>>13725904Ok 2 or 3 of you are responding to the same posts of mine and I can't keep track of who said what anymore.
>Why? It has zero relevanceIt has relevance to other arguments so I preemtively eliminated those arguments. It's ok if you are not intelligent enough to grasp them right now,
>It technically can, but this is irrelevant Of course I'm right, you don't need to add "technically" after admitting I BTFO'd you
and it's relevant, you're just an idiot.
>I argued>NO ONE SAID ANYTHING LIKE THAT YOU ILLITERATE MORON. Are you truly this stupid? I said I argued it. Ergo, I said it. Your reading comprehension is that of a slow child.
Maybe you could have demonstrated above room temperature IQ and say no one talked about the premises for the argument I said, but nah, you're too much of a dumb chimp.
>> I did not say this identical DNA does not exist in unrelated species.>I didn't say you didThe paper mindlessly posted was exclusively saying so, nothing more.
If you were not accusing me of saying identical DNA does not exist in dissimilar species then the there was no reason to post the paper.
>Observing matching ERVs in the same location in two genomes is proof of common ancestry, because this cannot occur without inheritanceNo dumbass. Wrong by begging the question. I do not share your baseless religious belief that this cannot occur w/out inheritance.
>It's not simply a matter of similar DNA, it's matching retroviral insertsHilarious. You're literally stating they are matching retroviral inserts because they are matching retroviral inserts. Undeniable, unquestionable circular reasoning (begging the question)
>u truly a pathetic moron.In two sentences you verbatim stated your belief is based on circularity, dumbass.
