[Cinnamon Girl]

Narby, seriously, continuing to harp on religious people is getting tiresome to read. Is it a big issue for you because you are anti-religious? I don't mind being "lumped in with religious people." Do you? I'm not really into being dismissed because you think that anyone who questions the evolution theory is not a serious thinker. Based on some of your arguments, since "creationism" is an older theory than "evolution" and continues to be supported by many people, it must then be true. That doesn't sound like a scientific argument. Conversely, you said that if you can't offer an alternative to evolution then it stands. Well, don't some people offer creationism or intelligent design as an alternative? I don't get how that's a scientific argument either.

Also, I will have to read more about the retrovirus because what you said doesn't support evolution, in my opinion. It still operates on the assumption that if DNA is similar it must be from the same exact source. To me, that is a leap and the "missing links" haven't been found. Why stop with apes, though? If every creature came from the same original one, then aren't humans just as related to lizards, ultimately?

[From many - one.]

"...Also, I will have to read more about the retrovirus because what you said doesn't support evolution, in my opinion. It still operates on the assumption that if DNA is similar it must be from the same exact source. To me, that is a leap and the "missing links" haven't been found.

When both the arrangement _and_ the location are too similar (they don't have to be identical) the odds are very much in favor of a common source.

That's how we recognize plagiarism. The word "four" is not likely to be recognized as plagiarized. If I write "Four score and twenty three apples jumped off a tree", guess what jumps to mind? Even with the change at positon 4 ("twenty" instead of "seven").

But all of the word have meaning in human converstion so it's not impossible for the phrase to have been spontaneously generated.

Fortunately, thanks to Lewis Carroll, we have a parallel to the viral insertion. He created some words and arranged them into phrases that have no prior independent meaning in human discourse.

Thus, if I say: Yesterday, when 'twas brillig, we can pretty much assume common source.

Or, we can assume "God (ID) did it. If we do that, however, there is no point in furher research because there is no significance to the finding, or to any finding. If the apple fell off a tree, well, God (ID) did it and it can change at any time. Silly? Yes, but the only reason for the hysteria over the recognition of evolutionary processes is that some people have a faith so weak that they can't get past those first few words of the Bible. If they are not literally correct, in the modern interpretation of the words, they the whole Bible goes out the window.

There is a less benign interpretation of the anti-science position but I'll omit that for now.