What's not to like? You provide no data to be examined/scrutinized, only assertions. That doesn't meet the slam-dunk criteria. Scientifically, data is necessary if you want to be taken seriously. A single specific example which withstands scrutiny will suffice.
There is more data about the fossil record, the nested hierarchy of ERVs, pseudogenes, and ubiquitous proteins, than you could read in 10 years. You have been pointed to so much of it already that you will forgive me if I just post the conclusions in a single topix post.
Go look it up for yourself, doofus. You have no idea.