Evidence for Evolution

[abu_kamoon]

Evidence shows that some were gradually buried. Trees, for example, are forming as polystrate fossils not far from where I live, as sediments accumulate in a grove flooded by a dam some decades ago. Others, such as fish, were buried in anoxic conditions by lamina formed by sediment from a series of deposits such as would be seen in runoff from storms. We see such things happening today, also.

Gradually buried? But the strata are supposed to represent thousands (or maybe millions of years). Do you believe that dead trees stood for all this time without decomposing?

Not the poles. The continents. Magnetic particles in rock, which freeze when the rock is formed, show where a continent was at the time the rock formed. And the data nicely fits with the fossil evidence. Oh, and the movement of the continents is still continuing and measurable, at rates that fit the paleontological data.

But tropical vegetation is found everywhere. Where is the land that was in the polar regions?

Mostly not “worldwide.” And if they had no contact with each other, they wouldn’t exist. So this means either that most cultures experienced disasterous floods at some time, or the Ark story is literally true. Your claim is like hearing hoofbeats and assuming it’s a unicorn.

I am referring to aboriginal Australians, and people living on island in the South Pacific, as well as tribes in Africa and South America. They had these flood stories before making contact with Europeans or Americans.

Catholic view (as expressed by Pope Benedict XVI): All forms of life descending from the simplest single celled life form.

If Pope Benedict XVI said that, it is his opinion, not the opinion of the Catholic Church. Otherwise, he would be saying that the vast majority of Church Fathers were in error for failing to recognize this fact. As we all know, the Pope is not impeccable. When the Pope states evolution to be a fact in an ex cathedra manner, there will be a problem. I don’t think that day will ever come.

Observations of natural and laboratory populations have frequently shown beneficial mutations becoming established. Would you like to learn about some of them?

I think I do. I have yet to hear about a beneficial species “evolving” as a result of radiation induced mutations.

The age of the Earth is:
Creationist view: Unknown, but probably measured in the thousands of years (maybe 10,000-15,000)

Measured actual age, about 4.5 billion years old. Would you like to learn how we know?

I know how you arrive at this age. Why don’t you try one of the other systems for arriving at the age of an object, rather than Carbon 14? How do you explain phenomena like volcanic rock from an island that appeared less than two hundred years ago being dated in millions of years old? This is not an unusual thing. The truth is, carbon 14 is not a reliable dating system for objects more that a few thousand years old. For one thing, how does “science” know that the rate of decay has remained constant?

Death:
Creationist view: The Death incurred by Adam was a physical one.

Christian view:
The death was a spiritual one, as described in Genesis.

I have heard this before. All I can think of is Martin Luther adding the word “alone” after the word “faith”. The Bible does not say “spiritual death”, it says “death”. Why do Modernist Catholics follow in the foot steps of Martin Luther?

Christian view:
Many species appeared and died out before man appeared.

Creationist view: Humans were created in the image of God.

Christian view: The image of God is in our immortal soul and mind. It does not mean that God has toenails.

My understanding is that it refers to our nature, having a body, a mind and a soul. But the Bible says we were “created” in the image of God, not that we “evolved” into the image of God.

We continue to evolve, and from time to time, a favorable mutation appears in the population and spreads.

Such as?

There’s a wide gulf between what you say and what science says. But you are not God.

That’s correct. I am not God. And I don’t go around correcting His word. This is the arrogance of some scientists. They claim to have figured God out. They claim to know what He really meant.

In the real God. You should, too. Let Him be God.

 

[The_Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
Evidence shows that some were gradually buried. Trees, for example, are forming as polystrate fossils not far from where I live, as sediments accumulate in a grove flooded by a dam some decades ago. Others, such as fish, were buried in anoxic conditions by lamina formed by sediment from a series of deposits such as would be seen in runoff from storms. We see such things happening today, also.

Gradually buried?

But the strata are supposed to represent thousands (or maybe millions of years).

Some are. Some are annual, and some are daily. You’ve been too trusting of people who told you those stories.

Do you believe that dead trees stood for all this time without decomposing?

I’ve been watching it happen for several decades now. No problem.

Barbarian observes:
Not the poles. The continents.

But tropical vegetation is found everywhere. Where is the land that was in the polar regions?

Not surprisingly, there are other strata that show colder climates. The same land, but at a different time.

Barbarian observes:
Your claim is like hearing hoofbeats and assuming it’s a unicorn.

I am referring to aboriginal Australians, and people living on island in the South Pacific, as well as tribes in Africa and South America. They had these flood stories before making contact with Europeans or Americans.

You think there were no disastrous floods in Australia or South America? Amazing.

Barbarian observes:
Catholic view (as expressed by Pope Benedict XVI): All forms of life descending from the simplest single celled life form.

If Pope Benedict XVI said that, it is his opinion, not the opinion of the Catholic Church.

I find him a bit more credible than you. Go figure.

Barbarian observes:
Would you like to learn about some of them?

I think I do.

Here’s one:

**Evolution of a New Enzymatic Function by Recombination within a Gene

Barry G. Hall and Timothy Zuzel

Mutations that alter the ebgA gene so that the evolved ß -galactosidase (ebg) enzyme of Escherichia coli can hydrolyze lactose fall into two classes: class I mutants use only lactose, whereas class II mutants use lactulose as well as lactose. Neither class uses galactosylarabinose effectively. In this paper we show that when both a class I and a class II mutation are present in the same ebgA gene, ebg enzyme acquires a specificity for galactosylarabinose. Although galactosylarabinose utilization can evolve as the consequence of sequential spontaneous mutations, it can also evolve via intragenic recombination in crosses between class I and class II ebgA+ mutant strains. We show that the sites for class I and class II mutations lie about 1 kilobase, or about a third of the gene, apart in ebgA. Implications of these findings with respect to the evolution of new metabolic functions are discussed. **

The age of the Earth is:
Creationist view: Unknown, but probably measured in the thousands of years (maybe 10,000-15,000)

Barbarian observes:
Measured actual age, about 4.5 billion years old.

I know how you arrive at this age.

Um, no you don’t. Here’s the evidence that you don’t:

Why don’t you try one of the other systems for arriving at the age of an object, rather than Carbon 14?

Carbon 14 cannot be used to obtain the age of the Earth.

How do you explain phenomena like volcanic rock from an island that appeared less than two hundred years ago being dated in millions of years old?

Xenocrysts. In many cases, the rock is a mixture of minerals, some of which may not be melted, and therefore will date very old, even in fresh lava.

For one thing, how does “science” know that the rate of decay has remained constant?

Actually, under the sort of heat and radiation you’d get inside a star, it actually speeds up a bit. But if we had that kind of thing on Earth, there wouldn’t be an Earth.

Creationist view: The Death incurred by Adam was a physical one.

Christian view:
The death was a spiritual one, as described in Genesis.

I have heard this before. All I can think of is Martin Luther adding the word “alone” after the word “faith”.

How do we know this? Because God told Adam he would die the day he ate from the tree. Adam ate from the tree, but lived on for many years after. Either God wasn’t telling the truth, or that death was not a physical one.

Like Luther, you’ve added your own ideas to Scripture to make it more acceptable to you.

Creationist view: Humans were created in the image of God.

Christian view: The image of God is in our immortal soul and mind. It does not mean that God has toenails.

My understanding is that it refers to our nature, having a body, a mind and a soul.

Where in Scripture or the teaching of the Church does it say God has a physical body that looks like ours?

But the Bible says we were “created” in the image of God, not that we “evolved” into the image of God.

Makes sense. Souls don’t evolve. Populations do.

Barbarian observes:
favorable mutation appears in the population and spreads.

Such as?

Lactose tolerance, resistance to HIV, resistance to arteriosclerosis, among others.

Barbarian observes:
There’s a wide gulf between what you say and what science says. But you are not God.

That’s correct. I am not God. And I don’t go around correcting His word.

You did, with regard to Genesis.

This is the arrogance of some scientists.

And a few nonscientists hereabouts.

Let God be God. You’ll be happier that way.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Evolution is still true, and your’re faith is the problem. When you get that, you can move on and stop looking foolish by suggesting that your opinion is worth more than millions of dedicated experts. I find it works best if you put a finger in each ear, and recite the Hail Mary loudly to block out the truth. Sadly amidst your frightened protests of “I believe in genesis,” God sees the desperation in your heart and knows that deep down you know you are wrong. I’m afraid unbelief even though denied won’t work. If you’re faith were genuine, you would see that. Instead its a philosophy of fear you are clinging to.

 

[mapleoak]

Christian view: The image of God is in our immortal soul and mind. It does not mean that God has toenails.

Incorrect. Both body and soul were created in the image and likeness of God. And yes, the transcendant and risen Body of Christ has toenails.

 

[The_Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
Christian view: The image of God is in our immortal soul and mind. It does not mean that God has toenails.

Incorrect. Both body and soul were created in the image and likeness of God.

No.

A sect of Christians that arose in the fourth century in Syria and extended into Scythia, sometimes called Audians, from their founder, Audius. Taking the text of Genesis, i, 27, literally, Audius held that God has a human form. The error was so gross, and, to use St. Jerome’s expression (Epist. vi, Ad Pammachium), so absolutely senseless, that it showed no vitality. Towards the end of the century it appeared among some bodies of African Christians. The Fathers who wrote against it dismiss it almost contemptuously. In the time of Cyril of Alexandria, there were some anthropomorphites among the Egyptian monks. He composed a short refutation of their error, which he attributed to extreme ignorance. (Adv. Anthrop. in P.G., LXXVI.) Concerning the charges of anthropomorphism preferred against Melito, Tertullian, Origen, and Lactantius, see the respective articles. The error was revived in northern Italy during the tenth century, but was effectually suppressed by the bishops, notably by the learned Ratherius, Bishop of Verona.
Catholic Encyclopedia

And yes, the transcendant and risen Body of Christ has toenails.

Precisely because Christ became fully human as well as fully God. He has a body, because He is fully human, not because He is fully God.

 

[abu_kamoon]

People exposed to solar radiation in the summer get darker. They do not evolve darker skins. Their body has limits as to how dark they can beome. No matter how long I remain in the sun, no one is likely to confuse me with Ray Charles (at least when he was alive).

By the same token, within the human race, skin color can very from almost white to almost black. It will always tend toward Earth tones. To my knowledge, green people have never been observed, even in Ireland on St Patrick’s Day. The same goes for blue.

Each organism has parameters with regard to size, color, longevity & c. There are people who are taller than me, but there are no people twenty feet tall. There are limits within each species. These are called variation.

An individual can develop a tolerance for a drug, or can become addicted to a drug. This is not evolution.

Within a species, certain individuals have immunities to various toxins, diseases, conditions & c. When a population is hit by an epidemic, the majority of the population may be wiped out. Those that survive do not evolve an immunity (some individuals devlope an immunity as antibodies are produced in their system). Rather, the surviving population which was resistant to the disease pass on this immunity to their offspring. Some people think this is somehow proof of evolution.

In short, an organism cannot develop something that is not already there. There is no mechanism for this. Either a recessive trait is present, or it is not. It cannot evolve.

 

[masterjedi747]

To my knowledge, green people have never been observed, even in Ireland on St Patrick’s Day. The same goes for blue.

Don’t look now, but… (click on the smiley face)

But I’ll let other people dismantle your simple arguments, I don’t have time at the moment.
(But if they’re still unanswered by the time I return, I promise I’ll do it myself.)

 

[Brian_Millar]

People exposed to solar radiation in the summer get darker. They do not evolve darker skins. Their body has limits as to how dark they can beome. No matter how long I remain in the sun, no one is likely to confuse me with Ray Charles (at least when he was alive).

By the same token, within the human race, skin color can very from almost white to almost black. It will always tend toward Earth tones. To my knowledge, green people have never been observed, even in Ireland on St Patrick’s Day. The same goes for blue.

Each organism has parameters with regard to size, color, longevity & c. There are people who are taller than me, but there are no people twenty feet tall. There are limits within each species. These are called variation.

An individual can develop a tolerance for a drug, or can become addicted to a drug. This is not evolution.

Within a species, certain individuals have immunities to various toxins, diseases, conditions & c. When a population is hit by an epidemic, the majority of the population may be wiped out. Those that survive do not evolve an immunity (some individuals devlope an immunity as antibodies are produced in their system). Rather, the surviving population which was resistant to the disease pass on this immunity to their offspring. Some people think this is somehow proof of evolution.

In short, an organism cannot develop something that is not already there. There is no mechanism for this. Either a recessive trait is present, or it is not. It cannot evolve.

This is exactly what I’ve been trying to express all along, we have so much to explore with what has been put in place from the beginning, it’s a whole new science that is not even given the time of day, as evolution has plowed over any other possible perspective. Good for you for posting it!!!

 

[Steve40]

Now the piece of evidence which convinced me, once and for all, of the reality of evolution was the presence of endogenous retroviruses (ERVs) in the same location in the genome in all the major primate groups, including humans. An ERV is a virus which imbeds itself in the DNA (RNA-to-DNA is done using reverse transcriptase). Typically the virus then takes over the cell’s replication machinery until it dies. However, if something goes “wrong” in the process the DNA will enter the host DNA and stay there. Should this happen in a germline cell, and this be the gamete used for reproduction, this ERV copy will be passed on to the offspring. There are 12 or 13 of these ERVs which have been found so far (geneticists please correct if there are more) in the same location in the genome, and they follow the standard phylogeny among primates.

It can shown that this is strong evidence for common descent by comparing the likelihood of the data among the various models. If one species arose by common descent from another containing the ERV, the likelihood of the ERV being in the same place in the genome is close to one (not exactly one because a deletion event is possible). What if the species were specially created? If the second species were specially created without the ERV, then the ERV would have to become inserted in a germline cell in the exact same spot, and then this would have to become fixated in the population. The likelihood is vanishingly small. What if the second species were specially created with the ERV? We will assume then that the ERV would have some function, that the likelihood that a designer would just stick some random “junk” in the DNA with no function or a deleterious function is zero or close to zero. Now in fact some ERVs do have a useful function, for instance one ERV is associated with placental formation (syncytin). Other ERVs have a deleterious effect, being associated with cancer for instance. But, in syncytin formation, the entire ERV is not associated with syncytin. An ERV consists of three genes, env, gag, and pol, as well as a long-term repeat (LTR). But only the env gene is used for syncytin production. What’s the function of the rest of the ERV? Specifically, what’s the LTR (essentially “junk”), doing there? Why would a designer use specifically an ERV for this purpose? Why not just design an ordinary gene for syncytin?

Here is the AIG interpretation of retroviruses:
answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v1/n2/were-retroviruses-created-good which kind of just makes me want to say, get real.

I don’t follow your logic. Some common genetic traits does not prove common parenthood. Have sex with an ape and produce a Child and I might agree with what you are saying. There is no evidence of links between us and the animals. The missing link is still missing.

 

[Brian_Millar]

Why would a designer use specifically an ERV for this purpose?

You don’t know it yet, that’s for God to know for now, he has a plan you know.

It can shown that this is strong evidence for common descent by comparing the likelihood of the data among the various models.

Yeah, they are called Adam and Eve, thank you for this insight, I have a book that explains it, it’s called the Bible…

According to modern reason and knowledge, inbreeding produces counterproductive offspring, thus all life evolving from a single celled creature has no chance at effective procreation, yet with divine creation, that obstical can be overcame since the creator has already thought of that, put his design into place from the beginning and did it in a way that is not permanent trait wise carried on to all generations… End of story…

 

[mapleoak]

A sect of Christians that arose in the fourth century in Syria and extended into Scythia, sometimes called Audians, from their founder, Audius. Taking the text of Genesis, i, 27, literally, Audius held that God has a human form. The error was so gross, and, to use St. Jerome’s expression (Epist. vi, Ad Pammachium), so absolutely senseless, that it showed no vitality. Towards the end of the century it appeared among some bodies of African Christians. The Fathers who wrote against it dismiss it almost contemptuously. In the time of Cyril of Alexandria, there were some anthropomorphites among the Egyptian monks. He composed a short refutation of their error, which he attributed to extreme ignorance. (Adv. Anthrop. in P.G., LXXVI.) Concerning the charges of anthropomorphism preferred against Melito, Tertullian, Origen, and Lactantius, see the respective articles. The error was revived in northern Italy during the tenth century, but was effectually suppressed by the bishops, notably by the learned Ratherius, Bishop of Verona.

Wrong reply. It was not asserted that God has man’s image, rather that man was created in the image and likeness of God. This includes both body and soul.

I refer you to the holy doctor:

Question 93. The end or term of the production of man

newadvent.org/summa/1093.htm

 

[The_Barbarian]

The link you gave me also refutes your notion that God is anthropomorphic:

Augustine says (Gen. ad lit. vi, 12): “Man’s excellence consists in the fact that God made him to His own image by giving him an intellectual soul, which raises him above the beasts of the field.” Therefore things without intellect are not made to God’s image.

It is an error to assume that God has a body and a physical appearance of man.

 

[mapleoak]

It is an error to assume that God has a body and a physical appearance of man.

Not that God has a body and a physical appearance of man, but that man’s body is an imperfect image of the likeness of God.
Do you deny that God has a human nature?

 

[The_Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
It is an error to assume that God has a body and a physical appearance of man.

Not that God has a body and a physical appearance of man, but that man’s body is an imperfect image of the likeness of God.

Sounds like tapdancing to me.

Do you deny that God has a human nature?

Precisely because the Son became man, and therefore wholly man as well as wholly God.

Moreover, since God is eternal and the same, He cannot be said to have a body, since Jesus did not have a body eternally, but assumed humanity in historical time.

God is a spirit. He is not anthropomorphic. That was refuted long ago.

 

[drpmjhess]

I don’t follow your logic. Some common genetic traits does not prove common parenthood. Have sex with an ape and produce a Child and I might agree with what you are saying. There is no evidence of links between us and the animals. The missing link is still missing.

Not at all – there is a rich array of both fossil and genetic evidence in support of evolution.

 

[The_Barbarian]

Steve, would you be willing to put your assumption to a test? If you like, we can examine the evidence, and see if it’s true.

 

[masterjedi747]

…man was created in the image and likeness of God.This includes both body and soul.

Just to help clear things up…
From the Baltimore Catechism**:**

Q. 133. What is man?
A. Man is a creature composed of body and soul, and made to the image and likeness of God.

Q. 136. Is this likeness in the body or in the soul?
A. This likeness is chiefly in the soul.

Q. 137. How is the soul like to God?
A. The soul is like to God because it is a spirit that will never die, and has understanding and free will.

People exposed to solar radiation in the summer get darker. They do not evolve darker skins.

Individuals don’t evolve. Evolution happens on the scale of a species (or a part of a species) as a whole, not on the individual level.

By the same token, within the human race, skin color can very from almost white to almost black. It will always tend toward Earth tones.

Perhaps you’d like to answer this: We are all descended from Adam and Eve, yes? What color was their skin? More than one color? Because obviously we have many many different shades of native skin color today, which just so happen to vary according to the climate of the individual region. There’s a very good reason that Africans have black skin, and an equally good reason that skin shades grow lighter as you move further away from the equator. Yes, human beings have evolved different shades of skin in order to best adapt to their environment.

There are people who are taller than me, but there are no people twenty feet tall.

And there’s a good reason for that, too.

Each organism has parameters with regard to size, color, longevity &c. There are limits within each species. These are called variation.

The limits (“parameters”) change as the species evolves.

An individual can develop a tolerance for a drug, or can become addicted to a drug. This is not evolution.

You’re still focusing on the individual level. Don’t.

Within a species, certain individuals have immunities to various toxins, diseases, conditions & c. When a population is hit by an epidemic, the majority of the population may be wiped out. Those that survive do not evolve an immunity (some individuals devlope an immunity as antibodies are produced in their system). Rather, the surviving population which was resistant to the disease pass on this immunity to their offspring. Some people think this is somehow proof of evolution.

That’s natural selection. Related to, but not the same as evolution.

In short, an organism cannot develop something that is not already there. There is no mechanism for this.

Yes, there is. It’s called mutation.

 

[abu_kamoon]

Just to help clear things up…
From the Baltimore Catechism**:**

Q. 133. What is man?
A. Man is a creature composed of body and soul, and made to the image and likeness of God.

Q. 136. Is this likeness in the body or in the soul?
A. This likeness is chiefly in the soul.

Q. 137. How is the soul like to God?
A. The soul is like to God because it is a spirit that will never die, and has understanding and free will.

Individuals don’t evolve. Evolution happens on the scale of a species (or a part of a species) as a whole, not on the individual level.

Perhaps you’d like to answer this: We are all descended from Adam and Eve, yes? What color was their skin? More than one color? Because obviously we have many many different shades of native skin color today, which just so happen to vary according to the climate of the individual region. There’s a very good reason that Africans have black skin, and an equally good reason that skin shades grow lighter as you move further away from the equator. Yes, human beings have evolved different shades of skin in order to best adapt to their environment.

I would like to put this idea to rest, once and for all. I was told this nonsense about people “evolving” darker skin color as they lived closer to the equator. I looked at a map, and wanted to know why the South American Indians aren’t as dark as most native Africans. Also, you might notice that Eskimos are darker than most Europeans. How can this be? I’ll explain it.

Skin color, as well as other physical traits are the result of inbreeding which bring these traits to the surface. And this does not take thousands (or millions) of years, it takes only a few generations. Horse and dog breeders have known this for centuries.

What did the first two people look like? If you were able to interbreed all the variables in existence, as well as those who have become extinct, you would have a pretty good idea. The first two parents of the human race posessed all the traits for all the variations that have developed throughout the history of the human race. Again, there is NO EVOLUTION.

And there’s a good reason for that, too.

The limits (“parameters”) change as the species evolves.

Species do not evolve. No species has ever changed into another species. This is fantasy.

You’re still focusing on the individual level. Don’t.

That’s natural selection. Related to, but not the same as evolution.

You are correct. Natural selection, or survival of the fittest is a fact. Evolution is not.

Yes, there is. It’s called mutation.

I have already addressed the idea of mutation which was attempted in the laboratory fifty years ago by exposing fruit flies to radiation. The mutations were anything but beneficial. Why is it that evolutionists’ ideas are opposed to what we see in nature?

 

[Michael_G]

‘Expelled’ looks at academia’s efforts to silence opposition to Darwinism Allie Martin - OneNewsNow - 4/18/2008 8:00:00 AM

http://www.onenewsnow.com/uploadedImages/Media/Images/expelled_movie.jpgA movie opening in theaters nationwide today examines how educators and scientists are being ridiculed, denied tenure, and even fired for questioning Darwinism.

The movie is called Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed and stars Ben Stein. Filmed in documentary style, Expelled shows the viewer how the debate about the origin of life is one-sided on college campuses and academic institutions worldwide.

Also featured in the documentary are professors on both sides of the issue – those who have been blacklisted because they question Darwinism, and those who defend evolution and refuse to believe that the universe could have been brought about by an intelligent being.

Stein, who is a former presidential speechwriter, actor, and author, finds it amazing that many of the intellectual elite allow no dissent from Darwin’s theory of random mutation and natural selection.

“The intelligentsia said at a certain point that Adolf Hitler was the wave of the future, and so the intelligentsia is often wrong and in fact I’d say they’re wrong at least as often as they’re right,” explains Stein. “We aim to show that they’re wrong again. You know what else? We’re sick of being pushed around by the intelligentsia.”

According to Stein, Darwinism played a role in the Holocaust as the social elite of that time used Darwinian principles to justify purging society of “inferior” races. He also warns that in today’s culture, Darwinism is continuing to have a negative impact on social and moral issues.

Stein and the movie’s producers are hopeful Expelled will spark more freedom when it comes to teaching about the origins of life.

 

[SeekingCatholic]

I don’t follow your logic. Some common genetic traits does not prove common parenthood.

You could follow the logic. You just choose not to. That’s your prerogative. I spelled it out clearly though. Some common genetic traits such as ERVs provide very strong evidence for common parenthood, as I have shown. Just closing your eyes won’t make the evidence go away.

**It can shown that this is strong evidence for common descent by comparing the likelihood of the data among the various models. **If one species arose by common descent from another containing the ERV, the likelihood of the ERV being in the same place in the genome is close to one (not exactly one because a deletion event is possible). What if the species were specially created? If the second species were specially created without the ERV, then the ERV would have to become inserted in a germline cell in the exact same spot, and then this would have to become fixated in the population. The likelihood is vanishingly small. What if the second species were specially created with the ERV? We will assume then that the ERV would have some function, that the likelihood that a designer would just stick some random “junk” in the DNA with no function or a deleterious function is zero or close to zero. Now in fact some ERVs do have a useful function, for instance one ERV is associated with placental formation (syncytin). Other ERVs have a deleterious effect, being associated with cancer for instance. But, in syncytin formation, the entire ERV is not associated with syncytin. An ERV consists of three genes, env, gag, and pol, as well as a long-term repeat (LTR). But only the env gene is used for syncytin production. What’s the function of the rest of the ERV? Specifically, what’s the LTR (essentially “junk”), doing there? Why would a designer use specifically an ERV for this purpose? Why not just design an ordinary gene for syncytin?

In order to refute the claim, you need to show that I was wrong somehow in estimating the likelihood under the various models.

Have sex with an ape and produce a Child and I might agree with what you are saying. There is no evidence of links between us and the animals. The missing link is still missing.

No alleged “missing link” (whatever that means) or ape-human hybrid would satisfy you, for you’ve already made up your mind. Again, that’s your prerogative. However you have not come anywhere close to refuting the claim that there is evidence for evolution.