The problem here is that what I will give you as evidence, you will reject as non evidence. No matter what I say, you will say that I have given no evidence.
So you want to play the part of Rosa Parks without actually getting on the bus.
You won't accept my evidence because you define evidence differently that I do.
IOW, it's not evidence because it isn't evidence. Sorry, but you don't get to redefine beliefs as evidence.
When you post your evidence, you post it in a way that says "this evidence can only support my conclusion and nothing else". That is a non starter right there.
Actually, it is presented as "this supports this conclusion" and I challenge you to show otherwise.
You and most others on this site and in the majority of the scientific community are blind to the fact that you have a strong bias when interpreting the evidence.
So says the person who feels the need to redefine the word evidence. Bias much?
You have a philosophical commitment that you are blind to.
I am fully aware that I am committed to testable theories that are supported by empirical evidence. That is kind of the whole point.
The trick is to recognize that you have one in order to more rationally analyze the world around you.
I am asking for evidence so that I can rationally analyze your claims. Do you have any or not? Are you just making this up as you go? What evidence led you to the conclusion that life once had "super genomes"? What were these super genomes like? How would they mask a massive decrease in population sizes? Why do you avoid these questions?