[narby]

[If you want to believe that God directed it, like He directs thunderstorms, fine. But just like evaporation and condensation explains how He makes thunderstorms, evolution explains how He made species, including humans.] I will start with the last statement. It is a red herring.

It's a red herring because it's a red herring. Creationist logic.

If you believe that God can cause thunderstorms by the scientifically explained evaporation and condensing, then why is it impossible for God to cause human existence by the scientifically explained evolution?

I'd particularly enjoy it if you'd bring up some Bible verses to describe Gods creation of weather events, and compare it to the Bible's description of the creation of life and humans. I'd wager that the Bible says something to the effect that God makes the weather, and God creates life. In neither instance does the Bible describe the scientific basics, for either weather, or creation via evolution.

As for your "gains and loses" tree, you're making the assumption that entire ERV virus sections in total are inserted and removed. DNA doesn't work like that. Examine the abstract in one of the above posts, and note that it talks about the human HERV site, and that it was undisturbed by any insertion. DNA is a chain of zillions of base pairs, and once you insert an entire section, it becomes one with the genome, and it doesn't remove itself as a single entity.

[AndrewC]

I said it was a red herring. My discussion was the paper on ERV. You can try to change the subject to depth charging octopi, but it would still be a red herring.