Most convincing evidence for evolutionary theory

You can't just dictate that viruses will behave according to your biblical kinds. The facts show that they do not. It also doesn't get around Doddy's challenge, you still need some evidence to support the existence of such 'within kind' viruses. This seems to be pure nonsense. There is no reason why a host life form needs to end for cross-species infection to occur. Nor is there any reason to assume there will be any transmission of traits from one host species to another. The only traits which need to be shared between the old and the new host species are those common ones which make them suitable hosts for the virus in the first place, which are the result of common ancestry rather than transmission with the virus.Genetic material between hosts can be transferred by retroviruses, but there is no need for it to occur. There is no contradiction. While the host species may adapt to avoid or ameliorate the viral infection the virus can just as readily adapt in ways which make it more potent or allow itt to avoid the hosts defenses. There is absolutely no reason to believe this would happen.Your contradictions seem to be wholly based on a faulty understanding of the mechanisms involved, which is strange since Doddy just explained them so nicely.TTFN,WK

In your first paragraph you appear to have decided to make your reply in Unwinese. I can't make out what you are trying to say. Of the three things you mention only the transmission of DNA is a form of transmission, natural selection and adaptation clearly are not. As far as I can see all this paragraph really says is that heredity is gentic, which I have no quibble with. If you want to specify that all life falls into the 'genetic kind' then that is fine by me.Be that as it may. What you are describing is not cross-species. You are describing the persistence of a virus in a population undergoing anagenesis. Just look at your avian flu example, it is not neccessary for birds to die out in order for the virus to spread to humans, only for the virus to change so it is infective to humans. Lots of places where it is relevant, which is not in a discussion of retroviral insertions as evidence of evolution. This is a claim with no basis. If you are talking about this pseudo cross-species infection withion a population undergoing anagenesis then of course the immunological complement will be inherited. But in the normal non-crazy sense of cross species infection which the rest of the world uses the chances would be very remote that a virus picks up by chance from one host genome a genetic sequence related to the operation of the immune system which would operate in the genome of another species, although admittedly the chances would be better the more closely related the species were. OK, so you are clearly discussing anagenesis here, one has to wonder why since none of the scenarios outlined so far have concerned anagenesis. Doddy proposed two possibilities on involving infection and subsequent cladogenesis as the human and chimp lineages split and the other involved two independently created lineages and a virus capable of infecting both of those lineages. Your supposed other option just seems to have been the same as number two but with a whole lot of accessory garbage about kinds thrown in. As long as you are supposing that humans and chimps are from distinct specially created lineages then you require a virus capable of infecting both lineages to even begin to explain the retroviral insertions.TTFN,WKP.S. We are fairly off topic and getting RAZD's back up. Maybe we should set up a new thread on which to discuss the nature of retroviral insertions. *ooops* This was actually in a different thread, never mind. Although this still seems to be verging on the derailly.Edited by Wounded King, : No reason given.

I am replying to this post on the Endogenous retroviral elements as proof of common descent thread.TTFN,WK