[From many - one.]

Methinks I see a frequently repeated error here, unless Microgood is ignoring rather than forgetting about viral insertions.

[narby]

Methinks I see a frequently repeated error here, unless Microgood is ignoring rather than forgetting about viral insertions.

You may be correct. It's difficult to tell the difference between the various ID/creationists without being able to see the numbers on their jerseys.

But since microgood apparently is ignoring my challenge to support his claim that "evolutionists violate all the rules of logic when coming to their conclusions", it does make sense that he would ignore the evidence presented about ERV insertions. This may rise to the level of "frequently repeated error".

[microgood]

Methinks I see a frequently repeated error here, unless Microgood is ignoring rather than forgetting about viral insertions.

Even if you assume viral insertions are valid (and random, another assumption), that still does not get you back to a singularity of life, just back to our common ancestor with a chimp. That is as far back as DNA takes you.

As far as viral insertions go, in an age where we still think 98% of DNA is junk DNA, I am not sure if we are quite there yet when it comes to understanding the genome. In any case, noone can say for sure how the viral insertion got in both places, but the common ancestry theory is at least a logical possibility based on what we know today, if you assume randomness, which I have my doubts about.