1. If universal common ancestry is true, then the same endogenous retrovirus (ERV) will exist in the same chromosomal location in two or more species.
2. The same ERV exists in the same chromosomal location in two or more species.

This is what is assumed by evolutionist if you read Talkorgins as one of the 29th proofs for evolution.  This doesn’t prove evolution at all.  This would be yet another interpretation of what you see under a microscope when it comes to genetics.  You still need for example to actuallysee it take place as they claim.  What do we continue to see in captivity with all the animals we have in the world at zoos?  Dogs give birth to dogs, and not a freak show animal.  And evolutionist contend that they don’t claim animals give rise to a half dog half sheep (this is only an example b/c evolutionist tend to take what is said to an extreme).  Bottom line is if you ask them, the common ancestor between apes and humans what was the % of that animal?  Was it 50% human and 50% ape and gave birth to a human being that was 90% human and 10% ape?  Did it give birthtoo twins an ape and a human where the ape was 90% ape and 10% human and the human had 90% human and 10% ape?  Do you see where I”m going with this?  The question remains, how and what did the common ancestor look like?  What did it give birth to?  You can’t continue to say well it takes millions of years, well bottom line if there is a common ancestor btwapes and humans then that ape like creature or human like creature is giving birth and rise to a half ape/human like creature and no matter how much you talk about it, eventually you get us 100% human or are we according to evolutionist.

ERV’sprove nothing at all unless you can produce the common ancestor, how it gave rise or have the question answered that did it give birth to twin creatures a ape and a human like animal, or what.  You just can’t show us an evolutionary tree and show common ancestry unless you are willing to say that the common ancestor had to give birth to some pretty odd offspring that kept branching to you get humans, apes, whales, bats, whatever, there should be a fossil record full of strange transitional, but you see fossils that look like modern day creatures which is not consistent with what we see in evolutionary where there is suppose to be this common ancestry.  If  it takes millions of years of slow change then you should have that in the record but you have animals that look like what you can find on earth with argues against slow change.

Here is what is some of the scientific statements about ERV’s outside of my own thinking.

“Since this is the concept of “shared errors” applied to endogenous retroviruses (and since retroviruses are a type of transposon), much of the two preceding responses is applicable.  It is not a prediction of the hypothesis of universal common ancestry or the more specific hypothesis of Neo-Darwinism that the same ERVs will exist in the same chromosomal location in two or more species.  Evolution does not even predict the existence of ERVs, much less that they will be found at the same location in two or more species.  After all, evolutionary theory was considered robust prior to the discovery of ERVs.  This is but another example of taking an observation, claiming it as a prediction of evolution, and then using the fact the observation fits the prediction as evidence for the truth of evolution.”

“Moreover, ERVs are inadequate in principle to support Dr. Theobald’s claim of universal common ancestry, because they are not shared by all groups of organisms.  To quote Dr. Max once again, “Another limitation [of this argument] is that there are no examples of ‘shared errors’ that link mammals to other branches of the genealogic tree of life on earth. . . .  Therefore, the evolutionary relationships between distant branches on the evolutionary genealogic tree must rest on other evidence besides ‘shared errors.’”

You can find a scientific response to this ERV claim by Talkorgins here at: http://www.trueorigin.org/theobald1e.asp#pred21

“Dateline September 10, 2003 , Texas State Board of Education Public Textbook Hearing, Austin , Texas : When asked for an example of a weakness of evolution being included in textbooks, two different pro-evolutionist witnesses responded with ‘the fossil record.’ When asked to identify the strongest evidence for evolution, another pro-evolutionist witness, responded in part, “The most overwhelming is the fossil record…”[1] Who is correct? “

Is that a quote mine, here is the reference source.

[1] Texas Education Agency supplied transcript of the State Board of Education meeting, September 10-11, 2003 .

Check out what the WallStreet Journal says about the American country I live in.

“The Wall Street Journal reports editorially that:

A Chinese paleontologist lectures around the world saying that recent fossil finds in his country are inconsistent with the Darwinian theory of evolution. His reason: The major animal groups appear abruptly in the rocks over a relatively short time, rather than evolving gradually from a common ancestor as Darwin ‘s theory predicts. When this conclusion upsets American scientists, he wryly comments: “In China we can criticize Darwin but not the government. In America you can criticize the government but not Darwin.”[13]

How sad!

‘Evolutionists claim that mankind evolved from apes about a million years ago. If the population had grown at just 0.01% per year since then (doubling only every 7,000 years), there could be 10⁴³ people today—that’s a number with 43 zeros after it. This number is so big that not even the Texans have a word for it!’    http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v23/i3/people.asp 

Try that on for size.  Even given a small growth rate applied to the claim of evolving from ape like creatures in that time frame, it doesn’t work.  But leave it to them, they will explain it away and here is a perfect example of that.

‘Those who adhere to the evolutionary story argue that disease, famine and war kept the numbers almost constant for most of this period, which means that mankind was on the brink of extinction for most of this supposed history.¹⁰ This stretches credulity to the limits.”    10 Even if the population were a million, the low reproductive rate would not be sufficient to eliminate harmful mutations. The mutational load alone would have ensured extinction. For details, see ReMine, W., The Biotic Message, St Paul Science, St Paul, Minnesota, 1993

So as you can see, with a little common sense and checking the numbers, it just doesn’t add up in the faith of Evolution.

It’s funny how this go’s because evolutionist want you to believe it without seeing the truth of what creationist are saying clearly.  This debate you can judge for yourself.

Claim: CB901

No case of macroevolution has ever been documented.

Source: Morris, Henry M., 2000 (Jan.). Strong Delusion. Back to Genesis 133: a.

Brown, Walt, 1995. In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood. Phoenix, AZ: Center for Scientific Creation, p. 6. Response:

Creation Wiki response: (Talk Origins quotes in blue.)

1. We would not expect to observe large changes directly. Evolution consists mainly of the accumulation of small changes over large periods of time. If we saw something like a fish turning into a frog in just a couple generations, we would have good evidence against evolution.

 

It’s remarkable that evolutionists do not see the faith that their worldview requires. They claim they have evidence in Speciation, which is not evidence for universal common descent in any shape or form. Then when asked for observational evidence for the theory of evolution (i.e. change beyond the kind barrier) they claim that would disprove Darwinian Evolution! It has been demonstrated, as far as the evidence goes, that minor change sometimes referred to as micro-evolution does not lead to evolution on a large scale.

2. The evidence for evolution does not depend, even a little, on observing macroevolution directly. There is a very great deal of other evidence (Theobald 2004; see also evolution proof).

 

The evidences presented in that essay are things such as vestigal structures and developmental biology which are not evidence for evolution. See True Origin for a thorough rebuttal of this essay written by Ashby Camp. Furthermore, there are some major problems with macro-evolution:

 

• Evidence for such an occurrence is lacking in the fossil record.
• Common structures can support a common designer thesis just as well as one of common ancestry.
• Macroevolution is implausible, proteins evolving in small increments fits the evidence, crossing the large gaps is not realistic.(Plaisted 2005)

3. As biologists use the term, macroevolution means evolution at or above the species level. Speciation has been observed and documented.

Very true, but it proves nothing close to universal common descent. Creationists would agree that speciation has been observed, but that is not what the debate is about. Walter Remine comments:

In creation-evolution debates, “evolution” isn’t mere ‘change in gene frequencies.’ Unless context indicates otherwise, it refers, ultimately, to naturalistic molecules-to-man transformation – anything less involves creation. “Macroevolution” makes the large-scale transformation fully explicit.

4. Microevolution has been observed and is taken for granted even by creationists. And because there is no known barrier to large change and because we can expect small changes to accumulate into large changes, microevolution implies macroevolution. Small changes to developmental genes or their regulation can cause relatively large changes in the adult organism (Shapiro et al. 2004).

Micro-evolution is observed, but there are limits to the variation.

1.) An observational limit which we see all the time, dogs always produce dogs, cows always produce cows, etc.

2.) Original amount of information available: From the original starting point information is only lost and not added. Mutations occur which scramble the existing DNA and over the years certain traits are selected and passed down. As this process occurs information is lost until there can be no more variation because there is nothing to select from. This creates a natural barrier that prevents evolutionary change on a large scale.

5. There are many transitional forms that show that macroevolution has occurred.

 

Detailed series at the following link deals with this issue in depth. Transitional forms  This one will come later!

 

 

Here is why I believe they are illogical about this great find back in the early 70′s.

The Coelacanth that was found looked virtually identical to what you see in the fossil record.  Go here to see what I’m talking about.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coelacanth#Taxonomy

The problem I have with evolutionist calling the modern day Coelacanth a different species is this.  First off they don’t have a DNA sample to compare the genetic information in the earliest Coelacanth to make that claim.  It’s a fact things can have difference of appearance in areas but be identical in genetics.  Humans are a perfect example.  There are white, black, yellow, etc but the genetic comparison between all of us is identical but with different appearance in skin color, noses, eyes, etc and we are still human.  We are not looked at as different species of humans lol we are all human beings with differences in appearance.

With Coelacanth how can you call something that looks identical without genetic material to see that?  Or are the evolutionist going to call humans different species based on skin color, or nose size, or whatever?  That doesn’t make sense because we are genetically human.  You won’t find a human with 35 chromosomes (at least I don’t believe you will).  You will find those with downs “the presence of an extra copy of genetic material on the 21st chromosome,” is what the problem is with them but they are still human beings and I wouldn’t consider someone with this as a different species that to me would be flat out insulting to someone who is still as a Christian would say “Created in God’s Image” so they have worth and value and shouldn’t be aborted as so many do which is another subject in itself.

So getting back to this Coelacanth.  It can’t be consider a different species based on slight differences on the outside when we as humans are not.  Who makes that determination without genetic evidence?

It’s all ad hoc explanation.  Take this comment on wiki about the gap in the fossil record.

“the Cretaceous genus Macropoma, closely resemble the living species.^{[citation needed]}The most likely reason for the gap is the taxon having become extinct in shallow waters. Deep-water fossils are only rarely lifted to levels where paleontologists can recover them, making most deep-water taxa disappear from the fossil record”

Notice they say “the most likey reason for the gap is the taxon having become extinct in shallow waters”  How #1 do they know this without ever being there?  Comparing to what happens to day could be very different millions of years ago if you logically think about it.  Then they said “Deep-water fossils are only rarely lifted to levels where paleontologists can recover them, making most deep-water taxa disappear from the fossilrecord”  Again logically I disagree because fossils clams are pushed to the top of mountains due to shifting of continents (different worldviews from evolutionist and creations by the way) who’s to say that Coelacanth fossils couldn’t have been pushed to the top like those?  And they are assuming without a foundation that when those fish died and there had to be millions like there are millions in oceans in fish today there should have been some fossils of those fish that could have been preserved as they love to say “could have”, yes it could have left in between fossils that they love to want people like me to not think it thru.

So in short I find it illogical to call something a different species when they are under the assumption that there was a different species in between deeper Coelacanth as opposed to those at the surface.  There simply could have been nothing in between we are not talking about mystery fish here that suddenly disappeared off the face of the earth, no they are still here

So I brought up the issue of radiometric dating and the dating problems.  My long time debator is so sure that the dating methods are solid.  However they are not.  There is indeed rock that has been dated into the millions of years range, but the problem is the rock is only several hundred years old.

The way that my colleague and other evolutionist get away around that is to let the accusations fly.  They say things like “creationist don’t use the right tools,” or “creationist don’t know what they are talking about because they are ignorant,” yada, yada is what I say.

Here is the problem with the accusations in my opinion.  If you say a sample for example is contaminated which I have heard is the problem well that means the other samples can be contaminated as well to give a false reading of a million years, there is no difference.  If recent rock can date into the millions who’s to say that the rock that has been tested in the millions isn’t contaminated and simply is recent rock no older than a few thousand years?

I presented him with links to what the creationist have documented and they do get their results in some cases right from evolutionary info with the contradictions there, but the evolutionist will still be in denial.  Kinda like living fossils. 

If you have living fossils with incorrect dating methods what do you actually have?  You actually have living fossils that are not millions of years old because that would be a stretch of the imagination to see something virtually unchanged for millions of years like the environmental pressures wouldn’t change something with all that time to do so.  And the rock that dates into the millions only being a few hundred years old is actually young.  So put the two together and you actually have young fossils that are living and I hate that word living fossils, no they are animals or plants that have been hear a short time just like the rocks have LOL.

For more information on the research done that shows the problems with radiometric dating see the link:  http://creationwiki.org/Radiometric_dating_problems

It’s a fact that they don’t tell you all the problems.  Just indoctrinate you.

Living fossils is another one.  Notice that the term itself is very strange.  Why call something a living fossil when for years a person is taught things went extinct but when they find out that they were wrong (human error like the bible writers get) they simply explain it away.  Call it a different species but it still looks the same.  Yeah that really means something but not once do they have a DNA sample to actually prove it’s actually different?  Especially when there has been DNA found in fossils which DNA by the way can only last approx. 10,000 years and how is that for contradictory to the fossilization of fossils or the fossil record for that matter.  Take a look at what Creationwiki.org says on the issue of fossilization which people should check it out for alternative views and arguments presented against the only currently accepted view allowed in secular humanist science where the trump card is evolution and evolution only.  Thought that man can error like the bible writers get but the evolutionary scientist just can’t do no wrong LOL.

Creationwiki’s Take on the Issue:

Fossilization

Main Article: Fossilization

Today fossilization is an extremely rare event and is simply not expected to occur on a global scale. Decomposition is instead the rule following death, unless the matter is buried rapidly and to a depth that would prevent microbial digestion and oxidation. Hard shelled animals that burrow into sediment are somewhat expected to be found as fossils, along with large and heavy bones through random circumstances. However, every kind of animal alive today is found in the fossil record. Many of these are completely intact, and some specimens show literally no signs of decomposition. Other evidence such as polystrate fossils, or the fact that marine fossils are found throughout the geological column, points strongly to a flood-based interpretation of the fossil record. It should also be noted that many of the animals alive today are virtually identical to their fossilized ancestors, which argues strongly against their having been fossilized millions of years ago.

If the average person was just driving along the road and saw a great number of fossils on the side of a mountain they wouldn’t have the idea that the layers they see in the side of the mountain that they formed one at a time but would think that they all appeared there at the same time.  Why would one think that layers form one at a time where they see a great number of fossils?  It’s because they were indoctrinated from as young as 4years of age thru 18 years of age at least in my country.  If you hear this stuff over and over you will adopt that line of thinking and heck even  Hilter the greatest Jewish hater recognize that if you tell a lie long enough over a period of time people will believe it.  Evolutionary science is built upon that. 

Take a look at what Gould said about the fossil record:

“What does the fossil record suggest? Evolutionists such as Gould now agree with what creationists from Louis Agassiz to Duane Gish have said all along, that the fossil record includes two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism:

Stasis. Most species appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change is limited and directionless.

Sudden appearance. In any area, a species does not arise gradually. It appears all at once and fully formed (Gould, ibid., 13–14).

You can find support if you are skeptical of Genesis being real by just doing some research.  Check Genesis against the historicity of the Bible.  That’s one way to boost your confidence on weather the Bible can be used as a historical reference.  It’s indeed a fact mentioned by archaeologist who were very skeptical.  For example I’ll give you a quote that is said about the bible being verified as a historical document.

“ Archaeologist William F. Albright says, “All radical schools in New Testament criticism which have existed in the past or which exist today are pre-archaeological, and are therefore, since they were built in der Luft [in the air], quite antiquated today” (Albright, 29).

“In a sense that anticreationists cannot always prove evolution to a point that it completely does away with creation. Public humiliation is used. The group of anticreationists who do this are very well organized as they will humiliate anyone who dares challenge their beloved theory. Any creationist that steps out of the norm of not accepting evolution to some degree, and speaks out against it. Will get this humiliation via the web.

Kent Hovind. The most hated creationist by every anticreationist. Here are the examples of websites participating in public humiliation of Kent Hovind. In fact, Kent Hovind has had so much public humiliation by anticreationists that Google has broken up sections of the search (at bottom of search page) if you type in his name. This is an example of how science works if you dare challenge the theory of evolution. Does tax evasion have anything to do with the theory of evolution? You would think it does the way the evolutionist go on and on about what Hovind did. “