My apologies, I thought that the post to which I had responded was from John Lenin, not you. Had I known it was someone who shamelessly lies and redefines terms to "prove" a point, including insisting that "species" means something other than what it has meant for over 100 years, I wouldn't have bothered wasting my time.
No, there is just a mountain of evidence. Evolution happens to be your pet favorite ideology. Thus to you it is the best
explanation in absence of any proof.
Fossils prove one thing - something died. There is no dna or family history to cross-examine to determine anything beyond that. You may not like that fact, but it is nonetheless a fact.
As for your nonsense about "ERV insertion points" I seem to remember discussions about "Junk DNA". As it turns out, there is nothing "Junk" about it - zip. And the only strong conclusion to be made is that from ignorance, your side slapped a label on from hypothesis and were slapped by reality when proven wrong. The norm in evo "science".
As for deciding without examining the claims, I think the whole point of these threads for years has been an examination of one claim after another that's been made and knocked down. You guys call this "science" as though we're all supposed to give you a pass when your claim doesn't pan out and let it roll off while you shift to the next evolution subtheory replacement in the arsenal.
To me, if you were pursuing science instead of your conclusion, we'd know a lot more and have to discard a lot less making you all look less moronic. But, hey, that's just me.