Evolution is a basic, biological process

I think that whole post was good background to the question but I don't think you have yet answered the question as to why biology is unintelligable without evolution

The host must certainly not die too quickly. The virus must have time to spread. I think (someone will correct me) that one can demonstrate that a virus and host will co-evolve until the viralence is less. After all a virus that doesn't kill the host at all can become as ubicquitous as is possible.Are HERV's just the terminal point of this?

If it matters at all The L. I don't see any disrespect in what you posted. I'd say Phi was being a bit sensitive.You are one of the very best "creos" that we have had drop in here. (Even if so very wrong )This message has been edited by NosyNed, 01-05-2005 23:25 AM

Both the fact that gravity sucks and that new species have evolved are equally solid facts.The current theory of gravity (general relativity) looks pretty good but since it hasn't been reconciled to QM it is a bit suspect. The ToE is much more solid than the current theory of gravity.This message has been edited by NosyNed, 01-07-2005 10:34 AM

How about you keep your head down and get home safely? Thanks, we don't like to loose creationsist members.This message has been edited by NosyNed, 01-08-2005 11:34 AM

Jar, TL was giving the list you quoted as what he thought he was being told and then he was saying that he didn't think it could happen that way. (sort of an inadvertant strawman).So we agree on the rough idea of how it happens.The only thing that I think TL is missing is that in a population of bacteria numbering in the billions there is some likelyhood that a few will already carry the mutation necessary. It only takes one.Living things are a constantly changing 'mess' of mutations and different genomes. In this case we select out a very few specific individuals.

They have to or the population goes extinct.It is possible however to have varying degrees of resistance. If the antibiotic isn't strong enough the slightly more resistant ones may survive and produce a population like themselves (some with mutations that might allow for more resistance).

I have to disagree with the weakness of this statment.Without evolutionary theory there is simple no way to explain the nature of life on the planet. The nature of all living things, their relationships to each other and how they could have gotten that way can't be explained. The pattern of life past can't be explained.None of what we see as the big overall picture makes any sense any other way.Then the details and odd nature of living organisms is just a mystery without the explanation supplied by evolutionary theory.In each case you might say that God choose to make it that way and think it is an explanation. The very next question would be why in the world would he pick such a cockamaymie way of doing it?

I've been meaning to propose a thread on this area for days. I will try to get to it.I would suggest that it is really "non-NEO-Darwinian". Darwin didn't propose a mechanism for heredity since he had no idea. The various mechanisms proposed by Margulis and others add to the ways that organisms may vary (and allows for big jumps perhaps). This significantly modifies the modern synthesis but leaves Darwin where he was before.(I was about to ask a question at this point but that would spin the thread off topic. I'll propose something within the day).