Science Disproves Evolution

No no, the first animals to develop eyes didn't eat nothing. They ate other animals and life that had no eyes.

You need to state your claim.
YOU have said retroviruses make the genome bigger.

Retro virus. You need to explain your claim.

That's... that's not how it works at all..? Do you really think that's how evolution works? Survival of the fittest. If there were animals out there who couldn't see and didn't have other means of protecting themselves then they got eaten first. You're not going to find many blind animals in the wild (compared to the amount of blind humans there are) because they will get eaten quite fast. And wolves and sheep have always had eyes. They didn't evolve without eyes then get them later, because again they would have died off really fast.

However there are animals that can't see, like bats. Except bats have extremely good hearing and therefore have developed other means to survive. Now you take bats out of their habitat (caves, dark places where there isn't much light and therefore it's hard for them to be spotted) and you put them outside during the day, or take them to an area where they can't find shelter during sunlight hours, they're going to get eaten very fast unless they develop a way to survive in the new environment. If they can then they'll likely have new features (perhaps eyesight?), if they can't develop quick enough then they'll go extinct.

Thanks for the input.
Now go away.
(I'm just kidding)
- I'm using a form of sarcasm.
- - Stay, I was kidding.

Yikes, thanks for the friendly welcome. You're debating on a public forum, you know.

I was kidding!

But all twenty seemed to come into their own way of seeing at about the same time.
- That seems like a real stroke of luck. (to me at least)

a full set of working eyes and the hardware in the brain and in-between don't just mutate spontaneously in one generation.

to believe eyes are the product of evolution, you have to believe that there were many intermediary, non-functioning steps, don't you?

how did the first protozoid with a semi-ocular, non-functional blob of cellular material poking out of it gain a reproductive advantage?

Warts on the head of the emerging bat.
Turned into eyes.
- Yea, that seems reasonable.
And flies spontaneously generating from rancid meat seems reasonable to me also.....(It did to Darwin)

Oh okay my claim was that the genome size can increase through DNA insertions from mechanisms like retroviruses.

I was trying to get you to expand on your claim that that is wrong, but I'll go first if you aren't familiar with retroviruses:
Retroviruses are viruses that insert their DNA into ours, then like regular viruses, highjack our cellular machinery to replicate themselves. Often they lay dormant for a long time, and often they entirely fail to activate or are harmless, and the host cell survives with it's new section of inserted endogenous DNA.
If this happens in a somatic cell, this vanishes within the generation, but if it happens in a sex cell (sperm, egg, recently fertilized egg) it can be passed on to all the cells of the body and down through the generations as a permanent addition to the genome.

Unrelated to how this lengthens the genome, it's also a very powerful evidence for common ancestry. Some endogenous retrovirus codes (ERVs) insert at specific sites in the genome, but some are known to insert in a random spot, e.g. after any 'gttac', of which there are an astronomical amount. When one of these randomly placed ERV codes is in the same location in all the members of two populations, it amounts to very strong evidence that the ERV infection happened in a common ancestor to both population.
It is astronomically unlikely for any two organisms to share the same randomly placing ERV code in the same spot in the genome, and it not be the result of inheritance- and all life shares some ERV codes, the most ancient ones. Others are shared by groups of families of animals, painting the family tree in extraordinary detail.

i tell you what, every living species i've seen, mutants are sort of shunned when it comes to reproduction, not highly prized. perhaps animal-kind has forgotten how to evolve, and things were different in the far reaches of time.

That's hardly the first stage of eye development I tend to imagine!
I think of slug-like animals with functional light sensitive cells, nothing non-functional poking out. Although it only models one history of eyes, and not eyes like trilobite's, I picture slugs that eat algae that grows in the light, would have had a reproductive advantage if they learnt to move towards any warmth they felt falling on their body. An increase in this sensitivity would have lead to some light sensitivity, and eventually the directional adaptations for seeing it from far away.

What about the famous super-cow, with the mutation to grow ultra muscles?
Or the ?Norwegian? boy with the same mutation, girls might love his super strength and muscular physique

(edit: the boy has a mutation, but the super-cow is from breeding together animals born muscly [which in itself is a form of mutation])

I see.
But a virus is intent on taking over the host is it not?
Millions die from them annually.
So to me, this 'extra input' is a minus, except for inoculation.

Correct me if I'm wrong.

A virus is intent on reproducing itself, they don't always actively aim to harm the host, in fact it's often in their best interest to keep the host alive long enough to pass themselves on- but the kind of viruses we are talking about here have failed, like dud bullets, sitting stuck in the chamber and never to fire.


The DNA they input to lengthen the genome is immediately typically neutral, often a minus and sometimes even a slight plus on it's own, because the repeating sections they insert either side of them tend to activate nearby genes that weren't meant to be activated. Random gene activations of dormant genes are almost always bad.
But these neutral sections can eventually be acted upon by evolution and put to use as part of the host's genome, with it's own novel functions.

You said this.

And I provided 18 pieces of evidence that show the reptilian features of archaeopteryx.
All About Archaeopteryx

Do you have a problem with Tiktaalik not meeting the criteria of a transitional form as
well? Maybe I can point you to the scientific findings again.
Tiktaalik - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So your claim is that God made heaven and earth, and saw that it was good.
- Then introduced viruses into it to be mutually beneficial recombinant.

Listen Phillipy, you are smart and I enjoy talking to you but that just doesn't pass muster.

Well... Yeah!
You think a similar thing just without any beneficial effects from some retroviruses, that God made heaven and Earth, saw it was good- then introduced viruses for purely harmful reasons. I just see some benefits they bring

All ten fossils found in a certain spot in germany 'ey?

No others found anywhere else on the earth.
That strikes me as odd.

But even so, you will see it is a bird by the bone structure of the wings.
A prehistoric bird, but a bird nonetheless.

It's His total grace!

I'm out.
What satan meant for evil God turned around for good!
Blessings!
Talk to you all later.........