A viral intron happening at the same location in independent events would be a truly staggering coincidence. For the DNA record to be just as compatitible with common design as common descent, this staggering coincidence would have to be repeated to account for thousands of viral introns that have been cataloged across multiple genomes up and down the tree of life. It simply cannot have happened as often as you need it.
But it's worse than that. These viral scars are themselves subject to mutation, and that's what we see. Some primate gets a virus which imbeds its DNA in a germ-line cell nucleus but fails to coopt the cell function per the usual plan. Instead, the cell reproduces normally, even with the splice of virus genome inserted. A baby is born with a harmless marker in its DNA.
Millions of years later, you can tell whether a primate came out of that lineage or not by whether the marker is present. Furthermore, you can guess how long ago the marker was inserted by the amount of mutations accumulated among the variations.
That does not spell "common designer." It screams "common descent." That's what we see. You have a tree of DNA relatedness. It has mutations on top of mutations. The connectedness lacking in the fossil record (because of the spottiness of the fossilization process itself) is present in the DNA picture. Big mutations help outline major branching points, but these accumulate a finer dust of little mutations all the time.
And that's without looking at other lines of evidence. When you do, you find that your "designer" somehow decided to make whales out of even-toed ungulate parts. Molecular biological data said this first, but then Pakicetus and Rhodocetus fossils turned up with the diagnostic pulley-shaped ankle-bones of that same group.
Do you understand what I just said? The molecular bio data essentially predicted what would otherwise be an almost absurdly ridiculous fossil find. Whales would be even-toed ungulates, if they still had toes. The people who found the fossils that clinched this didn't believe it themselves until they found the fossils.
And what are all those funny fossil series that seem to show forms morphing into other forms? Why do they match the same trees that the DNA gives you? I mean, why do you make a whale out of camel-goat-pig-hippo stuff when you have fish available? And why does your designer work up to the modern forms with an aquatic-as-a-crodicle whale, then an aquatic-as-a-seal whale, then some obligate-marine-but-still-has-external-legs-type whales?
In the end, all you can do to stay in the game is postulate a designer who can't fail to emulate evolution.
Porpoises are air breathing mammals with bones, much more similar to camels than sharks.
But why? Why afflict the porpoise with a need to come up for air at all? Where it lives, such a feature is merely a liability. Yes, the porpoise is a mammal and is made from mammalian parts. You're trying to use the your model's problem to dodge your model's problem.
Your designer made bird after bird after bird. Suddenly, however, he decided to make another kind of flyer using tree-dwelling mammal parts. Your designer made fish after fish after fish, then suddenly decided he needed another thing shaped like a fish, swimming around in the ocean eating fish, but made using camel/pig/giraffe/hippo parts.
Then he put funny trace data in the DNA to make it look like camels, pigs, hippos, and cetaceans all diverged from a common ancestor. Then he put funny fossils in the ground to make it look like land ungulates slowly became aquatic to become cetaceans.
What were we supposed to think? You've got to let Occam's Razor kick in at some point.
There are many credentialed biologists and chemists who disagree with you.
Whatever the number that disagrees with me, it's nothing to the number that disagrees with you. I can't believe you have no more sense than to go there.
I knew we would bring you to our side eventually. By the way, my wife and two children got the same flu bug two winters ago. I am still scarred by the event! :-)
Millions of years later, you can tell whether a primate came out of that lineage or not by whether the marker is present. Furthermore, you can guess how long ago the marker was inserted by the amount of mutations accumulated among the variations.
That does not spell "common designer." It screams "common descent." That's what we see. You have a tree of DNA relatedness. It has mutations on top of mutations. The connectedness lacking in the fossil record (because of the spottiness of the fossilization process itself) is present in the DNA picture. Big mutations help outline major branching points, but these accumulate a finer dust of little mutations all the time.
Sounds good. We shall await your contribution to the genealogy of all species. Maybe you could move to Salt Lake City and make a revolutionary contribution to the mapping of mankind.
And what are all those funny fossil series that seem to show forms morphing into other forms? Why do they match the same trees that the DNA gives you? I mean, why do you make a whale out of camel-goat-pig-hippo stuff when you have fish available? And why does your designer work up to the modern forms with an aquatic-as-a-crodicle whale, then an aquatic-as-a-seal whale, then some obligate-marine-but-still-has-external-legs-type whales?
In the end, all you can do to stay in the game is postulate a designer who can't fail to emulate evolution.
Maybe our computer programming matches our designers "style" because it fits a logical model. Where are those traces of Windows 3.1 in XP anyway?
But why? Why afflict the porpoise with a need to come up for air at all? Where it lives, such a feature is merely a liability. Yes, the porpoise is a mammal and is made from mammalian parts. You're trying to use the your model's problem to dodge your model's problem.
How many humans have been saved by sharks? Anthropomorphic of me ain't it, fellow big brained mammals and all?
Then he put funny trace data in the DNA to make it look like camels, pigs, hippos, and cetaceans all diverged from a common ancestor. Then he put funny fossils in the ground to make it look like land ungulates slowly became aquatic to become cetaceans.
Debatable.
Whatever the number that disagrees with me, it's nothing to the number that disagrees with you. I can't believe you have no more sense than to go there.
We need only follow the evidence. My perspective of you and your friends analysis tells me you are inserting your pre-conditions, and you would say the same of me. You can overlook the zealousness with which the scientific community tries to assert their perspective, then realize they continually get set on their heads with the evidence pointing toward design, having to revise their tall tales.
Check here regularly for said "set on their head" examples.