I have already won because you have not offered anything of substance around junk dna. You keep saying you have but can't requote anything. Therefore I win the point that evos can make no predictions around junk dna, creos can, and creos have mounting evidence to support same while evos are left to pick up the pices and invent a brand new story.<quoted text>
And they are easy to find on this thread.(shrug)
329724 current papers on evolution. You may find the occasional IDCreationist one, but you won't be fond of their conclusions. Which of my claims do you think are NOT supported by research? Oh wait - that's why you haven't addressed them yet. Only misrepresented evolutionary biologists instead.
Remember you can't claim unreliable evolutionary biologists prove unreliable evolution wrong with unreliable evolutionary biology. That's intellectual dishonesty to the core.
And then you take one mighty leap further and claim GODDIDIT WITH MAGIC!
Like I said, you haven't even gotten around to the rest yet. But the fact we share nearly 200,000 of these with the other great apes is a start.
You have not gone anywhere near the above in addressing my claims. These points above are substantiated at present by the current flavour if the month provided by your own evo researchers.
Similarly any and every support for TOE can be found to be equally flawed and based on biased and circular magic.
As for Gods ability to create I have spoken to it by stating that there is evidence that energy can be turned into matter. This is a fact. Here is the assumption and hypothesis....If energy can turn matter into a sun or planet then energy can create an organism much smaller that is made up entirely of the elements of the earth.
Now you can talk about your version of abiogenesis that evos separate from TOE out of shame. Your many theories and lack of ability to make a living reproductive organism in a controlled environment is not better than anything I can come up with. You just have more woffle and history in your guesswork and libraries of outdated work that goes from ponds to ocean springs.
Again you refer to some refute that is ficticious. Post your research around these 200 shared ervs and stop being lazy. Or do I have to post it for you?
So ervs were meant to be functionless remnants of infections past were they? Now they appear to be proving to be vital in some instances.eg mammalian pregnancy.
So which supports TOE functionless ervs or functional ervs?
Or doesn't it matter?
All ERVs in humans are extinct retroviruses. The viruses in your genome right now have no homologues in our population that infect modern humans. The only two retroviruses that are real ‘normal’ human pathogens are HIV and HTLV. HIV is a lentivirus– there are very, very few endogenous lentiviruses (found one in bunbuns, another in lemurs). HTLV is a deltaretrovirus– I am not aware of any endogenous deltaretroviruses.
Our ERVs are only distantly related to exogenous viruses that infect other organisms. That is, MLV is a gammaretrovirus, but our Class I retroviruses (related to gamma and epsilonretroviruses) are not literally MLV. Likewise, our Class II (related to alphas and betas) are not literally ALV or MMTV.
So to put it a different way, our youngest ERVs, HERV-Ks, are as similar to HIV-1, a modern infectious virus, as humans are to Methanobacterium thermoautotrophicum.
In other words, researchers have assumed via their algorithmic magic that these ghosts called ervs may resemble some virus that once was that they actually have not seen and really have no idea about. How comvincing! Not!