Replies

Let's do this though. How about you excerpt some of that into a more digestible morsel. For instance, something that demonstrates unequivocally that similarities between species are more than just -- well similarities.

The very first section on retroviruses and DNA fossils does just that. It is very short (about 5 concise paragraphs) and is VERY strong evidence. It also has nothing at all to do with any physical similarities.

(I understand that God created birds and dinosaurs to have some features in common and that the theory of evolution is largely built around such similarities in the fossil record.)

If you spend about 5 minutes reading the first section on retro viruses that I mentioned above, you will see how your above statement is very inaccurate.

"The only plausible mechanism by which two individuals could have retroviral DNA inserted into exactly the same location in their respective DNAs is if they inherited copies of that DNA from the same source -- a common ancestor."

No, that is not the only explanation.

"Thus, shared endogenous retroviruses between, say, ape and man is almost irrefutable evidence that they descended from a common ancestor. *Unless* you want to suggest that they were created separately, and then a virus they were both susceptible to infected both a man and an ape in EXACTLY the same location in their DNAs"

Close, but what the author narrowly missed is the fact that the creatures were created with that make-up in the cells (no need to contract a virus 'fossil' when one is placed there from the start).

Evolution theory can be quite attractive when presented by those who have sceince as their faith. But why not -- many of them are very intelligent and are committed believers in science as their faith.