocative hypothesis that many of the genetic changes leading to human-specific characters may have been prompted by fixation of deleterious mutations.
What the authors report is a non-random shifting within genes, and the introduction of “deleterious” mutations.”
Swell- they’ve discovered inteligently designed, forward looking, anticipating metainfo that deals with problems in species specific ways, in ways that conform to predesigned genetic info that anticipates, designs for, and prepares for problems that can be dealt with by directing and orchestrating changes in such a way as to help preserve species fitness as best as possible “Directed change” Must be hte authors think Nature is omnisciently able to predict future problems and create info that is pre-prepared for such problems?. Yawn