[Diamond]

IF the TOE is accurate, we might find viral insertions that are common to multiple related species...we already have multiple matching lines of retroviruses found in the evolutionary tree! So, at some point in the chain of events described above, there's obviously something you disagree with. It would be really informative to know where that point is. Personally I can't really understand how not to be convinced by such evidence, but at the same time I understand that some people (at least think they) already know the TRUTH®, and will not be convinced whatever the evidence.

Well, if you're trying to prove a claim of universal common ancestry then this evidence is insufficient because there are no examples of ‘shared errors’ that link mammals to other branches of the genealogic tree. It also is insufficient to establish common ancestry because it is based on the the presumption that the retroviruses are non-functional (because of the presumed randomness of the retrovirus insertion.) But just because we don't know what the function might be or have been in the past doesn't mean that there is no function. Also there is some evidence to support the idea that some of these may serve functions, and that their insertion is not entirely random.

Cordially,

[anguish]

Well, if you're trying to prove a claim of universal common ancestry then this evidence is insufficient because there are no examples of ‘shared errors’ that link mammals to other branches of the genealogic tree.

This example is of course only for the species in the diagram. I don't follow the research on retroviruses closely enough to tell what parts of the evolutionary tree has been tied together like this. Of course, I'm not trying to prove anything, as that's really outside of science's scope (unless you're of the school that includes math in the scientific realm), but merely to present evidence.

It also is insufficient to establish common ancestry because it is based on the the presumption that the retroviruses are non-functional

Of course this evidence can be falsified, just like DNA tests to establish paternity could, but that has yet to happen.

Also there is some evidence to support the idea that some of these may serve functions, and that their insertion is not entirely random.

Such as?