Recommended reading

[Barry Desborough]

From Biologos (Graeme Finlay), "Graeme Finlay is a cell biologist who teaches scientific pathology at the University of Auckland, and conducts his research in the Auckland Cancer Society Research Centre. He has written actively to introduce Christians to the implications of comparative genome sequencing. His book Human Evolution: Genes Genealogies and Phylogenies(CUP) is his first full monograph. He has a degree in theology and is active as a lay preacher. - See more at: Graeme Finlay"
Human Evolution: Genes, Genealogies and Phylogenies
Amazon.com: Human Evolution: Genes, Genealogies and Phylogenies (9781107040120): Graeme Finlay: Books

 

[mark kennedy]

From Biologos (Graeme Finlay), "Graeme Finlay is a cell biologist who teaches scientific pathology at the University of Auckland, and conducts his research in the Auckland Cancer Society Research Centre. He has written actively to introduce Christians to the implications of comparative genome sequencing. His book Human Evolution: Genes Genealogies and Phylogenies(CUP) is his first full monograph. He has a degree in theology and is active as a lay preacher. - See more at: Graeme Finlay"
Human Evolution: Genes, Genealogies and Phylogenies
Amazon.com: Human Evolution: Genes, Genealogies and Phylogenies (9781107040120): Graeme Finlay: Books

There is a real problem here, I have two words for you Barry, deleterious effects:

Retroviruses provided a way of demonstrating that many cancers are produced from a single abnormal cell. Counter-intuitive though it may seem, the billions of cells that may populate a tumour are the descendants of a single ancestral cell, so cancers are said to be monoclonal. And, almost unbelievably, retroviruses provided a way of showing that multiple species may be derived from a single progenitor species (indeed, ultimately from a single cell). Such related taxa of organisms are said to be monophyletic. - (Human Evolution: Genes, Genealogies and Phylogenies May 27, 2014 By Graeme Finlay Biologos)​

 

[Barry Desborough]

Thanks for your acknowledgement that this may be a mechanism for the origin of new species.

 

[mark kennedy]

Thanks for your acknowledgement that this may be a mechanism for the origin of new species.

They are the origin of cancer, tumors and AIDs, nothing indicating a new species.

 

[Barry Desborough]

They are the origin of cancer, tumors and AIDs, nothing indicating a new species.

They can do that too. So what?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Thanks for your acknowledgement that this may be a mechanism for the origin of new species.

Not a mechanism, but an indication: "... a way of showing that multiple species may be derived from a single progenitor species..."

 

[Barry Desborough]

Not a mechanism, but an indication: "... a way of showing that multiple species may be derived from a single progenitor species..."

?

 

[Barry Desborough]

There is a real problem here, I have two words for you Barry, deleterious effects:

Retroviruses provided a way of demonstrating that many cancers are produced from a single abnormal cell. Counter-intuitive though it may seem, the billions of cells that may populate a tumour are the descendants of a single ancestral cell, so cancers are said to be monoclonal. And, almost unbelievably, retroviruses provided a way of showing that multiple species may be derived from a single progenitor species (indeed, ultimately from a single cell). Such related taxa of organisms are said to be monophyletic. - (Human Evolution: Genes, Genealogies and Phylogenies May 27, 2014 By Graeme Finlay Biologos)​

So endogenized retroviruses may be deleterious, therefore all of them are deleterious.... How do you make that out? BTW, many of your coreligionists point to the adaptive function of some ERV components. So are they deleterious, advantageous, or neutral? What does Scripture have to say on the matter?

 

[pitabread]

So endogenized retroviruses may be deleterious, therefore all of them are deleterious.... How do you make that out?

Cognitive dissonance.