Dogs will be Dogs will be ???

DNA not known to be coding for proteins or functional RNAs, especially pseudogenes, are now at times referred to in publications simply as nonfunctional DNA, as though their nonfunctionality were an established fact.’ - Zuckerkandl, Latter and Jurka2Junk’ DNA is thought by evolutionists to be useless DNA leftover from past evolutionary permutations.Unfortunately 'thought' speaks of preconceptions and prejudice as always.
But now many of the DNA sequences formerly relegated to the junk pile have begun to obtain new respect for their role in genome structure and function, gene regulation and rapid speciation.That is why with evolution "it is written and rewritten and rewritten" and every time there is an accompanying prejudice that leads to foolish errors. Doubtless there may be some 'junk' in the DNA but if there is a superintelligent creator than we start with the position that the majority of the DNA, that which is not mutated and damaged,was created with a function.Evolutionists tend to start with the prejudice that if they don't know the function of something then it must be a useless vestige of something in evolutionary history -because they know that evolution happened.

Nothing you'd want to look at in any case. There are lots of correlations - we have a lot of morphological similarities; similarity leads to similar recipes for structure; how about our recipes have similarities? The point is that the endogenous retrovirus story is far from proven to be fact; it's an assumption based upon an original assumption that evolution has happened.You're building your house on the sand and compounding the error.

Rationality and truth are not synonymous with evolutionist and science.The boat is sinking.If God created the world, then you are the one that is deluded. You can make up as many wonderful scientific stories as you want about natural causes creating design by chance and selection but you are unfortunately deceiving yourself -worse than that, you are deceiving others.

You sure do paint a pretty picture of absolute clarity - pity that molecular phylogenies compared with morphological assumptions come up with so many contradictory 'trees'of life.There is nothing clear about ERV's and if you imagine that it is clear then what is it clarifying - the morphological supposed relationships or the molecular supposed relationships?