[allmendream]

As well as being consistent with the observed phylogenetic relationships found in the nested hierarchies of similarity and divergence in endogenous retroviral sequences.

We can observe this same pattern cropping up in diverging populations, and this process is at a speed consistent with the observed rates of interspecies difference accumulation.

That is Science. (to take it back to the title of the thread)

You observe a process. Measure its rate. Explain natural phenomena with natural observed and measured causes. Determine if what you observe is consistent with current theory. Publish. Publish and get a Nobel if you get to change the theory in light of your new evidence.

This micro macro drivel is like saying that the “micro” erosion observed and measured currently is not sufficient to explain the “macro” erosion of valleys and canyons.

[betty boop]

We can observe this same pattern cropping up in diverging populations, and this process is at a speed consistent with the observed rates of interspecies difference accumulation.

Indeed. And yet — correlation does not prove causation. If we see patterns in nature, chances are they are not developments from "the random" — especially if such patterns are observable "across domains." If we see they are ubiquitous, we need to ask why.

But will "science" let us ask that question???