“Theory of Evolution (often referred to as microevolution). This is the kind of evolution to which practically all people subscribe, and over which there is no controversy. It suggests that limited change, within narrow limits, occurs throughout all living things. I know of no one who would deny this point. Creationists agree to its factuality, as do atheistic evolutionists. Years ago (to list just three examples), Brangus cattle, Cockapoo dogs, and 1,000+ varieties of roses did not exist. But today they do. Why? Simply stated, it is because evolution has occurred......
Dr. Kerkut identified, defined, and discussed what he termed the General Theory of Evolution (often referred to as macroevolution). He stated: “On the other hand, there is the theory that all the living forms in the world have arisen from a single source which itself came from an inorganic form. This theory can be called the ‘General Theory of Evolution’...” (1960, p. 157). This is what is referred to commonly as organic evolution, atheistic evolution, or simply “evolution.” Through the years, numerous investigators have offered various definitions of evolution....”
Dr Thompson
As it appears you didn’t understand it I will explain it.
Retrovirus can sometimes infect germline cells and get a copy of their genome into a cell that will grow into an entire organism. That organism will have a copy of that ERV in every cell of its body at the location where it entered - and all descendents that inherit that chromosome will have a copy of that ERV in every cell at the same location. Over time mutations will accumulate in that ERV sequence at the intrinsic mutation rate (DNA polymerase is not 100% accurate and every time DNA is copies errors are introduced).
So say we have an ERV that is present in only SOME tiger populations- it looks “young” in that it’s sequence is very close to the virus.
Now say we have an ERV that is present in ALL tiger populations - it looks “older” in that it’s sequence deviates from the virus by a significant amount.
Now say we have an ERV that is present in all tigers and all jaguars - it looks “much older” in that it’s sequence deviates quite a bit more from the virus.
Now if an ERV is found in tigers and jaguars - it will almost certainly ALSO be found in lions when you look for it. Yet ones of the appropriate “age” found in tigers and lions will NOT be found in jaguars.
This is evidence that tigers and lions share a more recent common ancestor than either does with a jaguar - but that all three do indeed share a common ancestor.
There is a HUGE amount of evidence (it isn’t and never will be “proof” - science doesn’t do “proof”) for common descent of species - i.e. macro evolution.
NOW can you answer my questions? Or are you just going to demand more and move the goalposts again? Can you demonstrate any familiarity with the subject you are arguing against - or even familiarity with the argument you are saying is superior?