You first denied they were talking about biological evolution at all, then when that position became untenable, you retreated to claiming that they were only accepting micro evolution. Now you are retreating even from that claim when you see how LUDICROUS it is to claim that the creation of man from pre-living material is merely “micro” evolution.
The common descent of species is a predictive theory. I predict that any ERV sequences found in common with orangutans and humans will ALSO be present in chimps and gorillas and will be more degraded from an original viral sequence than one found ONLY in humans and chimps.
What you don't see is that it does not necessarily follow therefrom that the viral sequences observed are the evolutionary products of a random development from "pre-living material" — a/k/a, "matter in its motions."
It is widely understood, even in science (especially among physicists working this problem), that "life comes only from life." So how does non-living — pre-existent — matter bootstrap itself into life, and subsequently into mind?
You simply take it for granted that this is what happened. And you are unwilling to consider any other explanation.
On your analysis, the difference between man and orangutans, chimps, and gorillas is merely a difference in some quantitative measure (comparative ERV sequences), not a difference of kind. But I would argue that the difference between humans and apes is qualitative: Humans and apes are two entirely different orders of being, regardless of their similarities or dissimilarities WRT ERV sequences.
But Darwinism evidently denies this — it sees man as simply part of a more or less isomorphic continuum — in the face of simple observation and common sense. That is to say, there is nothing particularly remarkable about man: He's just a more sophisticated kind of ape. And presumably a newer and better kind of ape will "evolve" from here....
If Darwinism predicts anything at all, it predicts THAT.