I am not a geneticist but I dont think its just about nematodes. Besides aren't they a worm type thing and humans share 75% of their DNA with them.
But I found this article which claims that ERV's may not have been inserted bt retroviruses.
In summary, a very strong case can be made pointing to the view that ERVs were not inserted by retroviruses. They have function, should have been ridden by
apoptosis, are different than their ancestral genomes, and it is incredible that the organisms did not die after being infected with so many viral genes. With so many problems, how can evolutionists continue to use ERVs as evidence for evolution?
Do Endogenous Retroviral Sequences (ERVs) Prove Evolution? | EvolutionDismantled.com
Lying creationist sites are not valid references.
First, no one is claiming that they are from retroviruses because they have no function. Whether or not they have function has no bearing on where they came from. Besides, adapting DNA sequences for new tasks is eactly what evolution does, so I find it hard to see why the evolution of DNA for new function is evidence against evolution.
Second, there is absolutely no reason why ever retrovirus integration will result in death. None. That is something the creationists have invented from whole cloth. In fact, we can see ongoing integration of retroviruses in koala populations from a known modern virus.
Genome Biology | Full text | Koala retrovirus: a genome invasion in real time
Well what it may suggest is that some creatures cross bred in the past and had the ability to produce more fertile off springs. So if this is the case then it suggests that this was another mechanism for creating other species besides mutated genes. By mating with another different animal a new species could be produced. Over time they can become more isolated and lose the ability to cross breed and become an independent species. But crossing breed can be another method of transferring genetics that make creatures look like they come from each other besides evolution.
That wouldn't produce the nested hierarchy that we observe.
Some sites with a religious connect are not creationists sites and have valid info which can be substantiated on non religious sites.
Cite the original primary peer reviewed paper. Don't cite blogs. Don't cite popular press books. Cite the scientific reports written by the scientists who did the actual experiments.
Because they are the same species. What other species did they come from if they are the same species. You need two different species to show transitions dont you. This will allow you to show the similar features which connect them together to show transitions. But as I said before there are a number of other reasons this could be like HGT or they just look similar in the way they were made and are totally unrelated ie shark and dolphin. But also with genetics now it is also showing some connection with animals that dont look like they are related and are not according to Darwin's tree of life.
Those other methods would not produce the observed nested hierarchy.
No I am saying because there is so much variation its hard to tell what is variation and what may be transitional if any.
None of the fossils you have named fall within anatomically modern human variation. None. All of the fossils are transitional whether they are split into 3 species or lumped into one. Why? Because they all fit in between the morphology of Australopithecines and anatomically modern humans. All of them.
Evolutionists use to use various skulls as examples of different ape man species to show how the features gradually changed which was suppose to show the transitions into humans. But with the discovery of the skulls at Georgia for example this showed several of those shaped skulls together.
And they are still transitional.
This then brought into question that they were separate species and thus transitionals.
They are transitional whether they are split into 3 species or lumped in 1. They are transitional because they have human-like features not found in earlier hominids and more ape-like features not found modern humans.
As Shakespeare once wrote, a rose by any other name . . .
So suddenly they lost several transitionals they had made.
They are still transitional.
Well they could if it was proven. But thats the problem its not completely.
Just admit that you will not accept any fossil evidence for evolution, and be done with it.
It is suppose to show transitions from an ape to a human. How do we know that all the Australopithecines are just variations of apes and all the homos are just variations of humans with a few questionable ones in between because of other reasons like deformities or just have very strong features.
Just more excuses as to why you will never accept fossil evidence.
Humans are variations of apes. H. erectus is a variation of human, but not a modern human. A fossil can be a variation of ape or human and still be transitional between us and a common ancestor shared with chimps.
How do we know that some of the so called species didn't come from HGT and thus didn't evolve from a previous one but were the result of cross breeding two different species to produce a new one. That would mean that that particular new species didn't evolve through natural selection which takes away evolution.
Genetics demonstrates a hierarchial pattern that refutes HGT.
There can be variations if transitions are true between species. Not everyone looks the same and we have many different variations. But there is a difference between variations of the same species and different features gradually stepping towards changing into a new species. Because the changing features will gradually show the additions of the new type of creature its turning into.
Every addition you will either call a malformation, or a variation. You have done that very thing in this thread.
So if a Dino is changing into a bird the prominent feature that will make it a transition will be the wings. But variations with a Dino species may also show feathers and some wing like features and it is still a dino and may have never been going to change into a bird. That is the problem its hard to definitely tell.
A fossil with a mixture of non-avian dinosaur features and avian features is transitional, by definition.
Well we see some similar features but we dont know if thats just because of the way they were made. There are similar features between a dolphin and a shark but one is a mammal and they are not closely related. So similar features alone doesn't make them transitional.
What similar features? Be specific.
Common features does not only mean common decent. It can also mean common design.
A nested hierarchy of common and divergent features does point to common ancestry in the same way that matching fingerprints at a crime scene to a suspect is evidence of guilt.
Your argument boils down to, "Even if all of the evidence is consistent with evolution, I still won't accept it."
