So mutation caused by ERV insertion and transposition CAN cause adaptation to changing environments (evolution, “micro” or otherwise) but mutation by nucleotide substitution cannot?
You don't know what a “young” or “old” ERV sequence would look like? This betrays that you do not even understand the premise that Biologists use when establishing ERV’s as evidence of common descent.
In other words your stunning “refutation” didn't even address the subject, because YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND THE SUBJECT (even after I have explained it to you several times, no less).
Hard to refute something with an argument that doesn't even address the issue; and then have to ask me to explain what the issue is AGAIN.
==Evolution would be the previously “accepted” adaptation to selective pressure of changing environments. Even if you want to call it “micro” evolution, it most certainly is not “de-evolution”.
There really isn’t any evidence for micro evolution either. Creationists and many IDers maintain that organisms have been frontloaded with directed strategies to adapt to changing environments, and the evidence is increasingly bearing this out. This type of adaptation is the antithesis of organisms that survive random mutation.
==You don’t know what a “young” or “old” ERV sequence would look like?
Yes, I do. But I’m not going to do your work for you, dreamer. I want you to commit yourself to YOUR position in writing. I’m not gonna go around putting words in your mouth and then responding, only to have you accuse me of setting up a straw man.
==In other words your stunning “refutation” didn’t even address the subject, because YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND THE SUBJECT (even after I have explained it to you several times, no less).
Classic case of projection on your part. In reality, I have had to explain your Temple of Darwin errors with respect to ERVs (and a host of other areas) many times. You know this. That is why you won’t state your ERV argument, because you are afraid to get pinned down and defeated (as per usual).