So you’re saying that if bits and pieces of different ERVs are recombined, it won’t have any effect on how old they look (from an evo perspective)? Please!
As for frontloaded/directed adaptation strategies, I don’t see how this would result in genetic degeneration, unless, of course, random subsitutions enter the equation. Quite the contrary, frontloaded adaptive mutations would not increase or decrease the amount of information contained in the genome/epigenome...it would remain the same. However, overall, the evidence does seem to suggest that that our genomes are degenerating at a steady rate, and that whatever random subsitutions/copy errors creep into the genome are almost always harmful.
And for the life of me, I fail to see how you are unable to understand the difference between Creation/Intelligent Design vs. evolution. Creation/ID says the cell is programmed by a programmer, whereas the Temple of Darwinistic Materialism says the cell is programmed by random processes plus survival. The difference between them couldn’t be more stark. Creation/ID looks at nature and sees that life only comes from life, intelligence only from intelligence, digital programs only from digital programmers; whereas the Temple of Darwin believes that life comes from non-life, intelligence from non-intelligence, and that digital programs spring from inanimate matter. Do you have any idea how foolish you guys look to those of us who have not sacrificed our minds to the Temple of Darwin cult?
And get it straight...I consider virtually all random substitutions to be detrimental, whereas directed substitutions of already existing nucleotides are usually beneficial, unless of course random errors insert themselves into the process.
Once again your so called explanation doesn't explain why we would see that pattern.
So if it is beneficial it is a “directed” mutation, but if it is detrimental it is part of De-evolution?
Is adaptation of a population to its environment an example of evolution or de-evolution according to you GGG?