Old Earth, New Creation? What Do You Think?

[prophecy4]

Because the necessary mutations did not occur in those species. Or if they did, they were not selected for preservation.

i was taught in biology that mutations are usually harmful and rarely if ever passed on.

For the most part evolution does not require hybrids to occur at all. So why would you expect to see them?

so one day, we should wake up and just expect to see a different species or an alteration to an existing one? please clarify this.

That's fine since it is not completely uniform and has never stopped.

if people existed in different stages, why don't we still see some of those stages walking around? are you telling me that the entire population evolved into the same type of man all around at the same time and we have no other types walking around?

Since there is no goal for evolution to meet the concept of "fully evolved" is nonsense. You have to have something in mind to measure evolution against to say it is "fully" evolved and there is no such standard.

i didn't get my idea across as clearly as i wanted to. what i was trying to say way. evolved as we are now. why did the process stop now that we can understand it and speculate it, there is no visible proof of it.

It didn't. You keep trying to put the evolutionary process in the wrong order. As best I can figure out you think it works like this:

species perceives future need->species changes to meet that need.

But that is not the way it works. Here is the proper order.

A mutation occurs which generates a variation in a species' characteristics->as a consequence the members of the species which inherit the variation have more surviving progeny than those without the new variation.

that is the way it's taught in public school. i've never seen or heard of a two headed snake have other two headed snakes or 5 legged sheep give birth to other sheep with 5 legs. why is that? can you answer without using a human attribute?

So evolution did not "know" we needed eyes. A mutation occurred in one of our far distant ancestors which caused a chemical change in some cells that made them photosensitive. Members of the species with this variation were able to survive and reproduce more frequently than those without. Over several generations, the variation became more common, and eventually universal in the species.

the way evolution is explained is by using characteristics that are attributed to living beings. words such as kept, knew, changed, etc. to me that attributes a life like characteristic to a supposedly non living, non biased force.

Additional mutations selected over the generations added new features and improvements to the primitive eye-spot until the eye we are familiar with in humans emerged.

so what came first, the retina or the cornia, or the optic nerve, etc. how did these mutations "know" that it would be beneficial. the first eye couldn't possibly have worked that good, so why keep it?

Ah, so you don't actually know what the 2LOT is. That explains why it puzzles you.

no, it's obvious that you don't know.

"Simply put, this universal law of science says that all systems, if left to themselves, move from a state of order to disorder... So, a better example might be that pile of bricks in my backyard. If no one touches if for the next 1000 years they will eventually wear away. That is, if left alone they will not move themselves and form a wall. " - creationdefense.org/113.htm

C'mon, you want to be spoonfed the whole history of the universe in a forum post? Head to the library and start reading.

no, but i would like to know where it all came from in the first place. please share if you know. and lets just asume that there was a cosmic egg, where was it? it wasn't floating in space because if i recall the big bang gave birth to space... please correct me if i'm wrong.

That is the question scientists in the field of abiogenesis are researching. Stick around and they may find the answer in your lifetime.

i seriously doubt it. unless God plans to show up and tell them that He did it.

Because the conditions in which life first arose no longer exist on earth today.

well, lets just recreate those conditions.... wait, someone tried that and failed. yes, he managed to create amonia and some other lethal chemicals, but none that would give rise to life as we know it.

A lot of macro-evolution would not show up in pictures. For example, a major change in the physiology of digestion which permitted a change in diet from fruit to bread.

so i assume since you've probably never seen it, what's the difference between taking that based on faith and believing in God as the creator? i don't see one.

Better to go to the scientific studies on speciation. I can give you a list of 50 (out of thousands) to research.

thanks i would appreciate that.

No, the intelligence is need to replicate the conditions in nature in which evolution occurs. No manipulation of DNA is required.

ah, but they did manipulate the DNA to get the flies to produce 4 wings, which didn't work as i stated before and they died quicker too. are you really trying to convince me that nature's accidents are better than mans best informed attempt at recreating the conditions?

Also some experiments are done in natural conditions. So no manipulation of the conditions is needed either. No human manipulated the climate changes that led to evolution in the Galapagos finches in the last 20 years.

there have been humans there for the last 20 years. just by people being there, that changes the environment. it's not possible to study something in it's natural environment if it can interact with you on any level.

No, evolution has nothing to do with improvment. It is just a survival mechanism. Fit into your environment better and your progeny are more likely to survive. At least until the environmental conditions change.

true, it has to do with survival, since when are beneficial mutations passed on in mass? prophets for example. there has not been one prophecy in the Bible proven to be wrong... if so, please tell me which one and with references... so why isn't the ability to predict future events passed on? that would seem very beneficial.

Possibly trees were becoming rarer as jungles gave way to savannahs.

from what i see, monkeys don't spend the majority of their time walking upright. even the one's in india and other countries that live in the city with people and have done so for years. they still look and act like monkeys.

Possibly because we needed a cooling mechanism such as sweat to release excess heat after heavy exertion, like chasing down game, or escaping predators. Or, some theorize, that for a while our ancestors were aquatic and lost their body hair as an adaptation to spending many hours in the water. I don't give much creedance to the latter hypothesis, but it has been seriously proposed.

so wait, the other monkies decided that they didn't need to regulate body temp? they seem just fine to me... i agree, that sounds dumb about being aquatic... i thought we came out of the water, so why go back in?

Possibly because we began using technology and didn't need greater strength to compete.

monkies use technology. not as advanced as ours, but simple technology. and FYI we shed all of those characteristics before we started using more advanced technology.

That is why science does not rely on opinion but seeks out the facts. A lot of science is counter-intuitive. It's different from what we expected.

they certainly don't seem to rely on fact.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

i was taught in biology that mutations are usually harmful and rarely if ever passed on.

most mutations are neutral. the process of fixation has a large number of variables such as population size, type of mating pattern, but one of the largest is the fitness of the mutation.

if people existed in different stages, why don't we still see some of those stages walking around?

there are no stages because evolution isn't going anywhere and nothing is more or less down the path. however variation is increasing due to mutation.


hy did the process stop now that we can understand it and speculate it, there is no visible proof of it.

evolution and adaption has not stopped, not in people, there are lots of examples of continuing adaption to environmental conditions. even more of genetic drift.

interesting things like:
A mutation called delta-32 in the cellular receptor dubbed CCR5 protects against HIV infection, and is found more often in Europeans than other populations.
from: http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2005-03/11/content_424041.htm

TB like malaria has shaped the human genome
A genomic scan of 400 TB patients in Gambia, Guinea-Conakry and Guinea-Bissau, three versions of the gene SP110 has been shown to be associated with TB symptoms.
from: http://www.biotech-weblog.com/50226711/human_tuberculosis_gene.php

there are 100's if not 1000's of thallesemias and hemoglobinapathes that map to chronic endemic malaria.


we are fighting a constant battle against disease. more and more we see genes that have been shaped by this struggle.
just an interesting example.

 

[random_guy]

if i recall, i started out talking about humans and animals. read the original post. it is you that changed the subject.

Are you sure about that. My first point, that evolution is also a fact, addresses your comment on how gravity is a fact, but evolution is wishful thinking. Explain to me how my explanation of facts and theories does not address your claim.

My next reply was about how evolution was not scientific because it didn't follow the scientific method. I gave a direct example of how the theory of evolution is tested. Explain to me how my example is invalid since you said evolution could not be tested.

in case it's not clear to everyone, i'm talking about macro-evolution. evolution involving large multicelled organisms that we know as animals and people. that's what i want explained to me.

Macroevolution is nothing more than microevolutions. Macro/micro really all fall under evolution. However, this is tangent to my points. Again, address my claims since all you're doing is bring in new material to shoot down.

 

[prophecy4]

Are you sure about that. My first point, that evolution is also a fact, addresses your comment on how gravity is a fact, but evolution is wishful thinking. Explain to me how my explanation of facts and theories does not address your claim.

My next reply was about how evolution was not scientific because it didn't follow the scientific method. I gave a direct example of how the theory of evolution is tested. Explain to me how my example is invalid since you said evolution could not be tested.



Macroevolution is nothing more than microevolutions. Macro/micro really all fall under evolution. However, this is tangent to my points. Again, address my claims since all you're doing is bring in new material to shoot down.

i'll make a long story short. give me a link or reference to one picture or skeleton that has not been proven to be a fake. give me a link to the next skeleton in the line and so on. if you can do it with 3 consecutive skeletons, then i'll say you win. i don't want drawn pictures. i want real live pictures taken with a camera.

since evolution happened and is happening, we should have the fossil record, correct? let's see this fact that you speak of.

 

[Melethiel]

in case it's not clear to everyone, i'm talking about macro-evolution. evolution involving large multicelled organisms that we know as animals and people. that's what i want explained to me.

Macroevolution is not limited to animals and people.

And your definition of the 2LoT is wrong. Here's the definition of it:

The entropy of a closed system not at equilibrium will tend to increase over time, approaching a maximum value.

It has to do with energy transfer, not biology, and anyway, the earth isn't a closed system.

 

[prophecy4]

Macroevolution is not limited to animals and people.

And your definition of the 2LoT is wrong. Here's the definition of it:



It has to do with energy transfer, not biology, and anyway, the earth isn't a closed system.

maybe i have 2LOT wrong, but where is that proof i asked for?

 

[random_guy]

i'll make a long story short. give me a link or reference to one picture or skeleton that has not been proven to be a fake. give me a link to the next skeleton in the line and so on. if you can do it with 3 consecutive skeletons, then i'll say you win. i don't want drawn pictures. i want real live pictures taken with a camera.

since evolution happened and is happening, we should have the fossil record, correct? let's see this fact that you speak of.

Again, you ignored the points of my post. Do you agree or not agree that evolution is a fact and a theory like gravity? Do you agree that in my example, evidence for evolution, in regards to the origins of bread plants, was collected, analyzed, and tested?

Also, this is why I tend to ignore most of your post because every time you change the subject, you bring in more errors into the discussion and there isn't enough time to correct them all. You seem to think evolution works like a ladder, that there's a natural progression from ape to man and the fossil record should show a ladder. This is incorrect. Evolution is like a tree. For example, we don't know what dinosaurs are the direct ancestors of birds. However, we do find many different theropods that contain both dinosaurian and bird characteristics. While it's impossible to say, "This fossil is the ancestor of birds", we can say, "This fossil has feathers but also has teeth, so it's likely to be related to the group that birds descended from."

That said, here's a picture that shows this exact feature. Skulls of animals that contain ape-like features and hominid features, some more than others, some not at all.

 

[gluadys]

i'll make a long story short. give me a link or reference to one picture or skeleton that has not been proven to be a fake. give me a link to the next skeleton in the line and so on. if you can do it with 3 consecutive skeletons, then i'll say you win. i don't want drawn pictures. i want real live pictures taken with a camera.

since evolution happened and is happening, we should have the fossil record, correct? let's see this fact that you speak of.

Ok. See the attached photos. All genuine fossils. No models, no drawings.

 

[random_guy]

Ok. See the attached photos. All genuine fossils. No models, no drawings.

Careful, I have a feeling that the Creationists' version of Xeno's Paradox will soon pop up.

 

[gluadys]

i was taught in biology that mutations are usually harmful and rarely if ever passed on.

Actually most are neither harmful nor beneficial but neutral in impact. Most non-neutral ones are harmful.

All mutations are passed on if the organism reproduces. But some harmful mutations prevent successful reproduction and so are not passed on.

The main difference between harmful and neutral/beneficial mutations is that successful reproduction is rarer among organisms with harmful mutations, so they leave, on average, fewer progeny, and the mutation is not inherited by many in the next generation. But neutral and beneficial mutations will be inherited in a larger proportion of the next generation.

so one day, we should wake up and just expect to see a different species or an alteration to an existing one? please clarify this.

Every day we wake up and see alterations to existing species. We call them children. Most children are not exact duplicates of their parents. Also, most mutations occur during the production of eggs and sperm, so all children carry, on average, 100 mutated genes which are altered from those of their father or mother. And which they will pass on to their children.

if people existed in different stages, why don't we still see some of those stages walking around? are you telling me that the entire population evolved into the same type of man all around at the same time and we have no other types walking around?

I think your astonishment arises from a vision of each individual person changing independently of others. But individuals do not evolve. What happens is that some individuals leave more descendants than others, so the population as a whole becomes more like those particular ancestors. Evolution is change in populations, not changes in individuals.

i didn't get my idea across as clearly as i wanted to. what i was trying to say way. evolved as we are now. why did the process stop now that we can understand it and speculate it, there is no visible proof of it.

It hasn't stopped, and we have lots of visible proof of it, especially in genetic sequences.

that is the way it's taught in public school. i've never seen or heard of a two headed snake have other two headed snakes or 5 legged sheep give birth to other sheep with 5 legs. why is that? can you answer without using a human attribute?

These things don't usually involve a genetic change. More often they are a developmental error such as incomplete separation of twins. Only genetic changes feature in evolution.

the way evolution is explained is by using characteristics that are attributed to living beings. words such as kept, knew, changed, etc. to me that attributes a life like characteristic to a supposedly non living, non biased force.

I agree. It's anthropomorphic. But it makes it easier to present, especially to young children. However, in senior biology courses, it should be made clear that all anthropomorphic language is figurative. That's why I would agree with using a phrase like "differential reproductive success" in place of "natural selection."

so what came first, the retina or the cornia, or the optic nerve, etc. how did these mutations "know" that it would be beneficial. the first eye couldn't possibly have worked that good, so why keep it?

There is no "knowing" involved. Just successful survival and reproduction. An eye that doesn't work so good is still better than no eye at all, and so it is an advantage when those are the choices.

no, it's obvious that you don't know.

"Simply put, this universal law of science says that all systems, if left to themselves, move from a state of order to disorder... So, a better example might be that pile of bricks in my backyard. If no one touches if for the next 1000 years they will eventually wear away. That is, if left alone they will not move themselves and form a wall. " - creationdefense.org/113.htm

Others have answered you on this. You are operating on the basis of an incorrect understanding of the 2LOT.

no, but i would like to know where it all came from in the first place. please share if you know. and lets just asume that there was a cosmic egg, where was it? it wasn't floating in space because if i recall the big bang gave birth to space... please correct me if i'm wrong.

you are right in saying that space and time were a consequence of the big bang. But if you really want to know, find a good book that explains it. Or google "big bang" "standard cosmology" "cosmic background radiation" It is drifting off topic to bring physics and astronomy into a conversation about evolution.

well, lets just recreate those conditions.... wait, someone tried that and failed. yes, he managed to create amonia and some other lethal chemicals, but none that would give rise to life as we know it.

He didn't fail at what he intended to do: see if organic molecules could form in the conditions supposed to have existed on early earth. Why people think the experiment was to produce life, I don't know. Producing amino acids this way was a wonderful confirmation of the predicted results, but no one was claiming amino acids were alive.

There have been many more experiments of this type, and also other sorts of experiments connected with hypotheses of abiogenesis. It is hardly an inactive field at all. I would hardly call that an indication of failure. More like a work in progress.

so i assume since you've probably never seen it, what's the difference between taking that based on faith and believing in God as the creator? i don't see one.

1. The flies whose ancestors ate fruit now eat bread and can no longer digest fruit when it is available.
2. The flies who eat bread do not mate with the flies who eat fruit, even when given opportunity to do so. In the rare cases such a mating takes place, it does not produce viable offspring.
3. The genetic sequences in the flies who eat bread have changed significantly from those of their fruit-eating ancestors--as much as 3% (which is greater than the genetic difference between chimps and humans)..

All of this is spelled out in detail in the scientific report, along with a complete description of the experiment and all the measurements taken. You can read it for yourself. No faith required when the evidence is laid out.

ah, but they did manipulate the DNA to get the flies to produce 4 wings, which didn't work as i stated before and they died quicker too. are you really trying to convince me that nature's accidents are better than mans best informed attempt at recreating the conditions?

Different experiment for different purposes. Of course nature is better at being nature than any human attempt to replicate nature. We don't have all the information we need to perfectly replicate nature. All our replications will be second-best to the original.

Think of it this way. It is much more difficult to replicate somebody else's signature than to write your own.

there have been humans there for the last 20 years. just by people being there, that changes the environment. it's not possible to study something in it's natural environment if it can interact with you on any level.

OK. Show me how the human presence impacted beak size.

true, it has to do with survival, since when are beneficial mutations passed on in mass?

When most of the population has inherited them from their parents. It is called fixation when most of the population is descended from the organism in which the mutation originally occurred.

prophets for example. there has not been one prophecy in the Bible proven to be wrong... if so, please tell me which one and with references... so why isn't the ability to predict future events passed on? that would seem very beneficial.

I expect because it is not a genetically controlled characteristic. I believe it has something to do with the Holy Spirt, not DNA.

from what i see, monkeys don't spend the majority of their time walking upright. even the one's in india and other countries that live in the city with people and have done so for years. they still look and act like monkeys.

So? Those monkeys are not our ancestors.

so wait, the other monkies decided that they didn't need to regulate body temp?

Well unless you are a genetic engineer, your decisions have nothing to do with evolution. So it wouldn't matter a fig what they decided.

i thought we came out of the water, so why go back in?

Well, it worked for whales.

monkies use technology. not as advanced as ours, but simple technology. and FYI we shed all of those characteristics before we started using more advanced technology.

No we didn't. Check out Homo habilis.

they certainly don't seem to rely on fact.

You have already been provided with an excellent example of scientists relying on fact.

 

[gluadys]

thanks i would appreciate that.

http://www.christianforums.com/t155626


They are all in the opening post. The person who posted it is a professional biologist.

 

[Assyrian]

why didn't the free oxygen in the atmosphere combine with the amino acids?

The free oxygen didn't come until we had cyanobacteria and plants to make the oxygen.

why did we become weaker?

An interesting article in the New Scientist http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19025540.600.html says mutant version of the myosin gene MYH16 gave humans less efficient muscles and smaller muscle fibres, but that our smaller jaw muscles fibers (1/8 the size those in macaques) allowed for larger rounder skulls and bigger brains.

if people existed in different stages, why don't we still see some of those stages walking around? are you telling me that the entire population evolved into the same type of man all around at the same time and we have no other types walking around?

Now you are getting the idea. Evolution works on entire populations. Over many generations of people doing what they do best, making more people, mutations spread through the whole population.

 

[prophecy4]

Again, you ignored the points of my post. Do you agree or not agree that evolution is a fact and a theory like gravity? Do you agree that in my example, evidence for evolution, in regards to the origins of bread plants, was collected, analyzed, and tested?

it is a hypothesis at best.

Also, this is why I tend to ignore most of your post because every time you change the subject, you bring in more errors into the discussion and there isn't enough time to correct them all. You seem to think evolution works like a ladder, that there's a natural progression from ape to man and the fossil record should show a ladder. This is incorrect. Evolution is like a tree. For example, we don't know what dinosaurs are the direct ancestors of birds. However, we do find many different theropods that contain both dinosaurian and bird characteristics. While it's impossible to say, "This fossil is the ancestor of birds", we can say, "This fossil has feathers but also has teeth, so it's likely to be related to the group that birds descended from."

lol, so you don't have any actual proof? just speculation and guessing? sounds just like a religion.
parrots talk and memorize things, so are they part of the human evolutionary chain? i've heard that they don't "talk" they just mimic speach. that's all we do until we get old enough to understand. i've seen parrots taught to count and learn. they must be related to us. lol.

That said, here's a picture that shows this exact feature. Skulls of animals that contain ape-like features and hominid features, some more than others, some not at all.

again, no proof i see.

why do defenders of evolution always beat around the bush?

do you have a fossil record or not? if not, then you should register as a non-profit and start your own church. so far you've given nothing but information that i should take on "FAITH"

 

[random_guy]

it is a hypothesis at best.

Wait, either you haven't read any of my posts or you don't understand science. Evolution is defined as the change of allele frequencies in a gene pool over generations. You don't think this is a fact? You don't think that because the ratio of people with sickle cell anemia increases in areas with malaria true?

lol, so you don't have any actual proof? just speculation and guessing? sounds just like a religion.
parrots talk and memorize things, so are they part of the human evolutionary chain? i've heard that they don't "talk" they just mimic speach. that's all we do until we get old enough to understand. i've seen parrots taught to count and learn. they must be related to us. lol.

I guess this proves my point you don't understand science. Nothing is proven in science since it's impossible to have 100%. All of science uses the same terms and languages just like they do in evolution. The best you can do is provide evidence of a theory. And if you think Christianity is nothing but guessing, I think you're sorely mistaken.

Second, parrots may mimic to talk, but does it mean dinosaurs also mimicked having feathers? How does having physical characteristics similar to mimicking behavior? The more you post, the more it seems like you don't understand science.

again, no proof i see.

why do defenders of evolution always beat around the bush?

do you have a fossil record or not? if not, then you should register as a non-profit and start your own church. so far you've given nothing but information that i should take on "FAITH"

It doesn't matter what evidence we provide seeing how you won't accept any of it and you refuse to answer any questions. The good news is, Creationists views are not accepted in higher education. That's why we continue to teach science in colleges and not your religious beliefs.

You may continue to think evolution is nothing more than a religion, that it violates the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics (never mind the glowing object outside), and that it's not important, but the fact is, your beliefs will never be funded by the government to study as science. Evolution, on the other hand, will be as I'm being paid by your tax dollars to research a "religious belief" to you, but a real science to all the real scientists in the world. I would expect nothing less.

 

[prophecy4]

Wait, either you haven't read any of my posts or you don't understand science. Evolution is defined as the change of allele frequencies in a gene pool over generations. You don't think this is a fact? You don't think that because the ratio of people with sickle cell anemia increases in areas with malaria true?



I guess this proves my point you don't understand science. Nothing is proven in science since it's impossible to have 100%. All of science uses the same terms and languages just like they do in evolution. The best you can do is provide evidence of a theory. And if you think Christianity is nothing but guessing, I think you're sorely mistaken.

Second, parrots may mimic to talk, but does it mean dinosaurs also mimicked having feathers? How does having physical characteristics similar to mimicking behavior? The more you post, the more it seems like you don't understand science.



It doesn't matter what evidence we provide seeing how you won't accept any of it and you refuse to answer any questions. The good news is, Creationists views are not accepted in higher education. That's why we continue to teach science in colleges and not your religious beliefs.

You may continue to think evolution is nothing more than a religion, that it violates the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics (never mind the glowing object outside), and that it's not important, but the fact is, your beliefs will never be funded by the government to study as science. Evolution, on the other hand, will be as I'm being paid by your tax dollars to research a "religious belief" to you, but a real science to all the real scientists in the world. I would expect nothing less.

just so you know, the government does fund Christian organizations. just off the books. and again, i started the thread and have yet to have any pro evolutionary provide me with one solid piece of proof.

thank God there are people who homeschool their kids and get them away from all the lies you people put out... Haekel's embryos, the progression from ape to man, cosmic eggs? wow this takes more faith than believing in God.

again, i'm asking for proof. is there any?

if not, just answer one question and i'll drop it.

if there was a "cosmic egg" where did the "egg" and it's "ingredients" come from? and where was it at if space was created by the big bang?

and by the way, i know alot more about science than i'm letting on. i just want the simple questions answered.

i'm not talking about the difinition of evolution. i'm talking about the deceitful way it is presented to people in school.

 

[Melethiel]

thank God there are people who homeschool their kids and get them away from all the lies you people put out...

I was raised on creationist texts...that all flew out the window as soon as I went on to higher education and started really understanding what the terminology meant.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

and have yet to have any pro evolutionary provide me with one solid piece of proof.


look at HERV-W
it is a retroviral genome. incorporated in the human genome sometime in the distant past.
it, the env gene, has been co-opted to produce syncytin which is used to bind maternal and child cells together in the placenta.

see:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...ve&db=PubMed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=12724415
or just google.

 

[Assyrian]

As a side issue, how do they tell endogenous retroviral inserts from ordinary DNA?

 

[random_guy]

just so you know, the government does fund Christian organizations. just off the books. and again, i started the thread and have yet to have any pro evolutionary provide me with one solid piece of proof.

It may fund them for things such as drug rehab, but not for science. Also, you still haven't replied why evolution isn't a fact. Can we or can we not observe allele frequencies changing in a gene pool over time? I already know the answer and I have a good feeling why you won't answer the question.

As for evidence, the picture of the skulls is one example. Botanists using evolutionary theory to increase protein yield was another. Both was dismissed with a wave of a hand with no scientific explanation why. Like I said, all the evidence in the world won't change someone mind if the mind is closed.

and by the way, i know alot more about science than i'm letting on. i just want the simple questions answered.

i'm not talking about the difinition of evolution. i'm talking about the deceitful way it is presented to people in school.

If you know more about science, you sure aren't showing it. You still haven't given a definite answer on why evolution violates the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. You don't seem to understand the scientific method. You seem to conflate evolution with the Big Bang and Abiogenesis. You seem to have a strawman definition of evolution. And you seem to present no scientific evidence for any of your beliefs.

As for the deceitful way it's being present, why don't you give an example.

 

[random_guy]

As a side issue, how do they tell endogenous retroviral inserts from ordinary DNA?

I believe (and someone please correct me if I'm wrong) there's certain genes that belong to viruses that don't belong to eukaryotes. For example, if we find genes that code up proteins needed to make viral capsules in mammalian DNA, it's a good sign it's an ERV.